That could be interesting, I assume your calcs will be finished already?;)
It's the "subscription commercial" that's tricky. They get some advertising income but I've no idea how much (Sky quoted somewhere in the region of £400m in the past but it was unclear whether that was just for the "Sky" channels or all the subscription ones).
i simply wondered why it was you were stating the obvious, in what appeared to be an insinuation that this somehow meant the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be.
So what is the point? That the 9 channels attract 30% of the viewing hours? That as you would say, is staing the obvious.
it didn't appear obvious to posters who were suggesting that the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be, on account of not being as popular as commercial tv yaddy yaddy,
If it's a no brainer why would you need to ask?
it was a trick question.
if you're so very confident that commercial television is more popular than BBC tv, you should have been fairly confidently able to say that yes, most people given that choice would prefer those 200 commercial channels.
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
i'm not sure anyone did have a problem clarifying what they meant.
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.
OK. So out of those 230+ channels if you totalled up their budgets and averaged it out, do you think the budgets would be comparable?
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.
The KennyT figures should suffice, save doing any digging, unless you have them handy.
It looks about a 50/50 split so would it be fair to assume an extrapulation of simliar figures if the BBC had 230 channels as well?
OK. So out of those 230+ channels if you totalled up their budgets and averaged it out, do you think the budgets would be comparable?
The KennyT figures should suffice, save doing any digging, unless you have them handy.
It looks about a 50/50 split so would it be fair to assume an extrapulation of simliar figures if the BBC had 230 channels as well?
No, I don't have the figures, just pointing out your assertion the BBC has a huge advantage due to it's budget "aint necessarily so"
It's the "subscription commercial" that's tricky. They get some advertising income but I've no idea how much (Sky quoted somewhere in the region of £400m in the past but it was unclear whether that was just for the "Sky" channels or all the subscription ones).
K
Ofcom have some numbers:
UK television industry 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total TV industry revenue (£bn) 9.2 10.0 10.5 10.6 11.1 11.2
% revenue from public funds 26% 24% 25% 25% 25% 24%
% revenue from advertising 34% 35% 35% 33% 32% 31%
% revenue from subscriptions 35% 34% 35% 36% 37% 39%
Which, interestingly, leaves a 5-6% gap funded by other means (DVD and foreign sales?)
i simply wondered why it was you were stating the obvious, in what appeared to be an insinuation that this somehow meant the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be.
So you totally ignored this then
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.
it didn't appear obvious to posters who were suggesting that the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be, on account of not being as popular as commercial tv yaddy yaddy,
I must've missed those posts. Who suggested the BBC wasn't doing well?
it was a trick question.
if you're so very confident that commercial television is more popular than BBC tv, you should have been fairly confidently able to say that yes, most people given that choice would prefer those 200 commercial channels.
Not with any certainty, which was stipulated in the question.
I am 100% confident commercial TV is more popular than BBC though. And I don't have a problem with that.
i'm not sure anyone did have a problem clarifying what they meant.
The same as '25% of viewing is of BBC channels despite there being over 200 other channels'.
Not all households have 200 channels.
Secondly, the fact there are a plethora of alternatives and with people spending 75% of their viewing on non-BBC channels, the licence fee is getting more meaningless by the day.
Secondly, the fact there are a plethora of alternatives and with people spending 75% of their viewing on non-BBC channels, the licence fee is getting more meaningless by the day.
What like your meaningless thread about the BBC being deceived by a supplier?
What like your meaningless thread about the BBC being deceived by a supplier?
No, meaningless like your trolling posts, where you ignore the debate and simply bait people about other threads or whatever takes your fancy on a particular day.
Secondly, the fact there are a plethora of alternatives and with people spending 75% of their viewing on non-BBC channels, the licence fee is getting more meaningless by the day.
would you care to point out to be a TV channel of the same quality of BBC 1? other than ITV 1 (as that channel is a joke)
No, meaningless like your trolling posts, where you ignore the debate and simply bait people about other threads or whatever takes your fancy on a particular day.
Considering the number of people that have accused you of trolling behviour today and your avoidance of taking part in the debate on a thread that you created, I would be careful.
And apart from replying to your posts, precisely where do I ignore debate and bait people?
...although I can think of one particular poster who which I ahve had several debates with, on the same range of issues.
We go through the issues to their conclusion several times and then he pops back up with the same points in another thread.
SKY and freeview both have 9. something million homes and dont forget virgin.... 6 million I think?????
VM have less than 5m. The freeview homes will have between 20 and 50 odd channels. (The relay stations only carry about 20 odd channels) I don't think the majority of 200+ channels
VM have less than 5m. The freeview homes will have between 20 and 50 odd channels. (The relay stations only carry about 20 odd channels) I don't think the majority of 200+ channels
I thought someone the other day said Virgin had 230?
Could be duff info. Need to check.
So, 9+5=14 not including freesat or non major epg sat.
Thats more than 50% of the households isn't it. So it does sound like a majority to me.
How many people are on relays?
Plus the 240 channels are the ones listed on BARB, I think there are actually more.
I think Iain said about 300!
We need the man that knows.....KennyT?
Also, considering that people could choose to have Sky if they wanted to (financial considerations aside) then is it so relevant to say that not everyone has access to 200+ channels?
They could choose to if they wanted to.
Isn't that relevant when we are talking about popularity?
No, meaningless like your trolling posts, where you ignore the debate and simply bait people about other threads or whatever takes your fancy on a particular day.
