BBC Three

[Dave2002]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

What I want to know is how this saves money?

If the TV channel is turned off on broadcast TV other distribution networks (Sky, Satellite etc.) does that save a lot? If the content is still to be made, then there are costs there too - probably far more significant than the distribution costs, even if the channel does re-emerge as a networked (Internet) only channel.

I was amused at the comments by Tony Hall re maintaining quality and standards on the World at One today. I never thought much of BBC Three anyway - so where's the quality loss if Three goes?

[Nick Armstrong]

where's the quality loss if Three goes?

No guarantees about BBC4 either...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/06/bbc3-no-guarantee-future-bbc4-danny-cohen

Now that would be a loss of quality. It's my favourite channel

[french frank]

No guarantees about BBC4 either...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/06/bbc3-no-guarantee-future-bbc4-danny-cohen

Now that would be a loss of quality. It's my favourite channel

Danny Cohen occupies a similar position (as Director of Television) to Tim Davie (Director of Radio) who announced that 6 Music would have to close. But he was comprehensively overruled.

What isn't clear is that, supposing the DG wants to avoid 'salami slicing' - taking narrow slices off a number of services - why doesn't he just take a big slice off BBC One's £1bn+ budget? Nothing like a bit of financial hardship to bring out the best in all these brilliantly creative and imaginative people we're always being told work at the BBC!!!

The Telegraph and the Guardian were carrying out polls as to whether it was a good decision or not to close BBC Three. When I looked they were both neck and neck, one balancing the other. Very vulnerable to some manipulation by interest groups, of course ...

The Telegraph poll has moved a bit further against closure (56% - 44%). I haven't yet managed to access the Guardian poll as the page refuses to load. The difference between BBC Three and 6 Music is that there was really no strong move among the public to close 6 Music, whereas there are plenty ready to declare BBC Three 'a load of rubbish'.

Guardian poll now 48% - 52% against closure. That has changed direction so I'd say there are probably orchestrated efforts to get a No result.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At least in Crimea they have a referendum about what's already been decided.

[Boilk]

I never thought much of BBC Three anyway - so where's the quality loss if Three goes?

Just as junk food encourages junk bodies (T2 diabetes, arthritis, cancer, etc.), so junk TV breeds junk minds. Can't believe this good fortune of BBC3 going online only, a fate that must not befall the comparatively excellent BBC Four.

[Gordon]

Danny Cohen was on R5L this PM about 3 to 3-30 [I was in the dentists' chair so not concentrating!] talking about BBC3 and answering listeners' queries. I think it will be on iPlayer later when segment finishes.

[teamsaint]

Danny Cohen occupies a similar position (as Director of Television) to Tim Davie (Director of Radio) who announced that 6 Music would have to close. But he was comprehensively overruled.

What isn't clear is that, supposing the DG wants to avoid 'salami slicing' - taking narrow slices off a number of services - why doesn't he just take a big slice off BBC One's £1bn+ budget? Nothing like a bit of financial hardship to bring out the best in all these brilliantly creative and imaginative people we're always being told work at the BBC!!!

The Telegraph and the Guardian were carrying out polls as to whether it was a good decision or not to close BBC Three. When I looked they were both neck and neck, one balancing the other. Very vulnerable to some manipulation by interest groups, of course ...

Well quite. A breakdown of costs inside BBC1 would be interesting.
The big picture is what matters though. And I fear that the big picture isn't one we really wish to comtemplate.

[Old Grumpy]

Perhaps Tony Hall hopes to recoup the production costs for the new online-only BBC3 by the extension of the TV licence to those who view TV on i-Player http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ee-bbc-iplayer

[Gordon]

Go here to listen to the interview with Danny Cohen; it starts around 1hr 5 in and lasts about 40 mins.

[french frank]

Go here to listen to the interview with Danny Cohen; it starts around 1hr 5 in and lasts about 40 mins.

