Just another cast of UTV having nothing better to do than complain about ITV1!
They've got every right to complain about 'ITV1'. They are still interested in being a regional ITV network company. On paper, that is what the ITV network still should be. Financial muscle has seen Carlton and Granada take over every station in England and Wales, replace the ITV network feed with a version of ITV1 leaving non-ITV1'd stations working from a dirty feed, they've walked off with the ITV brand name fof their merged company which they had no right to do, they've launch two more channels using the ITV brand and intend to launch more, and they use their position of controlling so many licences to ensure that everything they want to do will happen.
Poor old UTV, through no fault of their own, no longer have any real voice at all in the ITV network.
Quote:
ITV is hardly going to Rip-off ITV2 by selling Corrie for an arm and a leg, and the last thing ITV would want for ITV2 to go down the U-bend by having nothing to show if the channel could not buy Corrie & Emmerdale!
UTV aren't claiming that they should be ripping off ITV2; the fact is that ITV plc are selling programmes to ITV2 for MUCH LESS than the market rate.
The situation you've got is that the ITV network funding pot has paid for the programme - and in this case it's not just ITV plc that are paying for it, the independents are too. Then, you've got ITV plc using the control they have to force through a sale of transmission rights to ITV2 (wholly owned by ITV plc, so UTV WON'T get anything back from it) for way, way less than the market value, so ITV2 (and therefore ITV plc) pays too little for the programme. But it doesn't stop there, if the rights were sold at market rate, UTV would pay less for the programme in the first place because of it's resale value. With them being sold cheaply, UTV have to pay more.
What you have is a win-win situation for ITV plc, since they manage to make the independent stations contribute to their programming agenda, they then sell them on to ITV2 for way below the market rate, which means they are shelling our less cash to show them on their other channel (from which the independents get nothing), and the fact that they have sold the rights for the lower figure keeps up the level of funding which the independents put in. Any ITV network company which isn't owned by ITV plc is being disadvantaged with they way things are done.
Of course a proper regulator would never have let this happen, but we don't have that anymore, so UTV are complaining. Sadly, they probably won't get anywhere.
Quote:
Can't help but think UTV are tight with their money. That’s probably why using a breakbumper for an ident for months on end and next to nothing on the continuity front is considered good enough by UTV. I know its been said millions of times but UTV should clean up their act first before moaning.
UTV's presentation is indeed crap, but that's another issue.
Quote:
The bit about "Ulster being annoyed at the amount of ITV1 spin-offs on ITV2, such as Pop Idol Extra, which it believes it is indirectly funding by paying towards the main shows on ITV1" is a bit stupid
Apart from anything else, it could be costing them advertising revenue. Forget about England and Wales where it makes no difference, think about Pop Idol being shown on UTV. ITV plc have made a spinoff to go on ITV2. So on UTV, you've got plugs for programmes which UTV will see no revenue from. They might as well say 'well Pop Idol is finishing now, over on Channel 5 they'res a great film! Change over now to see it!' for all the good that UTV get from these spinoffs. Ending a programme by promoting the spinoff which is just starting on ITV2 might work in the ITV plc fold (where invariably the next programme on ITV will appeal to different people anyway), but in UTV land, promotion of ITV2 spinoffs is only taking away viewers - and ultimately taking away money - from UTV. They've got every righ to complain about this too.
Quote:
What do the idiots at UTV expect ITV2 to show then?? I take it that if ITV2 gets rid of every Spin off and Corrie and Emmerdale repeats Ulster will provide their back catalogue of “Lesser Spotted Ulster” and “Jenny Bistro cooking” for ITV2 then!
Not necessarily. When ITV2 first launched, they couldn't do all these spinoffs, because there was no ITV1 branding in use, and whilst Carlton and Granada still had a lot of control, it didn't compare to what they had now. And indeed, ITV2 was only available in England and Wales, and only on DTT and cable. In short, old-style ITV hadn't quite died off. That meant that the channel had to very much have it's own identity and it's own agenda. And back then it was a much better channel too. I'd like to see it go back that way again, to be honest. I think ITV2 has to be one of the few examples in recent times of a channel which started off in a promising way, but then actually went downhill as it's viewership increased (and thus it's advertising revenue - and thus it's value, and ultimately the money it can afford to spend).
Quote:
UTV got rid of UTV2. They absolutely DID NOT have to did they? They chose to right?
