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.
that is not 100% true is it, the first episode of the Red Dwarf mini series, had 2 million viewers on Dave, a one off yes, buts its not like ITV 2, 3, or 4 regularry gets 2 million viewers.
Its a channel like Dave, that would benefit from ITV 2, 3 & 4 leaving Freeview.
That said, ITV 2, 3 & 4 are all fairly succesful on freeview, and are all capable of attracting at least 800,000+, no question they loose out if they go Pay, however Archie is looking to invest in Pay TV, and ITV 2, 3 & 4 are an obvious choice for this.
Archie seems to feel that the money from Pay TV is going to be more stable than the money from advertising, that maybe true in the short run, but I do wonder about the long term future of ITV 2, 3 & 4, if they were to go Pay, where would they be in 10 years?
Dave, Top 10, w/e 1 Aug 2010
1 QI (FRI 2140) 571,000
2 MOCK THE WEEK (WED 2140) 485,000
3 QI (FRI 2101) 479,000
4 MOCK THE WEEK (MON 2220) 386,000
5 MOCK THE WEEK (MON 2300) 386,000
6 HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU (MON 2140) 369,000
7 HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU (THU 2300) 363,000
8 QI (TUE 2140) 344,000
9 MOCK THE WEEK (WED 2100) 344,000
10 TOP GEAR (SUN 1630) 331,000
ITV4, Top 10. w/e 1 Aug 2010
1 FREDDIE MERCURY: MAGIC REMIXED (MON 2101) 673,000
2 FILM: DEATH WISH 3 (1985) (WED 2245) 410,000
3 FILM: DEATH WISH IV: THE CRACKDOWN (TUE 2244) 382,000
4 FILM: TREMORS (THU 2145) 363,000
5 COPS WITH CAMERAS (TUE 2101) 320,000
6 FILM: TREMORS (THU 2105) 319,000
7 FILM: DEATH WISH IV: THE CRACKDOWN (TUE 2205) 313,000
8 FILM: DEATH WISH 3 (1985) (WED 2203) 308,000
9 FILM: DEATH WISH IV: THE CRACKDOWN (FRI 2245) 306,000
10 CAR CRIME UK (TUE 1959) 291,000
ok I need to work out which averages out better, but Dave & ITV 4 ratings are comparable
ok ive averaged out the Top 10s for both Dave & ITV 4 (it is as gooda way as any to compare the two channels)
anyway the results surprise me
Dave - 405,800
ITV 4 - 368,500
Isn't that probably because Dave is on "freeview"? I had forgotten that when I used them as an example. But that then backs up my argument that being free to air is obviously beneficial.
I should have used Sky1 or GOLD, Watch or any other "subs only" channel as an example.
Well as ITV seems to do well with ITV2 maybe what ITV1 needs to lose is say the National and Regional news. Turning it into an even closer TV version of Heart Radio...laughs.
If Crozier is really serious about fixing ITV, why not ditch this fixation on Z list celebrities( well at Katie Price has gone), turning any factual programme into a reality show( All At Sea could have been an interesting documentary but became a reality show) and pandering to the readers of HEAT magazine all the time. Basically ITV is a no go area for most men, most middle class viewers, better educated viewers and children since they axed children's programmes.
If Crozier is really serious about fixing ITV, why not ditch this fixation on Z list celebrities( well at Katie Price has gone), turning any factual programme into a reality show( All At Sea could have been an interesting documentary but became a reality show) and pandering to the readers of HEAT magazine all the time. Basically ITV is a no go area for most men, most middle class viewers, better educated viewers and children since they axed children's programmes.
Midsomer, Lewis etc. and Harry Hill for me!!
As soon as ITV2/3/4 are behind a pay wall and ITV1 gets its viewers back and their number one position from BBC One, the better.
More viewers = more ad revenue = more expensive dramas = more ABC1 viewers = higher ad revenue.
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.
