BBC Three beats it, by the virtue of it only broadcasting from 7pm to 4am, yet BARB averages out the viewer share over 24 hours. So, whilst the raw figure shows its the most popular channel it in fact, isn't.
No, BBC3 does not beat it.
I appreciate that BBC3 is only on for certain hours.
IN TOTAL the average person spends more time watching ITV2 than BBC3.
The point you may be trying to make is that WHILST ON AIR BBC3 has more viewers than ITV2 but even this point is almost definitely NOT the case.
Using July 2010 figures:
- The average person watched BBC3 for 22 minutes per week
- The average person watched ITV2 (inc +1) for 40 minutes per week
Now BARB does NOT provide a breakdown. However bearing in mind normal viewing patterns it is actually quite likely that more than 22 minutes out of ITV2's 40 minutes were between 7pm and 4am.
Viewing share average calculation:
Note that the calculation is the share of total viewing and NOT an "average of averages"
eg if a channel has a share of 0% for 12 hours and 10% for 12 hours its overall share is NOT 5%.
I appreciate that BBC3 is only on for certain hours.
IN TOTAL the average person spends more time watching ITV2 than BBC3.
The point you may be trying to make is that WHILST ON AIR BBC3 has more viewers than ITV2 but even this point is almost definitely NOT the case.
Using July 2010 figures:
- The average person watched BBC3 for 22 minutes per week
- The average person watched ITV2 (inc +1) for 40 minutes per week
Now BARB does NOT provide a breakdown. However bearing in mind normal viewing patterns it is actually quite likely that more than 22 minutes out of ITV2's 40 minutes were between 7pm and 4am.
Viewing share average calculation:
Note that the calculation is the share of total viewing and NOT an "average of averages"
eg if a channel has a share of 0% for 12 hours and 10% for 12 hours its overall share is NOT 5%.
In which case (bit in bold), CBeebies probably beats it!
I cant see the shareholders being too happy with him going on national radio, saying how rubbish ITV is. Not unless he has given them a secert turn around plan to them, which we have not seen.
I just cant see ITV 2, 3 & 4 HD being enough.
Meanwhile the vast majorailty of its programs are not something I think worthy of the Pay Wall, and those programs which do have viewers, are the type of programs that work best on free to air TV, be it Corrie or X-Factor.
I cant see the shareholders being too happy with him going on national radio, saying how rubbish ITV is. Not unless he has given them a secert turn around plan to them, which we have not seen.
I just cant see ITV 2, 3 & 4 HD being enough.
Meanwhile the vast majorailty of its programs are not something I think worthy of the Pay Wall, and those programs which do have viewers, are the type of programs that work best on free to air TV, be it Corrie or X-Factor.
I'm still expecting that by his time next year, ITV2/3/4 will be pay (or announced to be) along with their HD versions.
I've been saying it for a year or two now, so one day it'll happen!!
I mistakenly thought this thread was about ITV should have known the FM's with an axe to grind about BBC wouldn't be able to help themselves :rolleyes:
The point is Mr Crozier thinks there is a lot to fix on ITV and the valid points made about ITV output reinforce that stance. The fact is that regardless of personal opinions ITV output consists predominately of so called celebrities promoting themselves, if ITV are serious about "fixing" things then they need to re-asses their programming policy .
We all know that ITV are not alone on using so called celebrities in their programmes but the point is they made the policy decision many years ago to put all their eggs in one basket so to speak, and now they are paying the price. Yes they may appeal some of the younger audience for now but the viewing audience are very fickle and whilst when they started down this route it may have worked it doesn't seem to any more but they dont have anything decent to pull out of the bag so audience numbers will continue to fall. They have alienated a large number of people who used to watch ITV but now hardly ever tune in to the station and have gone elsewhere, Sky, Virgin, BBC wherever for their entertainment
A typical attitude of many of those who watch BBC1s dire output. I watch "Celebrity Masterchef" so it must be a quality programme, while chavs watch "Celebrity Juice" and that means it's an awful show poorly made
I have finally realised that BBC1s viewers think they are watching quality programming simply because they are watching it.
