"I'm pretty sure that [programme name] will be axed in the next 5-10 years" could well be applied to any shows on any channel at any time. Not exactly rocket science
"I'm pretty sure that [programme name] will be axed in the next 5-10 years" could well be applied to any shows on any channel at any time. Not exactly rocket science
The reliance that this programme has on money from its overseas broadcaster places it at high risk especially as said overseas broadcaster paid over the odds for it last time round and isn't likely to again when the programme is up for contract renewal in 2 yrs time. (Channel 5 would likely rather develop programming synergies with their sister MTV channels)
The reliance that this programme has on money from its overseas broadcaster places it at high risk especially as said overseas broadcaster paid over the odds for it last time round and isn't likely to again when the programme is up for contract renewal in 2 yrs time. (Channel 5 would likely rather develop programming synergies with their sister MTV channels)
this, surviving on over seas sales is not the worst thing ever, for a show in a smart market like Austraila, its when C5 gave them the massive cash injection that upset the standard arrangement, now if they dont get that big cash injection again, it will fall apart.
this, surviving on over seas sales is not the worst thing ever, for a show in a smart market like Austraila, its when C5 gave them the massive cash injection that upset the standard arrangement, now if they dont get that big cash injection again, it will fall apart.
Also most Australians abandoned Neighbours after 2005/6 when Neighbours changed from OTT bonkfest to family friendly teen heavy storylines under Susan Bowers
Also most Australians abandoned Neighbours after 2005/6 when Neighbours changed from OTT bonkfest to family friendly teen heavy storylines under Susan Bowers
that maybe, but its going to be damm near impossible for it to win viewers back on ELEVEN, C5 will soon find itself footing the whole bill, if its not careful, assuming it wants to of course, if Viacom does not want to things will be interesting
Not the kind of move the BBC should make in the run up to charter renewal when their trying to make the case for the BBCs public services distinctiveness.Neighbours is fine on a commercial channel.
If Neighbours was a US show or a UK show it would have been axed by now due to falling ratings. More so if it was a US show.
Any US show that falls out of the US top 30 in the ratings for more than one season or starts to do badly on the channel its shown on the show seems to get axed.
Not the kind of move the BBC should make in the run up to charter renewal when their trying to make the case for the BBCs public services distinctiveness.Neighbours is fine on a commercial channel.
Not the kind of move the BBC should make in the run up to charter renewal when their trying to make the case for the BBCs public services distinctiveness.Neighbours is fine on a commercial channel.
should have replied to this earlier, sorry but no that is not the case.
Neighbours on TEN or ELEVEN is not a commercial success, far from it has been living off international sales most of its life.
Those international sales are of course UK sales, which for along time was the BBC, the BBC built the audience, in the UK, Neighbours would not be on Channel 5 now, if the BBC had not continued to fund the commercially successful Neighbours. Meanwhile Neighbours would not have its audience without BBC.
Channel 5 bought it to buy viewers it did not have, they bought it because it was already on a UK TV channel, sure I can not argue they spent ALOT of money doing it, but do not kid yourself that Neighbours would be commercially successful in the UK without decades of license fee payer investment. The TV licence paid for Neighbours to build its audience, the audience Channel 5 paid big for.
Has that work, um mixed bag I think, I think the real test will be what Viacom does when it has the option to renew the deal.
Isn't one of the only reasons it's still made is that Aus TV are forced to show x amount of Aus made shows.
Yes, I don't know about the current situation but I remember the producer of H&A said in an interview about 10 years ago that there were government quotas for homegrown drama on Australian TV and the reason for Neighbours survival was the network would have to replace it with a similar show (that may crash & burn) if Neighbours was axed.
should have replied to this earlier, sorry but no that is not the case.
Neighbours on TEN or ELEVEN is not a commercial success, far from it has been living off international sales most of its life.
Those international sales are of course UK sales, which for along time was the BBC, the BBC built the audience, in the UK, Neighbours would not be on Channel 5 now, if the BBC had not continued to fund the commercially successful Neighbours. Meanwhile Neighbours would not have its audience without BBC.
Channel 5 bought it to buy viewers it did not have, they bought it because it was already on a UK TV channel, sure I can not argue they spent ALOT of money doing it, but do not kid yourself that Neighbours would be commercially successful in the UK without decades of license fee payer investment. The TV licence paid for Neighbours to build its audience, the audience Channel 5 paid big for.
Has that work, um mixed bag I think, I think the real test will be what Viacom does when it has the option to renew the deal.