You cannot compare Sky Sports to ITV2-4. Clearly some people are prepared to pay premium rate for live Premier League football. ITV2-4 are not offering anything of that sort and would be bundled in with the Sky1, Living, Bravo entertainment packages which bring little in the way of subs and exclude a larger potential audience.
Also any space on Freeview would probably be taken by other channels (CBS possibly) and so the audience divide would still exist.
As soon as ITV2/3/4 are behind a pay wall and ITV1 gets its viewers back and their number one position from BBC One, the better.
More viewers = more ad revenue = more expensive dramas = more ABC1 viewers = higher ad revenue.
As I said they have been there before. ITV2 and ITV3 were launched behind a pay wall, IIRC, and I do not remember ITV1 rolling in higher audience figures back then. Why does "More viewers = more ad revenue" only work for ITV1 in your view, surely that can also be said for ITV2-4 and that cannot be achieved behind a pay wall.
You cannot compare Sky Sports to ITV2-4. Clearly some people are prepared to pay premium rate for live Premier League football. ITV2-4 are not offering anything of that sort and would be bundled in with the Sky1, Living, Bravo entertainment packages which bring little in the way of subs and exclude a larger potential audience.
Also any space on Freeview would probably be taken by other channels (CBS possibly) and so the audience divide would still exist.
I said as an example. Of course the figures are different, Sky pays more for the content so the subs are higher.
But many subscription channels run at a profit on relatively small audiences.
As for CBS, their channels are available for free on Astra so Sky, Freesat and generic box owners can receive them and their ratings are really poor. Even if they double their viewers by going on Freeview, they're still millions behind ITV2/3/4.
As I said they have been there before. ITV2 and ITV3 were launched behind a pay wall, IIRC, and I do not remember ITV1 rolling in higher audience figures back then. Why does "More viewers = more ad revenue" only work for ITV1 in your view, surely that can also be said for ITV2-4 and that cannot be achieved behind a pay wall.
When ITV2 launched in December 98, ITV1 had a viewing share of 32%.
The latest figure is 13.9%.
The PSB commercial channels charge higher rates than multichannels. So ten million watching a programme on ITV1 will bring in more revenue than ten million split between the four channels.
It's quite a laughable proposition by derek500 on behalf of BSkyB here.
ITV2, 3, and 4 as pay channels benefits Sky primarily as it weakens freeview and increases the chance of Sky/TUTV launching a larger pay-tv lite service over DTT.
As pay channels it won't benefit the consumer, and it's unlikely to benefit ITV much as the assumption that ITV2-4 viewers would all migrate to ITV1 is frankly ludicrous, especially if Channel 4 and Five have decent enough channels available free to air.
Those that join this hypothetical DTT service, Sky or Virgin would become one of many PVR users hitting ITV further.
As soon as ITV2/3/4 are behind a pay wall and ITV1 gets its viewers back and their number one position from BBC One, the better.
It's only HD versions going behind a paywall (so we are not missing much) and unless ITV improves programming considerably there is no way in hell they well get better ratings against the BBC who still provides good quality programming on the money they get which most channels could not survive on.
I have said before I would rather pay a license fee for some quality programming than pay SKY for crap. Endless movie repeats, SKY 1 to 3 a joke, watered down cheap UK version's of US stations, badly edited and censored channels. The only thing SKY had worth paying for was SKY Sports 1and 2 and their now available elsewhere.
ITV are not going to pay to have old show's professionally converted to HD it will simply be up scaled. As long as the SD versions are readily available most people won't bother. Even if they decide to rid us of the SD versions ITV2 will still remain in Scotland at least.
I said as an example. Of course the figures are different, Sky pays more for the content so the subs are higher.
But many subscription channels run at a profit on relatively small audiences.
As for CBS, their channels are available for free on Astra so Sky, Freesat and generic box owners can receive them and their ratings are really poor. Even if they double their viewers by going on Freeview, they're still millions behind ITV2/3/4.
I am sure they would be very pleased with an increase and a MUX on Freeview should ITV2-4 leave would help them. I said it as an example that not all viewers would jump to ITV1 as claimed.
