Local Radio being destroyed - no more Sportscene.

[RadioactiveWaste]

It's always a tricky balancing act for the BBC - who let's not forget do operations commercially as well (quite successful at selling their shoes in other countries).

There needs to be something of the "good for you" content that simply wouldn't get made on purely commercial grounds and having a broadcaster not totally bound to advertising is a beneficial thing to have. But that has to balance against who pays for it and how much they have to pay.

What I like about the BBC is the news, education and local stuff, what the BBC really like is when they have a hit show and can say look, everyone likes this thing the BBC did.

I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else on thread but I'd rather the BBC did it's dull but worthy stuff and didn't bother so much on trying to be all singing all dancing. And I do count local radio services in the worthy bracket.

I get better milage out of iPlayer than I did out of the now cancelled Netflix or Amazon prime. Recently tried paramount plus, but I know I can cancel it when we've watched what we want.

 

[TuffLuff]

I think the BBC is never a perfect institution and you have to take the rough with the smooth, from political coverage, comedy, drama, whatever. 

For example, I think Radio 2 has been treading water for a while now because it’s needs a refresh but it’ll take a couple of years for it to really settle down. On the contrary I think 5live is probably coming out of that refresh cycle and is a good listen whether it’s sports or the day programming. 

Local radio is probably in need of that refresh period, aslong as the sports coverage is largely unaffected then it’s a case of seeing what happens. What I’d be tempted to say is, if the sport went regional then how much impact would that have say if another club went into administration? Whether it was liked or not Derby County were afforded pretty in-depth daily coverage by our BBC local radio service, not nationally and not regionally. Would a programme that covers Nottingham and Stoke afford us the same coverage?

[VulcanRam]

1 hour ago, David said:

Wait for the World Cup when we see a team of pundits out in a Qatar studio outside the stadium, a job that couldn't possibly be done from a studio in London. 

Some of us will, but presumably @Normanand @Gaspode's son won't, and maybe not even you @Davidon the basis they don't consume any BBC product at all, therefore won't be watching the football or the news and won't be made aware of it via any radio station or the internet.

We can report back if you'd like. ?

[Day]

1 hour ago, VulcanRam said:

Some of us will, but presumably @Normanand @Gaspode's son won't, and maybe not even you @Davidon the basis they don't consume any BBC product at all, therefore won't be watching the football or the news and won't be made aware of it via any radio station or the internet.

We can report back if you'd like. ?

I’ll watch it, paid for it so may as well! ?

Prefer ITV’s coverage, Laura Woods instead of Gary Lineker, oh and no Robbie Savage it’s bliss. 

[MaltRam]

2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

It's always a tricky balancing act for the BBC - who let's not forget do operations commercially as well (quite successful at selling their shoes in other countries).

Cobblers

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

Cobblers

I tip my hat to you sir.

[Ram@Lincoln]

BBC Humberside presenter Andy Comfort confirms all presenter roles are closing, need to reapply for new jobs, almost all local radio staff placed at risk of redundancy. Sally Pepper tweeted yesterday they only found out reading it in the news. BBC couldn't even tell their staff before the news broke.

 

[Norman]

1 hour ago, VulcanRam said:

Some of us will, but presumably @Normanand @Gaspode's son won't, and maybe not even you @Davidon the basis they don't consume any BBC product at all, therefore won't be watching the football or the news and won't be made aware of it via any radio station or the internet.

We can report back if you'd like. ?

I've paid £160 for the 2 or 3 games so yeah I will. But I could watch them all on ITV and not be bothered if that's the way it went. As long as the World Cup and Euros don't get sold to subscription channels, then ITV2 could show the football presented by Gemma Collins and I wouldn't care.

Anyway, for those that read posts, I stated I use the website. But I'd probably still use it with ads on. Doesn't stop me going on SKY's.

But whatever, the main point of my post was to state they go around chasing and wasting money on the wrong audiences. Nothing they could put on tele will want me to continue paying £160 a year.

Imagine waiting all week to watch a programme at 8pm on a Friday night.......us young'uns find that ridiculous. 

I will still pay the fee, however, because I am part of a society that finds the service valuable and some people get far more than their money's worth from the service. And that's fair enough - just because I don't doesn't mean I have to be part of the anti-BBC brigade. I just dont want them to chase my viewership. They wont get it because they can't offer me anything i can't already get. My criticism is wasting millions on s*it and taking away local services.

No doubt people will just concentrate on snippets of this post and ignore the point. 

[ilkleyram]

18 minutes ago, Ram@Lincoln said:

BBC Humberside presenter Andy Comfort confirms all presenter roles are closing, need to reapply for new jobs, almost all local radio staff placed at risk of redundancy. Sally Pepper tweeted yesterday they only found out reading it in the news. BBC couldn't even tell their staff before the news broke.

