None of the above are likely to raise enough money from the type of programmes they show to be able to fund a slot on DTT. Also, I very much doubt that any of those would want a part-time 6pm to 11pm slot.
Argos share with QVC Beauty and Rocks & Co, it would be more likely that one of those channels would take up the extra hours. QVC were rumoured to be looking for extra capacity on DTT not too long ago.
It's not always about revenue generation. The BBC don't earn from their channels, they are just providing a service. If BBC Parliament closed they'd save a packet. The same with Community etc.
I would disagree: The Travel Channel, now owned by Scripps Networks (owner of the U.S. Travel Channel) has recently gone onto Freesat and has undergone a major revamp with lots of new programmes. If sister channel Food Network is anything to go by, we'll be hearing a lot more from Travel Channel in the coming years.
Point taken but i was thinking more of teletext and thomas cook type travel sales channels.
Travel Sales on Freeview are on LCNs 201 (advertised on the TEXT button on LCN 3) and 206 Blue Button. LCN 11 used to have Sky Travel, I seem to remember.
The market takes care of which channels are on Freeview:it's not compulsory to watch any channel, so delete or hide the channels you don't need by all means and let others watch content they like.
It's not always about revenue generation. The BBC don't earn from their channels, they are just providing a service. If BBC Parliament closed they'd save a packet..
The figures for 2012 showed that BBC Parliament cost £9.3m
It's not always about revenue generation. The BBC don't earn from their channels, they are just providing a service. If BBC Parliament closed they'd save a packet. The same with Community etc.
The BBC are funded from the licence fee, they don't have to worry about raising cash from advertising. Other than the BBC, other channels have to raise generate enough revenue to cover costs and make a profit.
Community Channel can't afford a 24/7 slot on DTT and are restricted to a much cheaper part-time off-peak slot. Which sort of proves my point about revenue generation.
The BBC are funded from the licence fee, they don't have to worry about raising cash from advertising. Other than the BBC, other channels have to raise generate enough revenue to cover costs and make a profit.
Community Channel can't afford a 24/7 slot on DTT and are restricted to a much cheaper part-time off-peak slot. Which sort of proves my point about revenue generation.
i think that's still generalising too much. Argos TV is another example where pure revenue generation is not the only aim. Th TV exposure gives them a showcase for their products and their brand. They have no way of knowing if their individual sales are generated from the tv or not. As long as their sales overall go up by more than what they pay for the channel, it doesn't matter if the channel doesn't generate revenue on its own. It just needs sufficient viewers to acheive its purpose for the brand as a whole.
Another example would be the minor religious-channels. I doubt they generate enough revenue to cover costs - yet here they still are. Their purpose is just to get their message across and/or provide a service to their 'congregation' and not just to generate revenue.
I never said that "pure income generation is the only aim".
The fact remains that if the channels don't generate enough revenue to cover the costs, the parent company makes a loss and eventually goes bankrupt. I suggest that you work out a suitable business plan for running a channel on freeview without generating income. When you have successfully done that, your argument may carry some weight.
Argos TV is a shopping channel. Obviously, shopping channels generate their income from retail sales.
Religious channels are generally there to seek donations from the viewers, so their costs have to be kept low. How many of these channels are on freeview managing to cover the cost of transmission? please name them.
Community Channel can't afford a 24/7 slot on DTT and are restricted to a much cheaper part-time off-peak slot. Which sort of proves my point about revenue generation.
Community Channel were provided their carriage FOC by the BBC. I *think* (but have no way of checking) this agreement carried over to the Arqiva mux, probably as a result of Ofcom intervention.
I never said that "pure income generation is the only aim".
The fact remains that if the channels don't generate enough revenue to cover the costs, the parent company makes a loss and eventually goes bankrupt. I suggest that you work out a suitable business plan for running a channel on freeview without generating income. When you have successfully done that, your argument may carry some weight.
Argos TV is a shopping channel. Obviously, shopping channels generate their income from retail sales.
Religious channels are generally there to seek donations from the viewers, so their costs have to be kept low. How many of these channels are on freeview managing to cover the cost of transmission? please name them.
You wrote "that if the channels don't generate enough revenue to cover the costs, the parent company makes a loss and eventually goes bankrupt". My point is that's too much of a generalisation and not all channels cover their own costs..