I fully appreciate all of the above but going on were we are NOW_we are were we are so to speak and I think the dilemma/choice as it is now ia that buying back Neighbours would be a mistake.The BBC needs to create/support new hits bit go back to whats safe and has worked in the past.
How about they create a niche low budget uk soap for this slot,or standalone one off self contained commisioned dramas for teatime-a tv version of the Radio 4 style afternoon plays?
I doubt the bbc would have any interest in Neighbours, don't think you could grow the audience much beyond what it is now (which is likely the hardcore remnants of those watching 25 years ago) given the fact it seems more low budget now than during the glory years and is hindered by the G rating*. TV has moved on since the 80's, but Neighbours hasn't.
*All Oz tv has a content rating, and all episodes of Neighbours have to be the lowest one, suitable for all.
I fully appreciate all of the above but going on were we are NOW_we are were we are so to speak and I think the dilemma/choice as it is now ia that buying back Neighbours would be a mistake.The BBC needs to create/support new hits bit go back to whats safe and has worked in the past.
How about they create a niche low budget uk soap for this slot,or standalone one off self contained commisioned dramas for teatime-a tv version of the Radio 4 style afternoon plays?
I dont disagree that the BBC does not Neighbours, I always have, its only really the OP who is suggesting otherwise.
As for having a niche channel, that is fine if your soap is otherwise financially stable, which Neighbours is not.
£300m for Neighbours? Yuk. And these idiots can't bid for cricket rights.
I was a Neighbours fan for about 4-5 years while at secondary school. Grew out of it. Never been a fan of any other soap. Coronation Street is best suited for people in retirement while Eastenders fan base is made up of meth-heads. At least Neighbours was quite classy. But still, it's best days were I imagine the late 80s to late 90s.
To those moaning about the money - you obviously have no idea how much it costs to make or buy-in a TV programme. I mean, I don't know much about Neighbours these days (i stopped watching about 1993) but if it's £300M over 10 years? So lets do the sums.
£30M per year - say they produce 250 episodes a year (50 weeks worth) that's a cost of £120,000 per episode for Channel 5. That sounds about right in terms of the "real world" of TV production/commissioning. But of course this is Digital Spy, not the real world...
To those moaning about the money - you obviously have no idea how much it costs to make or buy-in a TV programme. I mean, I don't know much about Neighbours these days (i stopped watching about 1993) but if it's £300M over 10 years? So lets do the sums.
£30M per year - say they produce 250 episodes a year (50 weeks worth) that's a cost of £120,000 per episode for Channel 5. That sounds about right in terms of the "real world" of TV production/commissioning. But of course this is Digital Spy, not the real world...
As pointed out of the other thread, when the 5 deal was done it was one arm of FremantleMedia paying money to a different arm of the same company; this presumably had tax avoidance benefits. Whether C5's current owners Viacom would think it good value is anyone's guess.
In any case it's a moot point methinks- Neighbours will likely survive in Australia, even if it is just because of home grown drama quotas, and I'm sure some UK broadcaster will happily take it.
And New Zealand, Kenya and Canada as well as some 47 other countries, "and is one of Australia's most successful media exports."
My point being it's not just the UK.
not sure about Kenya or Canada, but being big in New Zeland will not pay the bills, do you have figured on how well the show does in those 47 other countries, well enough to pay the production bills, not just the buy the licence to air it?
not sure about Kenya or Canada, but being big in New Zeland will not pay the bills, do you have figured on how well the show does in those 47 other countries, well enough to pay the production bills, not just the buy the licence to air it?
And according to a wikipedia article the channel 5 picks up most of the tab:
"A July 2010 report showed figures had dropped 20%, from having 1.2 million viewers in 1991 to a low of 618,000 in 2010. A Network Ten spokesperson commented "Most of the show's budget is covered by its UK deal with Channel 5 and the 50-odd other countries it is seen in, so it's not a financial problem for Ten despite the low ratings.
..................
Following its move to digital multichannel Eleven, Neighbours attracted 254,000 viewers for the first episode broadcast on 11 January 2011
..................
Neighbours has traditionally rated between 250,000 and 350,000 since moving to Eleven in January 2011"
So in Australia and to a lesser extent in the UK, Neighbours is in terminal decline, Network Ten shunted it off to Eleven, which is hardly a vote of confidence, the equivalent of Channel Five moving it to Fiver. As the old saying goes 'He who pays the piper, plays the tune', so if Viacom decide to keep neighbours, it will do so knowing that it can reduce the price paid and the producers and Network Ten will then decide if to continue on a reduced budget or end the programme. On current form no other mainstream UK channel is likely to be interested, on a long shot possibly Channel 4/E4 as a companion programme for Hollyoaks , or itv2, but then only if the price was right and was more than Viacom was willing to pay.
