I'm sure the kind of original programming BBC Four could make doesn't have to cost the earth. I had to stop watching a recent thing they had on about medieval manuscripts because the presenter - clearly very knowledgeable though she was about actual manuscripts and their importance - just had to be shown making some vellum, had to be shown wandering around various locations etc etc.

At least her 'journey' was mostly in England. Andrew Graham-Dixon and Simon Russell-Beale must have circled the earth a dozen times over with their air miles.

"I'd like to see more original content on BBC4, I'm also quite happy to be given another chance to see quality programmes that perhaps didn't send me running to the iPlayer when I missed them first time round."

Repeats were more of a problem when there were far less channels around. But when BBC One has a decent new drama while BBC Two and BBC Four both have first run quality documentaries at nine o'clock, something which happens many nights, repeats become crucial. If we've paid for it, we should be offered as many opportunities as possible to see it.

"The Daily Mail reports that almost half of all content on BBC2 (49.8%) was repeats in 2011, while they made up 32.5% of programmes on BBC1. The average number of repeats was however bumped up by digital channels BBC3 and BBC4 – which had schedules comprising 84.2% and 78.8% repeats respectively."

BBC1 repeats -- people like repeats. Reruns of New Tricks receive ratings as high as some new ITV dramas.

BBC 2 repeats -- how many of those were the schools programmes shown in the middle of the night, shown in daytime when there are less people watching and the docs shown after Newsnight?

BBC3 and BBC4 repeats -- again most of those are in the middle of the night, and a large section of that percentage will be the signed repeats (the Sign Zone must have been factored into the BBC One repeats too -- both welcome and useful services). Plus how many of the BBC4 repeats are the important reruns of archive material not seen since first broadcast and unavailable on dvd?

The Mail's publication of the bald figures may look stark but there's a bigger story here.

More repeats please, especially drama, comedy and documentaries which are the BBC's strongest suits. They can show them instead of those awful "reality" shows.

Considering what the BBC costs it can't be that bad. Especially when you think people pay for satellite where they are paying twice for BBC repeats they've already paid for - and ITV repeats they paid for through buying the products that are advertised (effectively). I notice (for instance) that Sky launched their new Atlantic channel on the fact that it was offering brand new content thanks to the deal they made with HBO - a look at that schedule now merely shows it to be yet another channel showing the same old guff as every other satellite channel. If I were a subscriber that would make me very cross indeed!

Fewer repeats and more original programming would be welcome - ideally focussing upon the most creative, unusual and innovative formats: since income growth will come from producing new and original ideas that can be resold, rather than simply rehashing old formats (a la, strictly, master chef, upstairs downstairs etc etc).

You could pay for it by cutting the number of executive producers, series producers, channel producers, commissioning editors and the other host of highly paid production personnel who don't actually make the programmes but seem to get attached to them. Surely each programme only needs one exec producer.

I don't have a problem with repeats, I understand the economic necessity of them. Especially now. However, what I don't understand is why they don't repeat things from their huge archive. Even in the last few decades there are drama series and comedy shows that could be given a re-run; House of Eliott is a gem that's never been repeated, Dangerfield maybe? So Haunt Me? How about 2.4 Children from the start again? Yes, all these are available on DVD but then as the article states, so are modern programme's up on iPlayer or out immediately on DVD. There must be a bulging archive of long forgotten Screen One/Two films for example. Should cost nothing to show but provide, to most people, a brand new viewing experience.

Ok, so it might be odd to turn on the TV at 7pm on BBC2 and find yourself clearly watching a slightly dodgy video production of some drama or other, but why not label it 'Classic Repeats'? Surely that's got to be more worthy than repeating Rick Stein a few hours after it was originally shown?!

To my mind it makes far more sense to focus on producing big, quality numbers for BBC1 than lots of small things for less-watched digital channels.

I disagree. The small things on less watched digital channels are part of what the Beeb is about. Some of the BBC4 documentaries last year were superb. And while I may not enjoy much of it, BBC3 has offered up a bunch of new comedy.

The stats are also misleading. In addition to those highlighted by feelinglistless above, Eastenders, for example is repeated on BBC3 each day. Much of BBC4 content is repeated later that evening. If you don't have iPlayer through your TV (or a computer) then those catch-ups are useful for those who want to watch them.