Some channels are not funded directly by the revenue they generate from their broadcasting of that channel. Argos is a perfect example. They don't know and don't care what sales are made by the channel - their aim is for Argos to sell more as a whole. The channel is effectively there for supporting the brand and showcasing products which can be bought from other Argos outlets, online or shops. Evidence for this (apart from internal industry discussion when they launched) can be seen in news reports:
“The move to shut the channel down is in step with its stated goal of placing more emphasis on more affluent shoppers, as retaining an Argos TV shopping channel would be a barrier to widening the brand appeal to such consumers.” (FT) .Nothing about not raising enough to be viable.
Another example, although this one is satellite but illustrates the point, is when steve bennet the entrepreneur sold jungle.com for a packet and used some of the money to start vibe tv for his singer girlfriend Angelle, to promote her career. There was no attempt to generate revenue or expect the channel to fund itself. The business plan - if there was one - was not based on revenue generated from the channel.
Regarding religious channels, I'm afraid I don't really understand your point. On the one hand you state that a company will go bankruprt if a channel can't generate enough revenue to cover its costs but on the other you are asking which channels exist that are covering their costs. Surely, using your argument there should be none because they can't afford it? Maybe I have misunderstood you on this but to answer your question the best I can, Christian TV is on Freeview 228. It comprises programming from Sonlife who are funded from its parent organisation in the states and Revelation TV, a non profit-making charity funded by charitable donations. God TV is on freeview 235. It is funded by international Christian organisations. They would not exist if they relied solely on generating their own revenue from their air time.
For as long as a channel achieves it's intended purpose it will be funded because that will be it's business plan. Business plans are not just for cash-generating businesses. Charities have business plans but the service they deliver does not generate revenue, it comes mainly from donations.
I hope I’ve addressed all your points. Oh, hang on – there’s your implication that I’m not sufficiently informed for my argument to carry weight. I've been involved in broadcasting for 30 years, freeview and satellite channels for 14 years, I've written business plans and I have two business masters degrees - so hopefully my argument does 'carry some weight', at least.
I hope I’ve addressed all your points. Oh, hang on – there’s your implication that I’m not sufficiently informed for my argument to carry weight. I've been involved in broadcasting for 30 years, freeview and satellite channels for 14 years, I've written business plans and I have two business masters degrees - so hopefully my argument does 'carry some weight', at least.
You have totally missed the point actually. It doesn't matter how the revenue is generated. Sure, the normal broadcasting channels will raise cash through advertising, shopping channels generate cash by promoting retail sales. They are still generating cash.
Your initial posts seem to indicate that the costs of running a channel on freeview are insignificant and that a channel operator needs to do very little to cover these costs. That's simply not the case.
Sure, an organisation could come along and set up a channel to promote someone or something. You indicated that this has already happened on satellite. This is a freeview forum, I wasn't referring to relatively cheap satellite uplinks. Costs of carrying a channel on freeview are much higher than those on satellite. If you want to use that sort of example, the by all means give an example of where this has happened on freeview.
Religious channels in the 200 range are NOT carried over DTT, they are IPTV channels carried over the internet and only available on suitably equipped smart TVs. Again you are confusing the issue, the costs of broadcasting a full channel over a COM multiplex simply won't apply.
Religious broadcasters have historically been used to fund the organisations operating them (not just to pay for the the broadcasts) by requesting donations from the viewers.
I'm sure that your views carry some weight for operating a channel over satellite, until the sponsor runs out of cash. Many channels of that type have come and gone on satellite over the years.
My original point about a channel needing to generate revenue was in response to a suggestion that channels with only music video content could replace Argos TV. As they are funded largely by advertising, they would need to raise enough cash from advertising to cover transmission costs. With that type of programming, that would not be easy. Clearly the BBC, shopping channels and religious broadcasters have other ways of raising funds but they still have to cover transmission costs if they are carried on DTT. Red herrings, I'm afraid.
Community Channel were provided their carriage FOC by the BBC. I *think* (but have no way of checking) this agreement carried over to the Arqiva mux, probably as a result of Ofcom intervention.
You have totally missed the point actually. It doesn't matter how the revenue is generated. Sure, the normal broadcasting channels will raise cash through advertising, shopping channels generate cash by promoting retail sales. They are still generating cash.
