h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hopefully this won't turn into a 'knock the BeeB' thread - knocking's easy, creating isn't.

One man (who is quite important to us here!) said that the BBC is in a different market to commercial TV. We pay the BBC to entertain & enlighten us while ITV is paid by commercial interests, to attract as many viewers as possible (not to the programs, but to their adverts).

So.

Should it be important that the BBC actively competes (on the same terms) for viewers?

Note - not *is it*, but *should it be* important.

If the BBC doesn't attract viewers its failing to educate and entertain us so yes, it has to compete with ITV/Sky for viewers, although not neccessarily with the same type of programs.
Otherwise it will be like C4 in the 80s, watched by me and 5 other people. Mind you I liked having a channel that put programs like Union World on at 7:00 PM.

Hi Rod,

First reaction is NO it shouldn't. The BBC should aim to attract through quality.

I know I'm not representative, here but I don't watch much commercial TV because the bloody adverts annoy me so much. Amazing that ITV kept the adverts off until half time in the Rugby World Cup.....

I would hate to see all channels competing on the same terms , because it would end up as "advert war" and I feel certain it would go numbers thereof, not quality. There could be a flip side where the adverts became better than the programmes I suppose?

Novo

I have several times recently on this site railed against the intellecutual and cutural snobbery that is prevelant on hootoo when it comes to entertainment.

I must say I think that if the BBC remains a publically funded broadcaster (as I *really* hope it does) then it is essential that it is for everyone, and not just a few.

That means it has a responsibility to appeal to "Heat reading hairdressors" just as much as it has a responsibility to appeal to the likes of hootoo denizens.

Myself I watch a lot of shows on BBC4, and BBC2 and C4 because it is my kind of thing. I don't have the arrogance to think that is the only kind of show the beeb should make mind.

Here's a rule of thumb:
BBC1 = lowest common denominator Eastenders type carp, live sport
BBC2 = more interesting programming than BBC1
BBC3 = 50/50 new comedy/reality tv carp
BBC4 = more cerebral programming, niche viewing
BBC News 24 = News

If you don't like what's on one, watch another. If you don't like what's on all of it, or the radio, or the web, then start getting shirty about liscence fees.

BC,

"If the BBC doesn't attract viewers its failing to educate and entertain us so yes, it has to compete with ITV/Sky for viewers, although not neccessarily with the same type of programs."

I guess it has to compete to a certain extent for viewers, but that doesn't necessarily mean trying to maximise the number of viewers. It sort of depends on what you interpret the Beeb's remit as. If the idea is to entertain people, then I guess it needs to maximise viewers. If the idea is to educate, then surely maximising viewers is not the best thing to do. Most of us don't want to be educated most of the time we're watching TV, and so the Beeb would serve a different function to the other channels, and so wouldn't be competing for the same viewers. Or more accurately, wouldn't be competing for the same viewers at the same time. Maybe we want to see educational programmes about 10% of the time, in which case if the Beeb's remit was education, you'd expect it to only have 10% of the viewers.

To be honest, I'm not sure I exactly understand what the Beeb's remit is. Perhaps they don't either?

Fb,

"That means it has a responsibility to appeal to "Heat reading hairdressors" just as much as it has a responsibility to appeal to the likes of hootoo denizens."

Yes, but the same thing applies here. It depends on what the remit of the BBC is. Is it to provide entertainment?

Here's what the BBC's charter says (I just downloaded it):

"The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television."

So I'd say: yes the BBC must do something to appeal to the 'Heat reading hairdresser', but it has to do it in some way that meets the criteria above.

Incidentally - the BBC abroad has advertising. I wonder how much of this money flows back into the BBC at home?

Going to have to disagree with Novo and psycorp (its what I do).

You can only say what is better and quality in terms of your own preferences. Civilisation is a very poor quality childrens TV programme, but at's not what it was meant to be.

Eastenders is a hig quality soap, or atleast was, now it has gone to several nights a week, due to viewer demand they have bused in extra not so good writters and plots have become more cheesy run of the mill stuff.

I remember one show where you went through the same fatehr/son struggle/reconcilliation scenario with three families in one episode the comparison and contrasts were stunning and the acting was top notch. Now they are using anyone who isnt in one of the huge number of other sops going on. Yet the viewing figure suggest that there are people willing to sit down and watch it. Not many of us here but it doesnt mean its not quality.

You may as well say Basil Brsush wasnt quality entertainment, but the fact that people liked it and still remember it just as much as they remember Den and Angie or Nasty Nick says something else.

As for ITV not running ads during the live rugby games they dont do it during football only as with rugby during normal defined breaks in the action. True they do it at random during F1 but that is just so the viewers dont get bored





Psycorp if you have seen a lot of live sport on BBC1 lately then your TV is receiving signals through some sort of time portal. BBC2 is where you see the sad skeletal remains of what used to be great sports coverage. As for the programmes being more interesting...you and I might like to see people ahvnig a laugh about the odd snippets of knowledge or indeed genral ignorance inside their heads but for other people it is a show so boring they consider it a punishment. While some people might love to see Paxo badger a politician other people would rather see a woman with a new haircut pointing at a map with cloud shapes on it.

