TV Home Forum

ITV - paid for previews next?

Fairbairn suggests a pay for next episode early idea (November 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IS
Inspector Sands
Chie posted:

Providing a service just because your 'competitors' provide one isn't beneficial when your competitors know full well that you're making a loss by doing so.

Again, where is your evidence that they are making a loss on it?

Also, once again, it's a long term game. If every company ditched everythign that didn't make a profit at first there'd be nothing new at all. And you're ignoring the non-financial benefits

Quote:
Inspector Sands posted:
It doesn't? I think you need to look a bit harder.

I was going to ask for some examples but I think we're better off not going there, again.

Socio-Economic groups are quite a blunt way of grouping people (especially E) and their use isn't really relevant to the beeb as they have no advertisers. There are loads of examples though, whole channels that would appeal to C2DE's - most of Saturday night BBC1, 5 Live, BBC Local Radio, BBC3, Radio 2 etc etc

Quote:

It's doing brilliantly. Not just in terms of ratings but in finances, too. The naysayers who predicted the collapse of ITV less than a year ago were completely wrong and ITV is going to continue to do better and better.

It was never on the verge of collapse, but it hasn't been doing well financially for years. It's hampered by regulation strangling it's ad revenue, it has a huge pensions deficit, low share price, is in a constant state of reorganisation and cost cutting etc etc

Quote:

The genie will have to go back in again.

You don't get the meaning of that phrase do you?
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 22 November 2009 2:44pm
CH
Chie
trivialmatters posted:
But if advertising is sold as a VOD 'package', including Canvas, then the situation is very different. I don't know how much you've seen of VOD in the real world, but it's not unheard of for students to sit around a laptop and watch a programme, and chat through the ad breaks just the same as if it was a TV broadcast.

That's a very specific example, trivialmatters. Maybe those students' attention is worth the money to an advertiser. However, that market is very niche in terms of the overall picture, and ITV still wouldn't make enough money by relying upon it because now there wouldn't actually be enough viewers!

Inspector Sands posted:
Again, where is your evidence that they are making a loss on it?

The fact that viewing figures are up over 200% on last year while advertising revenue is only up by 8%?

Inspector Sands posted:
Socio-Economic groups are quite a blunt way of grouping people (especially E) and their use isn't really relevant to the beeb as they have no advertisers.

The Beeb is supposed to cater for all audiences regardless. It still fails at trying though.

Inspector Sands posted:
There are loads of examples though, whole channels that would appeal to C2DE's - most of Saturday night BBC1, 5 Live, BBC Local Radio, BBC3, Radio 2 etc etc

Hmm.. I don't think Strictly Come Dancing, Merlin, Casualty and Radio 2 are very appealing to C2DEs.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Chie posted:
trivialmatters posted:
Television viewers can make a cup of tea during the ad breaks. This must be the reason that advertisers have refused to advertise on television for the last 50 years. Oh wait.

No, I'm certain the two scenarios are very different.

With television, your average viewer probably doesn't go out to make a cup of tea every single ad break. When they do nip to the kitchen or the bathroom the probably return about a minute before the end of the ad break, meaning they still see a couple of ads anyway. It's even better in a family situation where only one person goes out to make the tea, while the other two or three members of the family unit stay in the living room.

The contrast between that and something like the ITV Player is absolutely massive. For a start, nobody is going to sit there and actually watch the adverts at all. They're always going to find something else to do while they wait for the ads to finish.

But say the viewer keeps the sound on during the ITV Player ad breaks (and this is assuming they don't even turn the volume down) and goes off to browse, for example, Digital Spy. Now you've got one set of adverts coming through the speakers and another set of all singing, all dancing visual flash banner ads on Digital Spy. The two conflict with each other and it draws the viewer's attention away from the ITV Player advertiser's message.

Advertisers know all this and that's why they'll never pay anywhere near £35 per 1000 for internet VOD services - ever.


Chie, with all due respect, you're stating certainties when they're nothing of the kind. While I understand the scenarios you set out, they're based on a very narrow scope of behaviours. Yours.

Not everyone has the compulsion to "always find something else to do while they wait for the ads to finish". I can quite comfortably remain on my couch and watch the ads (and hear them through my soundsystem) before and during Hells Kitchen, or whatever I happen to be watching online. They're just ads. I'm not repelled by them, and most of the time I take no action to avoid them.

They're being delivered. Whether they effectively capture my attention depends on the advert and its relevance to me - the same standards as with any advertising.

Over time the industry will gain a clearer understanding of how the service is consumed by the millions using it, and the effectiveness of the campaigns. To say that they will "never ever" pay correspondingly large fees is foolish when you simply don't know how this landscape will shape out over the next couple of years.

Never say never.

There is a reason phrases like this are coined, you know.
CH
Chie
Ok.
IS
Inspector Sands
Chie posted:

Inspector Sands posted:
Again, where is your evidence that they are making a loss on it?

The fact that viewing figures are up over 200% on last year while advertising revenue is only up by 8%?

Profit/loss is turnover is based on turnover and costs. Revenue going up by 8% means nothing without knowing if it covers the actual cost of that extra audience.


Quote:
Inspector Sands posted:
Socio-Economic groups are quite a blunt way of grouping people (especially E) and their use isn't really relevant to the beeb as they have no advertisers.

The Beeb is supposed to cater for all audiences regardless. It still fails at trying though.

It does pretty well, there can't be many people for whom there's nothing on the BBC that appeals to them. they might not have found it but there most certainly will be

Quote:
Hmm.. I don't think Strictly Come Dancing, Merlin, Casualty and Radio 2 are very appealing to C2DEs.

No? Radio 2 is the most popular station in the country with an audience made up of people from all backgrounds including pensioners (group E). There's are many factories and shops that have it on in the background (groups C2 and D) it's certainly not aimed at A's and B's is it? SCD is very similar in appeal. Merlin and Casualty and Dr Who have a huge broad appeal, you're not seriously saying that only senior managers and professional clerical workers watch them?
JO
Joe
Chie posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
There are loads of examples though, whole channels that would appeal to C2DE's - most of Saturday night BBC1, 5 Live, BBC Local Radio, BBC3, Radio 2 etc etc

Hmm.. I don't think Strictly Come Dancing, Merlin, Casualty and Radio 2 are very appealing to C2DEs.


Why are you ignoring the other services?

Also, you earlier stated that the BBC didn't cater for groups that ITV did. It has been pointed out that you were wrong, but if it were, surely that is the job of the BBC, to cater for things that commerical doesn't?

Also , you earlier said something along the lines of 'ITV is a business, so it doesn't matter if it has a flare for television'. That's a frankly ridiculous statement.

Newer posts