He missed a chance to fix ITV 2, when Jordan left for the Sky owned Living. Instead ITV 2 paniced and comissioned a Jedwood TV sereis, he really should have taken that chance to improve the channel.
derek500 I agree with that, Archie is right not putting ITV 1 behind the Pay Wall, but it maybe the right thing for ITV 2, 3 & 4. If anything he should buy into TUTV, and put them on that. It solves many problems like "Corrie isnt worth paying for on the ITV Player, becuase there are 15 repeats on the free to air ITV 2 & ITV 2+1"
A typical attitude of many of those who watch BBC1s dire output. I watch "Celebrity Masterchef" so it must be a quality programme, while chavs watch "Celebrity Juice" and that means it's an awful show poorly made
I have finally realised that BBC1s viewers think they are watching quality programming simply because they are watching it.
Erm, you said "BBC", then changed it to "BBC1" when challenged!!!!
Come on, BBC 2,3,4 and all the radio please, that will give us a more representative sample!
I mistakenly thought this thread was about ITV should have known the FM's with an axe to grind about BBC wouldn't be able to help themselves :rolleyes:
Right from the off it was not about what Crozier said and was turned into an attack on ITV programmes:
"...Your channels stand for low rent cheap throw away tat about flavour of the month celebrities. No drama, no interesting programming, just celebrity pandering, paying hundreds of thousands to people who are famous for no reason than being famous."
Which rant I don't see you being critical off.
And this is a common theme on here, rather than argue a position just an accusation of being "anti-BBC"
So I await you condemnation of the OP for not discussing what Adam Crozier actually said.
It was the biggest digital channel last year, but it only gets 2-3 pc of the audience and is starting to fall behind BBC Three, and certainly it isn't an ITV version of BBC Two, more like HEAT Magazine TV. Reality shows deemed too awful for the main channel, endless soap repeats, re runs of American people shows from the nineties and the same couple of films every week, a really great channel then.
Let's hope they're not the same people who thought tens of thousands of fans would pay to watch football clubs who got an average gate of 2-3,000. That was a financial disaster called ITV Digital:mad:
I seem to remember that some of the matches had more people in the ground watching the match than viewers at home.
This ITV 2 vs BBC 3 debate is pointless, for one I dont watch ITV 2, for another BBC 3 programs are far superior to those on ITV 2, even if ITV 2 has set as bar so low even Hermes could not get under it.
Right from the off it was not about what Crozier said and was turned into an attack on ITV programmes:
"...Your channels stand for low rent cheap throw away tat about flavour of the month celebrities. No drama, no interesting programming, just celebrity pandering, paying hundreds of thousands to people who are famous for no reason than being famous."
Which rant I don't see you being critical off.
And this is a common theme on here, rather than argue a position just an accusation of being "anti-BBC"
So I await you condemnation of the OP for not discussing what Adam Crozier actually said.
OK as reported, Adam Crozier said
"ITV has great programmes and a great brand, the key is rebalancing the business
So where are these great programmes as the OP listed some of what ITV view as their successes I think it is safe to assume he thinks they are the ones Mr Crozier refers to as "great" programmes. It doesnt take much intelligence to work out that the point is if Mr Crozier is serious about fixing ITV then he needs to address the dire programming policy the company appears to have.
The "attack" as you call it on ITV programmes is because Mr Crozier himself said
ITV had failed to keep up with the changes in the "media landscape
A few years ago the "celebrity" dross ITV churns out was attracting big audiences but times have moved on and audience numbers are dropping.
The discussion started by the OP was about ITV programmes and the fact that the man in charge thinks there is a lot needing fixing it was not about any other channels programming but as usual those with their own agendas cant help themselves from resorting to "BBC bashing" . Had you taken the time to read the thread properly you would have seen a number of posts, including by me, that all channels including the BBC use this cheap throwaway broadcasting.
Please do not accuse me of not arguing a point without first of all acquainting yourself of the facts of what I have actually said.
