TV Home Forum

Scottish pres discussion Thread

For BBC Scotland and STV. (April 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
SOL posted:
I don't know if that is what is being suggested. STV would still be Scotland's channel 3 licencee and ITV England's. If ITV was advertised more openly in Scotland or moved up the EPG, then, effectively, they could be showing the same programmes at the same time. That would be silly.


I think that's what Aberdeenboy was suggesting - although I'm happy to be corrected.

Being "open about choice" is the questionable aspect - and that's not easy to say as a long time TV forumer.

I have to balance that with the apparent inequity of a bullish London station pushing my local franchise into a difficult situation. If you start advertising "853 on Cable" on trails for Doc Martin on ITV2 and 3, you're effectively muscling in on someone else's region.
SO
SOL
SOL posted:
I don't know if that is what is being suggested. STV would still be Scotland's channel 3 licencee and ITV England's. If ITV was advertised more openly in Scotland or moved up the EPG, then, effectively, they could be showing the same programmes at the same time. That would be silly.


I think that's what Aberdeenboy was suggesting - although I'm happy to be corrected.

Being "open about choice" is the questionable aspect - and that's not easy to say as a long time TV forumer.

I have to balance that with the apparent inequity of a bullish London station pushing my local franchise into a difficult situation. If you start advertising "853 on Cable" on trails for Doc Martin on ITV2 and 3, you're effectively muscling in on someone else's region.


Sorry, that reply was to aberdeenboy's comment. Your post just came in as I sent it from my phone lol
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
SOL posted:
SOL posted:
I don't know if that is what is being suggested. STV would still be Scotland's channel 3 licencee and ITV England's. If ITV was advertised more openly in Scotland or moved up the EPG, then, effectively, they could be showing the same programmes at the same time. That would be silly.


I think that's what Aberdeenboy was suggesting - although I'm happy to be corrected.

Being "open about choice" is the questionable aspect - and that's not easy to say as a long time TV forumer.

I have to balance that with the apparent inequity of a bullish London station pushing my local franchise into a difficult situation. If you start advertising "853 on Cable" on trails for Doc Martin on ITV2 and 3, you're effectively muscling in on someone else's region.


Sorry, that reply was to aberdeenboy's comment. Your post just came in as I sent it from my phone lol


Yes, sorry I realised that once I'd read it back - but I'd already replied.

Like a wee yappy terrier. Smile
BR
Brekkie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8356969.stm

Quote:
STV has called for radical reform in the way the ITV network is run as the row over its decision to drop shows like The Bill and Doc Martin continues.

The company wants a new commercial deal with ITV which would allow it to buy only the programmes it wants, leaving it completely free to drop the rest.

ITV, which runs the ITV1 channel in England, Wales and the Borders, is suing STV for a headline total of £38m.

ITV claims STV still has to pay for programmes it has dropped.

STV has strongly denied this and said it believes it has the right to opt out and not pay.


If the latter were true, why would STV need to call for "radical reform" when STV insist they can already opt out and only pay for the programmes they want?
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8356969.stm

Quote:
STV has called for radical reform in the way the ITV network is run as the row over its decision to drop shows like The Bill and Doc Martin continues.

The company wants a new commercial deal with ITV which would allow it to buy only the programmes it wants, leaving it completely free to drop the rest.

ITV, which runs the ITV1 channel in England, Wales and the Borders, is suing STV for a headline total of £38m.

ITV claims STV still has to pay for programmes it has dropped.

STV has strongly denied this and said it believes it has the right to opt out and not pay.


If the latter were true, why would STV need to call for "radical reform" when STV insist they can already opt out and only pay for the programmes they want?


It sounds as if they want the procurement/billing system to be changed.

If ITV are suing for "non payment", that means they have billed STV for material. presumably, STV haven't transmitted.

A "radical reform" may describe a system where the balance owed is zero and charges are accumulated for shows purchased for broadcast, as opposed to an assumption of purchase in advance.
SO
SOL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8356969.stm

Quote:
STV has called for radical reform in the way the ITV network is run as the row over its decision to drop shows like The Bill and Doc Martin continues.

The company wants a new commercial deal with ITV which would allow it to buy only the programmes it wants, leaving it completely free to drop the rest.

ITV, which runs the ITV1 channel in England, Wales and the Borders, is suing STV for a headline total of £38m.

ITV claims STV still has to pay for programmes it has dropped.

STV has strongly denied this and said it believes it has the right to opt out and not pay.


If the latter were true, why would STV need to call for "radical reform" when STV insist they can already opt out and only pay for the programmes they want?


It sounds as if they want the procurement/billing system to be changed.

If ITV are suing for "non payment", that means they have billed STV for material. presumably, STV haven't transmitted.

A "radical reform" may describe a system where the balance owed is zero and charges are accumulated for shows purchased for broadcast, as opposed to an assumption of purchase in advance.


