ITV - paid for previews next?

I don't agree with the principle of this proposal though. I think Viewers should either sit down and watch the programme at the allotted time or record it on their DVD-R / PVR / VCR or they miss it - simple as.

I don't agree with +1 channels (which should actually be called -1 channels since they're one hour behind the normal channels, not an hour ahead) for the same reasons.

I don't think that's going to happen.

The same is even more true of the BBC but I don't hear anyone complaining about that!

If it was up to me, ITV wouldn't even have a website. It's a total waste of money.

Why what's the difference between watching it on a +1 or watching a time shifted version? +1's are very useful for viewers and are nice and cheap for the broadcasters.

ITV is the other way round, a bit too business orientated without the flare for TV

Every company needs a website, TV stations particually so. One of the big failings of ITV in recent years was it's web strategy - for years they didn't have one and then when they did they messed it up with nonsense like Friends Reunited. In the meantime, the BBC, C4 and Sky forged ahead with great web presense

Kevin Lygo, director of content and television, said some C4 staff were “terrified” the move would impact ratings for the first TX of new programmes, but that the broadcaster needed to adapt to changing viewing habits.

He said more people watched the first episode of Misfits last week, as a repeat or on catch-up than watched the original broadcast.

“The bugger of it is that we earn £1 for a viewer on C4, 50p for E4, and 10p when it’s on 4OD. But we can’t pretend it’s not happening. We’ve got to look at online charging,” he said.

“Why shouldn’t we, on a show like Skins, or The Inbetweeners, or The IT Crowd or Peep Show, put the first episode out [online, for free] and then say, ‘You can watch the next two episodes now for £5 or £10’?”

Lygo argued the move would not impact viewing figures as much as some C4 staff think - pointing to the launch of Skins, which the broadcaster marketed by pre-releasing the first episode online. Lygo said there was “huge debate” internally about the move but that it had paid off in the end without substantially eating into viewing figures for the first broadcast.

However, broadcasters will only be able to charge for pre-TX views of premium content which has already established itself as a series, he added.

Speaking at The Media Festival, Lygo also took a swipe at online drama Kate Modern, claiming the excitement about online innovation was undermined by the quality of content. “When Kate Modern appeared, I remember thinking, ‘Yes, it’s being shown on Bebo and everything - but it’s not very good.’”

He also revealed C4 is in talks with the BBC about joining Project Canvas, although he did not say whether C4 wants to show its content over the proposed IPTV platform, or to come in as a joint venture partner. “It’s a really interesting idea. We’re talking to them. I hope [we will join],” he said.

There's another flaw to this.
The ITV Network Centre or whatever it's called now are unlikely to commission a second series of say a new comedy show until they know how it's doing in the ratings.
If there's a lead in time of several months between finishing a shoot and transmission they are hardly likely to green light a second series so therefore no new clips to trail.

I could see some soap fans becoming hooked though. If they go online to see all next weeks episodes of Coronation Street because they just can't wait to see them on TV then the wait to see the next new episode on TV becomes even longer so they need to go online again to get their fix. Once ITV have these people hooked then they have a steady income...

...although as Chie points out its one less viewer for the (currently) more profitable broadcast version.

The same is even more true of the BBC but I don't hear anyone complaining about that!

If it was up to me, ITV wouldn't even have a website. It's a total waste of money. You say advertisers spend more online than they do on television, but the money is spread so thinly between so many websites that ITV will never 'rake it in'.

Definitely one for research agencies - how people view all this new internet TV alongside their main set is the big question. Its all so new and yet its changed everything. I couldn't live without the iPlayer these days, it has a constant presence on my PC.

There's another flaw to this.
The ITV Network Centre or whatever it's called now are unlikely to commission a second series of say a new comedy show until they know how it's doing in the ratings.
If there's a lead in time of several months between finishing a shoot and transmission they are hardly likely to green light a second series so therefore no new clips to trail.
Also if Soaps are always on, why fee trail those? We know they are on anyway.

'A great web presence' might look good but it's no use to ITV if it can't make enough money.

The Channel 4 press release says they make £1 per viewer on Channel 4, but only 10p per viewer on 4OD. This is because 4OD features far, far fewer advertisements - but why should it? It shouldn't be a case of "you pay less for advertising on 4od because fewer people use it", it should be a case of "4million people will see your advert during Skins, across all our services, and this is how much you'll pay".

Instead of selling separate advertising on the ITV Player, it should be part of the overall agreement with the advertiser that they'll pay for the ITV Player. So, using your figures, if an advertiser pays £35 for 1000 viewers, the advert should also appear online during the same programme, with the advertiser paying this additional cost.