The big budget BBC things of late have been great, but I don't see it either/or.

Also, there are whole sattelite channels devoted to repeats. Maybe the Daily Mail should hound Dave, Yesterday etc out of business. And ensure that Sky One only show new episodes of the Simpsons. And that Paramount Comedy only broadcasts new shows. Or that E4...and so on. Repeats are cheap ways to fill up the schedules. There is an off button as welll.

the bbc seem to waste lots and lots of money trying to compete with flashing the cash stations like itv and sky. they pay stupidly massive wages to the same old familiar faces. does anyone really think jonothan ross was worth all those millions? if the rumours are true as to what alan hansen gets paid for spouting flaccid banalities from a horizontal position are to be believed, then how much other cash is being similarly pissed away? keep the presenters fresh, young and talented, and stop lining hasbeens pockets, stop throwing millions at the latest fads (leave them to the channels that can afford to do it). it would leave plenty of cash to be invested in top drama, in new and inventive shows, and in stuff that stands a chance of lasting, or having worth, rather than just being expensive disposable trash.

Entirely agree with Plankton .

I don't have a problem with repeats, I understand the economic necessity of them. Especially now. However, what I don't understand is why they don't repeat things from their huge archive.

A season of Attenborough's Life of series would be my first suggestion.

Seeing as Cameron is at Pinewood today to tell the film industry to make more commercial films, I think he needs to heed this news as a warning of focusing on the bottom line above all else.

I know quite a few people in independent film and they are all incredibly annoyed by Cameron's attitude to the film and TV industry.

Would you really want a PR man heading up the BFI, the ENO or the BBC and demonstrating that his view of the visual arts begins with Harry Potter and ends with Downton Abbey? Because that's pretty much what Cameron's position seems to be.

The Daily Mail can'\t have it both ways - complain about the licence fee then complain when they show repeats.

I would have thought cutting BBC3 and BBC4 would have been a good place to start. I really don't understand what those stations are doing that a bit more courage and ability to see past the ratings shouldn't be getting done on BBC1 and BBC2.

Not that I'm particuarly against repeats, but there isn't a lot I watch on TV in the first place, so a few more original series wouldn't go amiss.

It would be interesting to see how much money the BBC gets from selling some of the desirable repeat series from their archives to other channels - History channel, Dave et al - Surely most of that money should be getting reinvested into new programmes?

I've got no problem with the amount of repeats on any of the BBC channels. Would be nice to see a few "older" repeats done occasionally.
Apparently they've been repeating the whole run of Only Fools and Horses on BBC1 in the early afternoons, which my Dad has really enjoyed as he hates the "original and new" house hunting, antiques auctions and cooking shows that otherwise litter the daytime schedules.

One "repeating" issue that the BBC is not guilty of - since there are no breaks - is reiterating the "story so far" after each and every commercial break.

That surely counts as unwanted repeats in my book - Stop it !

How about cutting programs like "2 pints of Lager" and reinvesting the money in sport? Namely getting the FA Cup back from ITV, Championship and Champions League Football. I don't watch much TV (if any) because I have no interest in Eastenders, cooking shows, Home improvement shows, teenage mums or antique shows. so from my licence fee I get the World Cup, european championship, the snooker and Five Live.

People complain about too much sport on the TV, but we're entitled to it as much as people who want Homes Under The Hammer

Everything on ITV+1, ITV2+1, Channel 4+1 etc are all repeats, no?

One other thing...

Your poll question is flawed

"Does the BBC show too many repeats?"
No

"Are they a price worth paying for stronger investment in drama on BBC2, for instance, which this year showed a marked improvement thanks to more cash?"
Yes

"Or is it time BBC3 stopped showing endless repeats Don't Tell The Bride, no matter how watchable they are?"
Yes

So which question do I answer with the Voting from?

Even in the last few decades there are drama series and comedy shows that could be given a re-run; House of Eliott is a gem that's never been repeated

I'm not sure that was made by the BBC - at any rate, the whole thing was rerun recently on ITV 3.

Cutting shooting on-location for things like news broadcasts and documentaries where they don't really require it. Does there really need to be a reporter in Brussels to report on EU politics? the reporter on the ground these days knows less about what's going on than the people in the studio. Also a top-down management reassessment would free up a lot more cash to reinvest into new programming. Radio stations that are copies of Radio 1 (Radio1'Xtra' I'm looking at you!) could be axed without anyone noticing.

