Why is everyone so bothered about this idea of "channels" A TV channel is just a marketing trick to push programmes to a 'target demographic". The BBC still makes and buys the same programmes, why would it matter if you watch a programme on BBC 1 or BBC 9¾ ?? They can save money by dropping the costs of some broadcast services, and there are more then enough repeats that could be dropped from other channels to make room for any programmes that are only "on" BBC3 now.
Really, who cares? Nothing significant is going to change just because the label BBC3 goes away. I'd be more worried about them cutting programme production/purchase budgets.
Sky news are saying BBC3 is being shut down and being replaced with a BBCOne+1 channel. A lot of BBC3's programming will be merged between BBC1&2. As for on demand, not much has been said.
This is being done in the new year.
Sky news are saying BBC3 is being shut down and being replaced with a BBCOne+1 channel. A lot of BBC3's programming will be merged between BBC1&2. As for on demand, not much has been said.
This is being done in the new year.
You might want to read this as it sets out the plans more clearly
How can it work at the moment though when only 4% of the viewing comes from Iplayer?!
We're not talking about "at the moment" we are talking about in 18 months time at the earliest and things move very quickly. The move to viewing on-line is going to happen, it is inevitable, it is just a matter of timing.
.....lots of people without broadband at home - I know its seems hard to grasp as everyone on DS has it, but we only make up a tiny percentage of the population.
.....lots of people without broadband at home - I know its seems hard to grasp as everyone on DS has it, but we only make up a tiny percentage of the population.
The target audience for BBC Three are probably more likely to have broadband at home than the general population. That doesn't mean this decision is correct. The target audience is relatively unserved by the BBC's other channels, which should be sufficient justification to leave BBC Three on broadcast tv platforms.
The target audience for BBC Three are probably more likely to have broadband at home than the general population. That doesn't mean this decision is correct. The target audience is relatively unserved by the BBC's other channels, which should be sufficient justification to leave BBC Three on broadcast tv platforms.
This is also the case for BBC4. It used to be that BBC2 would do much of what BBC4 does but that has now been dumbed down - a good example being Horizon that used to be a top notch science programme.
Why is everyone so bothered about this idea of "channels" A TV channel is just a marketing trick to push programmes to a 'target demographic". The BBC still makes and buys the same programmes, why would it matter if you watch a programme on BBC 1 or BBC 9¾ ?? They can save money by dropping the costs of some broadcast services, and there are more then enough repeats that could be dropped from other channels to make room for any programmes that are only "on" BBC3 now.
Really, who cares? Nothing significant is going to change just because the label BBC3 goes away. I'd be more worried about them cutting programme production/purchase budgets.
I'm afraid you misunderstand how TV commissioning works, a channel is much more than just a label.
Each channel has a controller who sets out a channel's strategy and focus. He along with other commissioners, will order shows for that channel. If that channel doesn't exist, then there is no one there to order those programmes.
Take a BBC3 season of documentaries on mental health, for example, which a controller has decided to do. Those documentaries are specifically made for that season and that channel. If there is no channel, no one is there to order those documentaries.
In some cases a producer will pitch his or her idea to different channels. But many programmes really only fit on one particular channel, or only one particular channel has a budget to make it. Each channel has different budgets for each genre. BBC3 has a much bigger comedy budget than say ITV2 or E4. So a lot of comedy just wouldn't have been commissioned without BBC3. Bluestone 42, as an example, would have been unlikely to of found a budget away from BBC3. Same with many, many comedy shows, probably including Gavin and Stacey.
I'm afraid you misunderstand how TV commissioning works, a channel is much more than just a label.
Oh, I understand perfectly how the TV controllers think it should work, so they can target their desired audience, but that has no bearing on how it actually works for the viewers. The great thing about an electronic programme guide is that you can put the TV on at, say, 8pm, scan down to find a programme you like, and hit 'select'. You don't need to care what the "channel" is, indeed most of the time I couldn't even tell you what channel I was watching if it weren't for the DOG.
The only people who need care about "channels" are the controllers who think they are marketing geniuses, but in reality channels are irrelevant.
Oh, I understand perfectly how the TV controllers think it should work, so they can target their desired audience, but that has no bearing on how it actually works for the viewers. The great thing about an electronic programme guide is that you can put the TV on at, say, 8pm, scan down to find a programme you like, and hit 'select'. You don't need to care what the "channel" is, indeed most of the time I couldn't even tell you what channel I was watching if it weren't for the DOG.
The only people who need care about "channels" are the controllers who think they are marketing geniuses, but in reality channels are irrelevant.
I think the last few days has proved otherwise. People like the programmes BBC3 commission and are not happy about the budget cut and move online. You might not care about the brand, but losing it means less comedy and less documentaries for young people.
Or also view limited online content on tablets & smartphones via their data connection or on laptops via mobile broadband dongles.
True but data over cellphone networks is still very expensive. In fact, when my contract was up for renewal recently, I was offered an upgrade at a higher rate than my previous contract. The data allowance also being reduced from 1 GB to 250 MB. It can be a very expensive way of watching TV.
