Options
BBC3: Should it be axed or kept?
TelevisionUser
Posts: 41,417 Forum Member
✭
Judging by some of the posts in many threads, this particular BBC channel http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/schedules does get a lot of attention.
This channel is aimed at young adults and provides a variety of entertainment and factual programming which is unique amongst channels aimed at such an audience.
I have therefore prepared a poll about this channel and I'd be interested to hear any (polite and reasoned) comments below.
My own views are that this channel ought to stay, that this audience ought to be catered for by the BBC (especially as they are licence fee payers too) and that this channel is actually quite popular for a digital channel so I can't be all that bad (4.5 million weekly viewing audience): http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewing?_s=3
This channel is aimed at young adults and provides a variety of entertainment and factual programming which is unique amongst channels aimed at such an audience.
I have therefore prepared a poll about this channel and I'd be interested to hear any (polite and reasoned) comments below.
My own views are that this channel ought to stay, that this audience ought to be catered for by the BBC (especially as they are licence fee payers too) and that this channel is actually quite popular for a digital channel so I can't be all that bad (4.5 million weekly viewing audience): http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewing?_s=3
Should the BBC keep or axe BBC3? 164 votes
Yes, BBC3 should be kept
70%
115 votes
No, BBC3 should be axed
29%
49 votes
0
Comments
K
Its also on another channel called FX to though so if BBC3 goes I wonder if it could go to BBC2 or might just stay on FX.
I think that's a fair summary, Glenn A, and so far the poll shows 78% in favour of keeping BBC3 and 22% in favour of axing the channel so it appears that there's quite a bit of support out there for BBC3.
Although i think it shows some sublime programmes (the pol pot executioner documentary was fasinating ) i just dont believe the ratings are as high for other channrls so i think it will be sacrificed.
Granted, some of the content is pretty mindless, but when you're up watching TV/browsing the web until 3-4 in the morning that's exactly what I want. They also produce some great documentaries in my opinion which actually do improve my world knowledge (the recent 'Misbehaving Mums-To-Be' not counted, as all that did was fill me with shock and bemusement that any prospective mum could be so stupid about issues such as smoking).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/tvandradioblog/2010/mar/02/bbc3-6-music-strategic-review
What it is doing - chasing a young audience - can and should be catered for by the private sector.
The cost per viewer hour could be as high as 19p (Guardian quoted here last year)
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1237344
The licence fee is already perhaps double what it should be. The licence fee payer should not be subsidising BBC3.
b) Young adults pay a licence fee too.
I have to differ there linkinpark875 and I think it is unfortunate that the BBC apparently gave in to populist pressure and axed BBC Switch on Saturdays on BBC2 which catered for the younger feed-in audience for BBC3. I'd be quite happy to see that service reinstated (even if it upsets the Daily Mail).
I also have to agree with tghe-retford's point above that it is essential to keep such a channel so that the younger audience grows up with, and stays attached to, the BBC so that they are still watching BBC channels even when they start wearing cardigans and slippers (fortunately, I'm not at that stage - phew!
There is definitely an argument that a great deal of BBC3's output is complete crap - as that article says, TV for the young shouldn't mean TV for the stupid, and it's stretching things slightly to say shows like Snog Marry Avoid and Hotter Than My Daughter have any public service remit whatsoever, and they're easily cheap enough to be made by E4, as are those fact-lite, opinion-led, so-called "documentaries" they churn out. If E4 got its act together, then that could all be catered for in the commercial sector.
However, there's also an argument that the good stuff wouldn't have happened if BBC3 didn't exist. Gavin & Stacey and Pulling might well have happened on BBC2, but there's no way on earth they'd have ever tried Being Human, they barely even put any effort in on BBC3, and they axed Pulling despite good ratings and critical acclaim. And all of that stuff is far too much for E4, who can just about produce two home-made drama series a year without before bankruptcy beckons.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=48797737&postcount=3
Try putting on a programme on a commercial channel which actively advises its audience to use less of a product advertised on (and funding) that channel, and I'll wager you'll have a mutiny from the fashion, beauty and make-up industry before too long - at a time when television broadcasters can ill-afford to lose advertising revenue. Same reason why Secrets of the Superbrands or any in-depth investigation exposing the wrong-doings of an organisation would never see the light of day on a commercial channel.
That would be relevant if this was the US where advertisers have that level of control. In 20 years I can only think of one advertiser that withdrew from a show (Becks from Queer As Folk in 1999).
In any case, if a show was getting 2m+ on Channel 4 (as crap like 10 Years Younger did) other companies would advertise even if makeup companies didn't, and Snog Marry Avoid doesn't advise people to stop using makeup or buying clothes at all, it just says tone it down as do a legion of other makeover shows on commercial channels.
There's a lot of good PSB documentaries on BBC 3 - the commercial "equivalents" wont do these!
Also CBBC on BBC 1, has done very well for decades, with the use of CBBC branding, and studio between the programs.
If we still had the blobs, I would suggest branding parts of BBC 2 with them.
With the downturn in advertising and relaxation of sponsorship and product placement in the UK, I would actively say that advertisers have greater control over the broadcasters than they have ever had,