I was not the one who brought the BBC into a thread about ITV, the axe grinders on here did that all by themselves. I did point out that this discussion was allegedly about ITV's boss speaking on Radio 4 about the problems they were having, as ITV is a broadcasting company in the business of making/commissioning/broadcasting TV programmes to call into question whether it is in fact the quality and type of programming they choose to broadcast is at the root of their problems does not seem to be irrelevant.
in a nutshell - ITV has itself and previous legacy management to blame!
in length.... here's my argument to support this:
they signed a MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT with Katie Price to pretty much turn 40% of ITV2's programming into some shit peddling her and her useless existence - Katie Price is sucking money that ITV don't have, and happily pissing it up the wall with her continued series of "Katie's day at the shops"
now... ITV3 has some decent programming, but ITV4 seems like a low budget version of the daytime schedules for the movie channels that appear AFTER the Sky movie channels in the EPG listings - only problem is, ITV4 seems to peddle this crap at all hours, with it's entire schedule looking like an ITV version of Dave, only with less interesting programming
ITV need to cut their losses - immediately kill ITV4, bin the "reality" extra programmes from ITV2 and mix some of the higher rated ITV3 programming into the ITV2 schedule, and turn ITV3 into their swing-space - launch some new stuff on ITV3 if you want, but turn it into a useful channel that's making you money, but without this constant focus on celebrity's lives - that's what Hello! and OK! are there for, for the lonely people who need to know when Katie Price last took a dump!
ITV have signed huge contracts recently with the likes of Bleakley, Chiles and others, and yet they seem to view the problem as "We haven't got enough viewers on all our channels, let's add another!"
ITV could have used some of this budget, killed ITV4 off and turned ITV3 into their "premier" channel - ITV movies/sport and new programming, only available as a subscription extra on the broadcast platforms like Sky and Virgin and IPTV
however.... that may be some common sense from someone who isn't caught up with the "celebrity" focused bubble that these media types are interested in, because that's what brings in "da kidz" - why haven't they used one of their successful stars Diversity and created a programme teaching kids all about street dancing, and having Diversity as their poster campaign for teaching today's bored youth that this kind of talent is available, if they apply themselves to learning/teaching themselves how to do it?
or is that the kind of public service broadcasting that the BBC should be doing, and using a recognised ITV home grown talent against the people who made them, and possibly at the detriment of ITV's chance to exploit something that they started??
do ITV have ANY business sense whatsoever???? clearly not....
ihowever.... that may be some common sense from someone who isn't caught up with the "celebrity" focused bubble that these media types are interested in, because that's what brings in "da kidz" - why haven't they used one of their successful stars Diversity and created a programme teaching kids all about street dancing, and having Diversity as their poster campaign for teaching today's bored youth that this kind of talent is available, if they apply themselves to learning/teaching themselves how to do it?
or is that the kind of public service broadcasting that the BBC should be doing, and using a recognised ITV home grown talent against the people who made them, and possibly at the detriment of ITV's chance to exploit something that they started??
to what end? fine it might make a good 30 minute show on CITV, but is the nation really better off with thousands of Diversity wannabes, who end up doing nothing with that knowledge.
One of two things will happen
1) the kids get ASBOs for daring to hang around of a group or more than 3
2) the gang gets bored of not getting taken seriously for there 10 a penny dance moves, and trys to get respcet other ways.
And turning some of the highest rated FTA channels to PPV makes some sort of sense Mr Crozier? I just do not get it. They have been there before, surely the prospect of big(ger) audiences (ad income) wins over minimal subs intake.
For the record I enjoy ITV4 (Minder, Sweeney, Randall & Hopkirk, The Saint etc. plus sports coverage) but I would not PPV for it.
And turning some of the highest rated FTA channels to PPV makes some sort of sense Mr Crozier? I just do not get it. They have been there before, surely the prospect of big(ger) audiences (ad income) wins over minimal subs intake.
As an example, an FTA channel couldn't generate enough advertising income over 115 matches to pay what Sky do for the Premier League, for relatively small audiences.
Making ITV2/3/4 pay is a logical move to strengthen ITV1, which is Crozier's aim.
A lot of viewers from Freeview homes will more than likely watch more ITV1, as three popular channels have left their platform.
Also, I believe ITV1 traditionally charges more for advertising per viewer than its multichannels.
