BBC Television programmes  permalink

Repeats

Messages: 1 - 50 of 50
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    I understand that the biggest source of complaint from viewers to the BBC is actually about the number of repeat programmes that the organisation perpetually keeps showing. This is then followed by the total lack of variety of programme content within the television schedules.

    According to Ofcom it has seen a “decline of 200 hours of first-run content” on BBC channels, and that the BBC now only spends just over half its £3.6billion licence fee money on actual new shows.

    Furthermore, spending on new shows over the past six years was “down 18 per cent in real terms. The largest percentage reduction was BBC One, down by 16 per cent to £719million”.

    Ironically, it has now also emerged that showing repeats does not in fact save the organisation much money. For the cost of actors' royalty fees, if a drama series is aired on one of the more major, digital channels, often cost more nowadays than the actual cost of producing new programmes.

    I would have therefore thought that the creation of new programmes would have been a far, far higher priority, than repeating old ones. This is because new programmes / dramas series actually create loads of useful employment in these austere times of economic recession, whereas repeats simply do not.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013


    Ironically, it has now also emerged that showing repeats does not in fact save the organisation much money. For the cost of actors' royalty fees, if a drama series is aired on one of the more major, digital channels, often cost more nowadays than the actual cost of producing new programmes.  

    According to the Daily Mail ...

    (link that you posted below)

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    It's worth noting that the Daily Mail do not produce television programmes...

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013


    Yes, showing repeats does cost money, because the performers and artists involved have to be paid for the repeat showing.

    How much it would cost would depend on the original production.

    It would be very cheap to repeat something like a game show or a gardening programme, but a major drama series - like Upstairs Downstairs for example would cost considerably more, because of the sheer number of people involved in the original production.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013


    So, when deciding whether to create a new programme, or repeat an old one, it's a case of balancing costs.

    The BBC will always produce new productions, whether they're dramas or documentaries or anything else.

    There is a budget limit though - and if the budget isn't available for another major new programme on top of the ones already in production, it may well be more economical to repeat an older programme.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) ** on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Repeats were a genuine issue when viewers were restricted to two or three TV channels. (Or one channel - I go back that far! smiley - smiley)

    Now that most of us can choose from dozens of channels, and also find a wide range of archived programmes to watch, we are not forced either to watch a repeat or switch off, as used to be the case.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013


    Delivery Quality First follows the licence fee settlement agreed with the Government in October 2010, which sees the licence fee frozen to 2017, and the BBC assuming new funding responsibilities, including for the World Service, S4C, BBC Monitoring and local TV and broadband.

    To fulfil this settlement, Mark Thompson set a savings target of 20%.

    There are more repeats on BBC2 nowadays during the day, as the BBC Trust have asked the BBC to save money in this way.

    See this page for all the information.

    www.bbc.co.uk/aboutt...


    Changing BBC Two's daytime schedule to feature international news and current affairs programmes at lunchtime.

    Other parts of the daytime schedule would be repeats of mainly factual programmes, including science, history, natural history and arts, as well as live sport;  

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by 4th Dimension Wanderer (U1461416) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Look how much excitement an upcoming repeat of I Claudius is causing on the other thread.

    Repeats can be good, if they're the right ones!

    How about a repeat of War and Peace and Fall of Eagles, BBC??

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    And the BBC make their Tariffs publicly available see www.bbc.co.uk/commis...
    ... and these are a price reduction ....
    so the BBC is constantly trying to keep the costs lower/under control..

    ITV execs have been quoted ascomplaining that BBC made HD same Price as SD ...!

    An you may like to consider that the netflix House of Cards cost more than £4M per episode.

    One issue with repeats is getting and paying for the Iplayer rights.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Repeats were a genuine issue when viewers were restricted to two or three TV channels. (Or one channel - I go back that far! smiley - smiley)

    Now that most of us can choose from dozens of channels, and also find a wide range of archived programmes to watch, we are not forced either to watch a repeat or switch off, as used to be the case.  
    I agree, Portly. Besides, it's getting rather tiresome, people using the 'repeats' issue for a spot of BBC-bashing. No-one wants to pay more for their TV licence. To prevent a rise in the cost of the TV licence, the BBC has to reduce its expenditure. So it shows more repeats.

    I think it's a question of balance, really. Yes, we can have nothing but new programmes. But imagine the howls of outrage when the licence fee went up.

    Swings and roundabouts, I guess ...

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    about 40P a day doesnt seem like a lot to me.

    How about some perspective.

    Pint of Beer. = between 10 - 30 minutes of entertainment = about £3.00

    trip to cinema = 2 hours entertainment = £7-£15

    Daily mail = 55p+ 80p on sunday.