I don't know about that Blicky... All the england matches, fa cup matches, and match of the day tend to be shown on BBC1.

I would qualify that with "in my opinion" but it should to be obvious that I wasn't going to be posting someone else's opinion.

You're saying that different people have different opinions? That maybe someone would prefer BBC1 when I prefer BBC2? Well done. You've explained my point under the pretense of disagreeing with me. I'm impressed!

Dogster,

Yes, I'd agree to some extent but the BBC is meant to be for the country as a whole. Unlike C4 its remit is not specificly to provide programming for minority groups (something C4 long since ceased to do IMO) although some of the BBCs programming is aimed at minority groups.

Psycorp perhaps you ought to read what you actually wrote in post five.

That's what I did.

Now you may want to move the goal posts but its fairly clear that you made out in that post that the points in it were factual enough to be regarded in your own words as a "rule of thumb".

They were'nt rules because they were just your opinons. I said they were wrong and they are. BBC1 shows less live sport than BBC2. Now you agree with me and you are trying to pretend you didnt say something that everyone can see you said, why?

"BBC's former chief rep in New York, Jonathan Crane, [was hired] to study C4 as a precedent.

"The U.K.'s Channel Four appears to have squared the roundest of circles: an advertiser-supported broadcast network which features innovative, worthwhile programming, and makes a handsome profit," Crane concluded,

OK that was way back in 1997

If you have look through its schedules right now you can see a range of commericial pap, easy on the eye viewing that can be watched witht he brain in nuetral last night I saw someone have to turn off a C$ documentary because it was too emotinally upsetting to watch.

Can anyone here seriously consider that even BBC2 would give an hour to the plight of stolen people in China?

Yes it brought us Big Brother a show I always detested but I always found fascinating in small doses a bit like picking a scab, then. I think that the love afair with BB told some of us a lot about the truly shitty TV some people will watch for hours and helped us all see that we had to get over the trend for making every flaming show an interactive vote fest.

So we learnt two things from that show, which is more than you can say fof a lot of shows.



Now I doubt that many people will have tuned in for an hour of misery about stolen people in China, do the poor ratings mean it wasnt a good use of money producing it? Or would an attempt at popularity make say getting topless women to read the 7 o'clock news be better use of the cash.

As witht eh BBC its hard to weigh all these things up butas Ferrettbro has said they cant just bow to the wishes of a small section of their audience. They have duty to reach their audience without that all the quality programing in the world is worthless.

Dogster's post 6: noted, no comment necessary.

Psycorp's post 5: I'd modify that, to:

BBC1: *Not* lowest common denominator but raised somewhat from where it is.

BBC2: More informative, more thoughtful.

BBC3: No *new* material. Perhaps the best, delayed, and repeats.

Stop there.

We have national radio, national TV, local radio, local TV. That's enough...?

It seems to me that the beeb is trying to do too much with their limited resources (huge sums but still, relatively limited). It should be less but better - there's plenty chewing gum elsewhere.

Sport? Not for me but, if you insist...

"Now you may want to move the goal posts but its fairly clear that you made out in that post that the points in it were factual enough to be regarded in your own words as a "rule of thumb"."

Rule of Thumb. You take that to mean actual rules? Undenyable facts? Right. I see that as "rough guideline as I see it". That's not moving the goal posts. As far as I can see, the problem you have is I said live sport is on BBC1. Well, all the live sport I've watched on the Beeb is on BBC1. No doubt the bowls is on 2, but the football is on One. A quick look at the Sports listing shows the following LIVE SPORT for this weekend:

BBC1: Football, Golf, Motor Racing
BBC2: Rest of the Golf, Snooker, Horse Racing.

Why, that's 50/50, we were both wrong. Bet more people watch the sport that's on BBC1 though.

Then again, feel free to totally disregard any input I have as "that's what you do".

"BBC3: No *new* material. Perhaps the best, delayed, and repeats."

I find that most of the good comedy shows (and a lot of the crap), such as the Mighty Boosh, are shown first on BBC3.

Psycorp, I believe you. However, what I'm proposing is just a small New World Order. The good stuff would move to 1 & 2, displacing some of the chewing gum (for the others to buy?).

BTW: add 'experimental' to my BBC3.

Sounds like a plan Rod

So how do people feel about announced budget cuts meaning the loss of Horizon, the Money Programme, Top Gear, the One 'O' Clock News, documentaries, factual programmes in general and 700 reporters getting the boot - whilst BBC3 & BBC4 sail on untouched, unperturbed (and unwatched) ?

Well parts of me are going "phew, h2g2, MotD and Doctor Who are safe" but I'm not happy at all about them cutting out educational programmes and keeping "Celebrities Go Dancing on Crack While Andrew Lloyd Webber Rakes In Cash From Rigged Phone Votes"

Well they hardly spend anything on BBC4 so for my it fills a niche that is well worth while.

I am surprised (and dissapointed) Top Gear is going as it is a massive ratings winner.