MA
Very interesting to see the BBC's montage if England had gone thorough. I suppose that both were being updated as the match (and penalty shootout) progressed as there is a tight turnaround? At what point is music selected for this kind of thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18587088
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18587088
JO
What a waste of my parents licence fee! They should have took a gamble on one outcome and stuck to it whatever happened.
Very interesting to see the BBC's montage if England had gone thorough. I suppose that both were being updated as the match (and penalty shootout) progressed as there is a tight turnaround? At what point is music selected for this kind of thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18587088
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18587088
What a waste of my parents licence fee! They should have took a gamble on one outcome and stuck to it whatever happened.
JO
Weird studio being used in Warsaw, I don't think it's usual purpose is a television studio and there is absolutely no sound from stadium getting in. The audio is much better tonight though.
EDIT: Surprised Shearer being used instead of Hansen or Dixon, although I suspect the latter may be pitchside.
EDIT: Surprised Shearer being used instead of Hansen or Dixon, although I suspect the latter may be pitchside.
Last edited by Jon on 28 June 2012 7:28pm
JO
EDIT: Surprised Shearer being used instead of Hansen or Dixon, although I suspect the latter may be pitchside.
Martin Keown was pitchside, perhaps Shearer will be sitting out the final.
EDIT: Surprised Shearer being used instead of Hansen or Dixon, although I suspect the latter may be pitchside.
Martin Keown was pitchside, perhaps Shearer will be sitting out the final.
SE
You are looking at it simplistically. It's not all about the viewing figures. Remember that ITV exist for advertisers. Advertisers like to have their products & brands associated with big football championship finals. These brands cannot advertise on the BBC.
So regardless of whether the BBC get 10m & ITV get 2m, ITV can still attract advertising revenue off the back of the tournament final. It's just good business given that they've already paid for the rights.
An old episode of Heartbeat won't pull in anywhere near the revenue at 8pm on a Sunday evening in June that a Euro 2012 final will.
Square Eyes
Founding member
So, what is the point of both BBC One and ITV1 showing the live final? Most will choose the BBC's coverage hands down. ITV1 would be better off showing a repeat of and old Heartbeat episode for the few viewers they'll get.
You are looking at it simplistically. It's not all about the viewing figures. Remember that ITV exist for advertisers. Advertisers like to have their products & brands associated with big football championship finals. These brands cannot advertise on the BBC.
So regardless of whether the BBC get 10m & ITV get 2m, ITV can still attract advertising revenue off the back of the tournament final. It's just good business given that they've already paid for the rights.
An old episode of Heartbeat won't pull in anywhere near the revenue at 8pm on a Sunday evening in June that a Euro 2012 final will.
JO
You are looking at it simplistically. It's not all about the viewing figures. Remember that ITV exist for advertisers. Advertisers like to have their products & brands associated with big football championship finals. These brands cannot advertise on the BBC.
So regardless of whether the BBC get 10m & ITV get 2m, ITV can still attract advertising revenue off the back of the tournament final. It's just good business given that they've already paid for the rights.
An old episode of Heartbeat won't pull in anywhere near the revenue at 8pm on a Sunday evening in June that a Euro 2012 final will.
Beautifully put, also the demographic the football appeals to may be better for advertisers than what ITV would otherwise show wither higher ratings. Also had England have made the final I suspect even losing by a large margin would have meant some high ratings for ITV, plus as the official broadcaster of the England team it would have been embarrassing not to show the second biggest English football moment since 1966.
So, what is the point of both BBC One and ITV1 showing the live final? Most will choose the BBC's coverage hands down. ITV1 would be better off showing a repeat of and old Heartbeat episode for the few viewers they'll get.
You are looking at it simplistically. It's not all about the viewing figures. Remember that ITV exist for advertisers. Advertisers like to have their products & brands associated with big football championship finals. These brands cannot advertise on the BBC.
So regardless of whether the BBC get 10m & ITV get 2m, ITV can still attract advertising revenue off the back of the tournament final. It's just good business given that they've already paid for the rights.
An old episode of Heartbeat won't pull in anywhere near the revenue at 8pm on a Sunday evening in June that a Euro 2012 final will.
Beautifully put, also the demographic the football appeals to may be better for advertisers than what ITV would otherwise show wither higher ratings. Also had England have made the final I suspect even losing by a large margin would have meant some high ratings for ITV, plus as the official broadcaster of the England team it would have been embarrassing not to show the second biggest English football moment since 1966.
DV
.... also with only 31 fixtures, sharing the final makes the split 16 - 16 so the tournament is exactly shared.