The Ratings Thread (Part 63)

1155156158160161405

Comments

  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And those Film 2015 slots on network BBC1 so far - Wednesday 11.05, Tuesday 11.05, Tuesday 11.15, Wednesday 11.15. I do not know why BBC1 are scheduling this series so badly. I know it's always been famously scheduled quite badly, right back to the Barry Norman years, but at least they tried to keep it on the same day for a whole series. Clearly BBC1 have decided Film 2015 goes on Wednesday, which is fair enough, but if you're showing football on two of the first three Wednesdays of the run, surely you either a) hold the series back until after the football or b) don't show it on Wednesdays. They've done neither. There's also football on 11th February so presumably it'll be on Tuesday again that week. It absolutely baffles me why they didn't just put it on Tuesday full time.
    The 11th Feb one is on after Match of the Day, at 12.15 am. :D

    This is my hope, anyway, because if the Beeb do lose it I'd be devastated. I got a bit of a start when the front page of the Sun today had "SNATCH OF THE DAY" on it because I thought they might have got wind of the result, but it turned out to be about Danny Murphy getting a massive tax bill. So that's alright.
    :D
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    cylon6 wrote: »
    The worst thing to happen to Premier League football was live games spread across broadcasters. Before I could watch them all on Sky. Now I need Sky and BT. I will never get BT as my phone/internet is with Virgin. What this ridiculous decision means is that it is more expensive to watch games.

    Moronic decision.

    Dont agree with that at all. Because you have Sky you want everything and sod anybody who doesnt have it? If you take that to its logical conclusion all sport should be on Sky and no other channel at all.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    stv viewer wrote: »
    But one of the packages is worth about the same as the highlights package and we know that ITV have the money as they were talking about bidding for the highlights and are no longer paying for CL and fa cup

    The cheapest package next time will be 120m-140m for 14 games. You're talking 8- 10m a game. They're currently making a loss on Champions league which costs 2.5m a game and airs in primetime.

    The Motd deal is 68m a year for 33 weeks of highlights. Two shows a week. A big difference.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    centauri72 wrote: »
    Absolutely right. We can blame Ofcom for that. They went for theory (the desirability of less dominance for one broadcaster) - over practice (how much customers would end up having to pay).

    I thought it was an EU competition ruling which no longer stands. There was nothing stopping Sky or BT buying all the rights exclusively last time.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    Dont agree with that at all. Because you have Sky you want everything and sod anybody who doesnt have it? If you take that to its logical conclusion all sport should be on Sky and no other channel at all.

    If BT Sport got all of the matches I'd accept it and move on. BT have taken all Champions League and Europa League matches. Nothing on ITV or Sky. Losing free to air is worse. But if one company buys the matches between BT and Sky it means they're all in one place and the viewer can decide if they want to get BT or Sky. Spreading the matches across several broadcasters means having to pay several times instead of once. It's more expensive for viewers.

    Crap decision.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jake lyle wrote: »
    I thought it was an EU competition ruling which no longer stands. There was nothing stopping Sky or BT buying all the rights exclusively last time.
    Were there complaints about the EU ruling? There's an article somewhere saying that the ruling was bad for viewers. I'll try to find it.
  • FuddFudd Posts: 166,868
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    If BT Sport got all of the matches I'd accept it and move on. BT have taken all Champions League and Europa League matches. Nothing on ITV or Sky. Losing free to air is worse. But if one company buys the matches between BT and Sky it means they're all in one place and the viewer can decide if they want to get BT or Sky. Spreading the matches across several broadcasters means having to pay several times instead of once. It's more expensive for viewers.

    Crap decision.

    If you're with Virgin can you look at getting a television package alongside your phone and Internet? That's what I'm doing though I'm not wholly convinced it's the cheapest deal. It might be worth looking at though. It's something like £70 per month for phone, fastest Broadband, Tivo box but an additional in the second room plus a Sports (including Sky and BT) and Movies package plus Netflix for free for six months. It does go up to around £100 after a year but if you don't watch movies you can cut that part of the package out (I don't) and you can cut your Internet speed down too if you don't need it. That would save about £25 in total.

