What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?

Ed

In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?


It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the
schedules.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:56:03 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?


It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the
schedules.

That's right. I used to work in television (but not on gardening
programmes). Every programme has one aim and one aim only - to attract
and keep the maximum number of viewers. If it does that it will be
kept running even if it is utter rubbish (we can all think of
examples). If it doesn't do that it will be axed, even in the middle
of a series.

Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:56:03 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?

It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the
schedules.

That's right. I used to work in television (but not on gardening
programmes). Every programme has one aim and one aim only - to attract
and keep the maximum number of viewers. If it does that it will be
kept running even if it is utter rubbish (we can all think of
examples). If it doesn't do that it will be axed, even in the middle
of a series.

So it's indistinguishable from a commercial channel and should be funded
in the same way.

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 14:09:02 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:

Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:56:03 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?

It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the
schedules.
That's right. I used to work in television (but not on gardening
programmes). Every programme has one aim and one aim only - to attract
and keep the maximum number of viewers. If it does that it will be
kept running even if it is utter rubbish (we can all think of
examples). If it doesn't do that it will be axed, even in the middle
of a series.
So it's indistinguishable from a commercial channel and should be funded
in the same way.

If it was true. The BBC transmits plenty of programmes that are not aimed at
maximising the audience.

So does HBO in the States. Doesn't mean it has to be funded by the taxpayer

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?


It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the schedules.

So it has to get a bigger audience weekly than the Eurovision song contest?

That only got 1.7 mill and falling and they haven't axed that yet.

In article ,
"endymion" writes:
|
| So it has to get a bigger audience weekly than the Eurovision song contest?
|
| That only got 1.7 mill and falling and they haven't axed that yet.

Yes, but think how cheap the Eurodrivel Nong[*] contest is to produce!
[*] Australian slang, if you are interested.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"endymion" writes:
|
| So it has to get a bigger audience weekly than the Eurovision song
contest?
|
| That only got 1.7 mill and falling and they haven't axed that yet.

Yes, but think how cheap the Eurodrivel Nong[*] contest is to produce!

[*] Australian slang, if you are interested.

Actually its very expensive because the UK contribute 40% of the funding for
the Eurovision. But anyway. Its not cheap! See what drivel the license
fee goes on . Still back to GW.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:18:05 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 14:09:02 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:

Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:56:03 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , Ed
wrote
What is. or, should be, the point of the BBC Gardener's World programme?

It doesn't matter what it focuses on because if it doesn't get a regular
viewing audience of a couple of million it will be cut from the
schedules.

That's right. I used to work in television (but not on gardening
programmes). Every programme has one aim and one aim only - to attract
and keep the maximum number of viewers. If it does that it will be
kept running even if it is utter rubbish (we can all think of
examples). If it doesn't do that it will be axed, even in the middle
of a series.

So it's indistinguishable from a commercial channel and should be funded
in the same way.

If it was true. The BBC transmits plenty of programmes that are not aimed at
maximising the audience.

It IS true Martin, except in a few cases where there is a statutory or
other commitment to provide a certain type of programme. Gardening
programmes are just another form of 'entertainment' and stand or fall
by their viewing figures.

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:44:25 +0100, "endymion"
wrote:

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"endymion" writes:
|
| So it has to get a bigger audience weekly than the Eurovision song
contest?
|
| That only got 1.7 mill and falling and they haven't axed that yet.

Yes, but think how cheap the Eurodrivel Nong[*] contest is to produce!

[*] Australian slang, if you are interested.
Actually its very expensive because the UK contribute 40% of the funding for
the Eurovision. But anyway. Its not cheap! See what drivel the license
fee goes on . Still back to GW.

The EBU funds the ESC not the licence fee. If you could discover how much UK
contributes to the EBU, the total amount of EBU's annual budget, and how much of
that budget is spent on the ESC they'd have to kill you.

I thought I heard 200,000 pounds mentioned on the radio today/yesterday
as BBC's contribution to the ESC. That is, peanuts for the quantity of
material. However, I could have misheard...

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Martin wrote:


I wasted a lot of time on the EBU's website trying to find out how it's finances
work. IMO they are deliberately hiding the information about the actual amounts.

Thinking about it, possibly PM on R4 on Monday. Definitely R4. I seem to
have Eddie Mair's voice in my head. If not that, some other program of
similar nature. So if you want to listen again...

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org