• 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
  • Entertainment Services
  • Terrestrial
  • Freeview
Motors TV gone from CH71
<<
<
4 of 5
>>
>
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
I think Motors should had trialed terrestrial TV when internet connected FreeviewHD boxes became the norm. So several years from now. There are still too many UK homes with post switchover non-HD boxes and TVs, or lousy internet speed. So there was no channel 71 or 240 for them.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Yes but let's be honest the price when it grows will be massive.

That's why I suspecr they went now and stats suggest it worked for them on overall averages. The problem is that you need decent content on any platform to get the viewers - which of course is what is needed to get the advertisers.

Shame they couldnt have broadcast on 71 for 2hrs over night (keeps the EPG slot), but then have the MHEG to press red to watch online at all other times. However something makes me suspect it's the cost of all these viewers since 71 went which is part of the issue.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
The price might stay roughly the same to in order to compete with the rise of rival internet distributed platforms.

I'd have waited 2 or 3 more years before starting a standard definition MPEG 4 channel like Motors on channel 71. Virtually all standard definition channels are still MPEG 2. Their other option would have been to timeshare with a shopping channel network to share the costs.

Motors TV seem to have blown their budget recently, then had to take drastic action to keep afloat. So less live programming, and playing hardball by pulling the plug with the likes of Sky and their overseas counterparts (to get cheaper deals) seems to be the plan.
clewsy
31-03-2016
I suspect your probably right about the financial pressures.

The problem is that they need decent content to get viewer, which in turn means advertising rates should increase. However now they are left with less viewers and what appears like less content as well. Doesn't bode well.

They need to look at some form of smart TV app or get on something like TV Player. At least that way they have the chance to get their content out to a wider audience.
epsilon
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“The viewing figures basically x4 when they went on Freeview from past data.

But maybe cost of broadcasting compared to ad revenue means it's better to shrink down in size?”

Yes, a x4 increase in viewing figures sounds good. Unfortunately, if they needed to increase viewing figures by x8 to cover the additional broadcasting costs, it's not so good. We'll probably never know the size of audience they were aiming for.
epsilon
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“Shame they couldnt have broadcast on 71 for 2hrs over night (keeps the EPG slot), but then have the MHEG to press red to watch online at all other times. However something makes me suspect it's the cost of all these viewers since 71 went which is part of the issue.”

I don't think it would have made a massive difference. As a relatively specialised channel, the audience is more likely to come from people seeking out the content rather than from passing trade.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by epsilon:
“Yes, a x4 increase in viewing figures sounds good. Unfortunately, if they needed to increase viewing figures by x8 to cover the additional broadcasting costs, it's not so good. We'll probably never know the size of audience they were aiming for.”

Totally agree. However that IPTV works by paying per viewer, which makes it cheaper and more appealing for the niche channels.

However it seems to have become an issue since the closure of 71. It's my guess that the cost per user is way too great when you have quite a few viewers watching - however normal carriage is too expensive to justify.

Maybe this is where the "issues" arrise. Motors what to pay less per viewer, Aquiva wont discount or not by the amount required?

It would be interesting to know actual figures for 240 as get the feeling they were much higher than many of us suspected.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by epsilon:
“I don't think it would have made a massive difference. As a relatively specialised channel, the audience is more likely to come from people seeking out the content rather than from passing trade.”

Just thinking it gets them the EPG slot but then makes use of the believed cheaper broadcasting costs.

Your right though about people seeking out the channel and that's why I'm surprised they havent gone down the app route? Would probably be cheaper to broadcast online and probably the EPG listing fees would more than cover the costs of development.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
They are back to where they were in 2014 before they tried Freeview, but with a better Sky deal. They're still showing live content, just less than last year. They will still have the satellite and cable viewers.

Internet delivered TV is still in it's infancy, but I expect every broadcaster will be on the IPTV boat eventually.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by Hacker Harrier:
“They are back to where they were in 2014 before they tried Freeview, but with a better Sky deal. They're still showing live content, just less than last year. They will still have the satellite and cable viewers.

Internet delivered TV is still in it's infancy, but I expect every broadcaster will be on the IPTV boat eventually.”

BT are ahead of of the game with IPTV and I think the issue with it on Freeview is the EPG position tucked away at the far end.

They claim 10.5m households now have Freeview HD, so if just 1% of that tap into Motors that's 150,000 viewers. Even half that and your adding another 70,000.

But what is the cost per viewer?

If it was 1p that's a possibile 70k per hour in broadcast fees. They would need some serious advertising to get that back.

Even in the quiet period using that 1p figure, getting 2,000 viewers would cost 2k, which would be way more than advertising brings in.

Clearly this figure of 1p can't be right. But it probably highlights what the negotions / issues surround. Get a cheaper price here and suddenly it becomes cost effective as you can profit from increased viewers.

As for sky. Did they get a better deal? Or did they just pay up so they didn't loserhe EPG slot and the ability to broadcast in SD without an HD option?
epsilon
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“Totally agree. However that IPTV works by paying per viewer, which makes it cheaper and more appealing for the niche channels.”

I would have thought there would be 2 elements, a fixed charge for providing the service and a variable charge for data used (which would be the per user charge). That's the model I've usually seen for internet hosting of this nature.

