SS
Even if it looks cheap to run, they have to pay someone or multiple people, for the rights. I feel like Sky (or if ownership changes, the new owner) could just spend more money and buy the IP for the majority of older game shows they have broadcast, either in the past or the present, instead of paying money at someone else for broadcast rights. Bringing it in-house would mean they could easily do as you describe and leave it running 24/7 without any need to expend money on rights to broadcasting things since they would own it outright.
I dont see why Challenge would/should close? Its cheap as chips to run, every single ad break is jam picked to the brim of Sky ads/promos. Every programme is sponsored by some sky branded product...and the Challenge brand is well known to joe public, with lots of FTA eyeballs on freeview and astra satellite viewers.
It's one of those channels you can leave on all day in the background, with sky ads being heard by your ears every 15 minutes or so....and hay, they can even get away with broadcasting it in sub standard SD picture...something I don't think they could do with 'highbrow' Sky Arts.
It's one of those channels you can leave on all day in the background, with sky ads being heard by your ears every 15 minutes or so....and hay, they can even get away with broadcasting it in sub standard SD picture...something I don't think they could do with 'highbrow' Sky Arts.
Even if it looks cheap to run, they have to pay someone or multiple people, for the rights. I feel like Sky (or if ownership changes, the new owner) could just spend more money and buy the IP for the majority of older game shows they have broadcast, either in the past or the present, instead of paying money at someone else for broadcast rights. Bringing it in-house would mean they could easily do as you describe and leave it running 24/7 without any need to expend money on rights to broadcasting things since they would own it outright.