And turning some of the highest rated FTA channels to PPV makes some sort of sense Mr Crozier? I just do not get it. They have been there before, surely the prospect of big(ger) audiences (ad income) wins over minimal subs intake.
For the record I enjoy ITV4 (Minder, Sweeney, Randall & Hopkirk, The Saint etc. plus sports coverage) but I would not PPV for it.
I think that ITV believes going PPV will fill the "gap" from reduced advertising although they have made a small profit this year as opposed to the loss they made last year. Unfortunately unless they do something drastic about their programming they will shoot themselves firmly in the foot.
Looking at those figures Sky sports seems to get around 1% of the viewers and the nearly all the other PPV channels are lucky to get less than 0.5%.
Sky can sustain that because it not only owns its own stations but controls the delivery as well ITV would not only lose advertising revenue but I very much doubt with the present programming would attract that many people prepared to pay for their output.
Like any broadcaster it comes down to programming the days when people only had the TV for entertainment are long gone with streaming available on the internet and VOD we the viewers have more choice and broadcasters have to work that bit harder for us to spend time watching their channel. ITV have I think got very lazy over the last few years.
Sky can sustain that because it not only owns its own stations but controls the delivery as well ITV would not only lose advertising revenue but I very much doubt with the present programming would attract that many people prepared to pay for their output.
Don't forget if ITV2/3/4 go behind a paywall, over half the country will continue to receive them without even realising.
And bundled with all the other pay channels will no doubt bring some more subscribers to Sky/Virgin. No one is going to be asked to pay for just ITV2/3/4.
Don't forget if ITV2/3/4 go behind a paywall, over half the country will continue to receive them without even realising.
And bundled with all the other pay channels will no doubt bring some more subscribers to Sky/Virgin. No one is going to be asked to pay for just ITV2/3/4.
BTW, they are not talking PPV but subscription.
That'll be the same "over half the country" that get Living, Bravo, Dave etc. with no obvious advantage to Living, Bravo, Dave etc.'s status as "leading digital channels" or financial well-being. Or do you know something different?
Sure Living, Bravo, Dave etc. have never had the audience reach that ITV2-4 have and their regular lower audience figures may mean that the extra income from subs is of greater significance to them.
I cannot believe that ITV(2-4) would see themselves in the same bracket. They are regularly placed in the "leading digital channels" for audience figures and going behind a paywall, as you say, would only add value or prestige to Sky/Virgin sub packages at a loss of viewers for the ITV2-4 channels. It doesn't make sense to me.
Comments
No, BBC3 does not beat it.
I appreciate that BBC3 is only on for certain hours.
IN TOTAL the average person spends more time watching ITV2 than BBC3.
The point you may be trying to make is that WHILST ON AIR BBC3 has more viewers than ITV2 but even this point is almost definitely NOT the case.
Using July 2010 figures:
- The average person watched BBC3 for 22 minutes per week
- The average person watched ITV2 (inc +1) for 40 minutes per week
Now BARB does NOT provide a breakdown. However bearing in mind normal viewing patterns it is actually quite likely that more than 22 minutes out of ITV2's 40 minutes were between 7pm and 4am.
Viewing share average calculation:
Note that the calculation is the share of total viewing and NOT an "average of averages"
eg if a channel has a share of 0% for 12 hours and 10% for 12 hours its overall share is NOT 5%.
K
Good point
Whilst on air
But bearing in mind the original point was (at least partially) about earning revenue it might not be that relevant
Benidorm
UEFA Champions League Football
Tour De France
The rest of their programming is dross.
They used to produce some quality programmes but that was a long time ago.
Crozier has his work cut out if he things people will pay extra for tat TV..
I just cant see ITV 2, 3 & 4 HD being enough.
Meanwhile the vast majorailty of its programs are not something I think worthy of the Pay Wall, and those programs which do have viewers, are the type of programs that work best on free to air TV, be it Corrie or X-Factor.
I'm still expecting that by his time next year, ITV2/3/4 will be pay (or announced to be) along with their HD versions.
I've been saying it for a year or two now, so one day it'll happen!!
The point is Mr Crozier thinks there is a lot to fix on ITV and the valid points made about ITV output reinforce that stance. The fact is that regardless of personal opinions ITV output consists predominately of so called celebrities promoting themselves, if ITV are serious about "fixing" things then they need to re-asses their programming policy .
