[Luis Essex]

Originally Posted by lstar337

UK Gold ceased to exist years ago.

So if someone takes on their partner's name when they marry then we can describe them by their former name and state that they cease to exist, just because their name has changed?

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by lstar337

UK Gold ceased to exist years ago.

Well, it dropped the "UK" but yeah, it kinda did. The programmes on there have changed somewhat over the years.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by keicar

does anyone know the cheapest way to get UK Gold be it terrestrial or satellite?

It barely exists on DTT. 3 hours a day Mon-Thu and 2 hours on a Friday on the Top Up TV slot does not really qualify it as a channel.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by jj20x

It barely exists on DTT. 3 hours a day Mon-Thu and 2 hours on a Friday on the Top Up TV slot does not really qualify it as a channel.

...and, since it is a popular subscription channel, I cannot see UKTV making GOLD free to air as part of the Freeview channel line up. It's just too much of a cash cow for that to happen. In any event, it's not what it used to be and the programme line up has gone from good to middling so it's not much of a potential loss anyway.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

...and, since it is a popular subscription channel, I cannot see UKTV making GOLD free to air as part of the Freeview channel line up. It's just too much of a cash cow for that to happen. In any event, it's not what it used to be and the programme line up has gone from good to middling so it's not much of a potential loss anyway.

That's the great unknown at the moment. The new interest in DTT has happened since Scripps Networks became part owners. They operate advertising supported FTA channels and already have the Food Network on DTT. It's quite possible that they could be encouraging a transfer of UKTV's more popular channels into the FTA market to reach a wider audience. It will certainly be interesting to see how this develops.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by jj20x

That's the great unknown at the moment. The new interest in DTT has happened since Scripps Networks became part owners. They operate advertising supported FTA channels and already have the Food Network on DTT. It's quite possible that they could be encouraging a transfer of UKTV's more popular channels into the FTA market to reach a wider audience. It will certainly be interesting to see how this develops.

UKTV's and Scripps's actions so far have indicated (Dave excepted) that they've put the less popular channels like Yesterday, Really and Food Network on Freeview to significantly boost their viewing figures and that strategy has worked well. Therefore, I can't see GOLD, Watch or Alibi coming to Freeview but I can see Eden, Home or Blighty coming to Freeview.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

UKTV's and Scripps's actions so far have indicated (Dave excepted) that they've put the less popular channels like Yesterday, Really and Food Network on Freeview to significantly boost their viewing figures and that strategy has worked well. Therefore, I can't see GOLD, Watch or Alibi coming to Freeview but I can see Eden, Home or Blighty coming to Freeview.

Dave was an unpopular channel when it joined Freeview (being a rebrand of UKTVG2).
Yesterday was created for Freeview, so didn't exist in any form when it joined.
Is Food Network an unpopular channel? I thought it was Scripps' most popular one? Not sure it is relevant anyway, as it isn't a UKTV channel, unless you are going to add the BBC's channels into the argument, being the other owner of UKTV?

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

UKTV's and Scripps's actions so far have indicated (Dave excepted) that they've put the less popular channels like Yesterday, Really and Food Network on Freeview to significantly boost their viewing figures and that strategy has worked well. Therefore, I can't see GOLD, Watch or Alibi coming to Freeview but I can see Eden, Home or Blighty coming to Freeview.

Scripps wasn't involved in previous UKTV decisions, Scripps bought Virgin Media out after Really had been added to freeview. UKTV strategy could now be significantly different with Scripps and the BBC at the helm.

Clearly you can't see UKTV departing from the previous strategy, that's not to say that UKTV share your opinion.

[lstar337]

Originally Posted by Luis Essex

So if someone takes on their partner's name when they marry then we can describe them by their former name and state that they cease to exist, just because their name has changed?

They didn't just change the name. The content changed too.

If someone takes on their partner's name, and changes their personality and demeanor when they marry, then yes, I would say the original person ceased to exist.

[POLO 1]

Personally, I think Gold should be a free channel. Why you should have to pay for programmes that are years old, is beyond me

[linkinpark875]

Gold is the same comedies on a loop beats me why anybody would want it.

'UK Gold' was good but 'GOLD' is one of the worst channels on Sky.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by POLO 1

Personally, I think Gold should be a free channel. Why you should have to pay for programmes that are years old, is beyond me

You pay the most for new and the least for old content. There's other costs to Gold apart from the content - transmission, marketing and other costs.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

Gold is the same comedies on a loop beats me why anybody would want it.

'UK Gold' was good but 'GOLD' is one of the worst channels on Sky.

Although, I wouldn't put it quite like that, it has certainly deteriorated in quality and these days Dave is the better channel so I don't really understand the clamour for GOLD.

