BBC - how does it fight back?

[eyeTV]

Why exactly are we ditching Homes Under the Hammer anyway? Why can't it still exist alongside this water cooler Netflix beating programme? What will the BBC show in daytime?

[Blobs]

BBC content already does sell all around the world and always has done. It's always been respected around the world and it's only these crackpot plans to gut it of everything other countries admire it for that are going to damage that reputation. Not everything the BBC does should be tailored to a global audience. You might not think there's value in the morning phone in on BBC Sheffield because it can't be sold around the world but the people in Sheffield who listen to it surely do? And Homes Under The Hammer (blimey, this obsession with homes under the hammer!) again, you might not like it but plenty clearly do so who are you to say it shouldn't exist anymore because if people in Texas don't like it has has no value?.

Crackpot planning is to plan to change nothing in a time when more and more people aren't willing to pay the licence fee anymore.

The private sector could easily replicate the services provided by BBC Local Radio. They'd jump at the opportunity.

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up. How Global watered down XFM too is, I'm sure, another positive sign that 6music will thrive in the private sector.

Homes Under The Hammer is not the first thing which springs to mind, I imagine, when people think about what makes the BBC different.

You can't see the larger and more important picture here, Blobs.

The BBC can do Homes Under The Hammer, Line Of Duty, and 6Music. That's what makes it different. It's the very thing that makes the BBC different which you're proposing to kill.

[Brekkie]

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

They serve different audiences though and we need a variety of programming. Can't have endless shows that are designed to make people talk like Line of Duty. Homes Under the Hammer gets good ratings so why shouldn't it exist?

You're right that we can't have endless shows like Line of Duty but the Beeb could try to make more of them.

However, budgetary constraints are such that it would be impossible to pump an extra half billion of money into appointment to view television.

When BBC3 closed they made a point of saying much of the budget would move to funding premium BBC1 drama and the evidence has been there on screen to suggest that did happen. No mention has been made on whether this will be affected by BBC3 returning to TV but it does highlight the conflict between investing in high quality premium content and content to fill multiple hours of airtime. Frankly people expect the BBC, and their main rivals, to do both.

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

They serve different audiences though and we need a variety of programming. Can't have endless shows that are designed to make people talk like Line of Duty. Homes Under the Hammer gets good ratings so why shouldn't it exist?

TV shows can't go on forever. It's not enough to say something is popular. Did viewers of Flog It particularly like it when they were told it was being axed? No, but they got over it and other formats were given a chance.

Although it has been repeated continuously ever since on BBC2 and essentially been replaced by The Bidding Room, which covers the same ground but IMO doesn't have the same pay-off (literally in this sense) as the auction room, though it has proven to be a pandemic proof replacement.

[James Martin]

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up.

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Which brings us back to what the license fee is there for - doing the things that audiences value that wouldn't be commercially viable.

You've only got to look at the demise of speech output on stations that used to do late night phone ins, long form sports coverage etc before being swallowed up to see that BBC Local Radio wouldn't survive in the commercial world.

[Blobs]

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up.

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

Isn't it nice to have some things that can exist without having to make a profit?

[AllWillBeWell]

Why exactly are we ditching Homes Under the Hammer anyway? Why can't it still exist alongside this water cooler Netflix beating programme? What will the BBC show in daytime?

I hope this isn't axed, its interesting to see homes being "done up" and how much they are purchased and sold for. I watch it every now and then. I'd imagine it's very cheap to produce as well!

[Night Thoughts]

The private sector could easily replicate the services provided by BBC Local Radio. They'd jump at the opportunity.

Are you sure? The fate of local commercial radio in this country (like much local/regional commercial media in general) is surely proof of market failure?

[Mr Q]

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up.

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

Isn't it nice to have some things that can exist without having to make a profit?

This for me is a key point. The media landscape has become more global, with the internet and streaming services operating across borders. For commercial operators, scale matters. Local media, almost by definition, has a smaller audience to play with, but likely has a higher resourcing demand on a per reader/listener/viewer basis (relative to national/global outlets). That is much harder for commercial operators to adequately sustain. Nevertheless, there is a clear public interest in having strong coverage of local affairs: supporting civil society at the local level, keeping people up to date with what's happening in their local neighbourhoods, and holding local officials accountable. Reflecting the local perspective should be core business for the BBC.

