well yes, commercial tv, as a whole, gets used more than the BBC does.
rather obviously, this is mostly explained by the simple fact that there is far more commercial tv than there is BBC tv.
as such, i'm still not sure what your point really is?
i certainly don't think the BBC are doing anyone a favour.
put simply, i think they get their heap of cash, and they make a heap of new, original, decent content, of which most people find something of interest.
remind me what the problem with any of this is again?
I haven't ignored any points. Not everything requires a reply.
Yes what? About what you'd expect or still a very high share.
I'd say it's about what I'd expect.
A strange bait and switch as I wasn't arguing the BBC not being popular. I was just stating that commercial TV is more popular.
So the argument is switched by you from the BBC being popular to BBC1 having the highest share and reach, and when it is pointed out that a general entertainment channel with a budget of a billion pounds should quite rightly be expected to produce sufficient programming to make it popular. Do you not think with the size and guaranteed budget of BBC1 it quite rightly should be the most popular channel?
You seem to think they are doing us a favour.
Now I'm confused? Haven't you previously stated that BBC1 is the most popular channel?
People obviously prefer watching commercial TV to the BBC. That doesn't mean I think the BBC is unpopular: it means I think commercial TV is more popular.
yes, and?
although if 2% gets a 25% share....
and 98% gets a 75% share....
....then clearly, proportionally speaking the 2% is more popular than the 98%.
if you are saying that commercial tv is more popular, could you say with any certainty that 75% or so, given the choice would choose the 200 channels on Sky over the BBC channels?
obviously, chinese, french, mexican, thai, italian, moroccan, etc cuisines when added together are more popular than indian food.
but i don't think anyone would be surprised enough by that to feel the need to point out to others that all food other than indian food was more popular than indian food on its own.
People obviously prefer watching commercial TV to the BBC. That doesn't mean I think the BBC is unpopular: it means I think commercial TV is more popular.
No, I think that interperatation is not necessarily correct.
The number of commercial channels fragments the audience.
Due to the fact that there are so many commercial channels that fragmentation leads to a situation where at any one time more people may be watching those commercial channels.
That doesn't automatically mean people prefer commercial TV.
It's why I pointed out to you the unfairness of comparing the performance of 9 BBC channels V the TOTALLED performance of 230+ channels.
If the BBC had 230 channels what would the situation be?
ah, sorry - i must have misunderstood how these discussion forum things worked.
Yeh reading comments and not feeling compelled to reply to everything, what a concept.
no really, i don't.
Yet you feel the need to come back on it all the time.
again, i think if we're talking about homes with Sky, its perfectly reasonable.
perhaps you could explain why you find this figure so surprising, or enlightening?
I don't. It's an established channel with long established shows which still have a captive audience and it has an extensive in depth local news network. And of course, without switching the argument but it does warrant a mention, it has a huge guaranteed budget. I'd expect a figure of about 30%.
i would have thought that, as there are 60m people, all with different interests and likes, and BBC1 and BBC2 can only be showing two programmes at any given time, its in no way surprising or enlightening to note that many people at any particular time are watching something else.
Not at any particular time though, that is again distorting the facts.
For the majority of time the are watching something else.
So collectively, 200+ channels are more popular than, what, 9 BBC channels (not sure how many BBC channels there are)? Isn't that what they call a bit of a "no-brainer"?
Yet more often than not, BBC1 will be chosen over any other individual commercial channel.....yet commercial TV as a whole is more popular than the BBC? What an odd stat to come up with... The question really begging here is.....so what?
....then clearly, proportionally speaking the 2% is more popular than the 98%.
OK, so now we're speaking proportionally.
if you are saying that commercial tv is more popular, could you say with any certainty that 75% or so, given the choice would choose the 200 channels on Sky over the BBC channels?
Couldn't say one way or the other with any certainty.
obviously, chinese, french, mexican, thai, italian, moroccan, etc cuisines when added together are more popular than indian food.
but i don't think anyone would be surprised enough by that to feel the need to point out to others that all food other than indian food was more popular than indian food on its own.
They would if in a discussion in a food forum someone tried to create an impression that most people ate Indian food for the majority of their meals.
Yeh reading comments and not feeling compelled to reply to everything, what a concept.
do you do that in real life to?
must be a barrel of laughs down the pub.
