• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BT Sports Channel (Part 2)
<<
<
326 of 345
>>
>
rmc57
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Embarrassing that Sky's coverage has outrated BT's in the past even with ITV showing the game as well (albeit with English involvement in those finals).”

Scarcely embarrassing given that Sky have had over 25 years of marketing behind them and control the largest pay-TV platform plus have the constant backing of publicity from Murdoch's press empire

The embarrassment is how swiftly a properly-funded competitor has taken so much of their business and rights in just a handful of years.
Jeffmister
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Embarrassing that Sky's coverage has outrated BT's in the past even with ITV showing the game as well (albeit with English involvement in those finals).”

On the other hand, BT would argue just looking at the BT Sport Europe ratings alone that in their first season broadcasting the CL - they posted the best Pay TV final numbers since 2012 when Chelsea were involved
gs1
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Embarrassing that Sky's coverage has outrated BT's in the past even with ITV showing the game as well (albeit with English involvement in those finals).”

ITV's scheduling of the Britain's Got Talent Final (BGT) is a relevant factor here, I think. They took a considerably larger audience for BGT than they achieved for previous Champions League Finals- albeit, that the BGT Final didn't fare well in comparison to previous BGT Finals.

If a mainstream free-to-air channel doesn't have the rights, then they are competing with popular programming against it!
Neil_Harris
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Embarrassing that Sky's coverage has outrated BT's in the past even with ITV showing the game as well (albeit with English involvement in those finals).”

Key point. English team involved.
I missed last nights match for a family occasion. Made no effort to see it. If an English team was involved I would have.
SSL2010
29-05-2016
The figure is alot higher then what the tv viewing figures suggest.

The bars in my town centre had it on, and the place me and my pals were in was rammed for the match itself.

The majority were all for an Atleti victory.

All in all, BT will be chuffed with the figures. The match average and peak was pretty impressive for BT's first final.

Should be intresting to see how much of a boost the youtube ratings provide.
jlp95bwfc
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by SSL2010:
“The figure is alot higher then what the tv viewing figures suggest.

The bars in my town centre had it on, and the place me and my pals were in was rammed for the match itself.”

That's irrelevant as people watching in bars are never counted in the viewing figures so it doesn't affect the comparison to the Sky/ITV days.
promo-only
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by rmc57:
“Scarcely embarrassing given that Sky have had over 25 years of marketing behind them and control the largest pay-TV platform plus have the constant backing of publicity from Murdoch's press empire

The embarrassment is how swiftly a properly-funded competitor has taken so much of their business and rights in just a handful of years.”

Sky having had 25+ years of marketing behind them has got nothing to do with how poorly the Champions League has rated for BT.

BT haven't exactly skimped on their own marketing in recent times; there was a time at the start of the UEFA competitions this season when you couldn't read a paper or watch TV without having their coverage rammed down your throat.

The coverage has rated so poorly because the level of advertising they've given to certain matches being offered on a free basis has been pathetically poor. They've advertised it above and beyond when it comes to shifting broadband packages but the free matches have fallen by the wayside in PR terms.
JSemple3
29-05-2016
Didn't realise BT had their own team out in indianapolis this weekend. Really good to see
Jokanovic
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Embarrassing that Sky's coverage has outrated BT's in the past even with ITV showing the game as well (albeit with English involvement in those finals).”

Do you not think having an English team in it then makes a difference ?
I would of thought thats pretty important myself in terms of viewing figures.

Don't think being the sole rights holder to the biggest club tournament in the world is embarrassing at all for them I reckon they will be more than happy how this season has gone.
promo-only
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by Jokanovic:
“Do you not think having an English team in it then makes a difference ?
I would of thought thats pretty important myself in terms of viewing figures.

Don't think being the sole rights holder to the biggest club tournament in the world is embarrassing at all for them I reckon they will be more than happy how this season has gone.”

I'm not sure the Champions League sponsors will feel quite as happy as you think BT are feeling somehow.
Jokanovic
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“I'm not sure the Champions League sponsors will feel quite as happy as you think BT are feeling somehow.”

Well if that's the case then I guess they maybe unhappy for two more seasons.

Only UEFA to blame for allowing it to leave free to air.
jlp95bwfc
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by Jokanovic:
“Do you not think having an English team in it then makes a difference ?
I would of thought thats pretty important myself in terms of viewing figures.