We all know that ITV are not alone on using so called celebrities in their programmes but the point is they made the policy decision many years ago to put all their eggs in one basket so to speak, and now they are paying the price. Yes they may appeal some of the younger audience for now but the viewing audience are very fickle and whilst when they started down this route it may have worked it doesn't seem to any more but they dont have anything decent to pull out of the bag so audience numbers will continue to fall. They have alienated a large number of people who used to watch ITV but now hardly ever tune in to the station and have gone elsewhere, Sky, Virgin, BBC wherever for their entertainment
I have finally realised that BBC1s viewers think they are watching quality programming simply because they are watching it.
derek500 I agree with that, Archie is right not putting ITV 1 behind the Pay Wall, but it maybe the right thing for ITV 2, 3 & 4. If anything he should buy into TUTV, and put them on that. It solves many problems like "Corrie isnt worth paying for on the ITV Player, becuase there are 15 repeats on the free to air ITV 2 & ITV 2+1"
Erm, you said "BBC", then changed it to "BBC1" when challenged!!!!
Come on, BBC 2,3,4 and all the radio please, that will give us a more representative sample!
Right from the off it was not about what Crozier said and was turned into an attack on ITV programmes:
"...Your channels stand for low rent cheap throw away tat about flavour of the month celebrities. No drama, no interesting programming, just celebrity pandering, paying hundreds of thousands to people who are famous for no reason than being famous."
Which rant I don't see you being critical off.
And this is a common theme on here, rather than argue a position just an accusation of being "anti-BBC"
So I await you condemnation of the OP for not discussing what Adam Crozier actually said.
It was the biggest digital channel last year, but it only gets 2-3 pc of the audience and is starting to fall behind BBC Three, and certainly it isn't an ITV version of BBC Two, more like HEAT Magazine TV. Reality shows deemed too awful for the main channel, endless soap repeats, re runs of American people shows from the nineties and the same couple of films every week, a really great channel then.
I seem to remember that some of the matches had more people in the ground watching the match than viewers at home.
OK as reported, Adam Crozier said
So where are these great programmes as the OP listed some of what ITV view as their successes I think it is safe to assume he thinks they are the ones Mr Crozier refers to as "great" programmes. It doesnt take much intelligence to work out that the point is if Mr Crozier is serious about fixing ITV then he needs to address the dire programming policy the company appears to have.
The "attack" as you call it on ITV programmes is because Mr Crozier himself said A few years ago the "celebrity" dross ITV churns out was attracting big audiences but times have moved on and audience numbers are dropping.
The discussion started by the OP was about ITV programmes and the fact that the man in charge thinks there is a lot needing fixing it was not about any other channels programming but as usual those with their own agendas cant help themselves from resorting to "BBC bashing" . Had you taken the time to read the thread properly you would have seen a number of posts, including by me, that all channels including the BBC use this cheap throwaway broadcasting.
Please do not accuse me of not arguing a point without first of all acquainting yourself of the facts of what I have actually said.
I was not the one who brought the BBC into a thread about ITV, the axe grinders on here did that all by themselves. I did point out that this discussion was allegedly about ITV's boss speaking on Radio 4 about the problems they were having, as ITV is a broadcasting company in the business of making/commissioning/broadcasting TV programmes to call into question whether it is in fact the quality and type of programming they choose to broadcast is at the root of their problems does not seem to be irrelevant.
in length.... here's my argument to support this:
they signed a MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT with Katie Price to pretty much turn 40% of ITV2's programming into some shit peddling her and her useless existence - Katie Price is sucking money that ITV don't have, and happily pissing it up the wall with her continued series of "Katie's day at the shops"
now... ITV3 has some decent programming, but ITV4 seems like a low budget version of the daytime schedules for the movie channels that appear AFTER the Sky movie channels in the EPG listings - only problem is, ITV4 seems to peddle this crap at all hours, with it's entire schedule looking like an ITV version of Dave, only with less interesting programming
ITV need to cut their losses - immediately kill ITV4, bin the "reality" extra programmes from ITV2 and mix some of the higher rated ITV3 programming into the ITV2 schedule, and turn ITV3 into their swing-space - launch some new stuff on ITV3 if you want, but turn it into a useful channel that's making you money, but without this constant focus on celebrity's lives - that's what Hello! and OK! are there for, for the lonely people who need to know when Katie Price last took a dump!