Your initial posts seem to indicate that the costs of running a channel on freeview are insignificant and that a channel operator needs to do very little to cover these costs. That's simply not the case.
Sure, an organisation could come along and set up a channel to promote someone or something. You indicated that this has already happened on satellite. This is a freeview forum, I wasn't referring to relatively cheap satellite uplinks. Costs of carrying a channel on freeview are much higher than those on satellite. If you want to use that sort of example, the by all means give an example of where this has happened on freeview.
Religious channels in the 200 range are NOT carried over DTT, they are IPTV channels carried over the internet and only available on suitably equipped smart TVs. Again you are confusing the issue, the costs of broadcasting a full channel over a COM multiplex simply won't apply.
Religious broadcasters have historically been used to fund the organisations operating them (not just to pay for the the broadcasts) by requesting donations from the viewers.
I'm sure that your views carry some weight for operating a channel over satellite, until the sponsor runs out of cash. Many channels of that type have come and gone on satellite over the years.
My original point about a channel needing to generate revenue was in response to a suggestion that channels with only music video content could replace Argos TV. As they are funded largely by advertising, they would need to raise enough cash from advertising to cover transmission costs. With that type of programming, that would not be easy. Clearly the BBC, shopping channels and religious broadcasters have other ways of raising funds but they still have to cover transmission costs if they are carried on DTT. Red herrings, I'm afraid.
I think we're on the same hymn sheet, here...
I'm aware that DTT channels are not cheap and much more expensive that satellite in general. The last time I looked, a few years ago now, you could broadcast a channel on satellite for less than £1m per annum and a freeview slot went for around £5m (probably a peak in costs). The introduction of streaming means you can now have a slot on the freeview epg for a fraction of the cost and, to someone with a suitably equipped TV, as eventually most will be, it's just another freeview channel. Even so, Revelation TV are running at a deficit.
Until a year or two ago, OFCOM prohibited asking for donations to fund programming over the air, which mainly effected religious channels, so they were not able to fund themselves like this as they might do in the US.
I agree with you that a music channel would struggle. I'm just trying to point out that a channel need not be self supporting by raising cash revenue from it's own airtime - and with the advent of streaming that's even more likely. If the BBC wanted to start a BBC5 music channel it could use Argos' position on the mux and wouldn't need to raise anything from its output. It won't of course. There are already questions being raised about BBC4!
What ever takes over from Argos, I hope it lasts a bit longer...
I'm not sure I like the way things are going. There's only so much revenue available from advertising which means more channels will spread it thinner and unless alternative funding is found the quality of many channels will drop or they'll close.
The introduction of streaming means you can now have a slot on the freeview epg for a fraction of the cost and, to someone with a suitably equipped TV, as eventually most will be, it's just another freeview channel. Even so, Revelation TV are running at a deficit.
It remains to be seen how popular the IPTV channels become when smart tv take-up hits critical mass. A problem here is that the smart tv manufacturers apps and IPTV channels will be offered first, followed by the freeview EPG. The 200 range of freeview IPTV channels will be fairly low in the pecking order.
Channels in the religious genre come and go on the satellite platform. I guess it depends on how long they can afford to run at a deficit.
I agree with you that a music channel would struggle. I'm just trying to point out that a channel need not be self supporting by raising cash revenue from it's own airtime - and with the advent of streaming that's even more likely. If the BBC wanted to start a BBC5 music channel it could use Argos' position on the mux and wouldn't need to raise anything from its output. It won't of course. There are already questions being raised about BBC4!
The original music channels on freeview attempted to raise extra cash with red button services and premium rate phone calls. Eventually moving away from this, switching to a more advertiser friendly entertainment / comedy format.
The BBC would probably have considerable difficulties getting approval for a BBC 5 music channel. That one just wouldn't get the go ahead from the BBC Trust. They don't even bother with a TOTP type show any more, so it would be an unexpected move. They will, no doubt, continue to use the red button channel for shows in this genre.
There's only so much revenue available from advertising...
Exactly, which is why advertisers are looking at channels with wider audience appeal rather than the music video genre.
Yes, thanks. Although I'm not sure what it proves, other than Community don't need to raise revenue for carriage, and aren't restricted to those hours by choice.