As well as their involvement with UKTV, Scripps have two channels, Food Network and Travel Channel (both of which are free to air) with possibly a third on the way (Home and Garden TV) which I also expect to be free to air. I could see Scripps adding Travel Channel or Home and Garden TV to Freeview but this current situation relates to UKTV and so different policies might well apply because UKTV has to generate as much money as possible, in part to help fund the BBC and its new programming.

Therefore, I still can't see any of the most popular UKTV channels (Alibi, GOLD, Watch) coming to Freeview because they do so well as subscription channels. However, I can see them "bumping up" Eden, Home or Blighty by putting them on Freeview so that they'll get 600,000+ viewers instead of just 200,000 or less as at present. Thus the profile, ad revenue and success of those channels are improved and the UKTV portfolio is strengthened overall.

[linkinpark875]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Although, I wouldn't put it quite like that, it has certainly deteriorated in quality and these days Dave is the better channel so I don't really understand the clamour for GOLD.

As well as their involvement with UKTV, Scripps have two channels, Food Network and Travel Channel (both of which are free to air) with possibly a third on the way (Home and Garden TV) which I also expect to be free to air. I could see Scripps adding Travel Channel or Home and Garden TV to Freeview but this current situation relates to UKTV and so different policies might well apply because UKTV has to generate as much money as possible, in part to help fund the BBC and its new programming.

Therefore, I still can't see any of the most popular UKTV channels (Alibi, GOLD, Watch) coming to Freeview because they do so well as subscription channels. However, I can see them "bumping up" Eden, Home or Blighty by putting them on Freeview so that they'll get 600,000+ viewers instead of just 200,000 or less as at present. Thus the profile, ad revenue and success of those channels are improved and the UKTV portfolio is strengthened overall.

I lost interest in UKTV channels ages ago. The branding is tacky and the choice of programming is limited. It was much better when it was mainly BBC programming. Do we really need C4 shows when Discovery have them or C5 shows when there's 5*?

So far any new owners have changed little.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Therefore, I still can't see any of the most popular UKTV channels (Alibi, GOLD, Watch) coming to Freeview because they do so well as subscription channels.

But like Dave, they would continue to be subscription channels on pay tv platforms. If they are looking for extra income, these more popular channels would generate additional advertising revenue on freeview, so would fit the bill perfectly.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by jj20x

But like Dave, they would continue to be subscription channels on pay tv platforms. If they are looking for extra income, these more popular channels would generate additional advertising revenue on freeview, so would fit the bill perfectly.

Much as I would like to see Watch as a good, general entertainment channel on Freeview, I cannot see UKTV doing that at the present time. I can, however, see UKTV putting any one of Eden, Home or (the dire) Blighty to improve the audience and profile of the channel concerned as all three do relatively poorly in the BARB ratings.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Much as I would like to see Watch as a good, general entertainment channel on Freeview, I cannot see UKTV doing that at the present time. I can, however, see UKTV putting any one of Eden, Home or (the dire) Blighty to improve the audience and profile of the channel concerned as all three do relatively poorly in the BARB ratings.

Previously you said they were looking to maximise cash, now you say they are looking to improve poor ratings. If they are actually looking at getting better ratings, the best plan would be to replace poorly performing channels and make better use of the space they already have on pay tv.

They will do what they do and we will find out in due course, there's little point in people moving the goal posts to justify what they think will happen.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by jj20x

Previously you said they were looking to maximise cash, now you say they are looking to improve poor ratings. If they are actually looking at getting better ratings, the best plan would be to replace poorly performing channels and make better use of the space they already have on pay tv.

They will do what they do and we will find out in due course, there's little point in people moving the goal posts to justify what they think will happen.

For goodness' sake! The two things are not mutually exclusive!

Watch, Alibi and GOLD have both good rating and generate a nice subscription revenue on Sky and VM (and on BT Vision soon). Ratings on Eden, Blighty and Home are poor but putting any one of them on Freeview is likely to significantly boost viewership and also increase the price at which advertising slots can be sold. It would make more sense to repeat the Really experience and put an ailing channel on Freeview.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

For goodness' sake! The two things are not mutually exclusive!

They aren't but a highly rated channel on pay tv would also attract a larger audience on freeview. Which would bring in significantly more cash than a poorly performing channel. So if they want more cash, it makes sense to bring in a popular channel and axe the poorly performing ones.

Watch, Alibi and GOLD have both good rating and generate a nice subscription revenue on Sky and VM (and on BT Vision soon). Ratings on Eden, Blighty and Home are poor but putting any one of them on Freeview is likely to significantly boost viewership and also increase the price at which advertising slots can be sold. It would make more sense to repeat the Really experience and put an ailing channel on Freeview.