ITV have signed huge contracts recently with the likes of Bleakley, Chiles and others, and yet they seem to view the problem as "We haven't got enough viewers on all our channels, let's add another!"
ITV could have used some of this budget, killed ITV4 off and turned ITV3 into their "premier" channel - ITV movies/sport and new programming, only available as a subscription extra on the broadcast platforms like Sky and Virgin and IPTV
however.... that may be some common sense from someone who isn't caught up with the "celebrity" focused bubble that these media types are interested in, because that's what brings in "da kidz" - why haven't they used one of their successful stars Diversity and created a programme teaching kids all about street dancing, and having Diversity as their poster campaign for teaching today's bored youth that this kind of talent is available, if they apply themselves to learning/teaching themselves how to do it?
or is that the kind of public service broadcasting that the BBC should be doing, and using a recognised ITV home grown talent against the people who made them, and possibly at the detriment of ITV's chance to exploit something that they started??
do ITV have ANY business sense whatsoever???? clearly not....
One of two things will happen
1) the kids get ASBOs for daring to hang around of a group or more than 3
2) the gang gets bored of not getting taken seriously for there 10 a penny dance moves, and trys to get respcet other ways.
quite,,,he cannot kick a ball,has never posted a letter or made a tv programme...and that is everthing wrong about todays management recruitment
And turning some of the highest rated FTA channels to PPV makes some sort of sense Mr Crozier? I just do not get it. They have been there before, surely the prospect of big(ger) audiences (ad income) wins over minimal subs intake.
For the record I enjoy ITV4 (Minder, Sweeney, Randall & Hopkirk, The Saint etc. plus sports coverage) but I would not PPV for it.
As an example, an FTA channel couldn't generate enough advertising income over 115 matches to pay what Sky do for the Premier League, for relatively small audiences.
Making ITV2/3/4 pay is a logical move to strengthen ITV1, which is Crozier's aim.
A lot of viewers from Freeview homes will more than likely watch more ITV1, as three popular channels have left their platform.
Also, I believe ITV1 traditionally charges more for advertising per viewer than its multichannels.
I think that ITV believes going PPV will fill the "gap" from reduced advertising although they have made a small profit this year as opposed to the loss they made last year. Unfortunately unless they do something drastic about their programming they will shoot themselves firmly in the foot.
Looking at those figures Sky sports seems to get around 1% of the viewers and the nearly all the other PPV channels are lucky to get less than 0.5%.
Sky can sustain that because it not only owns its own stations but controls the delivery as well ITV would not only lose advertising revenue but I very much doubt with the present programming would attract that many people prepared to pay for their output.
Like any broadcaster it comes down to programming the days when people only had the TV for entertainment are long gone with streaming available on the internet and VOD we the viewers have more choice and broadcasters have to work that bit harder for us to spend time watching their channel. ITV have I think got very lazy over the last few years.
Don't forget if ITV2/3/4 go behind a paywall, over half the country will continue to receive them without even realising.
And bundled with all the other pay channels will no doubt bring some more subscribers to Sky/Virgin. No one is going to be asked to pay for just ITV2/3/4.
BTW, they are not talking PPV but subscription.
That'll be the same "over half the country" that get Living, Bravo, Dave etc. with no obvious advantage to Living, Bravo, Dave etc.'s status as "leading digital channels" or financial well-being. Or do you know something different?
Sure Living, Bravo, Dave etc. have never had the audience reach that ITV2-4 have and their regular lower audience figures may mean that the extra income from subs is of greater significance to them.
I cannot believe that ITV(2-4) would see themselves in the same bracket. They are regularly placed in the "leading digital channels" for audience figures and going behind a paywall, as you say, would only add value or prestige to Sky/Virgin sub packages at a loss of viewers for the ITV2-4 channels. It doesn't make sense to me.
K