Agreed. The number of times I've seen the same people talking about how great Morecambe & Wise were rather than actually being able to watch the archives myself is too much to count. Get on it Beeb!

This comment first appeared in the independant in 2009.

One "repeating" issue that the BBC is not guilty of - since there are no breaks - is reiterating the "story so far" after each and every commercial break.

Can't say I've ever seen that - where's it happening?

I'm fairly happy with the level of repeats on the BBC - there's not that much I make a point of watching on TV anyway and although iPlayer is great for catching up on something you very specifically wanted to see, I don't find myself browsing through it in the way I'll look at my TV's EPG to see if there's anything on.

I do second the suggestion that the BBC could actually repeat some of the older, classic TV from many more years ago. If there's a problem with the use of repeats, it's the excessive recycling of the same few shows that aren't that old in the first place - with some of the comedy panel shows I swear I've seen the same edition three or four times.

Sometimes I wonder if the BBC holds the best stuff back so it can flog us DVD box sets instead...

It was made by the BBC, shown on BBC 1 between 1991 and 1993 and yes, you are correct it was shown recently on ITV3 which might mean the BBC no longer holds the rights. Even though it has been repeated on a digital channel, it's not been repeated on the BBC itself, ever.

It was just an example though, there must be plenty of other drama series which haven't been repeated full stop.

Yes, that is perhaps a bit garbled. We'll tidy it up a bit.

Yes and no.

There's no reason to re-show Location Location or Flog it episodes, but introducing a new generation to Porridge, Only Fools and Horses or Blackadder (or any of the outstanding Attenborough nature docs) is part of what the BBC is about.

There can never be a yes/no answer to this question. I think it is good that programs are repeated about a week after the first showing, but at an off prime time. Infuriatingly, I find that the programs I actually want to watch are often never repeated (eg I missed the Brian Cox lecture this Christmas, but there was no repeat; University Challenge is also a once in a lifetime opportunity; but most of the tat gets a second outing). I have a problem with prime time repeats that are less than 2 years old. Why repeat Have I got News for you from 6 months ago, when I can remember the programme quite clearly, when they could delight me by showing a repeat from 10 years ago. In the same vein, I would love to see more repeats of programs from the Sixties and Seventies. It was great to see the old Morecombe and Wise Christmas specials in their entirety recently (though I would question the idea of filling an entire evening with just one theme - that habit is really starting to annoy me).

So in conclusion I would say that I am happy with repeats as long as there is either a long gap between showings or the repeat is not at peak time. I am happy for the BBC to concentrate on quality peak time programs, and just fill the rest of the schedule with repeats, or something like artistic cartoons from what was Czechoslovakia.

I disagree about iPlayer. Watching TV on a computer screen is very much second-best: I'd much rather they repeated stuff in the middle of the night for me to watch at another time.

I am happy for the BBC to concentrate on quality peak time programs, and just fill the rest of the schedule with repeats, or something like artistic cartoons from what was Czechoslovakia.

Worker and Parasite would be worth the licence fee alone.

Not everyone has access to the I-player to watch a show they missed the first time around. I think every drama should be repeated later in the same week to allow those who missed out to catch up with it.

However there should be a limit to it, I recently found myself watching a recording of the same Mock the Week for a third time, all shown in what could reasonably be called primetime over the last year.
Panel shows are about current affairs and don't stand up to repeats, but good drama or comedy remains that and I'd welcome repeats of those.

Who ever came up with the idea that you spend good money on a show and then only show it once???

Nearly as irritating as those 'revisit' programmes, listed as New... Someone like Kevin or Kirstie or Phil or whoever, introducing a previous episode then appearing for fifteen seconds at the end to say something like 'Oh, I see you've had another baby...., and doesn't the garden look nice.'

Well, the Daily Mail only have about 20 different news stories which they run in rotation, e.g.

the terrible thing the BBC has done now

how shocking and offensive the latest pictures of a celebrity wearing few clothes are (see the fullset of photos on pages 2,3,4,5,6,8 & 24!)

