AM
I would have thought a more intelligent post would be coming from you Marksi. I said I could understand why ITV are cutting back on their Kids programming because with the very likely cutting of junk food adverts then where is the money for the shows they're shown in the middle of? Where did I imply I wanted fat kids watching TV programmes as opposed to healthy kids watching less TV?
I was understanding ITV's point of view, not endorsing it.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood and your post wasn't specifically aimed at me and more a comment reflecting on the thread as a whole. If so, I apologise.
So who advertised during children's programmes before the mass advent of Fast-food companies? Sure a lot of Mattel and other toy manufacturers - I'm sure this has got to be a better deal for children's programming than fast food.
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!!
That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
First toys manufacturers and then fast-food - there are always advertisers keen to market their goods so may be now its time for a different genre of adverts to advertise during children's programming.
Unfortunatly the facts don't make for good reading. Fast food outlets are where ITV's Children's programming was making it's money most and all of that being cut off is a severe weakness for their Children's budget.
On the F1 point, I think Sport is far more lucrative than Kid's TV for advertisers.
general advertising was replaced by toy manufacturers who were then replaced by fast-food companies. who is to say that something else 9another genre) will replace fast food as the biggest advertisiers for children's programming????
cdukjunkie posted:
amosc100 posted:
cdukjunkie posted:
marksi posted:
So you'd rather have fat kids watching TV programmes than healthy kids watching less TV?
I would have thought a more intelligent post would be coming from you Marksi. I said I could understand why ITV are cutting back on their Kids programming because with the very likely cutting of junk food adverts then where is the money for the shows they're shown in the middle of? Where did I imply I wanted fat kids watching TV programmes as opposed to healthy kids watching less TV?
I was understanding ITV's point of view, not endorsing it.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood and your post wasn't specifically aimed at me and more a comment reflecting on the thread as a whole. If so, I apologise.
So who advertised during children's programmes before the mass advent of Fast-food companies? Sure a lot of Mattel and other toy manufacturers - I'm sure this has got to be a better deal for children's programming than fast food.
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!!
That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
First toys manufacturers and then fast-food - there are always advertisers keen to market their goods so may be now its time for a different genre of adverts to advertise during children's programming.
Unfortunatly the facts don't make for good reading. Fast food outlets are where ITV's Children's programming was making it's money most and all of that being cut off is a severe weakness for their Children's budget.
On the F1 point, I think Sport is far more lucrative than Kid's TV for advertisers.
general advertising was replaced by toy manufacturers who were then replaced by fast-food companies. who is to say that something else 9another genre) will replace fast food as the biggest advertisiers for children's programming????
CD
Nothing that springs to mind at this very moment! I never said I did have a solution. I was merely saying that I understand the reasons behind
this
plan in ITV's operations, rather than their other axings across the network which I think have more crafty motives.
CD
I would have thought a more intelligent post would be coming from you Marksi. I said I could understand why ITV are cutting back on their Kids programming because with the very likely cutting of junk food adverts then where is the money for the shows they're shown in the middle of? Where did I imply I wanted fat kids watching TV programmes as opposed to healthy kids watching less TV? I was understanding ITV's point of view, not endorsing it.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood and your post wasn't specifically aimed at me and more a comment reflecting on the thread as a whole. If so, I apologise.
So who advertised during children's programmes before the mass advent of Fast-food companies? Sure a lot of Mattel and other toy manufacturers - I'm sure this has got to be a better deal for children's programming than fast food.
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!! That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
First toys manufacturers and then fast-food - there are always advertisers keen to market their goods so may be now its time for a different genre of adverts to advertise during children's programming.
Unfortunatly the facts don't make for good reading. Fast food outlets are where ITV's Children's programming was making it's money most and all of that being cut off is a severe weakness for their Children's budget.
On the F1 point, I think Sport is far more lucrative than Kid's TV for advertisers.
general advertising was replaced by toy manufacturers who were then replaced by fast-food companies. who is to say that something else 9another genre) will replace fast food as the biggest advertisiers for children's programming????
Such as...?
amosc100 posted:
cdukjunkie posted:
amosc100 posted:
cdukjunkie posted:
marksi posted:
So you'd rather have fat kids watching TV programmes than healthy kids watching less TV?
I would have thought a more intelligent post would be coming from you Marksi. I said I could understand why ITV are cutting back on their Kids programming because with the very likely cutting of junk food adverts then where is the money for the shows they're shown in the middle of? Where did I imply I wanted fat kids watching TV programmes as opposed to healthy kids watching less TV?
I was understanding ITV's point of view, not endorsing it.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood and your post wasn't specifically aimed at me and more a comment reflecting on the thread as a whole. If so, I apologise.
So who advertised during children's programmes before the mass advent of Fast-food companies? Sure a lot of Mattel and other toy manufacturers - I'm sure this has got to be a better deal for children's programming than fast food.
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!!