Don't think being the sole rights holder to the biggest club tournament in the world is embarrassing at all for them I reckon they will be more than happy how this season has gone.”

Of course I do. That's why I said it. But the fact is that Sky coverage (even with a FTA broadcaster showing the same match) has beaten BT's rating last night in the past (and come close in non-English finals. Which merely shows what a massive drop in total audience there has been. How can UEFA be happy with that?
arunan22
29-05-2016
Not sure BT will be too bothered about the figures either way - after all, they gave a lot of those viewers away for free.

Its UEFA that will be bothered, total reach for their showpiece event is significantly down in the UK. Of course, anyone could have told them this would happen by not having the final on ITV and not even on the largest pay sports channel (Sky).

BT's value comes in the matches prior to the final, and they look like they've done OK with those games. UEFA and their sponsors really do want everyone to watch the final, but they have shot themselves in the foot a bit by taking the money instead.
Jokanovic
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by jlp95bwfc:
“Of course I do. That's why I said it. But the fact is that Sky coverage (even with a FTA broadcaster showing the same match) has beaten BT's rating last night in the past (and come close in non-English finals. Which merely shows what a massive drop in total audience there has been. How can UEFA be happy with that?”

Well it was their choice. I am sure they were more than happy to accept the huge deal they did with BT so they can hardly complain now.

Even if SKY got it exclusive the figures would be nowhere near FTA coverage so I guess thats UEFA's call for the next deal.

Sky said they weren't bothered losing it so perhaps they will not bid next time. And pigs might fly as well
gs1
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by Jokanovic:
“Well it was their choice. I am sure they were more than happy to accept the huge deal they did with BT so they can hardly complain now.”

Indeed, they made a commercial decision to take a huge increase in tv rights, that vastly outweighed the additional revenue attainable from sponsors for free-to-air coverage (as discussed several times in the forum).

The consequence is that the combined audience was down about 3.6 million (less if you factor in the Youtube audience).

Meanwhile, ITV "replaced" live coverage of the Final with the Britain's Got Talent (BGT) Final, and it outperformed their coverage of last year's Champions League Final by approximately 3 million (reported as 8.45 million average, I believe).

So where was this "missing" Champions League Final audience? Without getting too "bogged down" with the figures, the obvious answer seems to be that many were watching ITV. For the first time, a traditionally more popular programme- the BGT Final- was pitched against the Champions League Final, because ITV didn't have rights to both!

The key factor, therefore, is not which pay-tv provider has the rights, but that if the biggest free-to-air commercial channel, ITV, doesn't jointly hold the rights, it will take the audience away from your event by broadcasting popular programming against it.
jlp95bwfc
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by gs1:
“Indeed, they made a commercial decision to take a huge increase in tv rights, that vastly outweighed the additional revenue attainable from sponsors for free-to-air coverage (as discussed several times in the forum).

The consequence is that the combined audience was down about 3.6 million (less if you factor in the Youtube audience).

Meanwhile, ITV "replaced" live coverage of the Final with the Britain's Got Talent (BGT) Final, and it outperformed their coverage of last year's Champions League Final by approximately 3 million (reported as 8.45 million average, I believe).

So where was this "missing" Champions League Final audience? Without getting too "bogged down" with the figures, the obvious answer seems to be that many were watching ITV. For the first time, a traditionally more popular programme- the BGT Final- was pitched against the Champions League Final, because ITV didn't have rights to both!

The key factor, therefore, is not which pay-tv provider has the rights, but that if the biggest free-to-air commercial channel, ITV, doesn't jointly hold the rights, it will take the audience away from your event by broadcasting popular programming against it.”

The general consensus after the BGT Final dropped 3m viewers from last year is that they won't put it up against the CL final again though.
mlt11
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by gs1:
“Indeed, they made a commercial decision to take a huge increase in tv rights, that vastly outweighed the additional revenue attainable from sponsors for free-to-air coverage (as discussed several times in the forum).

The consequence is that the combined audience was down about 3.6 million (less if you factor in the Youtube audience).

Meanwhile, ITV "replaced" live coverage of the Final with the Britain's Got Talent (BGT) Final, and it outperformed their coverage of last year's Champions League Final by approximately 3 million (reported as 8.45 million average, I believe).

So where was this "missing" Champions League Final audience? Without getting too "bogged down" with the figures, the obvious answer seems to be that many were watching ITV. For the first time, a traditionally more popular programme- the BGT Final- was pitched against the Champions League Final, because ITV didn't have rights to both!