Yet you feel the need to come back on it all the time.
well, that's discussions for you. but your statistic certainly doesn't bother me in the slightest, on account of it being completely unremarkable.
I don't. It's an established channel with long established shows which still have a captive audience and it has an extensive in depth local news network. And of course, without switching the argument but it does warrant a mention, it has a huge guaranteed budget. I'd expect a figure of about 30%.
given that :
1. there are around, say, 20m + people with different interests and likes.
2. they have 200+ channels to choose from.
you would reasonably expect one single channel, at any given time, to be showing something of interest to 30% of that audience?
based on what exactly?
i can't help thinking if it was 30%, you'd say you expected a figure of 40%.
Not at any particular time though, that is again distorting the facts.
it is at any given time.
as in at any given time 25% will be watching the BBC, and 75% will not be watching the BBC.
is that not the case?
For the majority of time the are watching something else.
presumably that's simply because that's what happens when you add up all the individual particular times.
No, I think that interperatation is not necessarily correct.
The number of commercial channels fragments the audience.
Due to the fact that there are so many commercial channels that fragmentation leads to a situation where at any one time more people may be watching those commercial channels.
That doesn't automatically mean people prefer commercial TV.
It's why I pointed out to you the unfairness of comparing the performance of 9 BBC channels V the TOTALLED performance of 230+ channels.
If the BBC had 230 channels what would the situation be?
No idea. It's also unfair to compare those 9 channels and their budgets to the 200+ channels though is it not? How many of those channels have a budget even to match BBC News 24 for example?
Do we know what the BBC performance is in homes with only the 5 basic channels?
No idea. It's also unfair to compare those 9 channels and their budgets to the 200+ channels though is it not? How many of those channels have a budget even to match BBC News 24 for example?
Do we know what the BBC performance is in homes with only the 5 basic channels?
Well, this isn't necessarilly program budget, but SKYs revenue was about £5 billion in 2008.
Without checking, ITVs revenue was about 2 billion..
So thats already double the BBC revenue, so I would say the budget of the 230 odd channels far far exceeds the BBCs.
So not unfair in the slightest. Quite the contrary in fact.
I can try to find out more exact figures if you wish.
I will look into the analogue only homes, but do you realise that only accounts for less than 10% of homes with TVs and within 2 years will be zero.
It must be damned anooying in a pub where everyone feels a need for acknowledgement after each point they make.
well, that's discussions for you. but your statistic certainly doesn't bother me in the slightest, on account of it being completely unremarkable.
And yet here we are umpteen posts later. Considering you think it 'completely unremarkable' you've certainly taken great issue with it.
1. there are around, say, 20m + people with different interests and likes.
2. they have 200+ channels to choose from.
you would reasonably expect one single channel, at any given time, to be showing something of interest to 30% of that audience?
based on what exactly?
i can't help thinking if it was 30%, you'd say you expected a figure of 40%.
Based on the reasons I posted.
it is at any given time.
as in at any given time 25% will be watching the BBC, and 75% will not be watching the BBC.
is that not the case?
On average each person will spend 25% of their viewing time watching a BBC channel and 75% of their viewing time watching something else. That doesn't translate as 25% watching the BBC at any given time.
presumably that's simply because that's what happens when you add up all the individual particular times.
If you like. For whatever reason, they are choosing something other than the BBC for the vast majority of their viewing.
It must be damned anooying in a pub where everyone feels a need for acknowledgement after each point they make.
well, more like where conversations just dry up because people ignore what someone else has said, in the middle of a conversation.
And yet here we are umpteen posts later. Considering you think it 'completely unremarkable' you've certainly taken great issue with it.
i'm not taking issue with the statistic.
i'm just not sure why you seem to find it particularly enlightening.
Based on the reasons I posted.
they didn't seem particularly good reasons i didn't think.
they seemed a bit vague to be honest.
On average each person will spend 25% of their viewing time watching a BBC channel and 75% of their viewing time watching something else. That doesn't translate as 25% watching the BBC at any given time.
one is a direct result of the other.
if, on average, at any given time, 20% of the population tunes in to BBC1 or BBC2....
how much time, on average, will the average person spend watching BBC1 or BBC2?