    Hmmmm reckon someone buying that paper is not getting value for money if you ask me.....

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    I don't believe that so many licence fee payers would actually object so much to the £145.50 that they have to pay annually for BBC services if the money wasn't just squandered away, by what would appear to be both inept and incompetant senior management decsions.

    1) Former director general (George Entwhistle) of the BBC pay-off - £450,000.

    2) Total cost of move of BBC to MediaCity, Salford - Upto £900 million.

    3) Lord McAlpine deformation of character compensation payout - £125,000.

    www.telegraph.co.uk/...

    www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    I think Lord McAlpine was actually very decent to the BBC, that really is a nominal amount these days.... but thats an aside.

    Don't have a problem with the move, just don't say they moved up north.......thats a whole different kettle of fish. North is Scotland apparently.

    Yes paying out for directors to leave is annoying. especially as he wasnt around long enough to earn it. However I don't think that i sgoing ot be a common practise. yes we hear about it all the time but mostly its banks etc we hear about...

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    about 40P a day doesnt seem like a lot to me.   To me, it's a bargain. smiley - ok Especially when it helps to pay for Sherlock, Call The Midwife, One Night, Parade's End, Spooks, The Hollow Crown ... not to mention I, Claudius!

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Being human.... Can't wait to see repeats of that....

    though I might have to arrange to get a boxed set of the whole lot seeing as it will be out soon....

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) ** on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Honestly, it seems pretty clear that in the next decade or so, the two headed beast of bad scheduling and excessive repeats is going to be marginalised as TV schedules themselves become increasingly irrelevant in a world where the main method of consumption is increasingly "on demand".

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013


    2) Total cost of move of BBC to MediaCity, Salford - Upto £900 million.
     


    That figure actually £877M is the total cost of OPERATING Salford for 20 years ....
    as stated by the National Audit office .... see the cost tab on www.bbc.co.uk/aboutt...
    As that Tab shows the actual itemised moving cost was £189 Million which strangely is about the same as the lease that the BBC has Sold of Television centre
    www.bbc.co.uk/mediac...

    The cost of operating in London would have been far greater than the cost in Salford....

    The BBC is an organisation which has been seeking value for money for as long as I have been involved with it .. you can always find examples which can be discussed and perhaps something better could have been done....
    (an on my reading of the documents both GE and Lord McAlpines settlements were done to minimise the effect on the BBC )

    But as other have pointed out ... 40p a day is great VFM..





    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Honestly, it seems pretty clear that in the next decade or so, the two headed beast of bad scheduling and excessive repeats is going to be marginalised as TV schedules themselves become increasingly irrelevant in a world where the main method of consumption is increasingly "on demand".  Which does not require a licence to watch.
    The BBC could face a drastic reduction in income within a few years.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) ** on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    TV schedules themselves become increasingly irrelevant in a world where the main method of consumption is increasingly "on demand". 
    It's not how most people watch TV yet, though, and movement in that direction is slow. And the quantity of new material of interest being released would still be fairly important in such a world, I think.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by AllDramaLover (U4932429) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Look how much excitement an upcoming repeat of I Claudius is causing on the other thread.

    Repeats can be good, if they're the right ones!

    How about a repeat of War and Peace and Fall of Eagles, BBC?? 
    I agree that there are numerous quality programmes, mostly dramas but also documentaries, which I would love to see repeated - either because I enjoyed them or because I missed them the first time around. I'm sure that younger viewers would also appreciate a chance to see such glories - Civilisation, for example. What annoys is the constant repeating of the same old trash programmes over and over.

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Wednesday, 13th March 2013

    Yes, Technologist, the costly BBC move to MediaCity, Salford has undoubtedly been an absolutely overwhelming success.

    Due to a complete lack of high-calibre guests willing to actually commute from London to Manchester, there now exists both speculation, and rumours, that the BBC breakfast show may now be moved back to the Capital.

    www.guardian.co.uk/t...

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    "there now exists both speculation.

    Speculation...

    Sardonic you are a "reporter" arnt you. I find so many "news" items are now actually speculation. I am speculating you are a reporter looking for a story.

    "Speculation - Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition."

    So instead of acknowledging the fact that the figure you presented was not the cost of the move but actual 20 YEARS of costs and that you may have been in error in the manner you presented your "facts" you move on to another attack on the BBC.

    You could almost be a politician....

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    Yes, Technologist, the costly BBC move to MediaCity, Salford has undoubtedly been an absolutely overwhelming success.

