JK
Channel 4 has been funded by commercials since it first launched in 1982. Originally the ITV companies sold the advertising slots on Channel 4 in their particular region and took the profit, in return Channel 4 had a set budget paid to it by the IBA, meaning the ITV companies would get the profit back from the commercials, whilst ensuring Channel 4 had a set annual budget, a safety net to ensure it could carry out its public service obligation for minorities.
That all changed with the 1990 broadcasting act, and in January 1993 Channel 4 sold its own advertising, had to manage on its own feet, along with its public service obligation for minorities.
Is this illegal state aid thing why Channel 4 is funded entirely by ads?
Channel 4 has been funded by commercials since it first launched in 1982. Originally the ITV companies sold the advertising slots on Channel 4 in their particular region and took the profit, in return Channel 4 had a set budget paid to it by the IBA, meaning the ITV companies would get the profit back from the commercials, whilst ensuring Channel 4 had a set annual budget, a safety net to ensure it could carry out its public service obligation for minorities.
That all changed with the 1990 broadcasting act, and in January 1993 Channel 4 sold its own advertising, had to manage on its own feet, along with its public service obligation for minorities.
TH
I think it's more a case where the ORTF breakup was a necessity back in the 70s but that the market changed over the next few years (launch of new channels, sale of TF1) so that it made sense to merge Antenne 2 and FR3 again.
Imagine if back in the 70s there had never been an ITV, only BBC 1, 2 and 3. The existence of ITV was a huge factor in the BBC becoming as great as it was. Without it, the BBC could have grown dull and complacent after decades without competition. In France, there was also a problem where the ORTF was seen as speaking as one voice, more state broadcaster than journalism, and that the institution was marinated in gaullism, like all other aspects of the French government.
If the BBC was a monopoly in the 70s, there would have been (stronger) calls to break it up (like France or Germany) or make arrangements for pluralism within the BBC (like Sweden or Italy). In the 80s, the BBC would probably have had one of its three channels revoked and sold to the highest bidder.
The sale of TF1 and the launches of Canal+, La Cinq and M6 changed the market completely so that the viewing share for government-owned channels shrunk from almost 100 percent in 1975 to about 35 percent in 1989. They were no longer as dominant as they once were and a merger was less problematic.
Channel 4's ad funding predates the TV2 state aid rulings, so they are unlikely to be related. Channel 4 is funded by ads because they can operate sufficiently with that as their main revenue stream and subsequent governments have been satisfied with that.
The entire state aid thing for TV2 makes little sense to me and there have apparently been some rulings in favour of TV2. There have also been multiple charges and multiple cases, possibly being decided in different directions, so its hard to get an overview of the matter.
Re France, it’s the one of the only countries I think in the western world to privatise a major PSB (TF1) Also one of the few to have a terrestrial pay-TV broadcaster in the analogue era. I think we’ve said before about how breaking up ORTF seems to have been something they regretted ever since which is why France Televisions came about.
I think it's more a case where the ORTF breakup was a necessity back in the 70s but that the market changed over the next few years (launch of new channels, sale of TF1) so that it made sense to merge Antenne 2 and FR3 again.
Imagine if back in the 70s there had never been an ITV, only BBC 1, 2 and 3. The existence of ITV was a huge factor in the BBC becoming as great as it was. Without it, the BBC could have grown dull and complacent after decades without competition. In France, there was also a problem where the ORTF was seen as speaking as one voice, more state broadcaster than journalism, and that the institution was marinated in gaullism, like all other aspects of the French government.
If the BBC was a monopoly in the 70s, there would have been (stronger) calls to break it up (like France or Germany) or make arrangements for pluralism within the BBC (like Sweden or Italy). In the 80s, the BBC would probably have had one of its three channels revoked and sold to the highest bidder.
The sale of TF1 and the launches of Canal+, La Cinq and M6 changed the market completely so that the viewing share for government-owned channels shrunk from almost 100 percent in 1975 to about 35 percent in 1989. They were no longer as dominant as they once were and a merger was less problematic.
Is this illegal state aid thing why Channel 4 is funded entirely by ads?
Channel 4's ad funding predates the TV2 state aid rulings, so they are unlikely to be related. Channel 4 is funded by ads because they can operate sufficiently with that as their main revenue stream and subsequent governments have been satisfied with that.
The entire state aid thing for TV2 makes little sense to me and there have apparently been some rulings in favour of TV2. There have also been multiple charges and multiple cases, possibly being decided in different directions, so its hard to get an overview of the matter.
HE
This is one way to nuance the similarities and differences.
Though I am not sure about the differences between ITV1 and Channel 5 apart from market share and the fact that the latter does not have an in-house news department.
I'd say a straight equivalency is impossible, although the role filled by ITV in the UK is mostly filled by TV2 in Denmark. You could try to break it down by different aspects:
Programming profile: Like ITV
Market position: Like ITV (but even stronger)
Exists to make money: Less than ITV but not as little as C4
PSB commitments: Hard to compare
Ownership structure: More like C4
History: Unique to TV2, but parallels can be drawn to both ITV and C4
TV2 being a pay channel doesn't really matter here, since there aren't really any free commercial channels in Denmark. The need to go pay TV arose from the fact ad breaks aren't allowed in Denmark, making it hard to run a free commercial channel. The last straw was when the EU decided that the portion of the license fee allotted to TV2 was illegal state aid and they had to pay back all the license fee money they received 1995-2004 (TV2 stopped receiving license fee payments in 2004). That placed the channel in immediate financial crisis and politicians were faced with either allowing ad breaks or changing the PSB commitments to allow TV2 to go pay.
Programming profile: Like ITV
Market position: Like ITV (but even stronger)
Exists to make money: Less than ITV but not as little as C4
PSB commitments: Hard to compare
Ownership structure: More like C4
History: Unique to TV2, but parallels can be drawn to both ITV and C4
TV2 being a pay channel doesn't really matter here, since there aren't really any free commercial channels in Denmark. The need to go pay TV arose from the fact ad breaks aren't allowed in Denmark, making it hard to run a free commercial channel. The last straw was when the EU decided that the portion of the license fee allotted to TV2 was illegal state aid and they had to pay back all the license fee money they received 1995-2004 (TV2 stopped receiving license fee payments in 2004). That placed the channel in immediate financial crisis and politicians were faced with either allowing ad breaks or changing the PSB commitments to allow TV2 to go pay.
This is one way to nuance the similarities and differences.
Though I am not sure about the differences between ITV1 and Channel 5 apart from market share and the fact that the latter does not have an in-house news department.