BBC to Cull the Cult TV Repository

malkavian writes "The BBC has announced that it's going to be ceasing to host it's Cult TV Repository. At a meager 700,000 users per month, it was decided that this was no longer a significantly useful public resource, as the information was also available elsewhere on the net. Many people believe this to be a grievous mistake on the part of the BBC, to allow the history of their own broadcasting highlights to fragment, and possibly be lost like so much of its other content."

Comments

The BBC has to save money

[Anonymous Coward]

and whats the betting that most of those 700k users are not licence payers ?

perhaps the BBC should just cut of access off to those outside the UK and bring a subscription models in for non-licence fee payers

Re:The BBC has to save money

[ds_job]

A friend used to work in the BBC IT / Network / Web department. He once had to run statistics to show where most of the web impressions were going to. When quizzed about this he said that if most of the people browsing were from outside of the UK, there was a case for closing it down as it isn't being fair to the licence fee payers. So, having people say: "I can't get the BBC here, you are my only link to good TV!" probably isn't helping. If it was a load of people saying "I remember this from when I was a kid. This is what I pay my licence fee for!! Yours, Disgusted of Shepton Mallet" then it might have more weight. The only comment I have about Bimbo Dude's suggestion is that I dunno how the BBC charter would work for charging for international users. But just removing it for everyone isn't the most desirable solution.

Everything produced should be available

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my opinion that since the BBC is publically funded they should strive to keep everything produced available to whoever wants it for as long as possible. Whilst 700,000 users may be a small number compared to other areas of the BBC site, it can hardly be called an insignificant number.

Re:Looks shite!

[dhasenan]

The BBC has no problem with it, obviously.

I'd help pay for a wiki (domain registration, hosting, etc) that indexed the content formerly hosted by the Cult TV Repository.

Many, eh?

[gowen]

Many people believe this to be a grievous mistake

If many people really cared, they wouldn't be closing it due to lack of interest.

700,000 hits is really not very many.

And the idea that the closure of this small part of the webpage is going to result in BBC archivists deleting the programs is just idiotic scaremongering. The BBC are more than aware of the stupid mistakes made in the past w.r.t. Not Only But Also, The Goons and so.

Standard Reply?

[dapulli]

I sent an offical complaint through the BBC's internal complaints and got this reply within a couple of days. I asked about the closure and the BBC's continuing lack of sci-fi and fantasy based tv as well as expressing my disbelief that they aren't following up Doctor Who with more similar content, instead removing the section of the site that deals with most of the BBC's "cult" output that isn't Doctor Who. My Reply Thank you for your e-mail.

We recognise that the Cult website has attracted a large following. However, efficiency savings are needed to pay for new projects which will ensure that the BBC continues to offer distinctive and innovative services, so it is necessary to close this site.

As Ashley Highfield, Director of New Media, explained in December "...to meet the 10% target set out by the BBC Governors, we are announcing today a further 7.5% reduction to be achieved through lowering investment in areas where we feel this will not cause a reduction in public value...These changes build on the first steps we took in July to close those websites which we felt did not offer sufficient distinctive public value for the investment required. The savings we made in July represented 2.5% of our web output."

Furthermore, the BBC outlined in November its commitment to offer more distinctive content. We felt that many areas covered by the Cult site were already being replicated on other areas of the web. This meant there was very little distinction between the BBC and the commercial sector.

The exception to this is Dr Who, the largest of our Cult sites, which has now evolved into its own website, as an extension of the hugely successful BBC ONE TV series. We hope users will continue to visit and enjoy this site.

Regards

Sophie Walpole - Head of iD&E
And
Chris Chalton - Communications Manager, MC&A

It's not a shame it's a crime

[stuffduff]

As a child of the 60's-70's and expatriot for a few yers there I can honestly say that while the re-runs of Star Trek and Hogan's Heros were nice, that the world of BBC & ITV really opened my eyes to the possibility of what television could be. Those few of us who have enjoyed the site and shared it with our friends and our children have known for some time that this is a precious site, an important part of our cultural heritage and one of the few shining fortresses in the vast wasteland of planetary television. How unfortunate that BBC has chosen to turn it's back on the those of us who can really appreciate it. Let's hope that they are going to offer the content on a series of data CD's or DVD's. One day I'd like to enrich the veiwing experience of my grandchildren (if I should be so lucky!) with information like this. It was a real eye opener for my son to learn more about Gerry Anderson, The Prisoner and all those PCS reruns of Dr. Who. Let us further home that the BBC realizes that those few 700,000 are people who care, and appreciate both the content and the effort to bring it forward in such a nice manner.