I don't know Arqiva's pricing structure for this type of service but if there is a fixed cost, it may have been too high justify for the number of viewers using the service. The number of MHEG-IC services starting up and closing within a relatively short period suggests that it may not be as cost effective as we might think.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
A couple of years ago I regularly watched the WEC races when they were web streamed free on DailyMotion. They had a viewer number count at the bottom of the screen. The English commentary stream only had around 4000 to 5000 viewers most of the time, if I recall correctly.
clewsy
31-03-2016
So 4000 x 0.01 = £40 for the hour let's say.

If the £5 per 30s is correct online for advertising on motors then they can make £200 per hour, assuming 4 breaks, 5mins long.

Of course they you have to spend that £160 on the rights cost per hour, production costs, broadcast costs.

I guess you could make some money if you were not hit with a massive up front cost.

HOWEVER,

Say you pull in 45,000 viewers for a show as it appeals and your only getting that same ad rate. Your making a loss.

45,000 x 0.01 = £450 per hour.

Its deffo more suited if its structure like this to be a smaller niche viewing figure. Get too large and it becomes expensive.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
BARB audience share for Motors TV:
September 2015: 0.03%
January 2016: 0.02%

BARB audience share for ITV 4:
September 2015: 0.91%
January 2016: 0.81%

Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/m...ewing-summary/
clewsy
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by Hacker Harrier:
“BARB audience share for Motors TV:
September 2015: 0.03%
January 2016: 0.02%

BARB audience share for ITV 4:
September 2015: 0.91%
January 2016: 0.81

Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/m...ewing-summary/”

ITV4 is about level really, when you compare the trend line for the same months over the years.

Motors is up compared to 2014. However think the loss of Freeview will hit headline stats hard and it will be interesting to see how it compares to its old days.

Also remember the BTCC is going to be pulling in decent figures for ITV in Sept, where as in Jan they have no BTCC to call upon. That probably causes that drop.
epsilon
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“I suspect there is a fixed charge as well..”

In this case, I would think, the fixed charge would have to cover the costs of the front-end of the service, which is the data element on the transmitter network rather than for the internet. Although it would cost far less than a full video channel, it would probably cost far more than an IPTV service not using the transmitter network as a front end.

I just wonder how cost effective it actually is, with the likes of TV Player expanding their web based service but dropping their MHEG-IC service.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
Last month Motors was down to 0.01%. Motors TV was only on channel 240.

Clearly the only way their accountants could balance the books was to cut costs drastically.

Even an established channel like ITV 4 struggles to get 1% overall share.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Yes TV Player though have yet to deliver on the Samsung TV app which has been in development according to the website for ages now.

I think if your going to make this work you need to have your app on these smart TVs to get people finding and using, just like they do with a phone. I guess for a specialist channel with a clear audience this method would work better than something more general.
clewsy
31-03-2016
Originally Posted by Hacker Harrier:
“Last month Motors was down to 0.01%. Motors TV was only on channel 240.

Clearly the only way their accountants could balance the books was to cut costs drastically.”

Does BARB even cover IPTV?

That 0.01% is still better than it has done years ago.
Hacker Harrier
31-03-2016
BARB disclaimer: The data provided does not relate directly to calendar months but to the closest 4 or 5 week period.

Probably.

Motors TV seemed to only get * figure in the pre-Freeview days. So less than 0.01%.
clewsy
01-04-2016
Out of interest could a channel like Motors broadcast using YouTube if they wanted?

Ie. Firstly would it be possible to broadcast live 24/7 on YouTube?

Would they be able to carry the adverts and more importantly I guess make as revenue from the YouTube channel as well?

Just thinking that surly this is the cheapest way for TV channels to get online. YouTube cover the costs of the bandwidth so your not paying more for viewers, however guess the BARB ratings wouldn't apply to You Tube.
clewsy
01-04-2016
I had a quick look at some of the BATB stats for Motors and other channels today.

It's not good for motors when your getting lower figures than Heart TV! Compared to Vintage TV (another IP channel) no where near their figures. So maybe this highlights how poor the channel is when it lacks the live content that pulls in the viewers.

I guess they will need to look to some subs model really to survive and get some decent rights and coverage. Maybe this will be the future model we see developed?
Hacker Harrier
01-04-2016
Many series now stream their races live, for free on either their website or a 3rd party streaming service. For instance Nissan NISMO and others stream live race video from their own Youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/nismotv2013/videos

Biggest threat to Motors TV in the UK is the sports rights arms race between SKY, BT Sport and Eurosport. Motorsport seems to be treated as schedule filler on the quiet weekends for football.

I've not been that impressed by the way that Motors TV have dealt with Freeview viewers over the last 2 months. If I was a racing series promoter who had Motors as the UK broadcaster, I'd be very embarrassed.
clewsy
01-04-2016
I agree that they haven't dealt with it all that well. I guess its tricky because clearly this wasn't the plan they had in mind and suspect in some ways it's been forced to do something.

Guessing the series promoters won't be that impressed with the loss of Freeview anyway. However if you put rubbish on the channel (some shows just that) then they can't expect big viewing figures.
Hacker Harrier
01-04-2016
I think viewer awareness was also a factor in their low ratings. When Motors went to channel 71 Motors should have put out some adverts on commercial radio. Channel 4 did that recently to promote their F1 coverage. Viewers were unaware of the channels, and unaware of what equipment they needed to receive the channels.

Now you've got a situation where some people have bought new TV equipment just to receive Motors, and Motors have pulled the channels. I feel really sorry for them.
<<
<
4 of 5
>>
>
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