This is also the case for BBC4. It used to be that BBC2 would do much of what BBC4 does but that has now been dumbed down - a good example being Horizon that used to be a top notch science programme.
I wasn't suggesting that BBC 4 should be axed, more that the costs associated with running such a large organisation could be trimmed even further, with cuts being made across the whole spectrum of activities. It seems very unfair to target a specific part of the audience.
True but data over cellphone networks is still very expensive. In fact, when my contract was up for renewal recently, I was offered an upgrade at a higher rate than my previous contract. The data allowance also being reduced from 1 GB to 250 MB. It can be a very expensive way of watching TV.
Yes, it is expensive, which is why I said "limited viewing", but there are unlimited packages out there, and some ow offer a large data allowance.
The laptop has gained popularity over the desktop, wireless connectivity seems to be the de facto connection for laptops, mobile broadband dongles would seem to be the weapon of choice for a number of laptop owners.
However, both methods still have a long way to go to rival fixed-line unlimited broadband options.
I think the last few days has proved otherwise. People like the programmes BBC3 commission and are not happy about the budget cut and move online. You might not care about the brand, but losing it means less comedy and less documentaries for young people.
I think its more than that its the prospect of not being able to find those programs on a non-commercial channel on your TV in a convenient form.
Online is just no good for programming, OK if you have fast internet and a fast computer and have that connected to your TV, but how many have all those combinations at once?
Even then it can look worse than liner broadcast! People complained that the 'HD' connected red button Olympic streams didnt look that good and some preferred the SD streams because of that!
That is possibly the most depressing thing I have read today.
Why so? I watch programmes, not channels. What matters to me is that the programmes are entertaining and/or educational, I don't care if they're on BBC/ITV/Sky/Internet. The only reason I could see that depressing you would be if you're a channel controller who gets paid according to viewers for a channel
Comments
Why is everyone so bothered about this idea of "channels"
Really, who cares? Nothing significant is going to change just because the label BBC3 goes away. I'd be more worried about them cutting programme production/purchase budgets.
This is being done in the new year.
You might want to read this as it sets out the plans more clearly
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/bbc-three-tv-closure.html
The target audience for BBC Three are probably more likely to have broadband at home than the general population. That doesn't mean this decision is correct. The target audience is relatively unserved by the BBC's other channels, which should be sufficient justification to leave BBC Three on broadcast tv platforms.
This is also the case for BBC4. It used to be that BBC2 would do much of what BBC4 does but that has now been dumbed down - a good example being Horizon that used to be a top notch science programme.
I'm afraid you misunderstand how TV commissioning works, a channel is much more than just a label.
Each channel has a controller who sets out a channel's strategy and focus. He along with other commissioners, will order shows for that channel. If that channel doesn't exist, then there is no one there to order those programmes.
Take a BBC3 season of documentaries on mental health, for example, which a controller has decided to do. Those documentaries are specifically made for that season and that channel. If there is no channel, no one is there to order those documentaries.
In some cases a producer will pitch his or her idea to different channels. But many programmes really only fit on one particular channel, or only one particular channel has a budget to make it. Each channel has different budgets for each genre. BBC3 has a much bigger comedy budget than say ITV2 or E4. So a lot of comedy just wouldn't have been commissioned without BBC3. Bluestone 42, as an example, would have been unlikely to of found a budget away from BBC3. Same with many, many comedy shows, probably including Gavin and Stacey.
The only people who need care about "channels" are the controllers who think they are marketing geniuses, but in reality channels are irrelevant.
I think the last few days has proved otherwise. People like the programmes BBC3 commission and are not happy about the budget cut and move online. You might not care about the brand, but losing it means less comedy and less documentaries for young people.
Well, what better way do you propose?
True but data over cellphone networks is still very expensive. In fact, when my contract was up for renewal recently, I was offered an upgrade at a higher rate than my previous contract. The data allowance also being reduced from 1 GB to 250 MB. It can be a very expensive way of watching TV.
I wasn't suggesting that BBC 4 should be axed, more that the costs associated with running such a large organisation could be trimmed even further, with cuts being made across the whole spectrum of activities. It seems very unfair to target a specific part of the audience.
Yes, it is expensive, which is why I said "limited viewing", but there are unlimited packages out there, and some ow offer a large data allowance.
The laptop has gained popularity over the desktop, wireless connectivity seems to be the de facto connection for laptops, mobile broadband dongles would seem to be the weapon of choice for a number of laptop owners.
However, both methods still have a long way to go to rival fixed-line unlimited broadband options.
I think its more than that its the prospect of not being able to find those programs on a non-commercial channel on your TV in a convenient form.
Online is just no good for programming, OK if you have fast internet and a fast computer and have that connected to your TV, but how many have all those combinations at once?
Even then it can look worse than liner broadcast! People complained that the 'HD' connected red button Olympic streams didnt look that good and some preferred the SD streams because of that!