It remains to be seen how popular the IPTV channels become when smart tv take-up hits critical mass.
They aren't available only on smart TVs - they are available on any device that properly conforms to the latest D-Book.
The BBC would probably have considerable difficulties getting approval for a BBC 5 music channel. That one just wouldn't get the go ahead from the BBC Trust. They don't even bother with a TOTP type show any more, so it would be an unexpected move. They will, no doubt, continue to use the red button channel for shows in this genre.
I don't think merlin777 was suggested they would launch one, just that they could, as they don't need to consider revenue (or even audience figures).
They have Later too, and quite often on Friday nights BBC4 is taken over by music and music-related shows. Anyway, music is quite well covered by the BBC on their radio stations (and commercial radio stations too - which do get by on advertising revenue), so it's hardly an ignored genre - most people listen to music whilst they are doing something else, they don't sit down to watch a load of music videos.
Yes, thanks. Although I'm not sure what it proves, other than Community don't need to raise revenue for carriage, and aren't restricted to those hours by choice.
They are given that slot basically because there isn't very much demand for those hours from mainstream broadcasters. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove either.
They aren't available only on smart TVs - they are available on any device that properly conforms to the latest D-Book.
Indeed, perhaps you would have preferred me to say devices such as smart TVs. I was actually going to edit it to say that, in the end I didn't bother as I didn't think anyone would bother nit-picking.
I don't think merlin777 was suggested they would launch one, just that they could, as they don't need to consider revenue (or even audience figures).
Yes and no, as their budget is being cut, they still have to consider revenue, especially for any new venture.
They have Later too, and quite often on Friday nights BBC4 is taken over by music and music-related shows. Anyway, music is quite well covered by the BBC on their radio stations (and commercial radio stations too - which do get by on advertising revenue), so it's hardly an ignored genre - most people listen to music whilst they are doing something else, they don't sit down to watch a load of music videos.
Hmm yes, I was trying to stick to the original point of music video channels rather than straying off into the realms of radio. The topic had already strayed far enough away from the original point.
Hi! All
I like Argos TV and find it good when they sell a product that is cheaper than in their catalogue, I would like the channel to stay but if it does close then another shopping channel should take over. What about Tesco Direct?.
Hi! All
I like Argos TV and find it good when they sell a product that is cheaper than in their catalogue, I would like the channel to stay but if it does close then another shopping channel should take over. What about Tesco Direct?.
Argos TV I think closes next tuesday at 6AM as from then on it showing money savers from JML (whether it will rename or disappear or whatever who knows)
The presenters on this channel work very hard indeed its a great shame but May 12th 2013 the channel will close Rachel Pierman disclosed this tonight its very tough these days and to be a presenter is not an easy job on live tv would like to wish them all well in the future
The presenters on this channel work very hard indeed its a great shame but May 12th 2013 the channel will close Rachel Pierman disclosed this tonight its very tough these days and to be a presenter is not an easy job on live tv would like to wish them all well in the future
Stevie Ocean
I agree with you post 100% now what will replace it on freeview?
Comments
It's not always about revenue generation. The BBC don't earn from their channels, they are just providing a service. If BBC Parliament closed they'd save a packet. The same with Community etc.
Point taken but i was thinking more of teletext and thomas cook type travel sales channels.
The market takes care of which channels are on Freeview:it's not compulsory to watch any channel, so delete or hide the channels you don't need by all means and let others watch content they like.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArdXBCXVBp21dDJrQU5YSGRIMm5ubWR4XzVvQmJDbWc
The BBC are funded from the licence fee, they don't have to worry about raising cash from advertising. Other than the BBC, other channels have to raise generate enough revenue to cover costs and make a profit.
Community Channel can't afford a 24/7 slot on DTT and are restricted to a much cheaper part-time off-peak slot. Which sort of proves my point about revenue generation.
i think that's still generalising too much. Argos TV is another example where pure revenue generation is not the only aim. Th TV exposure gives them a showcase for their products and their brand. They have no way of knowing if their individual sales are generated from the tv or not. As long as their sales overall go up by more than what they pay for the channel, it doesn't matter if the channel doesn't generate revenue on its own. It just needs sufficient viewers to acheive its purpose for the brand as a whole.