How immigrant criminals are abusing the Human Rights legislation to stay in the country

the latest government attack in its 'war on motorists'

benefits scroungers living in mansions at the taxpayers expense

prison inmates being sent on ballooning holidays over the Serenegeti at the taxpayers expense

the latest foodstuff that is going to kill us all

the latest disease that is going to kill us all.

Repeat ad nauseum. So it's a bit rich them castigating the BBC for it.

An awful lot of the repeats on BBC3 and 4 are in the smallest hours of the morning, often of shows that had been broadcast earlier that evening or the day before. Giving a second chance to watch - or record - these, when it might not have been possible first time around, can be very handy.

And, let's be honest here, it's not as if there's going to be much original programming on BBC4 at two in the morning. There'd probably be an outcry if there was.

Also, how all of those things you mentioned cause cancer.

One point about iPlayer, fantastic service though it is - programmes only remain on there for a week after broadcast, unless they are part of a series and there is a series catch-up (which I have found doesn't always apply for every series).

So, while the Mail would be justified in complaining about repeats on Channel 4 or ITV whose online services doesn't have the same restrictive timeframe (I think, it's been a while since I used either) the repeats on the BBC are generally both valid and welcome.

Particularly since I've noticed a change in my own viewing habits lately which must be the same for others in the same position - we have a digital TV recorder, so rarely watch TV when it is actually broadcast. This means that we miss most of the adverts for new programmes, and by the time we realise good stuff is on air, it can have disappeared from iPlayer forever. Repeats of stuff that was buried in the schedules first time round can be fantastic.

I have seen it in the non-BBC "Location location" type programmes, some of the "reality format" competitions etc. but even some of the documentaries.

Yes, I just happen to be in the room when it is on ...

On the subject of annoyances, why does even Michel Roux have to pause 5 minutes before telling the cooks which one is being eliminated in Master Chef (etc.) .... grr.
If it was radio, the nuclear submarines would assume that war had broken out due to loss of signal.

Indeed, so many shows seem to clash. Even if you can record two at the same time there can still be issues.
It's actually a very handy feature that you can record something later that night and not get spoilered and still take part in social media discussions.

Firstly,I very much doubt the BBC shows more repeats than, for example, Channel 4 and its subsidaries.

Secondly, I agree with other posters that repeats are less a problem than where the BBC spends its money in the first place.It can start by slashing the music budget for documentaries,because most soundtracks are far too intrusive these days.

It can also insist that if it pays for a 60 minute programme that producers actually fill an hour long documentary with content rather than slo-mo,repetition, and cackhanded dramatisations of what the narrator has just explained,as if we're all too stupid to understand words.Either that or just pay the producers less for 30 or 40 minute programmes.

I also agree that sports people are paid far too much.Has anyone ever tuned into Match Of The Day simply because Hansen or Lineker are on it?I thought people tuned in for the football and in terms of live sport,because of the absence of adverts.Pay them less because there is an endless stream of sports people willing and eager to appear on telly.Given that's the case how come supply and demand suddenly doesn't apply anymore?

TV personalities in general are paid far too much.Several performers have appeared on Sky,Harry Enfield etc,but nobody cares,so the reality is if these people permanently decamp to Sky their careers will go down the pan.The BBC aren't competing against Sky,because the majority of people prefer the BBC because of its lack of adverts and high quality control.Rather than paying everyone silly money the BBC should give its comissioning department a kick up the backside,because ITV has over the last two or three years beaten it several times for drama.

Finally,sort out the radio.Get rid of one channel and devote it to traffic and weather and then we can listen to 2 and 5 without breaks every fifteen minutes
"I'd just like to announce the end of the world,but first over to some moron with a traffic report for a road three hundred miles from where you live."

Would we be better off with just BBC1 and BBC2 and fewer repeats?

Depends on what they're repeating and what they're spending money on to make new shows. This is one of the good things about my choice to ditch the TV licence and spend the money on DVD box sets instead. I am able to let the BBC et al know exactly which programmes I want to see more.

Incidentally,I hate Paul Martin and can't understand why anyone would think this simpering twat is good TV material.

I guess you have yet to run into iPlayer on the dozens of smart TVs and connected devices it now runs on. It's also out on the Xbox 360 soon.

