This is the worst decision from a BBC Director General in years* and I am so disappointed by Hall's profound stupidity and short termist decision making in this instance. BBC3 does very well for a digital channel with an average daily reach of 3.8 million viewers so there is no justification whatsoever for this move. Whilst it is true that younger people are more likely to access BBC services via mobile devices, laptops, etc., the great majority of people of all ages still get access to TV via linear channels on Freeview,, satellite and cable.
If the BBC Trust does not block this move or ask for a rethink then the BBC risks alienating a whole generation of younger viewers (BBC3's audience) who will end up having no attachment to the BBC and no desire to pay the TV licence. There will also be other consequences.
If this mindless channel slashing is allowed to proceed then viewers will feel perfectly entitled to start asking for a commensurate reduction in the licence fee and a spiral of decline and increased licence fee evasion will then set in. They should instead look to be slimming down the BBC's management layers and structure more and have better supervision of capital expenditure.
*Hall appears to be doing nothing more than fulfilling Murdoch and Hunt's dream agenda for the BBC which will become a mere remnant if he is allowed to get away with this appalling decision.
Whilst I agree it is a bad decision, Tony Hall is in an invidious position: there simply isn't enough money to run all that the services that the BBC is committed to after H(C)unt raided the BBC to subsidise the Government. Had it only had to pay for the World Service then it would have been possible, but the Government has made the BBC pay for broadband and digital expansion and S4C, nothing from ITV, nothing from SKY, nothing from Channels 4 and 5, just the BBC. The Government should be brought to account for what it is doing to the BBC, not Tony Hall. he is merely the scapegoat having to balance the books as best as he can.
Who cares if its going online. Cant the change.org 85k sigs just get over it?
No, as every person signing that petition is a selfless individual who gives a damn about public service broadcasting for young adults, not just people 35 and over.
No, as every person signing that petition is a selfless individual who gives a damn about public service broadcasting for young adults, not just people 35 and over.
I can only hope that a combination of public pressure and lobbying by James Corden et al. can persuade the BBC not to axe the popular and original BBC3 in favour of BBC1+1 just like 6 Music was saved by overwhelming pressure.
It's hard to know what the Director General is really up to. Political manipulations?
What we can say is that there has been a long trend with BBC TV becoming rather staid and safe and "middle england", if this is a cunning plan then it's 15 years in the making...
For years men have been hard done by by the BBC. Then those of an intellectual bent were side-lined. Now younger people are being edged out.
Is the BBCs future focus really to be the middle-aged women of middle-england?
There is so little chance of that going down well with the country. All it would take is for someone to point out that the BBC is naked, and not dressed in the finest regalia after all.
It's hard to know what the Director General is really up to. Political manipulations?
I think all the clues are there.
In the long term, as technology develops, there will be no need for large terrestrial aerials or indeed satellite dishes, ultra high definition television, indiscernible from real life to the naked eye, will be beamed wirelessly around the country using much less bandwidth than is required today for HD and there will be another digital switchover (no doubt for which the BBC will be expected to pay for!)
Tony Hall and the BBC Executive know that internet television is the future, although it is hard for the general population to imagine such a technological leap. Broadcasting via satellite and terrestrial transmitters is actually high cost compared to using the internet. Clearly, in 18 months time, the vast majority of television will still be consumed in the traditional way, but in 5-10 years time, just as we barely remember analogue now, we will hardly remember aerial broadcasting as we buy the latest Sony 60 inch ultra high definition internet TV.
So, really, this Tony Hall is more clever than many realise -he is imagining the future and BBC Three will be there 5 years before any other main stream channel. The problem I have is that he shouldn't be forced to close down the television version of BBC Three in 18 months time as a result of government salami slicing, when many will not have the option or the internet speed to watch BBC Three as they currently do.
I think all the clues are there.
In the long term, as technology develops, there will be no need for large terrestrial aerials or indeed satellite dishes, ultra high definition television, indiscernible from real life to the naked eye, will be beamed wirelessly around the country using much less bandwidth than is required today for HD and there will be another digital switchover (no doubt for which the BBC will be expected to pay for!)
