ST
It's always sad to see the demise of a channel, but I think ITV4 is aiming at exactly the same demographic, so it has been surplus to requirements within the ITV family for quite some time.
As they've closed it rather than sold it, does that mean BSkyB get nothing (aside from perhaps 49% of a nominal cost for the EPG slot for ITV1 HD)?
I think the only programme I've watched on M&M was Soldier, Soldier, which could transfer quite easily to ITV4's schedule.
As they've closed it rather than sold it, does that mean BSkyB get nothing (aside from perhaps 49% of a nominal cost for the EPG slot for ITV1 HD)?
I think the only programme I've watched on M&M was Soldier, Soldier, which could transfer quite easily to ITV4's schedule.
BE
I would have thought if that was the case they would have closed it years ago, unless there was a clause that after so many years they could dispose of the channel without the need to pay Sky.
Ben
Founding member
As they've closed it rather than sold it, does that mean BSkyB get nothing (aside from perhaps 49% of a nominal cost for the EPG slot for ITV1 HD)?
I would have thought if that was the case they would have closed it years ago, unless there was a clause that after so many years they could dispose of the channel without the need to pay Sky.
TE
tesandco
Founding member
I expect ITV were able to negotiate something with Sky for the selloff in exchange for getting their new HD channel in its place. Having ITV1 HD on the EPG properly rather than tucked off it and only accessible on boxes via odd software updates is bound to be of more benefit for selling more Sky HD subscriptions than M&M was worth longer term.
NG
Having an EPG slot may have made life easier for ITV - but the main reason they weren't a full channel on Sky wasn't the lack of an EPG slot - though having a slot that they could re-use (even if it involved changing number) would no doubt make launching a quicker process.
The reason ITV1HD hasn't been a full channel was Ofcom's regulations about advertising market share (CRR) as I understand it. If ITV had launched ITVHD/ITV1HD as a separate channel in the EPG - it would have been included in their advertising share calculations (and tipped them over the edge of what they were legally allowed)
Sky are obviously keen to be seen as "the HD platform" - and see that HD World Cup is going to be a big driver for HD take-up (particularly as all new Sky subscriptions, even without an HD sub, will get BBC HD, ITV1 HD, C4 HD and soon Five HD - as these are FTA or FTV - since Sky now supply the HD box as their basic receiver.)
noggin
Founding member
I expect ITV were able to negotiate something with Sky for the selloff in exchange for getting their new HD channel in its place. Having ITV1 HD on the EPG properly rather than tucked off it and only accessible on boxes via odd software updates is bound to be of more benefit for selling more Sky HD subscriptions than M&M was worth longer term.
Having an EPG slot may have made life easier for ITV - but the main reason they weren't a full channel on Sky wasn't the lack of an EPG slot - though having a slot that they could re-use (even if it involved changing number) would no doubt make launching a quicker process.
The reason ITV1HD hasn't been a full channel was Ofcom's regulations about advertising market share (CRR) as I understand it. If ITV had launched ITVHD/ITV1HD as a separate channel in the EPG - it would have been included in their advertising share calculations (and tipped them over the edge of what they were legally allowed)
Sky are obviously keen to be seen as "the HD platform" - and see that HD World Cup is going to be a big driver for HD take-up (particularly as all new Sky subscriptions, even without an HD sub, will get BBC HD, ITV1 HD, C4 HD and soon Five HD - as these are FTA or FTV - since Sky now supply the HD box as their basic receiver.)
ES
As I understand it, it was more to do with each individual channel having separate viewing figures, regardless of the fact that they are showing the same material. Itv can't increase their advertising costs if viewing figures decrease, so launching itvhd as a separate channel would have inevitably had a negative effect on the viewing figures of itv1, meaning it could be more financially viable not to go hd, but keep all the viewers on a single channel. I believe this was also a problem with launching +1 channels. I think the CRR regs have been relaxed sensibly so that a simulcast of itv1 will add to the viewing figures of the master channel rather than subtract from it.
The reason ITV1HD hasn't been a full channel was Ofcom's regulations about advertising market share (CRR) as I understand it. If ITV had launched ITVHD/ITV1HD as a separate channel in the EPG - it would have been included in their advertising share calculations (and tipped them over the edge of what they were legally allowed)
As I understand it, it was more to do with each individual channel having separate viewing figures, regardless of the fact that they are showing the same material. Itv can't increase their advertising costs if viewing figures decrease, so launching itvhd as a separate channel would have inevitably had a negative effect on the viewing figures of itv1, meaning it could be more financially viable not to go hd, but keep all the viewers on a single channel. I believe this was also a problem with launching +1 channels. I think the CRR regs have been relaxed sensibly so that a simulcast of itv1 will add to the viewing figures of the master channel rather than subtract from it.
GM
ITV2, 3 and 4 +1 will be launching on that day, I believe.
From the sound of it, Virgin Media will be dropping the channel a week early - the 25th.
ITV2, 3 and 4 +1 will be launching on that day, I believe.