    Due to a complete lack of high-calibre guests willing to actually commute from London to Manchester, there now exists both speculation, and rumours, that the BBC breakfast show may now be moved back to the Capital.

    www.guardian.co.uk/t... 

    The article also says

    The BBC has denied it is considering the move. "There are no plans to move any part of BBC Breakfast back to London. On the contrary, the show is working very well from Salford and we're delighted with the calibre of guests and experts regularly appearing," said a spokesman.  

    The article is based on yet another Daily Mail article which is quoting it's source as 'BBC insiders say' which they often quote when they want to post a speculative article on their website.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) ** on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    The article is based on yet another Daily Mail article which is quoting it's source as 'BBC insiders say' which they often quote when they want to post a speculative article on their website.
     


    A bit like the BBC who say "our research shows" when they decide that we need DOGs, credit squashing and inane continuity voiceovers despite many hundreds of complaints about these things

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    smiley - laugh Not quite the same but a reasonable analogy, just like we prefer Blogs over messageboards.

    anyway thats off topic... smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    The article is based on yet another Daily Mail article which is quoting it's source as 'BBC insiders say' which they often quote when they want to post a speculative article on their website.
     


    A bit like the BBC who say "our research shows" when they decide that we need DOGs, credit squashing and inane continuity voiceovers despite many hundreds of complaints about these things 

    No, we really *do* do research....

    Your post reflects what people say when we do research, but people then don't agree with it because it doesn't reflect their personal point of view... smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by megamain (U12800305) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    "there now exists both speculation, and rumours, that the BBC breakfast show may now be moved back to the Capital."

    Does that mean Susanna will be doing 5 days a week....

    Get back to London. Now.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    Six months old news which has since been repudiated by the BBC. Hardly there NOW exists both speculation, and rumours  it is more a case of Daily Mail stirring. For all we know their insider could be these boards, where they seem to get so much of their stuff, anyway.

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    "For all we know their insider could be these boards, where they seem to get so much of their stuff, anyway. "


    Speculation says it's Sardonic.... smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) ** on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    No, we really *do* do research....

    Your post reflects what people say when we do research, but people then don't agree with it because it doesn't reflect their personal point of view 


    I suspect that the research that is done is often ignored because there are far more people on these boards and on POV who absolutely detest the "innovations" that the Beeb thrusts upon us. I've seen anyone say they love and need DOGs or credit crunches but hundreds of posts which abhor them. Then when someone from the BBC actually bothers to turn up on POV they dismiss them as a minority view and trot out the well worn "our research shows" but never produce any concrete evidence from all these people who apparently are unable to discern which channel they are watching or have no idea what programme is coming up- next. It's about time we had somebody on POV who will take them to task and force them to justify their stance rather than Jeremy Vine, who after all is in the employ of the BBC and not likely to rock the boat

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    LOL I find it laughable that a conversation that the HOST has been participating in and has replied to the OP has been referred to to the Mods and or the HOST for a decision.

    IF it is actually off topic for this board then maybe Peta should move it to the BBC board rather than the Television board.

    I wonder if the OP referred himself.....

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) ** on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    I've seen anyone say they love and need DOGs or credit crunches but hundreds of posts which abhor them 

    Oops! Of course this should read "I've NEVER seen anyone who says they love and need DOGs or credit crunches"

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Valdimar the Unending (U15551013) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    You will find that most people aren't really bothered by them. Personally, I don't mind them, I understand the thinking behind them. Credit crunches ... I never read the credits, anyway. If I want to know who was involved, I would look it up on the Internet where it is much easier to read.

    But, because you say that you have NEVER seen anyone who says that they ... just for you I will say: "I've NEVER seen anyone who says they love and need DOGs or credit crunches". You can now go forward in peace, your life complete smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Testcard (U1164920) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    LOL I find it laughable that a conversation that the HOST has been participating in and has replied to the OP has been referred to to the Mods and or the HOST for a decision.

    IF it is actually off topic for this board then maybe Peta should move it to the BBC board rather than the Television board.

    I wonder if the OP referred himself.....  
    Perhaps the "Central Communities Team" (whatever that might be) are in conclave as we speak. I'll keep an eye out for white smoke.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    LOL I find it laughable that a conversation that the HOST has been participating in and has replied to the OP has been referred to to the Mods and or the HOST for a decision.

    IF it is actually off topic for this board then maybe Peta should move it to the BBC board rather than the Television board.

    I wonder if the OP referred himself.....  
    Perhaps the "Central Communities Team" (whatever that might be) are in conclave as we speak. I'll keep an eye out for white smoke.  

    smiley - brr

    That's the best I can do on the white smoke front at this time of year.