Tony Hall and the BBC Executive know that internet television is the future, although it is hard for the general population to imagine such a technological leap. Broadcasting via satellite and terrestrial transmitters is actually high cost compared to using the internet. Clearly, in 18 months time, the vast majority of television will still be consumed in the traditional way, but in 5-10 years time, just as we barely remember analogue now, we will hardly remember aerial broadcasting as we buy the latest Sony 60 inch ultra high definition internet TV.
So, really, this Tony Hall is more clever than many realise -he is imagining the future and BBC Three will be there 5 years before any other main stream channel. The problem I have is that he shouldn't be forced to close down the television version of BBC Three in 18 months time as a result of government salami slicing, when many will not have the option or the internet speed to watch BBC Three as they currently do.
Let the day TV becomes internet only be a lot of years off.
It's really a good idea to have TV through the internet isn't it... Not.
Suffer a broadband outtage for whatever reason and your screwed.
Let the day TV becomes internet only be a lot of years off.
It's really a good idea to have TV through the internet isn't it... Not.
Suffer a broadband outtage for whatever reason and your screwed.
Indeed! Remember though 10 years ago our mobile phones could just about store 10 messages in blocky LCD text and we were using 56kbps dial up modems. But you're right, there needs to be a robust internet system as reliable as terrestrial broadcasting before any kind of switchover could happen.
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but if the £50mn they are saving is just be added to BBC1's drama budget and keeping BBC3 online, how are they saving any money? Don't get it...
Well exactly. This is being dressed up that these cuts are necessarily and then they add even more budget to the channel that already gets the most money.
No, as every person signing that petition is a selfless individual who gives a damn about public service broadcasting for young adults, not just people 35 and over.
Quite a few of us are in our 20s and we dont care about BBC3. There are other sky/cable channels that we enjoy and wont care if the channel is going to iplayer or just ended.
If the BBC care so much why do they keep putting shit on like dont tell the bride or snog, marry.
Is that what tv has come down to today for us youngsters?
The "job" of DG is to honor the charter and the values of the BBC, if I can't do that and thus the BBC cannot do it then it is violating the charter...
I think that you'll find that the job is much more than that, it involves having to work within the framework and constraints set by the BBC Trust.
I found the Job Description for the role from April 2012, perhaps you should read it
BTW, selling off overseas channels is problematic (as they are owned by BBC Worldwide, and also provide a revenue stream that enhances profits, profits that are returned to the BBC to supplement the LF). the trouble with selling off assets is that they can only be sold once, so you might get a sales windfall in the first year, but you then have a funding shortfall in subsequent years, coupled with a reduction in BBC WW profits. this will lead to either more cuts to cover that reduction or a need to sell off even more, leading to a downward spiral.
Selling the family silver is a risky business at the best of times anyway.
Well exactly. This is being dressed up that these cuts are necessarily and then they add even more budget to the channel that already gets the most money.
If you were to read Tony Hall's address to the Oxford Media Convention, he said that he wanted to plough additional funding into drama, iPlayer and other future-looking areas . this would amount to an extra £100 million.
The plan was to keep the BBC more or less the same for 20% less. But when the new executive team and I looked at that, we decided the BBC couldn’t stay the same, in two important ways.
First of all, a BBC that stayed the same would be a BBC that had fallen behind its competitors and the expectations of our audiences. There’s so much change, so fast, in our world and we have to be able to invent the next iPlayer.
And second, there just wasn’t enough money for us to stay the same. Everyone at the BBC is proud that we got more nominations at the Golden Globes than any other broadcaster in the world. But that was on the old drama budget. If we followed the original plan, we would be cutting our television drama budget by tens of millions of pounds and I’m worried we would no longer be able to compete with the best in the world. That would have been bad not just for us, but for our audiences and for our creative industries. You could even say it would have been bad for Britain.