If you like. For whatever reason, they are choosing something other than the BBC for the vast majority of their viewing.
again, given the sheer number of commercial channels, that's not remotely surprising.
for whatever reason, people are choosing food other than Indian food for the vast majority of their meals.
you're not so much 'making a point' as 'stating the bleeding obvious'.
So obvious you required an explanation
well, isn't that fair, unless you actually think comparing the performance of 9 channels with the performance of over 200 channels is reasonable?
So what is the point? That the 9 channels attract 30% of the viewing hours? That as you would say, is staing the obvious.
why not? surely it would be a no brainer, on account of 'commercial tv being more popular than BBC tv'?
If it's a no brainer why would you need to ask?
i can't imagine anyone doing that.
and if they did do that, i'd expect them to clarify what it was they actually meant.
and hope that someone else wouldn't continually call them on it after they had clarified what they meant.
Well if someone had a problem clarifying what they meant and reitterated the absurd claim even after it had been questioned, they should expect it to come back on them everytime the matter was raised. Especially if even after it was laid to rest they decided to dig it back up again like a bad breathed, flea ridden dog with a bone
It must be damned anooying in a pub where everyone feels a need for acknowledgement after each point they make.
And yet here we are umpteen posts later. Considering you think it 'completely unremarkable' you've certainly taken great issue with it.
Based on the reasons I posted.
On average each person will spend 25% of their viewing time watching a BBC channel and 75% of their viewing time watching something else. That doesn't translate as 25% watching the BBC at any given time.
If you like. For whatever reason, they are choosing something other than the BBC for the vast majority of their viewing.
And what point are you making?
The same as '25% of viewing is of BBC channels despite there being over 200 other channels'.
Comments
rather obviously, this is mostly explained by the simple fact that there is far more commercial tv than there is BBC tv.
as such, i'm still not sure what your point really is?
i certainly don't think the BBC are doing anyone a favour.
put simply, i think they get their heap of cash, and they make a heap of new, original, decent content, of which most people find something of interest.
remind me what the problem with any of this is again?
Iain
Now I'm confused? Haven't you previously stated that BBC1 is the most popular channel?
yes, and?
although if 2% gets a 25% share....
and 98% gets a 75% share....
....then clearly, proportionally speaking the 2% is more popular than the 98%.
if you are saying that commercial tv is more popular, could you say with any certainty that 75% or so, given the choice would choose the 200 channels on Sky over the BBC channels?
obviously, chinese, french, mexican, thai, italian, moroccan, etc cuisines when added together are more popular than indian food.
but i don't think anyone would be surprised enough by that to feel the need to point out to others that all food other than indian food was more popular than indian food on its own.
Iain
No, I think that interperatation is not necessarily correct.
The number of commercial channels fragments the audience.
Due to the fact that there are so many commercial channels that fragmentation leads to a situation where at any one time more people may be watching those commercial channels.
That doesn't automatically mean people prefer commercial TV.
It's why I pointed out to you the unfairness of comparing the performance of 9 BBC channels V the TOTALLED performance of 230+ channels.
If the BBC had 230 channels what would the situation be?
Yeh reading comments and not feeling compelled to reply to everything, what a concept.
Yet you feel the need to come back on it all the time.
I don't. It's an established channel with long established shows which still have a captive audience and it has an extensive in depth local news network. And of course, without switching the argument but it does warrant a mention, it has a huge guaranteed budget. I'd expect a figure of about 30%.
Not at any particular time though, that is again distorting the facts.
For the majority of time the are watching something else.
BBC1 is the most popular individual channel.
Commercial TV is more popular than the BBC.
Both statements are factually correct.
So collectively, 200+ channels are more popular than, what, 9 BBC channels (not sure how many BBC channels there are)? Isn't that what they call a bit of a "no-brainer"?
Yet more often than not, BBC1 will be chosen over any other individual commercial channel.....yet commercial TV as a whole is more popular than the BBC? What an odd stat to come up with...
..but don't tell the whole story and could be misleading.
better to say 230 commercial channels attract a larger audience at any one time than 9 bbc channels due to audience fragmentation.
Before you say it, being pedantic is what this forum is all about;)
And you asked me to explain my point which I did.
OK, so now we're speaking proportionally.
Couldn't say one way or the other with any certainty.
