BBC admits 61% of TV shows are repeats

[SS4]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a359532/bbc-admits-61-percent-of-tv-shows-are-repeats.html

Kind of what we already knew but it's still shocking that over half of shows are not new

 

[Eagle]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a359532/bbc-admits-61-percent-of-tv-shows-are-repeats.html

Kind of what we already knew but it's still shocking that over half of shows are not new

Yes, but that means that 39% are new. And 39% of 24 hours is 9h20m of new programming per channel per day. Which is a lot.

 

[GB]

Yes, but that means that 39% are new. And 39% of 24 hours is 9h20m of new programming per channel per day. Which is a lot.

...and how much of that 9h20m is news programming?

 

[SS4]

Yes, but that means that 39% are new. And 39% of 24 hours is 9h20m of new programming per channel per day. Which is a lot.

That's average across the four "main" BBC channels (BBC1 - BBC4) - the latter two don't broadcast 24 hours per day albeit BBC3 and BBC4 skew the average

 

[Lampshade]

BBC3 and BBC4 time-share with CBBC and CBeebies.

 

[Eagle]

Anyway, how many new programmes does the BBC show between, say, midnight and 6am? (Or for that matter between 10am and 3pm?)

 

[Greenback]

More relevant is the fact that many shows first go out on the main channels and are then shown again on BBC3 a few days later. This is normally the most popular shows, such as Doctor Who, Eastenders and Sherlock, but a lot of BBC4 shows have been shown before, sometimes several years previously.

I don't repeats are necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather watch a good programme for a second or even third time than some of the dross served up on other channels. I caught a few minutes of Pick TV at 2200 tonight and realised I had seen the same thing before at least 5 times in the past few months!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I remember when BBC Choice became BBC3 and they said there would be no repeats on it (Eastenders clearly never counted as a repeat back then) and now....Well....Less said the better I think. I'm sure we are all glad to hear that the BBC have now saved enough money on the F1 coverage to keep BBC3 going (I'm not surprised!)...

 

[starrymarkb]

I'd be interested to see how things bear up with other channels. Wasn't the same episode of Deal or No Deal on Ch4, then Ch4+1 which finished in time for More4 to repeat that days episode and then that too was +1'd. Also ITV repeating the Xfactor the day after broadcast.

Look at it this way. The same people who moan about repeats also complain about the licence fee being high, but then if you eliminated repeats the fee would either have to rise or the programme budget spread thinner. If that happened expect more cheap DIY/Home stuff, Reality shows etc. Documentaries and Drama are expensive!

Though I don't see why they spent £22million on the rights (they still have to pay to make it) to an Xfactor clone (The Voice) and then cut the F1

 

[Oswyntail]

I wonder how many who grumble about repeats have bought a boxed set of DVDs of their favourite series? Like Greenback, I would rather watch a repeat of, say, Sherlock, than a new showing of most other shows. And just think of the nightmare of 24-hour high quality, first -showing never-repeated programmes across all BBC channels

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'd be interested to see how things bear up with other channels. Wasn't the same episode of Deal or No Deal on Ch4, then Ch4+1 which finished in time for More4 to repeat that days episode and then that too was +1'd. Also ITV repeating the Xfactor the day after broadcast....

To be fair, it is only on the +1 channels because it is on the regular channel:roll:

ITV are bizarre when it comes to repeating things, for instance, you could watch a movie 4 times in a week on ITV, usually twice on ITV2 and twice on ITV4. Whatever 'high profile' Saturday night guff they put on is normally available to watch three or four more times during that week on ITV2, nevermind a Sunday morning repeat on ITV (where "lines are closed" even though they are still open).

....Though I don't see why they spent £22million on the rights (they still have to pay to make it) to an Xfactor clone (The Voice) and then cut the F1

I've given up trying to account for what they are spending money on when they have cut the F1 budget.

 

[jon0844]

I've long given up working out what ITV thinks. They certainly don't think many people have any form of PVR (even many Freeview boxes can now record, as can some TVs that record to USB drives etc).

I mean, why show Die Hard twice (with the +1) and then a day or two later again, and then again and again.

I will admit that if some classic films are on TV, I'll watch them even if I've seen them a billion times and have them on DVD/Bluray or my PC. Even though I can watch Die Hard ANY time, I'll sometimes watch when it's 'live' so-to-speak. But, as time goes on the +1 channels will become pointless, and they only exist now as there's so many spare channels that ITV figures it's cheap to repeat an hour later, and get some more ad revenue.

The fact is, they're struggling to fill the ITV 2, 3 and 4 channels and as more and more people download and stream content (and increasingly doing so legally) then it's pretty much game over for these channels.

Meanwhile, the BBC has to cater for everyone and from what I hear, The Voice may actually prove to be one of the better shows (like Fame Academy was). The problem is that in our dumbed down state, most people will prefer stuff like X Factor as there's so much hype and controversy, which seems to be more entertaining than any talent (or lack thereof) that the contestants have. It sums it up when the druggie kicked off X Factor is now considered a celeb to go on Big Brother!

 

[Lampshade]

I've given up trying to account for what they are spending money on when they have cut the F1 budget.