Another example would be the minor religious-channels. I doubt they generate enough revenue to cover costs - yet here they still are. Their purpose is just to get their message across and/or provide a service to their 'congregation' and not just to generate revenue.
I never said that "pure income generation is the only aim".
The fact remains that if the channels don't generate enough revenue to cover the costs, the parent company makes a loss and eventually goes bankrupt. I suggest that you work out a suitable business plan for running a channel on freeview without generating income. When you have successfully done that, your argument may carry some weight.
Argos TV is a shopping channel. Obviously, shopping channels generate their income from retail sales.
Religious channels are generally there to seek donations from the viewers, so their costs have to be kept low. How many of these channels are on freeview managing to cover the cost of transmission? please name them.
Community Channel were provided their carriage FOC by the BBC. I *think* (but have no way of checking) this agreement carried over to the Arqiva mux, probably as a result of Ofcom intervention.
You wrote "that if the channels don't generate enough revenue to cover the costs, the parent company makes a loss and eventually goes bankrupt". My point is that's too much of a generalisation and not all channels cover their own costs..
Some channels are not funded directly by the revenue they generate from their broadcasting of that channel. Argos is a perfect example. They don't know and don't care what sales are made by the channel - their aim is for Argos to sell more as a whole. The channel is effectively there for supporting the brand and showcasing products which can be bought from other Argos outlets, online or shops. Evidence for this (apart from internal industry discussion when they launched) can be seen in news reports:
“The move to shut the channel down is in step with its stated goal of placing more emphasis on more affluent shoppers, as retaining an Argos TV shopping channel would be a barrier to widening the brand appeal to such consumers.” (FT) .Nothing about not raising enough to be viable.
Another example, although this one is satellite but illustrates the point, is when steve bennet the entrepreneur sold jungle.com for a packet and used some of the money to start vibe tv for his singer girlfriend Angelle, to promote her career. There was no attempt to generate revenue or expect the channel to fund itself. The business plan - if there was one - was not based on revenue generated from the channel.
Regarding religious channels, I'm afraid I don't really understand your point. On the one hand you state that a company will go bankruprt if a channel can't generate enough revenue to cover its costs but on the other you are asking which channels exist that are covering their costs. Surely, using your argument there should be none because they can't afford it? Maybe I have misunderstood you on this but to answer your question the best I can, Christian TV is on Freeview 228. It comprises programming from Sonlife who are funded from its parent organisation in the states and Revelation TV, a non profit-making charity funded by charitable donations. God TV is on freeview 235. It is funded by international Christian organisations. They would not exist if they relied solely on generating their own revenue from their air time.
For as long as a channel achieves it's intended purpose it will be funded because that will be it's business plan. Business plans are not just for cash-generating businesses. Charities have business plans but the service they deliver does not generate revenue, it comes mainly from donations.
I hope I’ve addressed all your points. Oh, hang on – there’s your implication that I’m not sufficiently informed for my argument to carry weight. I've been involved in broadcasting for 30 years, freeview and satellite channels for 14 years, I've written business plans and I have two business masters degrees - so hopefully my argument does 'carry some weight', at least.
You have totally missed the point actually. It doesn't matter how the revenue is generated. Sure, the normal broadcasting channels will raise cash through advertising, shopping channels generate cash by promoting retail sales. They are still generating cash.
Your initial posts seem to indicate that the costs of running a channel on freeview are insignificant and that a channel operator needs to do very little to cover these costs. That's simply not the case.
Sure, an organisation could come along and set up a channel to promote someone or something. You indicated that this has already happened on satellite. This is a freeview forum, I wasn't referring to relatively cheap satellite uplinks. Costs of carrying a channel on freeview are much higher than those on satellite. If you want to use that sort of example, the by all means give an example of where this has happened on freeview.
Religious channels in the 200 range are NOT carried over DTT, they are IPTV channels carried over the internet and only available on suitably equipped smart TVs. Again you are confusing the issue, the costs of broadcasting a full channel over a COM multiplex simply won't apply.
Religious broadcasters have historically been used to fund the organisations operating them (not just to pay for the the broadcasts) by requesting donations from the viewers.
