Save BBC Three!!! (Merged)

PorkchopExpressPorkchopExpress Posts: 5,534
Forum Member
If the BBC needs to save money there is so much they can do. BBC3 offers something different. If anything the channel should be developed and should be on for longer every day.

Save BBC3! Who's with me?
«1345

Comments

  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,741
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Agreed.

    I wonder if enough people kick up enough of a fuss, whether the BBC will change their minds like they did with 6 Music?
  • eljmayeseljmayes Posts: 1,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If it does go online only what happens to the freeview slot?
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes I dont want to see it go or any other BBC service!
  • fmradiotuner1fmradiotuner1 Posts: 20,479
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eljmayes wrote: »
    If it does go online only what happens to the freeview slot?

    They are saying in freeview board it could be used for BBC+1 if its still coming?
  • Aye UpAye Up Posts: 7,053
    Forum Member
    This is one of those rare moments I feel where the BBC is going to come in for so much flack, that they will be told by the Trust to come up with other options. that they are targetting their only output for young people because they are allegedly the less engaged. This is the only channel of the BBC portfolio that I watch on a regular basis. For me it justifies the license fee.

    I don't see why the corporation doesn't axe BBC Four, it is the lowest rated channel of them all and often shares similar style and output as that of BBC 2, thus its duplicating output in once sense. BBC Three is very specific and targeted at a demograpic which doesn't get much representation on TV these days.
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Agreed.

    I wonder if enough people kick up enough of a fuss, whether the BBC will change their minds like they did with 6 Music?

    More than likely
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,927
    Forum Member
    lotrjw wrote: »
    Yes I dont want to see it go or any other BBC service!

    The you'd better prepare yourself for more repeats, cheap filler material and a slimming back of programme budgets. In other words a poorer service on BBC Three and every other BBC channel. Sooner or later you have to decide between quality or quantity - in this instance you can't have both.

    Oh and forget BBC One HD for the English regions whilst you are at it.
  • JVDJVD Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Anyone who thinks BBC Three should stay really should ask themselves Why ? is it because of what it used to show or is it because there will be no more Family Guy or American Dad for them on Free TV anymore ?
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,741
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aye Up wrote: »
    This is one of those rare moments I feel where the BBC is going to come in for so much flack, that they will be told by the Trust to come up with other options. that they are targetting their only output for young people because they are allegedly the less engaged. This is the only channel of the BBC portfolio that I watch on a regular basis. For me it justifies the license fee.

    I don't see why the corporation doesn't axe BBC Four, it is the lowest rated channel of them all and often shares similar style and output as that of BBC 2, thus its duplicating output in once sense. BBC Three is very specific and targeted at a demograpic which doesn't get much representation on TV these days.

    Good points.

    It's seems a bizarre thing to do, to effectively relegate young viewers to internet only TV.

    OK, I get that young people tend to use the internet more than anybody else & probably consume their TV mostly this way, but I believe it would be futile to do this to young viewers.

    The BBC top brass need to remember the old adage, 'Be nice to your children for it is them that will choose your nursing home'!;-)
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,927
    Forum Member
    Aye Up wrote: »
    This is one of those rare moments I feel where the BBC is going to come in for so much flack, that they will be told by the Trust to come up with other options. that they are targetting their only output for young people because they are allegedly the less engaged. This is the only channel of the BBC portfolio that I watch on a regular basis. For me it justifies the license fee.

    I don't see why the corporation doesn't axe BBC Four, it is the lowest rated channel of them all and often shares similar style and output as that of BBC 2, thus its duplicating output in once sense. BBC Three is very specific and targeted at a demograpic which doesn't get much representation on TV these days.

    There'd be flack whatever they decided to cut.

    You lose your argument when you run the "I like BBC Three so it should stay, I don't like BBC Four so it should go" line of attack. Your final sentence doesn't really stand up to scrutiny either - E4 rates higher with 16 to 34 year olds in terms of share and profile for example. BBC One and Two, C4 and C5, ITV and ITV 2 also all reach more adults in the 16-34 age group in a typical week.

    How much of BBC Three output can legitimately be described as Public Service Broadcasting?
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,927
    Forum Member
    Good points.

    It's seems a bizarre thing to do, to effectively relegate young viewers to internet only TV.

    OK, I get that young people tend to use the internet more than anybody else & probably consume their TV mostly this way, but I believe it would be futile to do this to young viewers.

    The BBC top brass need to remember the old adage, 'Be nice to your children for it is them that will choose your nursing home'!;-)

    Makes you wonder what 16 to 34 yo did for entertainment before BBC Three started...
  • F1KenF1Ken Posts: 4,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiomike wrote: »
    The you'd better prepare yourself for more repeats, cheap filler material and a slimming back of programme budgets. In other words a poorer service on BBC Three and every other BBC channel. Sooner or later you have to decide between quality or quantity - in this instance you can't have both.

    Oh and forget BBC One HD for the English regions whilst you are at it.

    Agreed. I think this is the right move by the beeb. BBC Three offers nothing that any other channel couldn't do. It comedys are where it's best and they in years gone by would have been on BBC Two anyway so I think this channel has run it's course and I'm surprised they haven't chopped it all together.

    I think the strategy should be to commission more stuff for younger viewers on One and Two now that Three is being "Relegated". But As you say it was this or Salami slicing every single department and channel and everyone would have been worse off. This is the best compromise.
  • F1KenF1Ken Posts: 4,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiomike wrote: »
    Makes you wonder what 16 to 34 yo did for entertainment before BBC Three started...