Mmmm, interesting (I'm still listening), but first, it sounds as if they were intending to take BBC Three online in a few years time, anyway. And I believe Cohen said that BBC Three's new content budget would be the same as BBC Four's.

Also, Bacon said several times - and Cohen didn't disagree - that BBC Four was for 'older people people', as if anything to do with the arts or that's a bit serious/educational isn't interesting to any younger people. When I asked my nephew (then 28, and the BBC Three target viewer) if he'd write something about BBC Three for our response to the DG's strategy review, his view then was 'the documentaries are quite good but the comedy's rubbish' and he preferred BBC Four. (No, that isn't what he wrote!)

And you'd think there was nothing on BBC One and Two that 'young people' would watch: EastEnders? Top Gear? Doctor Who? The notion of thirty-somethings being 'young people' in the same way as 16-year-olds are seems monstrous. No wonder so much is becoming so infantilised.

I'd never heard Radio 5 Live before ....

[gurnemanz]

I heard that interview and was unimpressed. I almost never watch BBC3 but it does seem to occupy an important niche and it is a pity to have to axe it. It looks dubious that Tony Hall with his ROH history is favouring the more highbrow BBC4 (which I do watch quite often) with being allowed to survive ..... for the time being, at least.

Another unsatisfactory aspect is that the need to finance the World Service from licence fee income is one of the factors that has brought about BBC3's demise. World Service does a great job but not that many licence fee payers listen to it, so some element of the FO subsidy should surely have been maintained..

[french frank]

World Service does a great job but not that many licence fee payers listen to it, so some element of the FO subsidy should surely have been maintained..

Of course it should. The government did try to shift the burden of funding the free licences for the over 75s on to the BBC as well, but as this was judged a 'welfare' benefit, they eventually dropped the idea.

[Dave2002]

Perhaps Tony Hall hopes to recoup the production costs for the new online-only BBC3 by the extension of the TV licence to those who view TV on i-Player http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ee-bbc-iplayer

This raises a few other possible issues. How would one enforce a requirement for a licence for on-line viewers? It might not be too difficult though - perhaps there could be a code - derived from the actual licence, and this could be used, perhaps also with a password, to establish those who've paid, and those who have not. The Big Brother society strikes again!

This could then be used to develop other funding models, such as pay as you go TV - though whether the BBC would be allowed to do this I'm not sure. I think at present the only funding model it has is via the licence fee - and further changes would be needed in addition to including on-line viewers in the set of those who are required to pay the licence fee if other models were to be adopted.

Perhaps this is a "thin end of the wedge" tactic, to instigate change.

In the meantime, no-one has yet really tackled my question about where the savings are going to come from. I am unconvinced, even though I would not miss BBC3 if it went - the same would actually also be my view about several other BBC channels - Radio 1, 2 etc., and I am sadly old enough to remember when BBC1 had thinking persons' programmes, but then BBC2 was branded as the "new" thinking persons' channel, while BBC1 went downhill a bit. Several decades later, BBC4 was branded as the "new" thinking persons' channel, while BBC2 went even further downhill. Plus ça change!

I do wonder whether the announcement of BBC3's chop was simply to provoke a Radio 6 style counter-attack.

[teamsaint]

and more opinion dressed up as fact.
He mentioned , in telling us how the world must change, that buying CDs and physical format music seemed all rather "old Hat".
Which is really ill informed since , in the US, CDs STILL account for the better part of 60% of all album sales,whilst vinyl continues to move ahead, now at over 2 % of all sales.

I think what he really meant to tell us was that in order to keep his career going, he is trying to predict how the world might change, presenting it as fact, and not care who or what gets damaged along the way.

In answer to D2k+2's question about funding, the answer surely lies in the BBCs obsession with DRMs, and the fact that they are apparently in our interest, although it isn't in our interest to know why.

[Gordon]

I'd never heard Radio 5 Live before ....

Good for the footy on Sat and Sun! Not much else although there are the odd interesting non-sport discussions.