Pot kettle black, Mr. Motion. There are several points awaiting your consideration in this thread. If you're so adverse to baiting and ignoring the debate, you'll be making your way over pronto to respond to everyone elses rebuttals of your opinions. Again though, I won't be holding my breath.
I thought someone the other day said Virgin had 230?
Could be duff info. Need to check.
So, 9+5=14 not including freesat or non major epg sat.
Thats more than 50% of the households isn't it. So it does sound like a majority to me.
How many people are on relays?
Plus the 240 channels are the ones listed on BARB, I think there are actually more.
I think Iain said about 300!
We need the man that knows.....KennyT?
More accurate figures would give a better picture. We don't know how many of the 9m Sky subs have 200+ channels, many of the sports subs may only take a single mix. VM have 4.7m subs, but I thought only about 3m of those on their TV deals - not 100% on that either.
There are hundreds of relays so there must be a significant number only able to get the very basic freeview. Wenvoe transmitter has 75 relays alone.
Comments
It's the "subscription commercial" that's tricky. They get some advertising income but I've no idea how much (Sky quoted somewhere in the region of £400m in the past but it was unclear whether that was just for the "Sky" channels or all the subscription ones).
K
nope - i didn't require an explanation.
i simply wondered why it was you were stating the obvious, in what appeared to be an insinuation that this somehow meant the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be.
it didn't appear obvious to posters who were suggesting that the BBC wasn't doing as well as it should be, on account of not being as popular as commercial tv yaddy yaddy,
it was a trick question.
if you're so very confident that commercial television is more popular than BBC tv, you should have been fairly confidently able to say that yes, most people given that choice would prefer those 200 commercial channels.
i'm not sure anyone did have a problem clarifying what they meant.
Iain
OK. So out of those 230+ channels if you totalled up their budgets and averaged it out, do you think the budgets would be comparable?
The KennyT figures should suffice, save doing any digging, unless you have them handy.
It looks about a 50/50 split so would it be fair to assume an extrapulation of simliar figures if the BBC had 230 channels as well?
No, I don't have the figures, just pointing out your assertion the BBC has a huge advantage due to it's budget "aint necessarily so"
so out of those 230+ channels if you totalled up their audience and averaged it out, do you think those audiences would be comparable to the BBC's?
Iain
Oh, i was just curious, seeing as ITV is the second most popular channel.
:sleep:
nice one !:D
i see where you're coming from.
IIRC, a rough breakdown is :
25% viewing - BBC1/BBC2
25% - ITV, c4 and five
50% - digital channels.
the point being that the 200 odd digital channels only account for around a 50% share, rather than 75% share.
which is relevant if we're discussing the share that digital channels that are available in homes with Sky are getting compared to the BBC.
Iain
Which, interestingly, leaves a 5-6% gap funded by other means (DVD and foreign sales?)
K
OK
So you totally ignored this then
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.
I must've missed those posts. Who suggested the BBC wasn't doing well?
Not with any certainty, which was stipulated in the question.
I am 100% confident commercial TV is more popular than BBC though. And I don't have a problem with that.
OK
I think 75% of the time people would be watching those channels.
Are those figures for Sky only homes or digital homes?
covers both AFAIK. BARB say "multichannel"
So the majority of those homes will have somewhere between 20 and 50 channels.
Secondly, the fact there are a plethora of alternatives and with people spending 75% of their viewing on non-BBC channels, the licence fee is getting more meaningless by the day.
No.
SKY and freeview both have 9. something million homes and dont forget virgin.... 6 million I think?????
Oh yes and freesat and other non major epg sat users.
What like your meaningless thread about the BBC being deceived by a supplier?
Considering the number of people that have accused you of trolling behviour today and your avoidance of taking part in the debate on a thread that you created, I would be careful.
And apart from replying to your posts, precisely where do I ignore debate and bait people?
...although I can think of one particular poster who which I ahve had several debates with, on the same range of issues.
We go through the issues to their conclusion several times and then he pops back up with the same points in another thread.
That annoyed me a bit.....
VM have less than 5m. The freeview homes will have between 20 and 50 odd channels. (The relay stations only carry about 20 odd channels) I don't think the majority of 200+ channels
I thought someone the other day said Virgin had 230?
Could be duff info. Need to check.
So, 9+5=14 not including freesat or non major epg sat.
Thats more than 50% of the households isn't it. So it does sound like a majority to me.
How many people are on relays?
Plus the 240 channels are the ones listed on BARB, I think there are actually more.
I think Iain said about 300!
We need the man that knows.....KennyT?
Also, considering that people could choose to have Sky if they wanted to (financial considerations aside) then is it so relevant to say that not everyone has access to 200+ channels?
They could choose to if they wanted to.
Isn't that relevant when we are talking about popularity?
Pot kettle black, Mr. Motion. There are several points awaiting your consideration in this thread. If you're so adverse to baiting and ignoring the debate, you'll be making your way over pronto to respond to everyone elses rebuttals of your opinions. Again though, I won't be holding my breath.
More accurate figures would give a better picture. We don't know how many of the 9m Sky subs have 200+ channels, many of the sports subs may only take a single mix. VM have 4.7m subs, but I thought only about 3m of those on their TV deals - not 100% on that either.
There are hundreds of relays so there must be a significant number only able to get the very basic freeview. Wenvoe transmitter has 75 relays alone.