    Sorry, completely off topic. :blush:
  • guestofsethguestofseth Posts: 5,303
    Forum Member
    cylon6 wrote: »
    I've been looking forward to Stonemouth. But where will it go on BBC2? Tuesdays?

    Tuesdays are taken by Inside the Commons until the 24th. A Cook Abroad takes up Monday until 9th March, and Wolf Hall's on Wednesdays until 25th. Thursdays and Fridays also look to occupied for the forseeable, and there's drama on BBC One those days anyway.

    I can see it airing Tuesday 3rd and Wednesday 4th March, maybe with BBC One Scotland opting out of the last episode of The Gift and whatever's on Wednesday to show it at the same time.

    I hope Life in Squares follows on Wednesday 11th as I'm really looking forward to that. Line of Duty doesn't start filming until April so we won't be seeing that until much later in the year.
  • marxavlenmarxavlen Posts: 851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ITV are not going to bid for live PL matches, according to Steve Scott.
    Steve Scott @stevescott_itv · 26m 26 minutes ago

    For those wondering, ITV's 'no bid' for PL highlights was not to keep cash back for live packages. ITV not entering race for those either.

    There are a couple of possibilities here;

    ITV could be trying to sub-licence some Champions League matches from BT.
    ITV could be going for some other decent sport package (Six Nations, The Open golf, US Open tennis). Admittedly, the latter would probably go on ITV4.

    Either way, ITV need live sport. In what is a predominantly female-orientated schedule, sport is used as a battering ram for selling advertising in shows which can't find buyers (mainly ITV's cheap factual). It's commercial suicide not to have big live sport!

    Side note - ITV signed a contract renewal to show La Vuelta a Espana cycling highlights until 2020 (Sport on the Box)
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    The worst thing to happen to Premier League football was live games spread across broadcasters. Before I could watch them all on Sky. Now I need Sky and BT. I will never get BT as my phone/internet is with Virgin. What this ridiculous decision means is that it is more expensive to watch games.

    Moronic decision.
    I cancelled my internet with Virgin this week when they put the price up without warning me (unless it got lost in the post). :( I think I'm going to end up having BT Sport as part of the BT package I've signed up for.

    No way would I want two lots of pay TV, though.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Last time ITV had PL highlights they made a complete hash of it and fans remember that sort of thing, just as they recall ITV Digital which brought some clubs close to bankruptcy.Not much soccer on ITV from next year. a few meaningless England friendlies.Makes sense to ditch hugely overpaid presenters and pundits.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    jda135 wrote: »
    ITV are not going to bid for live PL matches, according to Steve Scott.



    There are a couple of possibilities here;

    ITV could be trying to sub-licence some Champions League matches from BT.
    ITV could be going for some other decent sport package (Six Nations, The Open golf, US Open tennis). Admittedly, the latter would probably go on ITV4.

    Either way, ITV need live sport. In what is a predominantly female-orientated schedule, sport is used as a battering ram for selling advertising in shows which can't find buyers (mainly ITV's cheap factual). It's commercial suicide not to have big live sport!

    Side note - ITV signed a contract renewal to show La Vuelta a Espana cycling highlights until 2020 (Sport on the Box)

    The problem for ITV is that the real big contracts are just no longer affordable for a free to air broadcaster. The 6 nations are signed up until 2018 and are currently costing 3m a game! That was negotiated before BT arrived on the scene. With BT around expect it to double. Just unsustainable for them.
  • FuddFudd Posts: 166,868
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I cancelled my internet with Virgin this week when they put the price up without warning me (unless it got lost in the post). :( I think I'm going to end up having BT Sport as part of the BT package I've signed up for.

    No way would I want two lots of pay TV, though.

    I wish I hadn't read that. :blush: Mind you, Sky aren't that much better!
    jake lyle wrote: »
    The problem for ITV is that the real big contracts are just no longer affordable for a free to air broadcaster. The 6 nations are signed up until 2018 and are currently costing 3m a game! That was negotiated before BT arrived on the scene. With BT around expect it to double. Just unsustainable for them.

    Would the BBC be able to afford £6m a game if prices do double?

