It lasted about five times as long as the ITV Food website we had a hand in, which was based on very similar, almost identical aims — even if the means to monetize it was probably responsible for its downfall.
From a digital perspective I think the BBC are missing a trick here in terms of ensuring the use of this sort of information in a semantic, non-linear world, which for the benefit of the things you point out, they should be pioneering.
What you don’t mention however is the whether Good Food absorbing some of the content makes sense. If BBCWW sites can find a way to co-exist with publicly available content that would make sense. After all the BBC already monetises its own content for non-UK audiences. And, even though I know BBC and BBCWW are different there’s little value in having two very similar propositions under two similar brands — but even if it were the case they could exist on the same platform and deliver economy through this.
Where I’d like to see the BBC save money is where it doubles up on human effort on its video and audio output. The amount of events which are covered simultaneously by TV and radio, both locally, nationally and globally is wasteful. True, some of this is about catering to different audiences, but there are opportunities to make it more efficient — and at the heart of that is how content is managed digitally.