[JAS84]

I have question for it. Both BBC and NBC are claimed as world's oldest national broadcasting organisation. If the BBC in current form were founded in 1927, then the world's oldest organisation must be NBC. When the BBC is private company (British Broadcasting Company) was founded?

18th October 1922.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

NBC was founded 15th November 1926.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC

So, the BBC is older.

[James Martin]

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up.

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

Isn't it nice to have some things that can exist without having to make a profit?

That's now how a capitalist society works.

The days of lost dogs and jumble sales are over.

[Brekkie]

I'm sure Global and Bauer would do as good a job with local BBC radio as this have done with all the local commercial stations they swallowed up.

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

In many cases the local stations were actually profitable anyway - small profits, but profitable. Global just made them more profitable by stripping them out and nationalising them - adding profits for their shareholders by stripping away value for listeners.

[Blobs]

You mean the dozens of stations that otherwise would have gone to the wall?

When Global and Bauer both entered the UK market in the late 2000's, 80% - four in five stations - were unprofitable, all chasing the same middle ground.

Now we have cleary defined brands targeting very different audiences from teenager to dead.

Whilst I admit Bauer have a way to go to catch up, the industry is in a far better place because of Global.

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

Isn't it nice to have some things that can exist without having to make a profit?

That's now how a capitalist society works.

The days of lost dogs and jumble sales are over.

Yes, everything is made better by capitalism eventually. Nothing has any true value unless it makes money for souless corporations. "Greed is good" and all that

[johnnyboy]

Sure, they made them profitable. They ripped the local heart and identify out of them but they made them profitable.

Isn't it nice to have some things that can exist without having to make a profit?

That's now how a capitalist society works.

The days of lost dogs and jumble sales are over.

Yes, everything is made better by capitalism eventually. Nothing has any true value unless it makes money for souless corporations. "Greed is good" and all that

Cynicism in your remark aside, Blobs, I do agree with you here.

Capitalism is wonderful in many ways. It's lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, it responds to and anticipates the needs we have now and in the future, and so much more.

But profit is an imperative because no bank, investor, or government wants to pump money into a private venture which will never repay it.

The BBC wastes too much money on services where the opportunity for risk-taking, innovation, and out-there creativity is not great enough. It's paying for services which could be provided for, perhaps with a small reduction in quality, by the public sector.

But offset that risk of lower quality by transferring some services to the private sector against TV programming with greatly increased budgets which could fund the truly genius, daring, and inventive where profit was not an imperative.

The possibilities are exciting and mind-blowing. And I want the BBC (and Channel 4) to provide the lead in that.

[Blobs]

The BBC wastes too much money on services where the opportunity for risk-taking, innovation, and out-there creativity is not great enough. It's paying for services which could be provided for, perhaps with a small reduction in quality, by the public sector.

But offset that risk of lower quality by transferring some services to the private sector against TV programming with greatly increased budgets which could fund the truly genius, daring, and inventive where profit was not an imperative.

The possibilities are exciting and mind-blowing. And I want the BBC (and Channel 4) to provide the lead in that.

The BBC and Channel 4 already do. The bulk of British TV exported around the world is from the BBC and Channel 4. It's very much all about what you want with little regard for what others want. You want the BBC to narrow it's focus to "innovative and out there" TV only, despite the fact you don't really know that's what everyone else wants. The BBC is not HBO. It has a responsibility to provide for all tastes and, despite what you seem to think, not everyone wants just wall to wall "out there" TV without fluff like Home Under The Hammer getting in the way. Some people's idea of good TV is the decidedly middle of the road 'Death in Paradise' and some people prefer the edgier 'I May Destroy You'. The BBC can, and should, do both. Your vision of a one note TV only BBC that's all edge all of the time isn't going to appease licence fee payers it's likely to turn off even more. Especially the Popmaster ones!