It's difficult to keep repeating the Really experience by redefining the channel and it's content for the freeview market. Similar content is already spread across their channel base. Yesterday, for example, airs shows that have previously been seen on Gold but would never have been shown on UKTV History.

You mention Eden, Blighty and Home.. but the reason these have poor ratings is that they are all niche channels. People wanting niche content generally subscribe to it on pay tv because it doesn't have the mass appeal to make it sustainable from advertising revenue alone. They aren't necessarily "ailing", the poor ratings are most likely because they are aimed at niche markets.

It wouldn't make any sense to bring further niche channels to freeview and convert them to general entertainment channels. They would lose the niche audience for those channels, and they already have, ready made, general entertainment channels they could easily bring over to freeview.

[TV Time Mike]

A very valid point regarding the niche channels.

They don't always do so well simply because the target group is alreadly fairly small.

The best way would be to bring GOLD across or timeshare GOLD with one of the less successful services then make whichever part does best a 24 hours service. After all with the changes to the market and more people using internet based services UKTV can only gain by trying to pick up a bigger slice of the freeview based viewers.

[Spot]

If they don't put Gold on Freeview they really should relinquish the EPG number and stop many people who aren't as clued up as those of us in forums like this from wondering why they can't get Gold when they press 20 on their remote, and thinking they have a fault on their TV/ set top box.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by Spot

If they don't put Gold on Freeview they really should relinquish the EPG number and stop many people who aren't as clued up as those of us in forums like this from wondering why they can't get Gold when they press 20 on their remote, and thinking they have a fault on their TV/ set top box.

There really should be a rule to stop these part-time pay channels having their own EPG slots, the content should just be merged into the TUTV Anytime 1 slot.

Home taking up an EPG slot when it's only active for 1 hour a week... please!!!

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by jj20x

They aren't but a highly rated channel on pay tv would also attract a larger audience on freeview. Which would bring in significantly more cash than a poorly performing channel. So if they want more cash, it makes sense to bring in a popular channel and axe the poorly performing ones.

It's difficult to keep repeating the Really experience by redefining the channel and it's content for the freeview market. Similar content is already spread across their channel base. Yesterday, for example, airs shows that have previously been seen on Gold but would never have been shown on UKTV History.

You mention Eden, Blighty and Home.. but the reason these have poor ratings is that they are all niche channels. People wanting niche content generally subscribe to it on pay tv because it doesn't have the mass appeal to make it sustainable from advertising revenue alone. They aren't necessarily "ailing", the poor ratings are most likely because they are aimed at niche markets.

It wouldn't make any sense to bring further niche channels to freeview and convert them to general entertainment channels. They would lose the niche audience for those channels, and they already have, ready made, general entertainment channels they could easily bring over to freeview.

Originally Posted by TV Time Mike

A very valid point regarding the niche channels.

They don't always do so well simply because the target group is alreadly fairly small.

The best way would be to bring GOLD across or timeshare GOLD with one of the less successful services then make whichever part does best a 24 hours service. After all with the changes to the market and more people using internet based services UKTV can only gain by trying to pick up a bigger slice of the freeview based viewers.

Originally Posted by Spot

If they don't put Gold on Freeview they really should relinquish the EPG number and stop many people who aren't as clued up as those of us in forums like this from wondering why they can't get Gold when they press 20 on their remote, and thinking they have a fault on their TV/ set top box.

Irrespective of which new UKTV channel comes to Freeview, it will still be a useful improvement (with the exception of Blighty). I assume that they're keeping the EPG slots open so that they can be as flexible as possible when it comes to rearranging their channels. In any event, the UKTV group does deserve to be congratulated for making a net positive contribution to Freeview.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

Irrespective of which new UKTV channel comes to Freeview, it will still be a useful improvement (with the exception of Blighty). I assume that they're keeping the EPG slots open so that they can be as flexible as possible when it comes to rearranging their channels. In any event, the UKTV group does deserve to be congratulated for making a net positive contribution to Freeview.

I'd agree about Blighty. I'm not too sure about the channel numbers. Technically, aren't they be owned by Top Up TV rather than UKTV? It's stretching the rules a bit for Top Up TV to hold onto them for possible future use by UKTV.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by jj20x

I'd agree about Blighty. I'm not too sure about the channel numbers. Technically, aren't they be owned by Top Up TV rather than UKTV? It's stretching the rules a bit for Top Up TV to hold onto them for possible future use by UKTV.

I think they're always "owned" by the channel utilising them. Whether that extends as far as sub-leased channel slots is another matter (although an entirely different channel wouldnt be able to make use of them anyway, under DMOL/DUK rules)

Anyway, UKTV switched around some of their TUTV and Freeview channels last year, so it's safe to assume they are in control of the usage of them.