We decided we’d reached the point where salami-slicing would affect quality and distinctiveness. Rather than seek to preserve a less good version of our past, we decided to focus on what we do best: from drama to taking iPlayer into the next generation.
And we agreed we needed to find the money to do that.
So, we are in the final stages of a budget process to find an extra £100 million of savings. I will announce the outcome of those decisions in the next month. They will bring our total savings over the period to 23%.
So in truth it's a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scenario. (the reference to your name is not intended). It is becoming obvious that both Hall & others have not explained this reasoning at all well, and have failed in getting that message across.
Longer-term, I see this as an opening shot in the Charter renewal process encompassing the next LF settlement. Hall is being a bit canny in being open to change, and able to embrace new ways of doing things, but at the same time issuing a warning that more money is needed unless services are to be further restricted.
It's now over to the Government, and the next administration .....
I. Broadcasting via satellite and terrestrial transmitters is actually high cost compared to using the internet.
the 98% of viewing by conventional broadcasting cost the BBC 88% of its total distribution bill , and the remaining 2% on iPlayer is12% ..... See. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2014/bbc_distribution.html
On top if this the viewer pays more than £15 a month fir internet connectivity,
So for things that are viewed by lots of people at the same time will fir many many years be far cheaper to broadcast than use internet technology.
But for a personal or few people viewing then internet is the only /cheapest way.
The BBC has done a lot to promote content on demand .... It is pity that they have to make cuts now which will move BBC three to the internet in 18 months time, .....
Say five years time it may be seen as obvious,
Quite a few of us are in our 20s and we dont care about BBC3. There are other sky/cable channels that we enjoy and wont care if the channel is going to iplayer or just ended.
If the BBC care so much why do they keep putting shit on like dont tell the bride or snog, marry.
Is that what tv has come down to today for us youngsters?
I'd rather watch Our War or Junior Paramedics or Free Speech (which you conveniently ignored) than a number of Essex people in a "reality" TV show on ITV2 or someone using a "lizard toothbrush" on E4 (and I refer to what was on the night BBC Three was axed). And yet this is considered "quality" TV and all young people deserve. I think people assumptions that young people are dumb, lazy and only worthy of being served lowest common denominator stuff is quite offensive, wrongly write-off young adults, assume young adults are not worthy of PSB and yet don't level the same allegations to the cheap filler and populist content on other channels, who'd wouldn't show a political debate on their main PSB channels unless it meets an agenda they want to set (ie. benefit claimants on Benefits Street), never mind their young adult skewed channels!
Tonight on the commercial young adult channels, a blonde woman flashing her eyelashes at a man in the hope he will pick her for a date (yet another repeat of that show) and a movie that was shown before the majority of the audience was born alongside American imports. Not a whiff of a political debate show, current affairs, news update or documentary in sight. Is this what you want TV to come down to in the future for our youngsters once the BBC drops young adult PSB?
Well exactly. This is being dressed up that these cuts are necessarily and then they add even more budget to the channel that already gets the most money.
This is why I think there is an agenda behind this, there's the £100m loss from the digital media initiative and funding being needed for drama on BBC One, another £30m announced for that, plus streaming costs, estimated at over £13m in today's prices from 2015 as well as £25m for programmes (though I suspect they'll not be promoted and be dropped within a couple or so years a la BBC Switch) as well as a black hole in its pension scheme. Something doesn't add up and it seems to me there is an agenda behind this and it isn't going to be BBC Four as well up for the chop to make the sums add up. BBC One and Two will be safe, BBC Radio 2, 3, 4, 5 will be kept as is for an older demographic, 6 Music won't dare be targeted again, it's going to be more young adult PSB, easy targets for more cuts.
Its debatable that BBC does have a larger production budget. A couple of years ago NBC cut The Tonight Show budget of $100mill by 20%. That saving alone isn't much below the total amount a year that the BBC used to pay Ross's production company to make Friday Night, Film, various one offs and the radio show. The budgets they have for programming dwarfs the BBC
That might be due to the salary of Jay Leno, he got paied $30 million out of the $100 million budget, the saving was due to him cutting it by half to $15 million, remember that his show has a potental auidence which is 4-5 times higher than Ross used to get. There were also 220 (late cut to 200 staff members after the buget cuts) as well, which is rather exessive...
