61–70 of 183 posts
what happens when the streaming giants start focusing on pumping out low risk crap as they mature into what they're replacing?
i always thought the thesis of the bbc was that you didn't need huge budgets to produce high quality programming. and that, in fact, the opposite is true: moderate budget in the hands of the capable and passionate can produce outstanding results.
My kids have no concept of linear TV. My 9 year old came back and told me that a friend had a broken TV as when they turned it on, the program was already half way through. Their 'channels' are netflix, amazon and disney. When I had the choice and they were pre-school then sure, we watched things like Alphablocks on iplayer. I can force them to watch Attenborough or Blue Peter, and they enjoy it, just not enough to w…
Won't argue with the your observation on consumption: I see the same with my children. However: there's nothing intrinsic to the BBC that requires linear delivery or consumption. iPlayer was, after all, one of the first streaming services: a genuine bit of innovation from the Beeb. I dearly want to see the BBC not only survive, but to prosper. That may be rose-tinted/delusional/whatever. Why? Because it represents a…
This is absolutely worth remembering, iPlayer was revelatory 12 or 13 years ago. Infuriatingly the innovation seems to have stopped there.
Case in point, it's a corporation nearly 100 years old, yet its back catalogue is extremely poor. You should be able to watch every episode of Doctor Who on demand since the original black & white pilot, instead you're mainly limited to items shown in the last month, plus some randomly curated stuff. Channel 4 has a better online archive.
When I lived outside of the UK I would have paid a subscription fee equal to the licence fee to gain access to iPlayer. It's worth paying for! But there's no way to give them money for services other than be a licence payer within the UK.
There are just so many things the BBC in its current form is doing wrong I don't know where to start: - Paying too much for too little (both quality *and* quantity of "talent") - Repeats, repeats and more goddam repeats in increasingly short timeframes - Recent actions such as putting Spitting Image on BritBox (paid commercial service), it should have been on license-paid TV ! I certainly refused to pay for it. - Tak…
BBC (and other national broadcasters) should focus on news, children's TV and maybe a small selection of cultural stuff that otherwise wouldn't have exposure. It makes no sense to compete in the commercial entertainment space. I'm already noticing that there's stuff on streaming now that includes funding from several non-profit or national cultural organisations, I think that model can work well. I enjoy watching Eur…
If the authors figures are right and they are spending a fraction of what the competition are spending while still producing solid shows (which are then sold on to other markets for a decent price) then why not?
It's worth noting that the BBC's reputation has also been harmed in the course of the divisive debate over Brexit with commentary that has kept neither side of the debate happy. On a lighter note (which I admit reflects my personal inclinations): they should buy back live coverage of Test Match Cricket from Sky - a series of broadly unifying national sporting occasions that used to have distinctive BBC coverage (and…
The political decision to lose national sports coverage from the public domain made both the BBC and the nations sense of identity weaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your model of the future of the BBC is that the license fee, which costs about as much as Netflix, should give you a comparable product - then if Netflix have 10x the budget, the BBC's going to have a tough time competing.
If I were forced to choose between Netflix and BBC's back catalog and current programming for the same price, I'd say that BBC comes out far ahead.
They should also sell subscriptions to those outside the UK as well, there is enough demand for sure.
My kids have no concept of linear TV. My 9 year old came back and told me that a friend had a broken TV as when they turned it on, the program was already half way through. Their 'channels' are netflix, amazon and disney. When I had the choice and they were pre-school then sure, we watched things like Alphablocks on iplayer. I can force them to watch Attenborough or Blue Peter, and they enjoy it, just not enough to w…
My kids have no concept of linear TV. My 9 year old came back and told me that a friend had a broken TV as when they turned it on, the program was already half way through. Their 'channels' are netflix, amazon and disney. When I had the choice and they were pre-school then sure, we watched things like Alphablocks on iplayer. I can force them to watch Attenborough or Blue Peter, and they enjoy it, just not enough to w…
> This itself might not say a lot, and I still have a TV license despite the limited direct value I get (listen to a lot of BBC radio, and the news website), but what's interesting is I actually work for the BBC. If my household barely watches it, where does the future lie.
The entertainment sector is one of the most profitable on Earth. Marvel, Disney made billions making content that people want to watch and are willing to pay for. I'm not getting the reason why there should be government sponsored entertainment, especially seeing that people aren't even interested in watching it.
Why not simply compete and let the consumer decide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we need to know what is going on in the world, whether its profitable or not. News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit.
> News should not be entertainment. News should not be for profit. But why ? If "news" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality news), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for t…
But why?
If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality democracy), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?