When ITV2 launched in December 98, ITV1 had a viewing share of 32%.
The latest figure is 13.9%.
The PSB commercial channels charge higher rates than multichannels. So ten million watching a programme on ITV1 will bring in more revenue than ten million split between the four channels.
The UK TV set-up was very different back in 1998, so that is a bit like comparing apples with pears. What was the audience share when ITV4 launched and ITV plc decided that being behind a pay wall was not the place to be?
I am sure they would be very pleased with an increase and a MUX on Freeview should ITV2-4 leave would help them. I said it as an example that not all viewers would jump to ITV1 as claimed.
I never claimed all.
The UK TV set-up was very different back in 1998, so that is a bit like comparing apples with pears. What was the audience share when ITV4 launched and ITV plc decided that being behind a pay wall was not the place to be?
I am sure they would be very pleased with an increase and a MUX on Freeview should ITV2-4 leave would help them. I said it as an example that not all viewers would jump to ITV1 as claimed.
... it's unlikely to benefit ITV much as the assumption that ITV2-4 viewers would all migrate to ITV1 is frankly ludicrous, especially if Channel 4 and Five have decent enough channels available free to air.
Anyway with the digital multichannel divide always widening, audience shares are bound to be falling (more channels available to all). I still do not see how going behind a pay wall is now the thing to do but the exact opposite was the case back in 2005 when ITV4 launched.
Although as has also been said here, that may not be happening. Crozier only spoke of putting ITV2-4 HD behind a pay wall and getting more into PPV. But with claims Sky maybe dropping its 10 pounds per month HD charge in the future, I do not see that as a solution either.
As soon as ITV2/3/4 are behind a pay wall and ITV1 gets its viewers back and their number one position from BBC One, the better.
More viewers = more ad revenue = more expensive dramas = more ABC1 viewers = higher ad revenue.
Or more profts equals more payouts to sharholders, the fat cats at the top getting fatter, and ill-advised empire building, don't expect the programmes to get any better.
32 pc to 14 pc in 12 years for ITV1, BBC One has only fallen from 29pc to 22pc, doesn't that suggest something? I can foresee in the not too distant future ITV1 falling behind Channel 4 and Channel 5, if they decide to take on ITV head on. It seems to strike me that ITV1's core audience are middle aged women who buy redtops and the unemployed in daytime.
CBS really needs to be on Freeview, even its only a "CBS 1" channel featuring the best of the other CBS channels, Freesat is not that big, and for it to be free to air and not on freeview is madness in my book.
No. Look at the advertising rates for a 9pm drama that brings in ABC1 viewers and compare them to the more downmarket Coronation Street rates.
The massive audience figures for the two England matches in June would also bring in people who mostly avoid ITV1 now- men, ABC1s, teenage boys- so anything that goes beyond the narrow demographic ITV1 attracts now- C2DE older women, the underclass in daytime- has to be good. Surely a decent drama, as Derek points out, is better for ITV as the demographics will be broader than their usual female, downmarket fodder.
No. Look at the advertising rates for a 9pm drama that brings in ABC1 viewers and compare them to the more downmarket Coronation Street rates.
But you have to remember the cost of an episode of Cory, versus the average cost of a drama.
I really wish that ITV would provide more dramas like they used to, but realisticly they cant afford them. Dramas are just so hit and miss in the rating stakes at the moment. Go back 20 years ago, ITV could churn out a couple of new dramas that would get over 10 million every year. Even adjusting for the change in times, very few new dramas are getting 5 million, and they are just very expensive for this figure.
What really is needed is for a new drama or two to start that somehow manages to top the tv charts again, like Heartbeat, Soldier-Soldier et al did, and then ITV would invest in them.
On a side point, what i find really interesting about the advertising rates, why is it that during most slots London cost double the next biggest region, Central (im guessing including the old Central South Region). Yet when it comes to the 9pm drama slot, London is only about 10% more expensive, weird!