That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
First toys manufacturers and then fast-food - there are always advertisers keen to market their goods so may be now its time for a different genre of adverts to advertise during children's programming.
Unfortunatly the facts don't make for good reading. Fast food outlets are where ITV's Children's programming was making it's money most and all of that being cut off is a severe weakness for their Children's budget.
On the F1 point, I think Sport is far more lucrative than Kid's TV for advertisers.
general advertising was replaced by toy manufacturers who were then replaced by fast-food companies. who is to say that something else 9another genre) will replace fast food as the biggest advertisiers for children's programming????
Such as...?
AM
Lets put it this way if ITV produced decent popular animation (in the ilk of Dreamstone, Count Duckula and Dangermouse), popular drama, comedies and gameshows - they would be able to sell them to a greater number of countries - look how successful BBC has been in recent years in making money from sales of it children's programming. Even "five" has a decent name acroos other English speaking countries for it pre-school output as their channel name appears at the end of many programmes nowadays..
This would make money for ITV and would off-set the loss of fast-food advertising.
Five don't rely too heavily on fast-food companies in its advertising, neither does Channel 4 - so the argument does, somewhat, fall apart for ITV and the other struggling children's channels.
In my opinion they are struggling because their output is utter rubbish!
This would make money for ITV and would off-set the loss of fast-food advertising.
Five don't rely too heavily on fast-food companies in its advertising, neither does Channel 4 - so the argument does, somewhat, fall apart for ITV and the other struggling children's channels.
In my opinion they are struggling because their output is utter rubbish!
RD
Personally, I hope that children's televison will work without fast food adverting.
CITV wil have to find new advertising space, and they will, because OFCOM still say that they ahve to do children's programmes, and I hope that this won't chnage.
By far, I htink 'How 2' is the best programme of the CITV today. I wonder how well SmG would run CITV?
CITV wil have to find new advertising space, and they will, because OFCOM still say that they ahve to do children's programmes, and I hope that this won't chnage.
By far, I htink 'How 2' is the best programme of the CITV today. I wonder how well SmG would run CITV?
CO
They'd probably start by chosing imports that were actualy worth the asking price and not cutting them into bits and only airing whatever suited them for starters.
To be honest, I watched the Channel today and thier top import, TMNT, was probably hte best handeled one they have at this given time.
I do seem to recall a Colab between Nick and some frech company to make another anime ripoff show but that sorta fizzled, no?
Rob Del Monte posted:
Personally, I hope that children's televison will work without fast food adverting.
CITV wil have to find new advertising space, and they will, because OFCOM still say that they ahve to do children's programmes, and I hope that this won't chnage.
By far, I htink 'How 2' is the best programme of the CITV today. I wonder how well SmG would run CITV?
CITV wil have to find new advertising space, and they will, because OFCOM still say that they ahve to do children's programmes, and I hope that this won't chnage.
By far, I htink 'How 2' is the best programme of the CITV today. I wonder how well SmG would run CITV?
To be honest, I watched the Channel today and thier top import, TMNT, was probably hte best handeled one they have at this given time.
I do seem to recall a Colab between Nick and some frech company to make another anime ripoff show but that sorta fizzled, no?
AM
t all comes down to ITVplc not knowing their target audiences. They dropped the 11-15 programmes as they thought the children were not watching. They stopped watching beacuse ITV stopped making the programmes. How popular would Bad Influence and modern version of Razzamatzz etcc be today????? How many people would watch. There is no programming like them for today's youth.
ITV then decided to contrate on pre-school - why didn't they realise that before when they reduced the length of programmes from 17 minutes, ie. Rainbow, Lets Pretend etc..) to 8 minutes (i.e. Mopatops shop etc), yet BBC's output forpre-school is between 17 and 21 minutes!!
ITV stopped making decent animation (mainly c/o ITV animation production house - Cosgrove Hall (was owned by Thames then by Fremantlr/Rtl who sold it to UBN which was then sold on to Granada plc)
ITV stopped investing in children's programmes and brought in VERY cheap imports - imports that are not even shown on decent digital channels (I know Jetix is Disney was once Fox Kids, but it only shows the cheap stuff - could you imagine any of Jetix's content on Disney???)
ITV don't know what they want, they have got the most inept managremnt in place who know nothing about children's programming. It will come back to haunt them as the children they'll lose as viewers won't come back as adults - they will stay with the channels they have grown up with.
ITV then decided to contrate on pre-school - why didn't they realise that before when they reduced the length of programmes from 17 minutes, ie. Rainbow, Lets Pretend etc..) to 8 minutes (i.e. Mopatops shop etc), yet BBC's output forpre-school is between 17 and 21 minutes!!
ITV stopped making decent animation (mainly c/o ITV animation production house - Cosgrove Hall (was owned by Thames then by Fremantlr/Rtl who sold it to UBN which was then sold on to Granada plc)
ITV stopped investing in children's programmes and brought in VERY cheap imports - imports that are not even shown on decent digital channels (I know Jetix is Disney was once Fox Kids, but it only shows the cheap stuff - could you imagine any of Jetix's content on Disney???)