That's true. It was a mistake. They could have even done what S2 did in it's final days; change to being ITV2 with different branding, but still being able to pocket the ad revenue. That doesn't make UTV's argument now invalid however.
Quote:
As for SMG well their just going along with it so that if anything does happen with the money side of it and UTV pay less then SMG will benefit too.
Unfortunately while there are some valid points in your argument (and indeed UTV's), when you say
Quote:
They are still interested in being a regional ITV network company.
it all falls apart as the only thing UTV are interested in is making money. They have no more desire to serve the public of Northern Ireland than I have of flying to the moon.
Unfortunately while there are some valid points in your argument (and indeed UTV's), when you say
Quote:
They are still interested in being a regional ITV network company.
it all falls apart as the only thing UTV are interested in is making money. They have no more desire to serve the public of Northern Ireland than I have of flying to the moon.
Isn't every business in it to make money? They have to make money otherwise they well, will cease to exist!
Viewers = Advertising = Money to Pay for Programmes = Happy Financial People
A few of UTV programmes have been comissioned for a few years this time around seemingly. Maybe if they managed to get more money they could spend more on getting decent idents - i heard they were pretty "pushed" in their already but i'd say it'll not be long before they get fed up with shots of Lurgan Park
Isn't every business in it to make money? They have to make money otherwise they well, will cease to exist!
Yes, of course. I don't have a problem with that as long as no one's under the impression UTV have any kind of interest in public service broadcasting whatsoever. They exist only to fill shareholders' pockets. ITV plc is just the same, however if they bought UTV at least the presentation would look professional (if dull). Can't be long now...
Network programmes on channel 3 (aka ITV1 in England/Wales) are commissioned by the ITV Network Centre. Naturally the network is dominated by ITV plc, but SMG, UTV and Channel also have a say in what happens.
ITV2 is wholly owned by ITV plc, so UTV, SMG and Channel have no financial interest (and no influcence) in the output of the channel.
When you say "ITV is still paying another part of ITV", you need to be clear whether you are referring to ITV plc or the ITV Network.
cwathen will doubtless be along soon to remind us that in his view this is exactly why Carlton and Granada shouldn't have been allowed to "hijack" the ITV name.
cwathen will doubtless be along soon to remind us that in his view this is exactly why Carlton and Granada shouldn't have been allowed to "hijack" the ITV name.
And this is exactly why Carlton and Granada shouldn't have been allowed to hijack the ITV name!
Quote:
I still don't understand why ITV2 has to pay ITV1 for programmes - technically it's Carlton and Granada paying Carlton and Granada... so why?
If you to talk about technically, it's a completely separate channel owned by ITV plc paying the ITV network for transmission to programmes.
Quote:
Anyway, ITV can sell their programmes for any price they like.
Indeed they can, and this price has been agreed by network centre. But the issue here is that ITV plc are abusing their position, they wholey own 11 licences and so have 11 opinions when decisions like this are made. They have a conflict of interest in that they also wholey own the channel that is trying to buy the transmission rights. What is then happening is that they are proposing that ITV2 be sold transmission rights for far less than they are worth, they can ratify that opinion 11 times over, so whilst the independents can argue against and so the system is alledged to be fair, it's impossible for them to win - ITV plc effectively can do whatever the hell they like, and the sale of transmission rights to ITV2 is just one example of them abusing their position. How you can claim there is nothing wrong with this situation is beyond me - it's penalising companies for not being in the ITV plc fold.
Quote:
But ITV is still paying another part of ITV, right? So the money ITV2 pays is just 'token' money?
No, ITV2 (nor the ITV News Channel for that matter) is not part of ITV. It's a channel owned by ITV plc which happens to use the ITV brand name. ITV is the ITV network licenced as channel 3, of which ITV plc own a large number of licences, and have chosen to rebrand all of their franchises as ITV1, creating the illusion that a channel called ITV1 exists - which it does not.
Just because a large part of the ITV network operates as ITV1 and a channel called ITV2 exists and they have cross promotion, that doesn't mean that they are the same thing - they aren't. Any idea that ITV1 and ITV2 are part of some family of ITV channels is just an illusion - in reality it's just not true. That is why UTV have a valid argument here.
This is all quite interesting stuff really. For someone who doesnt know much about media companies, the state of the Independant Television Channel3 must be bloody confusing.
I must agree with some of the comments above, why was C&G ever allowed to aquire so much of Independant Television Channel3, and even more bizzare, why they have also snatched the ITV name for their own seperate ventures (ITV2, ITVNC).