Is the above is true, it seems to suggest that a problem ITV is having is getting viewers from the South East interested in their prime time shows, which lets be honest, advertisers are willing to a premium for this audience.
it is true soaps are an excellent example of econmies of scale, they get cheaper the more you produce, and the auidence seems happy to watch 5 episode, a succesful soap is worth the weight of its viewers in gold to a TV channel.
Low risk high reward, ITV would be crazy to pass that up.
Comments
Its a channel like Dave, that would benefit from ITV 2, 3 & 4 leaving Freeview.
That said, ITV 2, 3 & 4 are all fairly succesful on freeview, and are all capable of attracting at least 800,000+, no question they loose out if they go Pay, however Archie is looking to invest in Pay TV, and ITV 2, 3 & 4 are an obvious choice for this.
Archie seems to feel that the money from Pay TV is going to be more stable than the money from advertising, that maybe true in the short run, but I do wonder about the long term future of ITV 2, 3 & 4, if they were to go Pay, where would they be in 10 years?
Dave, Top 10, w/e 1 Aug 2010
ITV4, Top 10. w/e 1 Aug 2010
ok I need to work out which averages out better, but Dave & ITV 4 ratings are comparable
anyway the results surprise me
Dave - 405,800
ITV 4 - 368,500
Isn't that probably because Dave is on "freeview"? I had forgotten that when I used them as an example. But that then backs up my argument that being free to air is obviously beneficial.
I should have used Sky1 or GOLD, Watch or any other "subs only" channel as an example.
http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewing?_s=4
Dave: 0.8,0.8,1.0 (average 0.87)
DaveJaVu: 0.3,0.3.0.3 (average, errm, don't tell me, 0.3)
ITV4: 0.8,0.8,1.1 (average 0.9)
ITV4+1: 0.1,0.1,0.1 (let me get my calculator, 0.1)
K
Not much in it, no comparison or argument either way, because Dave is FTV on Freeview and those figures are the months ITV4 has shown zero football.
Midsomer, Lewis etc. and Harry Hill for me!!
As soon as ITV2/3/4 are behind a pay wall and ITV1 gets its viewers back and their number one position from BBC One, the better.
More viewers = more ad revenue = more expensive dramas = more ABC1 viewers = higher ad revenue.
You cannot compare Sky Sports to ITV2-4. Clearly some people are prepared to pay premium rate for live Premier League football. ITV2-4 are not offering anything of that sort and would be bundled in with the Sky1, Living, Bravo entertainment packages which bring little in the way of subs and exclude a larger potential audience.
Also any space on Freeview would probably be taken by other channels (CBS possibly) and so the audience divide would still exist.
As I said they have been there before. ITV2 and ITV3 were launched behind a pay wall, IIRC, and I do not remember ITV1 rolling in higher audience figures back then. Why does "More viewers = more ad revenue" only work for ITV1 in your view, surely that can also be said for ITV2-4 and that cannot be achieved behind a pay wall.
I said as an example. Of course the figures are different, Sky pays more for the content so the subs are higher.
But many subscription channels run at a profit on relatively small audiences.
As for CBS, their channels are available for free on Astra so Sky, Freesat and generic box owners can receive them and their ratings are really poor. Even if they double their viewers by going on Freeview, they're still millions behind ITV2/3/4.
When ITV2 launched in December 98, ITV1 had a viewing share of 32%.
The latest figure is 13.9%.
The PSB commercial channels charge higher rates than multichannels. So ten million watching a programme on ITV1 will bring in more revenue than ten million split between the four channels.
ITV2, 3, and 4 as pay channels benefits Sky primarily as it weakens freeview and increases the chance of Sky/TUTV launching a larger pay-tv lite service over DTT.
As pay channels it won't benefit the consumer, and it's unlikely to benefit ITV much as the assumption that ITV2-4 viewers would all migrate to ITV1 is frankly ludicrous, especially if Channel 4 and Five have decent enough channels available free to air.