    I'm not sure how ITV will go forward from here. A match a round in the League Cup plus highlights maybe? It wouldn't rate much worse than most of ITV's current programming and the demos would be decent. The Football League seems to have gone across to Channel 5 already and that's just highlights.

    Obviously signing the Cricket World Cup is a sign of intent which suggests that they may go for the Test highlights and Boxing seems to be on their radar again but neither of those will bring in fantastic figures.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Here in Newbury it has started to snow! A rarity for us down South! If it settles, will TV ratings be a bit higher tonight? (It's nowt to what the North have had today!)

    The snow has settled over the north of the country. Enough to boost ratings a little tonight?
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, it would be a disaster, it would devastate BBC Sport and they'd have to make loads of people redundant. I know they did alright without it in 2001-04 but they had more football in those days because they had England and European matches as well, neither of which they'd have this time. It'd be the FA Cup and the tournaments, which would be a paltry affair, probably worse than ITV will have next season (as they at least have highlights of European football).

    I would say the Premier League is one of the Beeb's biggest contracts, I think only the Olympics, World Cup, Euros and Wimbledon are bigger, and they need to keep hold of it. For my money, I would agree with what someone said here (Zac?) that they wouldn't have spent money on the FA Cup if there was a chance they'd then not have enough to afford the Premier League as well. I also think it's too big an outlay - not just in terms of the rights but in all the associated costs - for too little reward for ITV because it's virtually all out of primetime. I think they only want exclusive, primetime stuff. I'm also reminded of when everything thought they were going to go for the Six Nations in 2004 when England were world champions and the World Cup had done really well for them, and they didn't even bid.

    This is my hope, anyway, because if the Beeb do lose it I'd be devastated. I got a bit of a start when the front page of the Sun today had "SNATCH OF THE DAY" on it because I thought they might have got wind of the result, but it turned out to be about Danny Murphy getting a massive tax bill. So that's alright.

    I think Steve is more relieved about Match Of The Day than the BBC! :D
  • hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,563
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    The snow has settled over the north of the country. Enough to boost ratings a little tonight?

    That would of boosted the Andy Murray match earlier on BBC2.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Fudd wrote: »
    If you're with Virgin can you look at getting a television package alongside your phone and Internet? That's what I'm doing though I'm not wholly convinced it's the cheapest deal. It might be worth looking at though. It's something like £70 per month for phone, fastest Broadband, Tivo box but an additional in the second room plus a Sports (including Sky and BT) and Movies package plus Netflix for free for six months. It does go up to around £100 after a year but if you don't watch movies you can cut that part of the package out (I don't) and you can cut your Internet speed down too if you don't need it. That would save about £25 in total.

    Sorry, completely off topic. :blush:
    I cancelled my internet with Virgin this week when they put the price up without warning me (unless it got lost in the post). :( I think I'm going to end up having BT Sport as part of the BT package I've signed up for.

    No way would I want two lots of pay TV, though.

    I used to have TV and internet with Virgin but went with Sky to get more channels. I don't want Sky broadband or phone and I don't want that from BT either. But to follow my team beforehand I'd need to pay for two platforms to get it. That's far too expensive.

    If I had BT it would be the same problem. That Virgin deal does look good Fudd.
  • Steve WilliamsSteve Williams Posts: 11,816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Charnham wrote: »
    I wonder if the cast, would be willing to do it without Julian, actors can be damm picky about that kind of thing when they want to be.

    Well, yeah, and they're well within their rights to. I know in America they need to keep shows running at all costs but in Britain we tend to use artistic reasons for ending a series and if the sole writer wants to pack it in that would seem to me a decent reason to end it, you don't want to just end up limping on in a desperate retread of former glories. It has been on for quite a while as dramas go, six series.
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Well, business as usual for MOTD then! The only concern I have is what will happen to The Apprentice: You're Fired now that a 10pm midweek magazine will air on BBC2?

    Not entirely sure it's a top priority to be sorting out scheduling issues for autumn 2016. They could move The Apprentice to another night, they can move the new PL show to another night (I doubt Wednesday at ten is written in the contract) or as mentioned, by that point The Apprentice might be over anyway, Sugar deciding ten years is enough.
    The 10pm BBC2 Wednesday show won't rate well I suspect. Probably in the mid or high hundred k's. Feels unnecessary when you have MOTD, MOTD2, MOTD3 online and Football Focus. Now add Midweek MOTD.