Happysocks
People complain about too much sport on the TV, but we're entitled to it as much as people who want Homes Under The Hammer

Bollocks! Sorry Happy Feet but there is no reason for any sport on the terrestrial channels any more. There is no reason to clog up the schedules with obessive compulsives running a little bit faster than some one else, or overpaid trolls kicking a ball around. You want to see this, then subscribe to a sports channel and leave the airways clear for the rest of us who do have somewhat wider interests.

Back to todays discussion - I have no problem with repeats.

A lot of the BBC's archive is transmitted on commercial digital channels that are part owned by the BBC. I don't think that is widely known.

Accroding to Wikipedia: UKTV

UKTV is a digital cable and satellite television network, formed through a joint venture between BBC Worldwide, a commercial subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Scripps Networks Interactive, spun off from The E.W Scripps Company in 2008. It is one of the United Kingdom's largest television companies.
UKTV's channels are available via satellite and cable in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. In the UK, Yesterday, Dave and Really are available on Freeview, and selected parts of GOLD, Home and Good Food are available through Top Up TV.
Most programmes on the channels are repeat broadcasts of BBC productions (although the entertainment channels also feature programmes made by other companies), and the channels themselves are played out by Red Bee Media from their broadcast centre in west London.

I don't have access to i-player so I don't necessarily mind seeing a repeat of a recent quality drama, as it gives me a chance to see it again if I missed it. What does annoy me is seeing endless repeats of shows that were ridiculously cheap to make in the first place. How much mileage exactly has BBC3 got out of Snog, Marry, Avoid?

I also wouldn't mind seeing older quality dramas again which never seem to get repeated, such as I, Claudius and Brideshead Revisited (which might have been on ITV, perhaps, but that sort of thing, anyway). But maybe the slower pace of these older programmes might be deemed too challenging for today's viewers, since they seem to think we all have the attention span of a gnat.

I'd so much rather they screen the same good quality show twice, three times or more, than have three times the variation of dull, unimaginative, cheap "entertainment"

And don't forget a couple of other DM favourites:

Look at how much weight X has put on/lost.

Z shows off her baby-bump.

Ah, now that explains much! If I've understood that correctly, licence fee money is spent making programme's that are then shown commerically but not shown again on the BBC? Hmmmm.

I suspected the answer to just simply repeating programme's from it's archives was a complicated one involving rights. However just becuase they may be shown on digital channels, that doesn't preclude repeats on the BBC surely? Top Gear, for example, appears to be shown on both possibly even at the same time.

Not everyone has access to the I-player to watch a show they missed the first time around.

Indeed not. But before there was iPlayer in the TV and broadband in lots of places, the functional equivalent was a PVR, perhaps with series link.

Even the 80 year olds I know can manage a PVR for Corrie, Mastermind, etc. Doubtless there are some that don't have one, but how much airtime is unnecessarily devoted to repeats?

Who ever came up with the idea that you spend good money on a show and then only show it once???

Lawyers and similar meejah types?

Take the 1980s BBC "road movie with soul", Coast to Coast. It had Lenny Henry in it and here is his explanation of why it's not been repeated and isn't (legally) available on DVD: (from http://www.lennyhenry.com/home/faq.aspx)

Q3 : what's the deal with coast to coast?

A3 : I loved Coast To Coast . It was written by Stan Hey and directed by Sandy Johnson. It starred John Shea, Lenny Henry ,Cherie Lunghi , Peter Vaughn,George Baker and Peter Postlethwaite as Kecks Mcguiness. I loved it because it was a road movie in Britain (tiny island , so we had to zig zag) there was classic Motown music throughout ,and I made friends with some lovely people in Liverpool . There was no Coast to Coast 2 because we couldn't get the script right (sometimes , some things should just be left alone ) and it isn't out on DVD because Motown's licensing costs were too prohibitive for the BBC-they couldn't afford to 'clear' the copyrights of all the tunes. Shame... I keep asking the BBC to repeat it ,and then we can all set our video's and Tivo's and Sky+'s ..

Depends on what they're repeating and how often. As other people have said, not everyone has access to iPlayer (either because they don't have internet access, or because their link isn't good enough to serve that kind of content), so repeats can benefit them.

But the quantity stated here is staggering. Given how much a TV licence costs, it seems a right rip-off to get such a large number of repeats.

and still nothing on.