    The thread is fine - it's about TV repeats.

    smiley - ok

    See you all tomorrow. x

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Thursday, 14th March 2013

    Repeats were a genuine issue when viewers were restricted to two or three TV channels. (Or one channel - I go back that far! smiley - smiley)

    Now that most of us can choose from dozens of channels, and also find a wide range of archived programmes to watch, we are not forced either to watch a repeat or switch off, as used to be the case.  
    I agree, Portly. Besides, it's getting rather tiresome, people using the 'repeats' issue for a spot of BBC-bashing. No-one wants to pay more for their TV licence. To prevent a rise in the cost of the TV licence, the BBC has to reduce its expenditure. So it shows more repeats.

    I think it's a question of balance, really. Yes, we can have nothing but new programmes. But imagine the howls of outrage when the licence fee went up.

    Swings and roundabouts, I guess ...  
    I don't quite it as simple as saying there are lots of other channels so watch them, as many channels are not PSBs and therefore commercial and not by the licence and they fill the alternatives eg bbc3&4 with the same repeated shows, you seem to her able to watch some shows 3 or 4 times in a week between the channels.

    They even repeat the one show now, and fill bbc2 with old bbc1 stuff smiley - sadface

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by NethLyn2 (U14722036) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Daily Mail is 60p per day, £1.50 on Sunday, then again that probably takes future licence rises into account smiley - smiley

    It's a bigger problem having contemporary music in modern programmes, than acting fees for the really old shows, I would've thought that once some actors pass away and the BBC is paying an estate rather than a person, then there would be a re-negotiation of any previous agreement.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by ArdrianAeron (U15644485) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I hope not to offend you, Sardonic but if you are saying that there should be no repeats on the BBC at all I suspect that you are on your own. Looking at other threads it is clear that most people have no objection to repeats per se. What annoys us is that the progs repeated are mostly 'trash' whilst there is a vast archive of quality progs available. After all most of the material on Yesterday, Gold and the Discovery channels et al is repeats.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) ** on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    After all most of the material on Yesterday, Gold and the Discovery channels et al is repeats 

    We watch quite a bit of stuff on channels like Yesterday and ITV 3. The good thing is that many of the repeats are 20+ years old and programmes like Bergerac, Colditz, The Onedin Line etc are actually shows I never saw the first time round.

    Daytime TV on the BBC is appalling and full of repeats of antiques/auction and property shows which are only a couple of years old. The other day I happened to see the start of a property show which was a compilation of the best thatched cottages so it was a repeat of a repeat cobbled together to make a sort of "best of" or "worst of" if you hate this sort of thing. I wish they would show a film in an afternoon like Channel 4 often does

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Sue_Aitch (U3336990) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Some of those shows have Sign Language Interpretation on BBC Two, though, so they aren't exact repeats.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    "I hope not to offend you, SardonicCynic, but if you are saying that there should be no repeats on the BBC at all, then I suspect that you are actually on your own.

    Looking at numerous other threads it is clear that most people have no objection to repeats per se. What annoys us is that the progammes actually being repeated are predominatly 'trash' whilst there actually exists a vast archive of quality, good shows still available.

    After all most of the material on Yesterday, Gold and the Discovery television channels et al is repeats." 
    .
    No, ArdianAeron, you certainly haven't offended me, and you also raise some very good and salient points in your reply.

    It would be totally ridiculous, and even absurb of me, to suggest that there should no repeats whasoever on television. Like most viewers I occassionally watch repeat programmes myself. In fact, like a really good or complex film, some drama series, or documentaries, often even require a second viewing to fully appreciate, or to actually understand, the whole narrative or story line.

    What I really object to is when the same old drama series, or mainly comedy series etc, keeps on getting repeated time after time again.

    As to the overall quality of the programmes actually being repeated, then I suspect it's all down to finance and budgets available. There are no doubt some really excellent archieve television programmes that we would all like to watch again, but for a television broadcaster to actually obtain the screening rights may prove to be far too exorbitant.

    I also understand that a major broadcaster, like BBC One, would have to pay far more royalty fees to repeat a programme than a lesser known digital channel. It would be most helpful if Peta could please now both investigate and clarify this matter further.

    My main corncern about the excessive use of repeats is that they should not be at the expense of commissioning / producing new television programming.

    This is because new programmes / dramas series etc actually create loads of useful employment in these austere times of economic recession, whereas repeating old existing programmes simply does not.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I understand that the biggest source of complaint from viewers to the BBC is actually about the number of repeat programmes that the organisation perpetually keeps showing.  
    It's actually nowhere near the biggest source of complaint from viewers to the BBC. In fact, we probably get more requests for repeats than complaints about them. You may be surprised to know that when people do complain about too many repeats, they often end their letter/email/phone call by asking for something to be repeated.