    Why?

    Well, it's just a bit of extra stuff for your money, I suppose. There probably is another avenue they could down with their football coverage, I know most attempts at light-hearted football shows are rotten but they could try and do somethng a bit like Fantasy Football, or alternatively they could make it like a chat show with proper debate or something like Monday Night Football with extensive analysis. If it's offered, you may as well do it. Probably won't rate much worse than what's there at the moment.
    cylon6 wrote: »
    I think the BBC did a good deal to pay slightly more and get an extra programme out of it. Paying slightly more to keep the goodwill is no bad thing either. Besides The Premier League make an absolute fortune from the match packages. That's where the real money lies.

    Yeah, and they are getting more out of it as you say, with the extra programme plus there seems to be more flexibility in putting it on iPlayer now as well. There may even have been a clause in the bidding saying they had to offer more than last time or they wouldn't award the rights. It's only manners anyway, or it would look like taking the piss.
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Match of the Day: Premier League Highlights - Top 10 since 2006
    01 - 5.49m - 05/02/2011 (22:30)
    02 - 5.02m - 01/01/2011 (22:30)
    03 - 5.01m - 11/02/2012 (22:35)
    04 - 4.95m - 29/10/2011 (22:20)
    05 - 4.94m - 29/12/2007 (22:25)
    06 - 4.86m - 21/12/2013 (22:20)
    07 - 4.76m - 22/03/2014 (22:30)
    08 - 4.75m - 16/01/2010 (22:30)
    09 - 4.74m - 22/01/2011 (22:30)
    10 - 4.73m - 27/02/2010 (22:30)

    Credit where due, numbers seem to be down a bit this season (but I put that down to Chelsea dominance rather than the issues that have hit ITV), even so still fantastic for a show like MOTD to consistently have 3m to 4m viewers a week without fail.

    I remember that 2007 rating because I remember Media Guardian doing a piece suggesting it was the highest rated Premier League highlights show I think ever at the time, even more than ITV got at 7pm. As you say, ratings are pretty much rock solid and that's absolutely not something that's happening with most other shows.
    Andy23 wrote: »
    So those almost confirmed reports by 'reliable' reporters in quality newspapers that said ITV were about to perform the 'snatch of the day' were wrong? Again, like they are every time the premier league rights come available. Who would have thought it! :D

    Indeed, the most accurate and sensible discussion on sports rights can actually be see on this forum. It's just a case of putting 2+2 together - ITV have no football, some football rights are up for grabs, ergo ITV are going to buy them. But clearly their method is that they'd rather have no football than football at any price.
    cylon6 wrote: »
    Well they were right once when Des Lynham left the BBC to host them. ;)

    He didn't, of course, he left the Beeb in 1999 and for the next two years he did live football on ITV, and one of the reasons why he joined was because he was getting sick of working Saturday nights and was bored of highlights. The day after they won the Premier League rights in 2000, Alan Hansen saw him, because it was during Euro 2000, and he said the only pleasure he got was knowing Des had left the Beeb to stop doing Saturday nights and now he was going to have to do them again.
    cylon6 wrote: »
    The worst thing to happen to Premier League football was live games spread across broadcasters. Before I could watch them all on Sky. Now I need Sky and BT. I will never get BT as my phone/internet is with Virgin. What this ridiculous decision means is that it is more expensive to watch games.

    Moronic decision.

    But that's not neccessarily the case - because I'm paying less than I used to. Via Virgin (or NTL as it was) from 2004-07, I was paying for Sky Sports plus what is now the XL package plus also fifty quid a season for PremPlus. Nowadays I'm still paying for Sky Sports plus the XL package, but BT Sport is in that for free. So although the price of both Sky Sports and the XL package has gone up a bit, I'm still paying less than I did in 2007. And in addition, there are now more matches.