The key factor, therefore, is not which pay-tv provider has the rights, but that if the biggest free-to-air commercial channel, ITV, doesn't jointly hold the rights, it will take the audience away from your event by broadcasting popular programming against it.”

Yes, agreed.

However it should also be noted that the BGT Final is very popular programming - it's one of the most popular programmes of the year.

So if the CL Final hadn't clashed with the BGT Final (and instead had just clashed with "routine" BBC1/ITV "entertainment") then the CL Final would have rated higher.

And vice versa - there is only one BGT Final - if it hadn't clashed with the CL Final it would also have rated higher.
gs1
29-05-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Yes, agreed.

However it should also be noted that the BGT Final is very popular programming - it's one of the most popular programmes of the year.

So if the CL Final hadn't clashed with the BGT Final (and instead had just clashed with "routine" BBC1/ITV "entertainment") then the CL Final would have rated higher.

And vice versa - there is only one BGT Final - if it hadn't clashed with the CL Final it would also have rated higher.”

Indeed, I did a cursory comparison of figures and concluded that the BGT Final had outperformed the (combined/total) Champions League audience for the last five years (I didn't go back further); including Bayern -v- Chelsea in 2012, where the Champions League Final attracted a better audience due to English participation.

Your second point is also borne out by reports that the BGT Final rated lowest last night in its 10 year history, losing approximately 2.8 million on last year's BGT Final (one report questions whether this was partly attributable to the BGT semi-finals not being broadcast during half-term. BGT is, frankly, not one of my areas of expertise!)

So, both have had an impact on the other, when broadcast head-to-head.
gs1
30-05-2016
Quote:
“..... Europa League final attracted an audience of 4.99m, with well over a million tuning in live on digital platforms including bt.com, the BT Sport App and YouTube. .....
.... Champions League final brought a reach of 4.3m, with a further 1.8m following it live on digital platforms. ....”


Full article at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...tory-free.html
casinoman13
30-05-2016
Originally Posted by gs1:
“
Full article at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...tory-free.html”

Considering all the previous post's, that looks a healthy figure and no doubt BT will be delighted.
clewsy
30-05-2016
It's a shame more broadcasters don't use YouTube for live streaming. There are so many smaller FTA channels who could maximise thus broadcast method.

It just works on all platforms and is easy to use. I guess if we had to have PPV sports I'd rather them on something like YouTube for the multiple platform approach.
derek500
30-05-2016
Originally Posted by gs1:
“
Full article at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...tory-free.html”

Surely the 1.8m is for 'digital' which encompasses BT.com, the BT app AND YouTube?

Confused journo?
BFGArmy
30-05-2016
I'm not normally one to blow the 'great viewing figures for BT' trumpet but those honestly are brilliant figures - especially airing directly opposite the juggernaut that is the BGT Final.

Sounds like (to be clear I'm not totally sure about the whole ratings terminology so I may be wrong) when the viewing figures across all platforms and channels are added together that it could have got a larger audience than Top Gear did last night - which given the hype and lack of competition Top Gear had is an incredible effort by BT.
gs1
30-05-2016
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Surely the 1.8m is for 'digital' which encompasses BT.com, the BT app AND YouTube?

Confused journo?”

You're probably right- the headline doesn't quite match the content.

At 1.30 in the morning, I definitely only supplied this on an "as is" basis, and I'm still not fully awake!

Originally Posted by BFGArmy:
“ ......to be clear I'm not totally sure about the whole ratings terminology .....”

To be fair, I suspect that different data sources are being mixed, and it can only give a "feel" for the audience, as opposed to the more robust means of measuring conventional tv audiences; but I don't know enough about the ratings capabilities available for the likes of BT.com, the BT app and YouTube, to be any surer than you.
mlt11
30-05-2016
As previously discussed, the issue with these YouTube and other digital figures is that they aren't comparable to normal TV ratings as they tend to represent the number of hits / requests made - they aren't the same as the reported number of people watching the entire broadcast.

If 1.8m had watched the entire broadcast on YouTube / digital platforms that would be a phenomenally good figure - it would be a truly extraordinary rating.

But if 1.8m have just made a hit / request at some point during the evening and watched for a few minutes then it doesn't mean very much at all.

In reality, the actual position will be somewhere between the above two scenarios - but we don't know where.
<<
<
326 of 345
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map