By comparing them to what pay channels in the US produce. Unable to accept that the BBC neither has the money to, nor can justify, to spend the amount of money to compete with them.
The BBC could find the money to spend on high quality content if the government handed over control of the LF to the BBC, remember a lot of people spend £800+ on Pay TV...
Also what do you mean justify, why not make high quality programming, otherwise we might as well drive down standards at the BBC to C5 levels...
Which you based on a select number of programmes that cost a fortune to produce. Programmes produced by broadcasters that do not have to produce PSB programming, broadcasters who get their money from TV subscriptions rather than funding from the government.
Why can't the BBC produce more kinds of programmes that are of high quality which are already made, salaries and costs are lower than the US, the BBC is not supposed to make money, it is supposed to produce high quality programming for all ages and even cultural groups...
Also it is not funding from the government, it is funding from the Licence Fee payer...
Which receives less money than US TV, because they are less people in the country to pay money to them. I'm sure that if we as a Country were as big as America our broadcasters would have more money to spend.
Because the government cut the licence fee in real terms thanks to the governments bias in favour of Murodoch, sure the the auidence is smaller, but so are the costs and salaries, besides the BBC does not need to make a profit...
Why blame the government? Ok they put a cap on the licence fee, but maybe that was the best thing to do otherwise the BBc would just keep rising the fee and keep on over spending. Now they got to think a little bit before they do something.
Because they did it to please Murdoch, thus violating the "no poltical interfearence" rule towars the BBC and to please a businessman who is unaccountable and acts like he is both the PM and the DG of the BBC
Considering that many spend £800+ on Murdoch or Malone or BT for Pay TV 9while still paying the LF, why not save money by only paying £300-400 LF?
There is more, but I've only needed to list five programmes and already that just about matches the amount of original content you get on BBC3. And I note most of the repeats which dominate the BBC3 schedules are shows previously shown on BBC1...
Nonsense. Do young people watch BBC1? Yes, therefore it is covering its PSB requirements.
Do young people watch BBC3? No, very few of them, therefore its a struggle to say its matching any PSB requirements. Unless you are saying the BBC has to produce programming with a label for the sake of it?
exactly,in years the only programmes ive gone out of my way to watch on BBC 3 have been Doctor Who Confidential(which was scrapped),Being Human(which ended),Russell Howard's good news,In The Flesh,Family Guy and American Dad(all of which could easily be shown on BBC2)
If more of these fabled young people actually watched the channel,then it wouldn't be in a position as to be considering being axed
I'd imagine most commercial enterprises will be told to hop it, but I could quite see Channel 4 getting some or perhaps ITV for regional news and content. Maybe even Global Radio if they expand their localisation.
Although, I have heard suggestions this is just a large well orchestrated campaign by the BBC try and stop top slicing or get a licence fee increase. Seems a bit too risky a move for that to make sense though...
>:(
If they want LF money then the following conditions should be meet:
1: The LF increases overall by 30-40%
2: No more "trashly shows"
3: Tigher PSB Requiremenrs
4: Global Radio should introduce more regional content and a more diverse playlist
exactly,in years the only programmes ive gone out of my way to watch on BBC 3 have been Doctor Who Confidential(which was scrapped),Being Human(which ended),Russell Howard's good news,In The Flesh,Family Guy and American Dad(all of which could easily be shown on BBC2)
If more of these fabled young people actually watched the channel,then it wouldn't be in a position as to be considering being axed
Nonsense. BBC3 did quite well amongst the target age group. If ratings are a reason to get rid of something then why not make Radio 3, BBC Alba and BBC Parliament online only?
from what i hear it's not really other broadcasters, since hundreds of millions were given to broadband infrastructure it's sent out the signal that "anything goes".
I would imagine also, that a great deal of this money will end up wasted, it's not as if private companies are wasteless.