Those that join this hypothetical DTT service, Sky or Virgin would become one of many PVR users hitting ITV further.
It's only HD versions going behind a paywall (so we are not missing much) and unless ITV improves programming considerably there is no way in hell they well get better ratings against the BBC who still provides good quality programming on the money they get which most channels could not survive on.
I have said before I would rather pay a license fee for some quality programming than pay SKY for crap. Endless movie repeats, SKY 1 to 3 a joke, watered down cheap UK version's of US stations, badly edited and censored channels. The only thing SKY had worth paying for was SKY Sports 1and 2 and their now available elsewhere.
ITV are not going to pay to have old show's professionally converted to HD it will simply be up scaled. As long as the SD versions are readily available most people won't bother. Even if they decide to rid us of the SD versions ITV2 will still remain in Scotland at least.
I am sure they would be very pleased with an increase and a MUX on Freeview should ITV2-4 leave would help them. I said it as an example that not all viewers would jump to ITV1 as claimed.
The UK TV set-up was very different back in 1998, so that is a bit like comparing apples with pears. What was the audience share when ITV4 launched and ITV plc decided that being behind a pay wall was not the place to be?
I never claimed all.
21.7%
Anyway with the digital multichannel divide always widening, audience shares are bound to be falling (more channels available to all). I still do not see how going behind a pay wall is now the thing to do but the exact opposite was the case back in 2005 when ITV4 launched.
Although as has also been said here, that may not be happening. Crozier only spoke of putting ITV2-4 HD behind a pay wall and getting more into PPV. But with claims Sky maybe dropping its 10 pounds per month HD charge in the future, I do not see that as a solution either.
Or more profts equals more payouts to sharholders, the fat cats at the top getting fatter, and ill-advised empire building, don't expect the programmes to get any better.
True, but BSkyB have been market resarching their Sky+ via DTT proposition and on that ITV2/3/4, E4, More4 and Sky Sports News are all pay channels.
As far as advertising rates on ITV1 and their multichannels compare, have a look at this ITV document to see what 50 grand buys you.
http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/assets/itvmedia/content/downloadables/spot%20costs%20-%20itv%20media%20-%20itv1%20and%20multichannel%20-%20feb%202010.pdf
It clearly shows why Crozier believes why ITV has gone in the wrong direction, by not focussing on ITV1 or embracing pay TV.
A miilion viewers on ITV1 is worth a lot more than a million on ITV2.
And this is why you're unlikely to get better programmes, only formulaic mass market ones.
No. Look at the advertising rates for a 9pm drama that brings in ABC1 viewers and compare them to the more downmarket Coronation Street rates.
The massive audience figures for the two England matches in June would also bring in people who mostly avoid ITV1 now- men, ABC1s, teenage boys- so anything that goes beyond the narrow demographic ITV1 attracts now- C2DE older women, the underclass in daytime- has to be good. Surely a decent drama, as Derek points out, is better for ITV as the demographics will be broader than their usual female, downmarket fodder.
But you have to remember the cost of an episode of Cory, versus the average cost of a drama.
I really wish that ITV would provide more dramas like they used to, but realisticly they cant afford them. Dramas are just so hit and miss in the rating stakes at the moment. Go back 20 years ago, ITV could churn out a couple of new dramas that would get over 10 million every year. Even adjusting for the change in times, very few new dramas are getting 5 million, and they are just very expensive for this figure.
What really is needed is for a new drama or two to start that somehow manages to top the tv charts again, like Heartbeat, Soldier-Soldier et al did, and then ITV would invest in them.
On a side point, what i find really interesting about the advertising rates, why is it that during most slots London cost double the next biggest region, Central (im guessing including the old Central South Region). Yet when it comes to the 9pm drama slot, London is only about 10% more expensive, weird!
Is the above is true, it seems to suggest that a problem ITV is having is getting viewers from the South East interested in their prime time shows, which lets be honest, advertisers are willing to a premium for this audience.
Low risk high reward, ITV would be crazy to pass that up.