They would if in a discussion in a food forum someone tried to create an impression that most people ate Indian food for the majority of their meals.
do you do that in real life to?
must be a barrel of laughs down the pub.
well, that's discussions for you. but your statistic certainly doesn't bother me in the slightest, on account of it being completely unremarkable.
given that :
1. there are around, say, 20m + people with different interests and likes.
2. they have 200+ channels to choose from.
you would reasonably expect one single channel, at any given time, to be showing something of interest to 30% of that audience?
based on what exactly?
i can't help thinking if it was 30%, you'd say you expected a figure of 40%.
it is at any given time.
as in at any given time 25% will be watching the BBC, and 75% will not be watching the BBC.
is that not the case?
presumably that's simply because that's what happens when you add up all the individual particular times.
Iain
Bingo!
you're not so much 'making a point' as 'stating the bleeding obvious'.
well, isn't that fair, unless you actually think comparing the performance of 9 channels with the performance of over 200 channels is reasonable?
why not? surely it would be a no brainer, on account of 'commercial tv being more popular than BBC tv'?
i can't imagine anyone doing that.
and if they did do that, i'd expect them to clarify what it was they actually meant.
and hope that someone else wouldn't continually call them on it after they had clarified what they meant.
Iain
No idea. It's also unfair to compare those 9 channels and their budgets to the 200+ channels though is it not? How many of those channels have a budget even to match BBC News 24 for example?
Do we know what the BBC performance is in homes with only the 5 basic channels?
(p71)
Analogue terrestrial homes share
2006/07
BBC1 33.3%
BBC2 15.4%
ITV1 27.1%
C4 15.1%
five 8.4%
K
Well, this isn't necessarilly program budget, but SKYs revenue was about £5 billion in 2008.
Without checking, ITVs revenue was about 2 billion..
So thats already double the BBC revenue, so I would say the budget of the 230 odd channels far far exceeds the BBCs.
So not unfair in the slightest. Quite the contrary in fact.
I can try to find out more exact figures if you wish.
I will look into the analogue only homes, but do you realise that only accounts for less than 10% of homes with TVs and within 2 years will be zero.
It must be damned anooying in a pub where everyone feels a need for acknowledgement after each point they make.
And yet here we are umpteen posts later. Considering you think it 'completely unremarkable' you've certainly taken great issue with it.
Based on the reasons I posted.
On average each person will spend 25% of their viewing time watching a BBC channel and 75% of their viewing time watching something else. That doesn't translate as 25% watching the BBC at any given time.
If you like. For whatever reason, they are choosing something other than the BBC for the vast majority of their viewing.
Kenny, you never cease to amaze by popping up with accurate stats at a moments notice!
K
I wonder what commercial TV's audience percentage would be if we removed ITV's fugures?
well, more like where conversations just dry up because people ignore what someone else has said, in the middle of a conversation.
i'm not taking issue with the statistic.
i'm just not sure why you seem to find it particularly enlightening.
they didn't seem particularly good reasons i didn't think.
they seemed a bit vague to be honest.
one is a direct result of the other.
if, on average, at any given time, 20% of the population tunes in to BBC1 or BBC2....
how much time, on average, will the average person spend watching BBC1 or BBC2?
again, given the sheer number of commercial channels, that's not remotely surprising.
for whatever reason, people are choosing food other than Indian food for the vast majority of their meals.
does that surprise you?
or is it just bleeding obvious?
Iain
I could see the merit in splitting it three ways, for the purpose of analysing their relative funding vs share :
BBC
FTA commercial
Subscription commercial
K
So obvious you required an explanation
So what is the point? That the 9 channels attract 30% of the viewing hours? That as you would say, is staing the obvious.
If it's a no brainer why would you need to ask?
Well if someone had a problem clarifying what they meant and reitterated the absurd claim even after it had been questioned, they should expect it to come back on them everytime the matter was raised. Especially if even after it was laid to rest they decided to dig it back up again like a bad breathed, flea ridden dog with a bone
OK, thanks for those.
That could be interesting, I assume your calcs will be finished already?;)
And what point are you making?
The same as '25% of viewing is of BBC channels despite there being over 200 other channels'.
Half full or half empty?
Or 1/4 full or 3/4 empty?