ITV don't know what they want, they have got the most inept managremnt in place who know nothing about children's programming. It will come back to haunt them as the children they'll lose as viewers won't come back as adults - they will stay with the channels they have grown up with.
CD
Now that I agree with.
amosc100 posted:
ITV don't know what they want, they have got the most inept managremnt in place who know nothing about children's programming. It will come back to haunt them as the children they'll lose as viewers won't come back as adults - they will stay with the channels they have grown up with.
Now that I agree with.
SE
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!! That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
Not really a good comparison. F1 pulls in about 2-3m viewers, most of which are young affluent males, the advertisers dream.
Children are not affluent, they don't spend, anything being advertised around this genre of programming relies on 'pester power' for parents and if it's not toys or fast food, what else ?
Square Eyes
Founding member
amosc100 posted:
It's the F1 debate all over again - the F1 will fail without the smoking advertising - course it did!!!!!!
That's why its now mainly sponsered by Shell and RBS and it is actually in a better sitaution now than what it has ever been in.
Not really a good comparison. F1 pulls in about 2-3m viewers, most of which are young affluent males, the advertisers dream.
Children are not affluent, they don't spend, anything being advertised around this genre of programming relies on 'pester power' for parents and if it's not toys or fast food, what else ?
AN
Now that I agree with.
That only works if you assume that people have loyalty or some sort of memory of what channel they are watching
They don't, these days people just flick around the channels until they find something they like.
Kids with Sky just flick through the 600s to find something, usually a US kids sitcom on Disney or Nick I'd expect
I think it was quite disappointing that the 7/7 drama on CBBC One, last Friday, which had been heavilly trailed all over the BBC, only managed 500,000 viewers, a 5% share. That shows what kind of state kids tv is in
Andrew
Founding member
cdukjunkie posted:
amosc100 posted:
ITV don't know what they want, they have got the most inept managremnt in place who know nothing about children's programming. It will come back to haunt them as the children they'll lose as viewers won't come back as adults - they will stay with the channels they have grown up with.
Now that I agree with.
That only works if you assume that people have loyalty or some sort of memory of what channel they are watching
They don't, these days people just flick around the channels until they find something they like.
Kids with Sky just flick through the 600s to find something, usually a US kids sitcom on Disney or Nick I'd expect
I think it was quite disappointing that the 7/7 drama on CBBC One, last Friday, which had been heavilly trailed all over the BBC, only managed 500,000 viewers, a 5% share. That shows what kind of state kids tv is in
AM
Now that I agree with.
That only works if you assume that people have loyalty or some sort of memory of what channel they are watching
They don't, these days people just flick around the channels until they find something they like.
Kids with Sky just flick through the 600s to find something, usually a US kids sitcom on Disney or Nick I'd expect
I think it was quite disappointing that the 7/7 drama on CBBC One, last Friday, which had been heavilly trailed all over the BBC, only managed 500,000 viewers, a 5% share. That shows what kind of state kids tv is in
You said it Nick or Disney - kids don't tend to watch Jetix(aka Fox Kids) anymore, or even the CN network of channels - that tends to be adults 25+ reminiscing about cartoons. Kids want to watch something they enjoy and most of the time the production value is quite high (which as you can appreciate Nick and Disney do quality with some style as THEY know their audience)
quick question - the percentage viewer share - is this based on the whole UK population, or just based on number of children aged 0 to 16. If its based on whole population then it really is a false reading and it wiull be low. Disney is happy that they have the best audience viewership at this moment in time and that's only about 7% - therefore 5% share for BBC is actually very good!
Andrew posted:
cdukjunkie posted:
amosc100 posted:
ITV don't know what they want, they have got the most inept managremnt in place who know nothing about children's programming. It will come back to haunt them as the children they'll lose as viewers won't come back as adults - they will stay with the channels they have grown up with.
Now that I agree with.
That only works if you assume that people have loyalty or some sort of memory of what channel they are watching
They don't, these days people just flick around the channels until they find something they like.
Kids with Sky just flick through the 600s to find something, usually a US kids sitcom on Disney or Nick I'd expect
I think it was quite disappointing that the 7/7 drama on CBBC One, last Friday, which had been heavilly trailed all over the BBC, only managed 500,000 viewers, a 5% share. That shows what kind of state kids tv is in
You said it Nick or Disney - kids don't tend to watch Jetix(aka Fox Kids) anymore, or even the CN network of channels - that tends to be adults 25+ reminiscing about cartoons. Kids want to watch something they enjoy and most of the time the production value is quite high (which as you can appreciate Nick and Disney do quality with some style as THEY know their audience)
quick question - the percentage viewer share - is this based on the whole UK population, or just based on number of children aged 0 to 16. If its based on whole population then it really is a false reading and it wiull be low. Disney is happy that they have the best audience viewership at this moment in time and that's only about 7% - therefore 5% share for BBC is actually very good!