I agree with you, Balance is very important and it's a fine line.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

I dont see what the problem is for BBC1 to have the majority of its PSB programmes up against the soaps. These are effectively 'dead slots' anyway which aren't normally going to rate well, so BBC One may as well front load their PSB programmes in these slots where they'll rate low anyway. 10-30 years ago, there were only two BBC channels - BBC1 and BBC2 - therefore BBC1 had to air more PSB programmes to meet the quotas. Now there's BBC3 and BBC4 as well, I don't see the problem shifting some of the PSB stuff to those channels [and BBC2]. The BBC overall are still making and airing the same if not more PSB-related programmes as they've ever done, but it's just being shifted away from BBC1 primetime a little bit, which I think is fine. If viewers are interesting in watching these shows, they can seek them out. Why does PSB programmes have to air at 9pm on BBC One? Why is it any less justified airing it at 7.30pm on BBC One against Coro or at 9pm on BBC2/3/4? The quality is still there and for viewers who are interested in watching such programs, theyre still being served.

Alas the award had to go to someone better in the end!

As i shed a tear into my glass of chateauneuf du pape, I nod my head in appreciation of the fine job that Ambassador did in making me laugh.

Oh you little tinker!!

While I recognise that it's off trend to say anything remotely positive about Morgan, the show has worked with him when nobody really thought it would work at all.

There's clearly still some value in the brand and for all the stick he gets, people clearly don't avoid his stuff in great numbers providing the show itself is good - as BGT and Life Stories can prove.

I think they just need to think what the strategy is with it.


If it's there purely to get big audiences then there's no point in the funding model. Even the BBC acknowledges that it needs to be taking risks across all its platforms and I suspect the outcome of the current charter review will push them further in that area both editorially and operationally (it's surely a foregone conclusion that in-house quotas will be abolished).

Yes, big ratings help to justify the fee from a PR perspective. But a relentless pursuit of ratings also hands ammo to competitors who feel that it's not behaving appropriately for a channel with such a nice funding mechanism.

If this were a Facebook post I would "like" it. So true!

I am honoured. I channelled the spirit of Ken and his shed in a bid to defeat the forces of negativity that will engulf us tomorrow

I'm personally sticking 5 shillings on Meatloaf live at rockoplast 1978 on Sky Arts 2 winning the night

I'm not convinced this is true at all.

These are the same people that sat back and seemingly did nothing as EastEnders slowly but surely eroded over a couple of years or why those unstoppable new ratings juggernauts like Britain's Brightest and Atlantis were picked up for a second series. Or why hit comedy Citizen Khan continues on BBC1 later this year. And why we still haven't had a full series order for Still Open All Hours. And why they passed on the sure to be a decent ratings performer Birds of a Feather for fear that the quality might not be there. I could go on (and on and on) with this list by the way.


Really? I only ask because your posts on BBC1 content don't seem to reflect this observation. Every other BBC1 drama seems to be a niche one that's destined to go unwatched.


Instead they can make the argument that there's really no upside to the BBC being a publicly funded broadcaster since it is increasingly programming, scheduling and acting like a commercial broadcaster. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the BBC should be all dull, dry public service broadcasting and nothing else but there is a happy middle ground between the two extreme options and that's what the BBC should be aiming for across the board. If that means sacrificing some audience share along the way then it means sacrificing some audience share along the way.

Why not? Sometimes the risks the BBC take won't pay off - but that's why it's counted as a risk. But the guaranteed income means if a couple of things don't work then so be it. And if it does then they'll launch an innovative show to superb figures and get the jump on the commercial networks. Strictly was a risk, especially after the collapse (and, admittedly, bad treatment) of Come Dancing but the scheduled it well, casted it well and it took off. Now it's the biggest celebrity based show on television.

Quite a few posts are extreme thesedays, and if you argue against it, you are assumed to be supporting the complete opposite extreme view.

I.e there is only two purposes for BBC1, either showing the most ratings grabbing mainstream entertainment in all slots, or only showing the most lowest rating PSB worthy documentaries in all slots. People seem to be unable to take on board a middle ground view.

Keep on smiling, Thats what i say.

Oh Matron! Casualty has just gone all Italian Job on us now!

Stupid girl.

Why should 'PSB' programmming be hidden away on the 'lesser' channels? Some people watch BBC One as a default - as shown by the sudden increase in Andy Murray ratings when he's switched from BBC Two to BBC One. By airing PSB programming on BBC One and away from the soaps it opens up the opportunity to increase the viewership of those shows.

Did she only mean to blow the bloody doors off?

Lol blunt but true. (Btw, Ipswich did well today Ken )

I do think they should reduce the time Casualty is on air and improve the quality (and hence ratings), although this current series has been decent. It would also give the BBC an opportunity to try something else out.

Yes I agree. And for the record do not agree with Samuels "vision" of what BBC1 should be about.

As soon as I said that this was bound to happen!

They lost 1-0!

I find Casualty is improved massively by pretending it's the Voice and turning my back to it and swinging round when something slightly better than mediocre happens

Because the BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster that shouldn't forever and always be thinking about maximising ratings. Its also a massive disservice to audiences on any number of levels to fling out the PSB requirements in 'dead slots'.

Let me also make a couple of ratings points here

Firstly I'd contend that the reason ITV have become so (overly) reliant on the soaps in recent times is because the BBC almost always go out of their way to avoid scheduling anything against them. If the BBC were to abandon this policy not only do I think they'd actually be able to find a strong audience with real alternative programming they'd also force ITV to be a bit more adventurous in both scheduling and commissioning.

Let me also say that you've really contradicted yourself here. You argued that the BBC shouldn't just let the competition increase their audience share but now you're arguing that they shouldn't try and compete with the soaps and maximise their own ratings. Which is it? It wasn't that long ago that at least half of this thread was bemoaning the launch rating for I'm A Celebrity which was apparently driven by the BBC refusing to schedule anything against it. Could Corrie and Emmerdale not be being inflated in the exact same way?


Given how many more channels and outputs they have now their PSB programming should be significantly increased not around the same level. And the existence of more channels certainly doesn't justify shifting PSB content away from BBC1.

Hang on, the cars apparently going to break in half. I haven't watched this program for a long time!

Miranda being a prime example of this - 8.30pm slot opposite Coronation Street and quickly gained an audience to such an extent that it was then promoted to BBC One at 9pm. Room 101 has managed to establish itself as a returning show as well, even if it hasn't taken off in the same way as Miranda. And The One Show hardly disgraces itself opposite Emmerdale though unfortunately that means BBC One have given up experimenting with the 7pm weekday slot outside of holiday periods.

This is true - it increases reach to current affairs etc, the sort of statistic the BBC needs to put in the annual report to burnish its public-service credentials. Sidelining PSB content to unfriendly slots or smaller channels will inevitably reduce reach to these genres.

I think they could try something else out at that time though. Surely viewer fatigue will kick in if it's on every weekday.


Sorry Kem, I was being sarcastic

Brrrrrr! I was annoyed about it, we were nearly in the playoff positions!

Kem by the way make's me feel strangely sexy!!! Mmmmmmmmm, thats all this thread needed, a horny Ken.

I don't know. The Weakest Link seemed to last what felt like decades with a similar if not exactly the same scheduling. There seems to be remarkably high tolerance for these shows.

Having said that I think they probably should be on the look out for something that can share that 5PM slot with Pointless but I don't think they should be launching anything in that slot. They've got endless hours of daytime to find something else that sticks. When or if they find another big hitter it would make sense to have the two slot sharing. This is, after all, the way in which they first found Pointless. And The Weakest Link for that matter.