    Similarly you can not bother with Sky Sports at all and just get BT Sport, either on its own on Sky or BT or in the XL package on Virgin and you get some Premier League football. Not lots, no, but you get one match a week which for many viewers is enough. If it was all on Sky Sports, it was that or nothing. And if you only want Sky Sports, you're still getting more matches on that channel than you ever have before, even before Setanta arrived. You have to pay more if you want all the football on the telly, but there's more football on telly anyway. The difference now is you can buy some of it.

    If you've got Virgin for your phone and broadband it would surely make sense to get Virgin TV as well and get BT Sport through that?
    NeilVW wrote: »
    That cheap live package I mentioned only covered 12 games though, so the cost per game was more than £5m. And no doubt this time around it will be even more.

    And the other problem with the small package is that the games aren't evenly spread out throughout the year, one's a Bank Holiday package where virtually everything is on Boxing Day and New Year's Day. Not only would that be a strange package to have on its own in terms of how you cover it - like a World Cup in a day - but those two days are among the worst for advertising revenue anyway.
    The 11th Feb one is on after Match of the Day, at 12.15 am. :D

    Heh! I wonder what's on Tuesday at 11.15 that means Film 2015 definitely can't just go on Tuesdays.
    jake lyle wrote: »
    I thought it was an EU competition ruling which no longer stands. There was nothing stopping Sky or BT buying all the rights exclusively last time.

    That's right, the Premier League decided to keep the condition without being forced to, because it creates more competition. If everything went to Sky this time, BT would probably pack it in or not bother again so the next time the rights are up for grabs that's one less competitor and more chance of Sky just bidding the bare minimum. Presumably they reserve the right to sell it all to one broadcaster if they come in with a ludicrous offer.
    Fudd wrote: »
    Would the BBC be able to afford £6m a game if prices do double?

    I'm not sure how ITV will go forward from here. A match a round in the League Cup plus highlights maybe? It wouldn't rate much worse than most of ITV's current programming and the demos would be decent. The Football League seems to have gone across to Channel 5 already and that's just highlights.

    The Football League and League Cup go together, if you buy one you get the other. Sky have live rights sewn up for ages, they extended the contract to I think 2018 last year. And if C5 have the highlights rights to the Football League, they also have the highlights rights to the League Cup.
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 12,139
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    According to bbc wales today. The chief of the six nations tournament has said all options are on the table when the contract comes up for renewal in 2018 including selling them to non terrestrial channels
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The day after they won the Premier League rights in 2000, Alan Hansen saw him, because it was during Euro 2000, and he said the only pleasure he got was knowing Des had left the Beeb to stop doing Saturday nights and now he was going to have to do them again.
    :D
    Heh! I wonder what's on Tuesday at 11.15 that means Film 2015 definitely can't just go on Tuesdays.
    Have I Got a Bit More Old News For You.:D
  • RobbieSykes123RobbieSykes123 Posts: 14,022
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    marke09 wrote: »
    According to bbc wales today. The chief of the six nations tournament has said all options are on the table when the contract comes up for renewal in 2018 including selling them to non terrestrial channels

    Just been reading this in today's Times. They are not ruling out selling exclusively to pay tv with delayed coverage fta. Also says "every UK broadcaster has expressed interest".
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just been reading this in today's Times. They are not ruling out selling exclusively to pay tv with delayed coverage fta. Also says "every UK broadcaster has expressed interest".
    The delayed coverage thing didn't work very well for ITV in the late 1990s. I think they cut it down to highlights after a while.
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm surprised considering the success they've had with cricket highlights that Channel 5 have never explored acquiring more cricket highlights like the Cricket World Cup or Twenty20.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    It's a while since I've been able to do this. :D

    Tuesday 20th January 2015 - Top Consolidated Ratings
    1 - Silent Witness - 8.38m (28.7%)
    2 - Emmerdale - 6.80m (29.4%) / 7.23m (31.2%)
    3 - EastEnders - 6.50m (26.4%)
    4 - BBC Regional News (18:30) - 6.43m (31.1%)
    5 - BBC News (18:00) - 5.605m (29.6%)

    Nine of the top 10 were BBC One shows. Holby came in 6th with 5.20m (21.95%) although that excludes Scotland. :)
This discussion has been closed.