[interestednovice]

Yes, I recognise that point even though I think that the BBC have to make the cuts to entertainment anyway to make the sums add up.

The point is that a lot of entertainment tends to be, literally, popular. As much as I personally see it as a shame, far more people would notice (and be annoyed by) Strictly Come Dancing or Eastenders being cancelled than Our World on the NC. You only really get away with major cuts to entertainment if you restructure the BBC entirely - so entertainment could perhaps move to a new subscription channel, where you pay extra for it, or something of that nature. I do think most people would not accept a “dry” BBC Four-style version of BBC One with educational and news programmes only.

I’m in a fairly unique position myself, as I must admit I don’t watch any of the “popular” programmes, but do use BBC News, watch some of the more niche programmes across the channels, and sometimes BBC dramas and documentaries, use the BBC website and, sometimes, BBC Radio. Overall though, I still feel I get a good deal from the TVL and the cost of the BBC seems fair. I wonder if people who are mainly the opposite to me would feel the same way if the axe started to fall on major programmes. Personally, I doubt it!

[Milkshake]

I still wonder about 20 years ago when BBC was making this MAD rush to online services and then half of them got mothballed or archived, What was the point in that?

The only reason Daytime is still going is partly because the Beep sells those programmes to other like digital channels or international hence why many are 45mins long, While Homes under the hammer does have 45 min edits = even more editions.

I'm going try and make it clearer about BBC world news and 45 different services, it doesn't matter if there all gold standard and excellent, if the people paying for it get nothing from it or believe its detrimental to over parts of the service provide they not going to care. This does seem to be fundamental problem, that runs via many issues.

No one wants to see those service go but, never bit the hand that feeds you.

[DTV]

Aside from the fact that TV itself isn't really necessary and even a programme where its prime function is to educate and inform can be entertaining, entertainment is more expensive to make because of what and who's involved (as a general rule of thumb). When the BBC have cuts to make, those types of shows should go first, but it's likely the case that the BBC don't want to do this because of how many more people would stop paying the licence fee if these shows were axed.

Entertainment programming might be more expensive per minute, but it also has a far greater commercial return and repeat value, plus the BBC produces fewer hours of it than certain non-entertainment genres (News, for instance, is by far the largest part of output-related expenditure). As I've said before and you allude to, it's also an essential part of the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to finance the more 'worthy' parts of its output. And, of course, some of the BBC's biggest entertainment successes (Strictly, Doctor Who) are only successes because of risks only the BBC took. All in all, I personally value those parts of the BBC as much as the rest.

Also, the thing with the 'news first' and 'shouldn't do what commercial broadcasters can' approaches to the BBC that a lot of people on this forum seem to have is what BBC News TV output do commercial alternatives not do? You might have been able to say something years ago, but, partially thanks to the detabloidisation of ITV and Sky News and partly down to cuts, pretty much anything that BBC News does on TV is done to an at least similar quality elsewhere. Now you can argue that BBC News should be doing more different things, but - as things stand - I think it's hard to argue that BBC TV's news output is more unique than its entertainment output.

[dbone]

I still wonder about 20 years ago when BBC was making this MAD rush to online services and then half of them got mothballed or archived, What was the point in that?

Some were forced to close (BBC Jam) by commercial entities that felt threatened that the license fee was being used to provide what they saw as commercial services. In many areas it was pure cost savings - some of the space has been since filled by commercial sites. If the BBC websites were able to have adverts then lots of these would probably still be active and making money for the BBC.

You can also pitch the idea that the trusted brand of the BBC was used to help the British public go online and part of the BBCs educational remit. Just the same as the BBC Micro in the 80s got people into the home PC.

[interestednovice]

Also, the thing with the 'news first' and 'shouldn't do what commercial broadcasters can' approaches to the BBC that a lot of people on this forum seem to have is what BBC News TV output do commercial alternatives not do? You might have been able to say something years ago, but, partially thanks to the detabloidisation of ITV and Sky News and partly down to cuts, pretty much anything that BBC News does on TV is done to an at least similar quality elsewhere. Now you can argue that BBC News should be doing more different things, but - as things stand - I think it's hard to argue that BBC TV's news output is more unique than its entertainment output.