There is some logic about it being a ploy, historically the British Public seem to come out in force whenever they think the BBC is in threat. Usually all you hear is the louder voices of the anti camp.
That is why I proposed the DG should consider a shutdown of the BBC if the government refuses to change the terms of the LF...
Quite a few of us are in our 20s and we dont care about BBC3. There are other sky/cable channels that we enjoy and wont care if the channel is going to iplayer or just ended.
If the BBC care so much why do they keep putting shit on like dont tell the bride or snog, marry.
Is that what tv has come down to today for us youngsters?
What about all the good stuff on BBC3, of which there is mant since it was created 10 years ago?
But yes they should get rid of rubbish like Gregg and Russell and most of all STSS...
Comments
Whilst I agree it is a bad decision, Tony Hall is in an invidious position: there simply isn't enough money to run all that the services that the BBC is committed to after H(C)unt raided the BBC to subsidise the Government. Had it only had to pay for the World Service then it would have been possible, but the Government has made the BBC pay for broadband and digital expansion and S4C, nothing from ITV, nothing from SKY, nothing from Channels 4 and 5, just the BBC. The Government should be brought to account for what it is doing to the BBC, not Tony Hall. he is merely the scapegoat having to balance the books as best as he can.
I can only hope that a combination of public pressure and lobbying by James Corden et al. can persuade the BBC not to axe the popular and original BBC3 in favour of BBC1+1 just like 6 Music was saved by overwhelming pressure.
What we can say is that there has been a long trend with BBC TV becoming rather staid and safe and "middle england", if this is a cunning plan then it's 15 years in the making...
For years men have been hard done by by the BBC. Then those of an intellectual bent were side-lined. Now younger people are being edged out.
Is the BBCs future focus really to be the middle-aged women of middle-england?
There is so little chance of that going down well with the country. All it would take is for someone to point out that the BBC is naked, and not dressed in the finest regalia after all.
I think all the clues are there.
In the long term, as technology develops, there will be no need for large terrestrial aerials or indeed satellite dishes, ultra high definition television, indiscernible from real life to the naked eye, will be beamed wirelessly around the country using much less bandwidth than is required today for HD and there will be another digital switchover (no doubt for which the BBC will be expected to pay for!)
Tony Hall and the BBC Executive know that internet television is the future, although it is hard for the general population to imagine such a technological leap. Broadcasting via satellite and terrestrial transmitters is actually high cost compared to using the internet. Clearly, in 18 months time, the vast majority of television will still be consumed in the traditional way, but in 5-10 years time, just as we barely remember analogue now, we will hardly remember aerial broadcasting as we buy the latest Sony 60 inch ultra high definition internet TV.
So, really, this Tony Hall is more clever than many realise -he is imagining the future and BBC Three will be there 5 years before any other main stream channel. The problem I have is that he shouldn't be forced to close down the television version of BBC Three in 18 months time as a result of government salami slicing, when many will not have the option or the internet speed to watch BBC Three as they currently do.
It's really a good idea to have TV through the internet isn't it... Not.
Suffer a broadband outtage for whatever reason and your screwed.
Indeed! Remember though 10 years ago our mobile phones could just about store 10 messages in blocky LCD text and we were using 56kbps dial up modems. But you're right, there needs to be a robust internet system as reliable as terrestrial broadcasting before any kind of switchover could happen.
Quite a few of us are in our 20s and we dont care about BBC3. There are other sky/cable channels that we enjoy and wont care if the channel is going to iplayer or just ended.
If the BBC care so much why do they keep putting shit on like dont tell the bride or snog, marry.
Is that what tv has come down to today for us youngsters?
I found the Job Description for the role from April 2012, perhaps you should read it
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/news/DG_jobspec.pdf
BTW, selling off overseas channels is problematic (as they are owned by BBC Worldwide, and also provide a revenue stream that enhances profits, profits that are returned to the BBC to supplement the LF). the trouble with selling off assets is that they can only be sold once, so you might get a sales windfall in the first year, but you then have a funding shortfall in subsequent years, coupled with a reduction in BBC WW profits. this will lead to either more cuts to cover that reduction or a need to sell off even more, leading to a downward spiral.