I'm sure that your views carry some weight for operating a channel over satellite, until the sponsor runs out of cash. Many channels of that type have come and gone on satellite over the years.
My original point about a channel needing to generate revenue was in response to a suggestion that channels with only music video content could replace Argos TV. As they are funded largely by advertising, they would need to raise enough cash from advertising to cover transmission costs. With that type of programming, that would not be easy. Clearly the BBC, shopping channels and religious broadcasters have other ways of raising funds but they still have to cover transmission costs if they are carried on DTT. Red herrings, I'm afraid.
http://www.communitychannel.org/info/community-channel-information/
Does that help?
I think we're on the same hymn sheet, here...
I'm aware that DTT channels are not cheap and much more expensive that satellite in general. The last time I looked, a few years ago now, you could broadcast a channel on satellite for less than £1m per annum and a freeview slot went for around £5m (probably a peak in costs). The introduction of streaming means you can now have a slot on the freeview epg for a fraction of the cost and, to someone with a suitably equipped TV, as eventually most will be, it's just another freeview channel. Even so, Revelation TV are running at a deficit.
Until a year or two ago, OFCOM prohibited asking for donations to fund programming over the air, which mainly effected religious channels, so they were not able to fund themselves like this as they might do in the US.
I agree with you that a music channel would struggle. I'm just trying to point out that a channel need not be self supporting by raising cash revenue from it's own airtime - and with the advent of streaming that's even more likely. If the BBC wanted to start a BBC5 music channel it could use Argos' position on the mux and wouldn't need to raise anything from its output. It won't of course. There are already questions being raised about BBC4!
What ever takes over from Argos, I hope it lasts a bit longer...
I'm not sure I like the way things are going. There's only so much revenue available from advertising which means more channels will spread it thinner and unless alternative funding is found the quality of many channels will drop or they'll close.
It remains to be seen how popular the IPTV channels become when smart tv take-up hits critical mass. A problem here is that the smart tv manufacturers apps and IPTV channels will be offered first, followed by the freeview EPG. The 200 range of freeview IPTV channels will be fairly low in the pecking order.
Channels in the religious genre come and go on the satellite platform. I guess it depends on how long they can afford to run at a deficit.
The original music channels on freeview attempted to raise extra cash with red button services and premium rate phone calls. Eventually moving away from this, switching to a more advertiser friendly entertainment / comedy format.
The BBC would probably have considerable difficulties getting approval for a BBC 5 music channel. That one just wouldn't get the go ahead from the BBC Trust. They don't even bother with a TOTP type show any more, so it would be an unexpected move. They will, no doubt, continue to use the red button channel for shows in this genre.
Exactly, which is why advertisers are looking at channels with wider audience appeal rather than the music video genre.
Yes, thanks. Although I'm not sure what it proves, other than Community don't need to raise revenue for carriage, and aren't restricted to those hours by choice.
They aren't available only on smart TVs - they are available on any device that properly conforms to the latest D-Book.
I don't think merlin777 was suggested they would launch one, just that they could, as they don't need to consider revenue (or even audience figures).
They have Later too, and quite often on Friday nights BBC4 is taken over by music and music-related shows. Anyway, music is quite well covered by the BBC on their radio stations (and commercial radio stations too - which do get by on advertising revenue), so it's hardly an ignored genre - most people listen to music whilst they are doing something else, they don't sit down to watch a load of music videos.
They are given that slot basically because there isn't very much demand for those hours from mainstream broadcasters. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove either.
Indeed, perhaps you would have preferred me to say devices such as smart TVs. I was actually going to edit it to say that, in the end I didn't bother as I didn't think anyone would bother nit-picking.
Yes and no, as their budget is being cut, they still have to consider revenue, especially for any new venture.
Hmm yes, I was trying to stick to the original point of music video channels rather than straying off into the realms of radio. The topic had already strayed far enough away from the original point.
I like Argos TV and find it good when they sell a product that is cheaper than in their catalogue, I would like the channel to stay but if it does close then another shopping channel should take over. What about Tesco Direct?.
BTW I'm not planning on watching it, the presenters the most annoying on Freeview
Edit: All my recievers have got it now
I was thinking the same
Thanks to JSemple3 for the information.
Stevie Ocean
I agree with you post 100% now what will replace it on freeview?