One would also assume they would want ITV to stop making negative comments about their business decisions as well.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Yes that would certainly be a relief all round.

I could have a lie down.
AB
aberdeenboy
Post deleted
Last edited by aberdeenboy on 4 December 2009 9:44am - 2 times in total
SO
SOL
My interpretation of all this is...

STV wants to operate independently of ITVplc. It may choose to buy individual programmes from ITV or even do a bulk supply deal with them. But it doesn't want to operate a networking arrangement with them in the traditional sense.

In other words... STV and ITV do a purely commercial deal with each other on terms which suit each other.

Judging by ITV's comments they're fine with this in principle... question, of course, for both sides will be banging out the details.

On the ITV1 ratings. I think the BBC's interpretation is fair. But I bet now the figures are in the open (they haven't been seen publicly before have they?) there'll be the usual, mostly unfair, STV bashing stories in the tabloids. THE GREAT SWITCH OFF!! etc etc


That's my interpretation as well. The point I was making is that, similar to Ireland's TV3 model, STV would likely 'dip into' ITV's network to simulcast programmes at the same time (like they do at the moment). Ireland doesn't have ITV available to them at all, as far as I'm aware, so there is no issue with 2 channels showing the same programmes as and when.

Going by this model, STV would have greater freedom in what they produce, transmit and how they mould their business without any outside interference - something they have the right to do as a plc. It doesn't however, take away the fact that STV would still be a PSB in Scotland and therefore, ITV should not have any favourable position on the EPG.
BR
Brekkie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8356969.stm

Quote:
STV has called for radical reform in the way the ITV network is run as the row over its decision to drop shows like The Bill and Doc Martin continues.

The company wants a new commercial deal with ITV which would allow it to buy only the programmes it wants, leaving it completely free to drop the rest.

ITV, which runs the ITV1 channel in England, Wales and the Borders, is suing STV for a headline total of £38m.

ITV claims STV still has to pay for programmes it has dropped.

STV has strongly denied this and said it believes it has the right to opt out and not pay.


If the latter were true, why would STV need to call for "radical reform" when STV insist they can already opt out and only pay for the programmes they want?


It sounds as if they want the procurement/billing system to be changed.

If ITV are suing for "non payment", that means they have billed STV for material. presumably, STV haven't transmitted.

A "radical reform" may describe a system where the balance owed is zero and charges are accumulated for shows purchased for broadcast, as opposed to an assumption of purchase in advance.

That makes sense, though I wonder how involved STV are in the commissioning process, as I imagine with many dropped shows this year the decision not to air them came long after they were commissioned. Obviously though STV could never veto an ITV commission, but I think if they want to opt out of programming it has to be at the commissioning stage so everything is clear from the off.

Of course though this all stems back to the merger of ultimately Carlton and Granada, which in hindsight (and for many people, without the need for hindsight) was always going to lead to a situation like this.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
SOL posted:
That's my interpretation as well. The point I was making is that, similar to Ireland's TV3 model, STV would likely 'dip into' ITV's network to simulcast programmes at the same time (like they do at the moment). Ireland doesn't have ITV available to them at all, as far as I'm aware, so there is no issue with 2 channels showing the same programmes as and when.

Going by this model, STV would have greater freedom in what they produce, transmit and how they mould their business without any outside interference - something they have the right to do as a plc. It doesn't however, take away the fact that STV would still be a PSB in Scotland and therefore, ITV should not have any favourable position on the EPG.


Yes, that sounds right to me.

Although its worth noting that its more of a dip out rather than in when you look at the hours of network shown overall - but shaping their own peak time is the crux.

There's something of the Edinburgh Trams project about this.

Its been bloody difficult to keep an eye on the strategy and vision in the face of endless moaning about the change - dumping glossy dramas for repeats and old films wasn't anyone's idea of a *super* plan, but STV had to break ground at some point, and it was always going to cause a stoor.

But there is an end in sight. The first slew of programming is here. Every one a winner? Maybe not - but this is telly, and winning formulas will be found and developed and spun - and if the lion's share of it is made in Scotland by production and crew and talent, then so much the better.

Like the tramworks, people will moan about being inconvenienced in the short term, but that will be forgotten about if things go to plan and a good service is delivered.

Ok, I'm stretching the analogy like Michelle McMannus' pop socks, but there's a morsel of truth in it.
SC
scottishtv Founding member
Just reading the BBC News article, I was interested in the positive comments from ITV about a potential arrangement like that with TV3. Reading between the lines, it seemed to suggest that TV3 pay a heck of a lot more for ITV content than an ITV network licensee would.

Under the TV3 model, surely ITV could leave STV high and dry by jacking up prices of things like X Factor and Corontation Street - potentially leaving huge holes in the Scottish schedules? or am I being far too simplistic and/or misunderstanding things?

Newer posts