    Reply to this message 41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I understand that the biggest source of complaint from viewers to the BBC is actually about the number of repeat programmes that the organisation perpetually keeps showing.  
    It's actually nowhere near the biggest source of complaint from viewers to the BBC. In fact, we probably get more requests for repeats than complaints about them. You may be surprised to know that when people do complain about too many repeats, they often end their letter/email/phone call by asking for something to be repeated.  

    According to the Guardian newspaper Blog this information is actually wrong then?

    www.guardian.co.uk/t...

    www.guardian.co.uk/c...

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Neither of the articles you pointed to claim that the biggest source of complaints from viewers is the number of repeats. Unless I missed it, in which case I apologise.

    Reply to this message 43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by fourthelephant (U15487252) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    The number of repeats is unacceptable and the money situation isn't going to change. Either give us some cheap, quality programmes or cut down the number of channels.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The article is based on yet another Daily Mail article which is quoting it's source as 'BBC insiders say' which they often quote when they want to post a speculative article on their website.
     


    A bit like the BBC who say "our research shows" when they decide that we need DOGs, credit squashing and inane continuity voiceovers despite many hundreds of complaints about these things 

    No, we really *do* do research....

    Your post reflects what people say when we do research, but people then don't agree with it because it doesn't reflect their personal point of view... smiley - winkeye

     
    The problem with any "Research" depends on the questions asked, and the phrasing of those questions.

    It's relatively easy to achieve the answers you want to get, by ensuring the question is loaded in a way that only the answer you want is achievable.

    Hence then it's easy to claim that research has proved what you wanted it to.

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Monday, 18th March 2013

    From those articles "damning repeats.."

    "More revealingly, repeats – even of potentially worn-out warhorses such as Dad's Army – continue to perform notably well in the ratings."

    Hmm so that means people are obviously watching them..... a lot.


    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Monday, 18th March 2013

    "the charge of lazy replaying remains too easy and resonant for the enemies of broadcasting to abandon. As the schedules begin to show the cuts, those articles about too many repeats will be endlessly repeated. "

    You are famous Sardonic smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by captainMouse (U14652804) ** on Wednesday, 8th May 2013

    Something's are worth repeating, given a reasonable amount of time between showings.

    But showing the same episode of a program at the same time on the same channel 3 times in 1 week is not acceptable.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by PoochJD (U2534501) on Wednesday, 8th May 2013

    I don't think anyone objects to repeats, per se. What viewers ARE objecting to is:
    1) The sheer number of repeats, on a daily and weekly basis, on BBC1 and BBC2
    2) The repeating of the same shows, over, and over again, week-in, week-out
    3) The type of repeats, e.g. game shows, antiques programmes, cookery shows.

    These three things, are what the BBC don't seem to care about. They keep telling us viewers that:
    1) Viewers like repeats
    2) Viewers like the repeats we currently show
    3) Viewers supposedly want more repeats

    Yes, viewers like repeats, but only if they are worthwhile repeats. What's the point in repeating something three times in the space of five days, across two different main channels, as was recently mentioned on POINTS OF VIEW? That's not worthwhile. That's outright laziness and incompetence by the schedulers!

    How many times does the BBC really need to repeat censored versions of ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES in the BBC1 2:15pm-3:10pm slot? You tend to show Series 1 to 5, and then go right back to the start again, ad infinitum?

    How many times does the BBC really need to repeat daytime programming? The same sets of shows, repeated five days a week, twice each (once on BBC1, and once on BBC2 in the early-morning), almost every single week of the year?

    When was the last time, the BBC revamped its daytime schedules?

    Like I say, I have nothing against repeats, nor do most viewers. But we do get truly sick and tired of the amount of them, and the number of times the exact same episode is shown over, and over, and over, and over, and over again!

    Here's a sensible suggestion: if you're going to repeat ANY show, start at the beginning and go right through to the end. By the time you reach the end of the entire series, you can then go back to the beginning, and viewers won't feel like they're watching the same episodes repeatedly. That's how Sky Atlantic airs most daytime shows: start with Season 1, Episode 1, show all the episodes (unless they're unsuitable for daytime transmission), and go right through to the final episode, in the final season.

    TV scheduling is NOT brain surgery! It's just the BBC trying to kid all of us viewers, that it's some amazingly complex scientific system, that requires lots of knowledge to do, when actually, it's really simple.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by pyanaman (U2905997) on Wednesday, 8th May 2013

    They even repeat my complaints about noisy audiences in Strictly. smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.