 

Perhaps someone from the BBC newsroom decided to use the Guardian to break the news rather than wait 24 hours for their own organisation to tell their colleagues who have been affected 

[VulcanRam]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

I've paid £160 for the 2 or 3 games so yeah I will. But I could watch them all on ITV and not be bothered if that's the way it went. As long as the World Cup and Euros don't get sold to subscription channels, then ITV2 could show the football presented by Gemma Collins and I wouldn't care.

Anyway, for those that read posts, I stated I use the website. But I'd probably still use it with ads on. Doesn't stop me going on SKY's.

But whatever, the main point of my post was to state they go around chasing and wasting money on the wrong audiences. Nothing they could put on tele will want me to continue paying £160 a year.

Imagine waiting all week to watch a programme at 8pm on a Friday night.......us young'uns find that ridiculous. 

I will still pay the fee, however, because I am part of a society that finds the service valuable and some people get far more than their money's worth from the service. And that's fair enough - just because I don't doesn't mean I have to be part of the anti-BBC brigade. I just dont want them to chase my viewership. They wont get it because they can't offer me anything i can't already get. My criticism is wasting millions on s*it and taking away local services.

No doubt people will just concentrate on snippets of this post and ignore the point. 

Watched the C4 documentary on Italia 90 and hooliganism last night with my 15-year-old - his reaction to having to wait a week for the next installment was just that!!

[Guest]

Local radio is one of the things the bbc do well. They should sell off radios 1, 2 and 3 and cancel for example East Enders which is well past its  sell by date 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

It's always a tricky balancing act for the BBC - who let's not forget do operations commercially as well (quite successful at selling their shoes in other countries).

There needs to be something of the "good for you" content that simply wouldn't get made on purely commercial grounds and having a broadcaster not totally bound to advertising is a beneficial thing to have. But that has to balance against who pays for it and how much they have to pay.

What I like about the BBC is the news, education and local stuff, what the BBC really like is when they have a hit show and can say look, everyone likes this thing the BBC did.

I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else on thread but I'd rather the BBC did it's dull but worthy stuff and didn't bother so much on trying to be all singing all dancing. And I do count local radio services in the worthy bracket.

I get better milage out of iPlayer than I did out of the now cancelled Netflix or Amazon prime. Recently tried paramount plus, but I know I can cancel it when we've watched what we want.

 

Is this where they have sole rights ?

[secretsquirrel]

IMO-BBC sounds is well worth the license fee-hardly ever listen to live radio apart from sport-some really good music programs on different local stations esp Radio Scotland

[Boycie]

I don’t mind paying for schools and the BBC etc, but I do mind paying for A&E services for drunken fools to take the annual trip to.

Charge them if it’s a drink related incident!  No wonder it’s on its knees. 
 

No not David trying to get up, the flippin NHS!

[hintonsboots]

15 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Perhaps someone from the BBC newsroom decided to use the Guardian to break the news rather than wait 24 hours for their own organisation to tell their colleagues who have been affected 

95% of the BBC News coverage and editorial comment comes directly from The Guardian, so probably correct. I remember John Humphrey’s saying how he asked when the editorial meeting was, on his first day on the Today Programme and the Editor just chucked him a copy of The Guardian.

[hintonsboots]

14 minutes ago, Monty said:

Local radio is one of the things the bbc do well. They should sell off radios 1, 2 and 3 and cancel for example East Enders which is well past its  sell by date 

Gerrout of my Forum.

[RoyMac5]

53 minutes ago, Norman said:

I will still pay the fee, however, because I am part of a society that finds the service valuable and some people get far more than their money's worth from the service. And that's fair enough - just because I don't doesn't mean I have to be part of the anti-BBC brigade. I just dont want them to chase my viewership. They wont get it because they can't offer me anything i can't already get. My criticism is wasting millions on s*it and taking away local services.

No doubt people will just concentrate on snippets of this post and ignore the point. 

No-one would do that @Norman

I imagine a bit like buses to rural areas no-one wants to do the stuff that doesn't make money so they have to be 'bundled'.

[PistoldPete]

15 hours ago, David said:

So you want to scrap the national news in favour of keeping an hour show on a Monday night talking about Derby?

With that, I'm out of this conversation. 

To be fair I have listened to Sportscene far more often in last few years than I have watched BBC news programmes.

[cstand]

58 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No-one would do that @Norman

I imagine a bit like buses to rural areas no-one wants to do the stuff that doesn't make money so they have to be 'bundled'.

[ram59]

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

95% of the BBC News coverage and editorial comment comes directly from The Guardian, so probably correct. I remember John Humphrey’s saying how he asked when the editorial meeting was, on his first day on the Today Programme and the Editor just chucked him a copy of The Guardian.

A recent 'freedom of information' question about newspapers provided for staff at the BBC, revealed that in comparison with national sales, the Guardian was massively over subscribed at the BBC and that the Daily Mail was massively under subscribed by the BBC. I think that shows the political bias within the organsiation.