    This is the thing. I think it's entirely possible to commision shows for BBC Two and One that cater for younger viewers.

    I don't think BBC Three has been performing that well anyway, it's really struggled to find it's mark over the years. It's come up with some good ideas but those ideas would have come from BBC One or BBC Two in days gone by.

    The focus should be on quality.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they are going to get rid of the broadcast version of BBC THREE, doesn't that mean they'll have to get rid of one of the kids channels as well?
  • lloys-strachanlloys-strachan Posts: 1,952
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The target audience for Three are the people most likely to view their programming via iplayer.
    The way television is viewed is changing fast especially with the younger generation who will download series to watch at one sitting or whilst on the move via other devises.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,741
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiomike wrote: »
    Makes you wonder what 16 to 34 yo did for entertainment before BBC Three started...

    You could ask that question about all of us.

    There used to be three TV channels & that's it, now there's literally hundreds.

    BBC Three is here now & it has a remit that is unique within its organisation & the BBC should consider that before axing it.
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I can't recall the last BBC show I watched on BBC3. I may catch the odd repeat of Family Guy and that's it. I just have to watch it from my DVD boxset from now on.
  • skinjskinj Posts: 3,383
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The decision to close BBC3 on broadcast TV is just ridiculous. Especially when you consider how many shows on BBC2 could happily sit on either BBC1 or indeed on the a re-organised BBC News24 (hairy bikers to BBC1, Newsnight to News24 etc).
    This would allow much of the programming from BBC4 to switched to BBC2 allowing BBC4 to be closed down instead. BBC is fairly distinct to the other stations & should be saved as such. In contrast BBC1 is not distinct at all & is a mish-mash of whatever the BBC bosses believe will get the best ratings. If BBC 1 was refocussed this would also allow for less duplication of shows.
    Looking at the schedules for this week there are a lot of repeats all over the BBC, taking up space where new shows could go. This would mean the loss of a station but not the loss of content.
    BBC3 shows going online only will not save anywhere near as much money as they claim unless the only things shown are new productions & bought in shows like Family guy disappear from the table completely. If this is the case, BBC3 IS disappearing but shows aimed at the 16-34 are not, there will just be far less of them.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    F1Ken wrote: »
    This is the thing. I think it's entirely possible to commision shows for BBC Two and One that cater for younger viewers.

    I don't think BBC Three has been performing that well anyway, it's really struggled to find it's mark over the years. It's come up with some good ideas but those ideas would have come from BBC One or BBC Two in days gone by.

    The focus should be on quality.

    It's possible, and there's nothing stopping them. But I'm willing to bet they don't.

    I love In The Flesh, but is it really suitable for BBC One, Two or Four? I don't think so, it's closest to BBC Two, but it would seem out of place there and all the old people would bemoan the fact it wasn't their kind of show...
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's possible, and there's nothing stopping them. But I'm willing to bet they don't.

    I love In The Flesh, but is it really suitable for BBC One, Two or Four? I don't think so, it's closest to BBC Two, but it would seem out of place there and all the old people would bemoan the fact it wasn't their kind of show...
    I agree, today's decision is purely designed to run down young adult PSB content online (thereby no other BBC channel has to commission anything for young adults), not promote it, abolish it and allow the BBC to wash their hands of 16-34 year old licence fee payers. A disgraceful decision and one the BBC is going to regret.
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Being as BBC Four and BBC Three repeat lots of programmes on the night of transmission, maybe a compromise could be reached with BBC Four running from 7pm to 10pm, and BBC Three running from 10pm onwards. BBC Three gets its best audiences late at night, and BBC Four gets its best audiences before 10pm.

    All this assumes BBC Three isn't being moved online due to political pressure, though.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    F1Ken wrote: »
    Agreed. I think this is the right move by the beeb. BBC Three offers nothing that any other channel couldn't do. It comedys are where it's best and they in years gone by would have been on BBC Two anyway so I think this channel has run it's course and I'm surprised they haven't chopped it all together.

    I think the strategy should be to commission more stuff for younger viewers on One and Two now that Three is being "Relegated". But As you say it was this or Salami slicing every single department and channel and everyone would have been worse off. This is the best compromise.

    The same argument could be used for BBC Four too. It offers nothing that cannot be shown on BBC Two. In fact, I can't remember the last thing I watched on BBC Four it was so long ago.

    Of course BBC Three shows a fair amount of trash, but it also has the brilliant Bluestone 42, the rather good Pramface, In The Flesh and other decent shows (yes including Family Guy and American Dad) amongst the trash.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,741
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Being as BBC Four and BBC Three repeat lots of programmes on the night of transmission, maybe a compromise could be reached with BBC Four running from 7pm to 10pm, and BBC Three running from 10pm onwards. BBC Three gets its best audiences late at night, and BBC Four gets its best audiences before 10pm.

    All this assumes BBC Three isn't being moved online due to political pressure, though.

    Excellent idea.:cool:;-)

    Why is it that the best ideas always come from those that are not involved in the decision making process?

    PS: I'm assuming you're not part of the BBC hierarchy.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    If they are going to get rid of the broadcast version of BBC THREE, doesn't that mean they'll have to get rid of one of the kids channels as well?
    BUMP ...noone have the answer?
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,741
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I could save the BBC some money!

    At this very moment, BBC4 is broadcasting World News Today & BBC News 24 have their rolling news on-going.

    They are 2 completely separate programmes presented by different people, but they're discussing exactly the same things!:o:confused:

    Surely this is a waste of money?
Sign In or Register to comment.