Selling the family silver is a risky business at the best of times anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2014/dg-oxford.html
So in truth it's a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scenario. (the reference to your name is not intended). It is becoming obvious that both Hall & others have not explained this reasoning at all well, and have failed in getting that message across.
Longer-term, I see this as an opening shot in the Charter renewal process encompassing the next LF settlement. Hall is being a bit canny in being open to change, and able to embrace new ways of doing things, but at the same time issuing a warning that more money is needed unless services are to be further restricted.
It's now over to the Government, and the next administration .....
On top if this the viewer pays more than £15 a month fir internet connectivity,
So for things that are viewed by lots of people at the same time will fir many many years be far cheaper to broadcast than use internet technology.
But for a personal or few people viewing then internet is the only /cheapest way.
The BBC has done a lot to promote content on demand .... It is pity that they have to make cuts now which will move BBC three to the internet in 18 months time, .....
Say five years time it may be seen as obvious,
Tonight on the commercial young adult channels, a blonde woman flashing her eyelashes at a man in the hope he will pick her for a date (yet another repeat of that show) and a movie that was shown before the majority of the audience was born alongside American imports. Not a whiff of a political debate show, current affairs, news update or documentary in sight. Is this what you want TV to come down to in the future for our youngsters once the BBC drops young adult PSB?
That might be due to the salary of Jay Leno, he got paied $30 million out of the $100 million budget, the saving was due to him cutting it by half to $15 million, remember that his show has a potental auidence which is 4-5 times higher than Ross used to get. There were also 220 (late cut to 200 staff members after the buget cuts) as well, which is rather exessive...
The BBC could find the money to spend on high quality content if the government handed over control of the LF to the BBC, remember a lot of people spend £800+ on Pay TV...
Also what do you mean justify, why not make high quality programming, otherwise we might as well drive down standards at the BBC to C5 levels...
Cannibalising the BBC3 Budget will not work, especially when less money overall has been spent...
Why can't the BBC produce more kinds of programmes that are of high quality which are already made, salaries and costs are lower than the US, the BBC is not supposed to make money, it is supposed to produce high quality programming for all ages and even cultural groups...
Also it is not funding from the government, it is funding from the Licence Fee payer...
Because the government cut the licence fee in real terms thanks to the governments bias in favour of Murodoch, sure the the auidence is smaller, but so are the costs and salaries, besides the BBC does not need to make a profit...
Because they did it to please Murdoch, thus violating the "no poltical interfearence" rule towars the BBC and to please a businessman who is unaccountable and acts like he is both the PM and the DG of the BBC
Considering that many spend £800+ on Murdoch or Malone or BT for Pay TV 9while still paying the LF, why not save money by only paying £300-400 LF?
Ok, let as ask these questions:
Would a young Gerry Anderson get ITV to make Thunderbirds now?
Would a young Patrick McGoohan get ITV to make The Prisoner now?
Would Channel 4 be willing to make The Tube today?
exactly,in years the only programmes ive gone out of my way to watch on BBC 3 have been Doctor Who Confidential(which was scrapped),Being Human(which ended),Russell Howard's good news,In The Flesh,Family Guy and American Dad(all of which could easily be shown on BBC2)
If more of these fabled young people actually watched the channel,then it wouldn't be in a position as to be considering being axed
i doubt it on all counts
>:(
If they want LF money then the following conditions should be meet:
1: The LF increases overall by 30-40%
2: No more "trashly shows"
3: Tigher PSB Requiremenrs
4: Global Radio should introduce more regional content and a more diverse playlist
Exactly! >:(
That is why I proposed the DG should consider a shutdown of the BBC if the government refuses to change the terms of the LF...
What about all the good stuff on BBC3, of which there is mant since it was created 10 years ago?
But yes they should get rid of rubbish like Gregg and Russell and most of all STSS...