The Economics of 24-Hour Broadcasting

Something which I've always pondered is what motivates a broadcaster to broadcast (or not to broadcast) towards the very end of night. When flicking through the EPG at 4 or 5 in the morning your choice is really limited to the Sky channels, and the channels which Sky sells advertising for (except MTV). I wonder if Sky insist that their clients broadcast right through the night, and if so, why they except MTV from this?

I also wonder how much it costs to fill those hours - it makes sense that those who do broadcast in those hours generally don't put their best content on, and in fact some stuff only seems to appear overnight on Challenge (Stake Out and Defectors being two examples). Is it possible that there is literally nothing to pay for this content on a per showing basis?

On the flip side, if it's not worth putting out even your cheapest content, why are teleshopping types prepared to pay for the airtime? It can't make much money.

There's also the option of (effectively or totally) just shutting down, as ITV do every night with Nightscreen, and increasingly UKTV seem to (with a little animation of their channel logos). Obviously this costs nothing (give or take), but surely they could do something more creative with that time which would cost equally little...

I too was wondering about the infomercials and how effective they are. I remember a Diddy Car infomercial airing for YEARS (it may still be on air now for all I know). How much stock do the broadcasts shift? (obviously enough for them to keep buying the airtime). They're almost always 4:3 videos shot in the early 2000's - Is it really the best way to promote a product with an old video?

Don't think Sky mandate channels to do anything. However a channel almost certainly has to pay the same for its transmission capacity (transponder or mux slot) whether it broadcasts 24 hours a day or less (unless it shares the space with another channel time-exclusively - like BBC Three and CBBC for instance)

That means you are paying for the transmission facilities and spectrum/carriage space whether you use it or not. If the economics of generating revenue from the early hours of the morning mean you make more money than it costs to operate your playout operation - it makes sense to do so. Particularly if the revenue is generated by selling the space to a third party shopping operation (who will pay you whether they make money themselves or not?)

I posed a very similar question back in 2002.

http://www.transdiffusion.org/tv/insidetv/future/24

It seems there's a startling correlation between channels who sell advertising through Sky, and channels which broadcast a full schedule right through the night, that's why I made the connection. Obviously a broadcaster wont get a discount for only using 20/21 hours of their 24 hour slot.

If my theory is correct and it is due to Sky Media insisting on 24 hr programming, I wonder how much (in real terms) it costs those broadcasters to do so.

Interestingly, some of the Discovery channels broadcast 24 hours, but don't show any adverts between 3am and 5am. Perhaps there just isn't the deman for advertising space during those hours.

It's usually a good time to record repeats due to them being commercial free.

Well that's common on all channels - there is enough flexibility in the advertising rules to move the ads to a time when people are watching rather than air the same number in the dead of night. Digital channels can show an average of 9 minutes an hour, but a maximum of 12 minutes - so essentially for every three hours they use their maximum that's an hour they don't need to air ads.

Does a channel going to a holding caption or promo loop though lose their ad time for those few hours - it seems wrong they could accrue ad time to air at a more profitable hour when they're not actually showing any programming.

Ahhah - so this is the incentive for broadcasting 24/7. I've noticed that the UKTV channels tend to have very few advert breaks after 1am, that must be to do with the same thing?

Annoyingly, the Sky channels have programmes scheduled to fill their slot (as they'd need with advertising), meaning that if you watch a couple of hours of Challenge late at night you might see that Movie Chart filler 3 or 4 times.

On occasion I've suggested that 1-6am should be used by the BBC, ITV to repeat their prime time programming for those who can' t catch it first time round. BBC3 and 4 essentially almost already do this.

But I think the reason they don't do this is because it's too expensive for figures they'd get to justify it.

Night time TV should have started back in 1983 and included what you have suggested repeats of prime time show for shift workers. plus films and other strange shows. If only.

I remember someone saying that it's actually cheaper for ITV to repeat their Prime Time programming on ITV2 due to ITV repeat fees...hence Corrie and Emmerdale appearing on the channel*. Not sure about the BBC though.

* Corrie and Emmerdale seem like BBC4 compared to some of the 'shower' on ITV2...