God Save The Queen!

The real reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this has some connection with a recent review of the BBC's online content, which concluded that the BBC should not use license payers' money to replicated online services that could realistically be provided elsewhere.

Over the last few years, the BBC has built up a pretty vast online empire, going well beyond the normal news, sports and weather sections that most people use. Smaller, private enterprises complained that they were being forced to compete with what was essentially a rival taxpayer-funded enterprise. This closure, as well as the earlier closure of many of the discussion boards, was a move to counter this.

It's easy to get upset about it, particularly if you don't live in the UK and aren't forced to pay the increasingly ridiculous-looking license fee. However, spare a thought for those of us who do have to cough up around £120 per year to fund channels we don't like, mindless reality TV and makeover show trash, news services which are about as impartial as Foxnews (albeit in the opposite direction) and a draconian, downright menacing enforcement agency (which will happily send you threats of legal action on a near-daily basis if you don't own a television). The license fee was perhaps relevant in the infancy of broadcasting, when there were few other organisations with the ability to provide major services. However, in these days of hundreds of on-demand channels, the idea that everybody should have to pay a subscription for a few of them, before they're even allowed to look at any of the others, is offensive.

Either that, or...

[jd]

...auction off the web pages on e-bay. Make some cash AND save the content, which is quite sizable. That way, the BBC is happy (they profit AND don't have to maintain the pages) and the fans are happy (the BBC cult tv info is still together and still maintained).

This is NOT strange...

[hal2814]

Two of the Beeb's biggest cult shows, Who and HHGTTG, have been revived. I'm not surprised to see them shut down the cult site now. A lot of the remaining shows in the cult section are not even Brittish shows. Angel? Buffy? Firefly? The Simpsons? I can see why the BBC isn't very interested in hosting a site to promote American television.

What?

[Thedalek]

No it isn't. This is about the BBC ceasing to host and maintain information regarding several of their "cult" programs, such as Doctor Who, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio and TV versions), and Blake's 7. They're purging the information from their website, in much the same way they have, in the past, destroyed all known recordings of programs such as Dad's Army and Top of the Pops.

This isn't about, "Oh that's a grand show. It should stay on the air." This is more akin to your local library deciding they're going to get rid of hundreds of popular books which are being checked out, on the basis that "They're available at other public libraries and bookstores."

Honestly, it's deplorable that the BBC has gone back to their long-standing tradition of willful destruction of archive material.

TV licensing & Sheep herding

[pin_gween]

BBC produces some bizarre programs. I remember while channel surfing once, I saw a show about border collies herding sheep. Not during a competition a la Babe, they just followed folks out with their dogs. Where do they get funding to pay for such shows? If you have a TV in England, you must pay a yearly licensing fee. The fee, at least in part, goes to the BBC. When I was there many years ago, it reminded me of some DOT projects -- "Well, we got this money and we have to spend it, so that's why we did it" Seems hard to fathom there isn't enough funding in that behemoth to keep the site up.

Government policy

[panurge]

The real trouble with the BBC is that it's too good at what it does. Which, for those who may have missed it, is telling the truth without being told what to say by advertisers. The funding cuts are basically punishment for being right about Government disinformation over Iraq; even getting an obnoxious Northern Irish judge to run a fixed enquiry failed to convince the public that the BBC was wrong, so the BBC had to suffer.

Currently GB PLC is demonstrating that public enterprise is often better than private, contrary to the official government line. Failed privatised railways had to be rescued; private prisons are a humanitarian disaster; privatised schools are failing. So let's get the absolute flagship of public service, the BBC, and wreck it.

The amazing thing about this is that some of the British politicians who spout the privatisation nonsense - the unlamented M Thatcher among them - don't have a clue about how much the US depends on charities, not for profits, and local government at many levels, when it comes to delivering essential services. Sorry about the rant, but this whole thread is about the Government cutting BBC funds so it cannot do its job of ensuring that minority interests are heard. I guess next they'll be bringing in Fox to do the fair and balanced reporting that the BBC is famous for (but obviously getting wrong since sometimes it opposes the government...)