Comments
Isn't one of the only reasons it's still made is that Aus TV are forced to show x amount of Aus made shows.
Sadly me too
Any US show that falls out of the US top 30 in the ratings for more than one season or starts to do badly on the channel its shown on the show seems to get axed.
Darren
Neighbours on TEN or ELEVEN is not a commercial success, far from it has been living off international sales most of its life.
Those international sales are of course UK sales, which for along time was the BBC, the BBC built the audience, in the UK, Neighbours would not be on Channel 5 now, if the BBC had not continued to fund the commercially successful Neighbours. Meanwhile Neighbours would not have its audience without BBC.
Channel 5 bought it to buy viewers it did not have, they bought it because it was already on a UK TV channel, sure I can not argue they spent ALOT of money doing it, but do not kid yourself that Neighbours would be commercially successful in the UK without decades of license fee payer investment. The TV licence paid for Neighbours to build its audience, the audience Channel 5 paid big for.
Has that work, um mixed bag I think, I think the real test will be what Viacom does when it has the option to renew the deal.
Yes, I don't know about the current situation but I remember the producer of H&A said in an interview about 10 years ago that there were government quotas for homegrown drama on Australian TV and the reason for Neighbours survival was the network would have to replace it with a similar show (that may crash & burn) if Neighbours was axed.
I fully appreciate all of the above but going on were we are NOW_we are were we are so to speak and I think the dilemma/choice as it is now ia that buying back Neighbours would be a mistake.The BBC needs to create/support new hits bit go back to whats safe and has worked in the past.
How about they create a niche low budget uk soap for this slot,or standalone one off self contained commisioned dramas for teatime-a tv version of the Radio 4 style afternoon plays?
*All Oz tv has a content rating, and all episodes of Neighbours have to be the lowest one, suitable for all.
As for having a niche channel, that is fine if your soap is otherwise financially stable, which Neighbours is not.
And New Zealand, Kenya and Canada as well as some 47 other countries, "and is one of Australia's most successful media exports."
My point being it's not just the UK.
I was a Neighbours fan for about 4-5 years while at secondary school. Grew out of it. Never been a fan of any other soap. Coronation Street is best suited for people in retirement while Eastenders fan base is made up of meth-heads. At least Neighbours was quite classy. But still, it's best days were I imagine the late 80s to late 90s.
£30M per year - say they produce 250 episodes a year (50 weeks worth) that's a cost of £120,000 per episode for Channel 5. That sounds about right in terms of the "real world" of TV production/commissioning. But of course this is Digital Spy, not the real world...
As pointed out of the other thread, when the 5 deal was done it was one arm of FremantleMedia paying money to a different arm of the same company; this presumably had tax avoidance benefits. Whether C5's current owners Viacom would think it good value is anyone's guess.
In any case it's a moot point methinks- Neighbours will likely survive in Australia, even if it is just because of home grown drama quotas, and I'm sure some UK broadcaster will happily take it.
And according to a wikipedia article the channel 5 picks up most of the tab:
"A July 2010 report showed figures had dropped 20%, from having 1.2 million viewers in 1991 to a low of 618,000 in 2010. A Network Ten spokesperson commented "Most of the show's budget is covered by its UK deal with Channel 5 and the 50-odd other countries it is seen in, so it's not a financial problem for Ten despite the low ratings.
..................
Following its move to digital multichannel Eleven, Neighbours attracted 254,000 viewers for the first episode broadcast on 11 January 2011
..................
Neighbours has traditionally rated between 250,000 and 350,000 since moving to Eleven in January 2011"
So in Australia and to a lesser extent in the UK, Neighbours is in terminal decline, Network Ten shunted it off to Eleven, which is hardly a vote of confidence, the equivalent of Channel Five moving it to Fiver. As the old saying goes 'He who pays the piper, plays the tune', so if Viacom decide to keep neighbours, it will do so knowing that it can reduce the price paid and the producers and Network Ten will then decide if to continue on a reduced budget or end the programme. On current form no other mainstream UK channel is likely to be interested, on a long shot possibly Channel 4/E4 as a companion programme for Hollyoaks , or itv2, but then only if the price was right and was more than Viacom was willing to pay.