Begins with 'O' and ends in 'lympics'

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since I have just paid £145.50 to renew my licence, I feel that I have paid to have some input into this debate. The part of the article that caught my eye concerned the statement....."BBC readjusts to financial constraints under its new licence settlement"

Looking at my receipted licences, I find:-

2012...£145.50
2011...£145.50
2010...£142.50
2009...£139.50
2008...£135.50

This licence fee is a monopoly constraint and I am pleased that someone had had the courage to say "enough is enough" to the BBC.

 

[Butts]

Since I have just paid £145.50 to renew my licence, I feel that I have paid to have some input into this debate. The part of the article that caught my eye concerned the statement....."BBC readjusts to financial constraints under its new licence settlement"

Looking at my receipted licences, I find:-

2012...£145.50
2011...£145.50
2010...£142.50
2009...£139.50
2008...£135.50

This licence fee is a monopoly constraint and I am pleased that someone had had the courage to say "enough is enough" to the BBC.

The licence fee being frozen is partly responsible for the number of repeats.

In my view even at £200 per year it would still be excellent value for money compared to some other subscriptions

 

[Lampshade]

The licence fee being frozen is partly responsible for the number of repeats.

That's what the BBC want you to believe, although the sheer number of middle managers, PC enforcers, the move to Salford, VIP receptions at sporting events and other jobs that wouldn't dare exist in the private sector but because the taxpayer is funding it then it's ok might have something to do with it.

 

[jon0844]

I don't watch that much on the BBC, but I'd hate to see us rely on purely commercial television. It might seem odd that I pay a lot of money not to watch what it produces, but I think it's a good thing for those that do.

We know that the media that relies on advertising can often find itself caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to writing/talking about things. It has been said many times that supermarkets get a fairly easy ride, despite all the known problems with how they fiddle offers and treat suppliers. They are BIG advertisers so people turn a blind eye.

The same applies to other industries, which leaves the BBC to - hopefully - be able to report on whatever it wants to without fear of the classic 'print that and we'll pull all our advertising' line that gets used all the time.

The BBC doesn't need to answer to advertisers and sponsors, although it does now have to compete abroad on a commercial basis and that could be why some programming seems to have gone downhill or likes to 'play safe'. It is still a far cry from how things work at newspapers, magazines and commercial television.

 

[SS4]

I still see the BBC as a counterbalance to the trash the commercial channels put out (with a few exceptions here and there), ie: the commercial stuff has to produce some quality to get viewers from the beeb.

Their radio is of much higher quality. Wherever possible it's 5Live/Sports Extra or BBC WM for a football game and the licence fee still goes to support this even if you don't need one to tune in on the radio.

 

[Badger]

It's sad that we lost the new material on Friday and Saturday nights. Saturday is now just a repeat of Friday, and Friday is a mix of one or two new shows and then repeats of Live and the Apollo and other programs. I remember watching BBC1/2 both nights and it being different new telly; nowadays if you watch one night there's no point the next (except that there's nothing more worthwhile to watch than repeats of last night anyway).

 

[Bungle73]

It's sad that we lost the new material on Friday and Saturday nights. Saturday is now just a repeat of Friday, and Friday is a mix of one or two new shows and then repeats of Live and the Apollo and other programs. I remember watching BBC1/2 both nights and it being different new telly; nowadays if you watch one night there's no point the next (except that there's nothing more worthwhile to watch than repeats of last night anyway).

Um what? Friday and Saturday's schedules are completely different, and most of it stuff that hasn't been shown before. :?

 

[SwindonPkwy]

So the BBC admits 61% of programmes are repeats. Haven't we seen that before?

 

[Tomonthetrain]

So the BBC admits 61% of programmes are repeats. Haven't we seen that before? (R)

Couldn't resist

 

[Darandio]

Wasn't the same episode of Deal or No Deal on Ch4, then Ch4+1 which finished in time for More4 to repeat that days episode and then that too was +1'd.

You cannot really put a +1 channel in the same boat, it's exactly what it is, a time delayed version of the channel so not strictly a repeat.

 

[Greenback]

You cannot really put a +1 channel in the same boat, it's exactly what it is, a time delayed version of the channel so not strictly a repeat.

Which is exactly what BBC3 is with it's repeats of Eastenders!

 

[Lampshade]

What I don't get is why they put "EastEnders is repeated tonight on BBC Three at 10pm" on the end credits - surely if you'd watched the BBC One broadcast you're not all that bothered about watching it again - and if you'd missed the BBC One broadcast you wouldn't see the end credits :?

Unless it's for the benefit who missed the first 15/20 minutes.

 

[Seacook]

What I don't get is why they put "EastEnders is repeated tonight on BBC Three at 10pm" on the end credits - surely if you'd watched the BBC One broadcast you're not all that bothered about watching it again - and if you'd missed the BBC One broadcast you wouldn't see the end credits :?

Unless it's for the benefit who missed the first 15/20 minutes.

Or to remind people who just switched on to avoid BBC3 at 10pm?

 

[jon0844]

Or to remind people who just switched on to avoid BBC3 at 10pm?

Ah, that'll be it.