In a way, that’s exactly the point. The previously-special and unique news output (such as Newsnight, Our World, even the rolling news channel which had no ads and was UK-focused) has all been cut back to “save” less-unique entertainment output from needing heavier cuts. Whereas if news hadn’t been cut, the BBC would be doing more “unique” things than it is now.

[Happy2001]

What's been the amount of cuts to Entertainment compared to News in the last 13 years?

[DTV]

In a way, that’s exactly the point. The previously-special and unique news output (such as Newsnight, Our World, even the rolling news channel which had no ads and was UK-focused) has all been cut back to “save” less-unique entertainment output from needing heavier cuts. Whereas if news hadn’t been cut, the BBC would be doing more “unique” things than it is now.

But, as always with the 'pity news' narrative, this is such an exaggeration. News hasn't been cut to save entertainment, both have been cut - original comedy output, for instance, has fallen by about 40% since 2010 - that's far more than the cut in news output.

And, as for 'special and unique', the only thing you listed that I think that can genuinely be applied to is Newsnight, which I would agree the de facto axing of is a bad decision. Our World might be an unfortunate axe, but long-form international reporting is done by pretty much every serious news channel, plus, let's be frank, it was purely treated as NC schedule filler in the UK.

Stretching 'special and unique' to include the former News channel, though, is a push. There is very little that it did that other parts of BBC News or Sky News don't do adequately. A BBC rolling news channel also still exists - you might criticise the form, but, as with so much sub-par BBC News output, the odd direction seems to be an editorial choice above all else. Plus, the changes to the News channel only came about because they'd tried finding ways for it to take a fair share of cuts and it ended up with the NC increasing its budget in real terms - that just wasn't sustainable.

Ultimately, the choice has been made than News should deal with the cuts by focussing on network news and the website, which have variously been subject to ringfencing and extra investments. This path makes most sense from a PSB perspective - those are the genuine mass-use parts of BBC News and there is more PSB value in being a for-all trusted reporting service than any other aspect of news.

[DTV]

What's been the amount of cuts to Entertainment compared to News in the last 13 years?

It's hard to say because what and how this kind of information is reported by the BBC is inconsistent over the years, but there have been clear cuts to all entertainment genres. This is apparent in terms of cuts to amounts commissioned for TV - from 2007 to 2023, first-run drama hours have fallen from ~650 to ~400; first-run children's programming has halved from ~900 hours to ~450; with first-run arts and music output collapsing from over 550 hours to just 250. Other studies have found that comedy output has fallen by around 40% in the last decade, with a recent report showing that radio drama output had fallen by 50% since 2017 alone.

By contrast, although certain BBC News budgets have fallen, network news budgets have alternated between being ringfenced and gaining extra investment, while the BBC News channel budget managed to increase in real terms from 2012 to 2022. News output has remained steady, while BBC One and Two current affairs output fell by 25% from 2007 to 2023.

[interestednovice]

I didn’t say pity news and I didn’t say that entertainment hadn’t also been cut. It’s clearly the case that PSB, but relatively-unpopular output, has not been protected at the expense of entertainment in any way: the cuts have evenly, roughly-speaking, affected all departments and types of content. I personally wouldn’t expect different, but wonder what it might have looked like if they had calculated things differently.

People watching the various services don’t take an accounting view that the BBC have done well with a 40% cut to xyz budget or whatever, they simply miss the programmes they might have enjoyed but which are now gone.

The NC should be able to output more and better quality content for the cost, although they are finding their feet more lately and we’ve been through an adjustment period with costs such as redundancy pay to factor in.

That’s all I will say on the matter.

I can agree to disagree on the “logic” of the cuts, as you will of course upset somebody whatever happens.

[Brekkie]

Anyone or anything in society having to operate on the same budget as they had a decade ago with only the odd inflation linked increase (based on the last year, not since the last rise) is going to struggle to do what they once did. They might survive, but they won't be able to thrive - and being able to thrive is ultimately what delivers a better outcome for all concerned.

In the BBC's case it is of much more value to the nation if it is able to thrive rather than in a constant fight for survival, and a thriving BBC is ultimately also of much more value to the industry too.