Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:09:16 GMT, "Carl Waring"
wrote:

Zero Tolerance wrote:
Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

And yet, even in 'digital' homes, the BBC channels remain the 'most-watched'
so there's your theory out the window ;-)

Perhaps in FREEVIEW homes where there is less choice available.
(Something like 85% of viewing in 'digital' Freeview homes is to the 5
main channels, compared to under 50% in 'digital' cable or satellite
homes.)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
. uk...
Zero Tolerance wrote:
Because people don't get Sky to watch the big five channels. They get
Sky to watch something else. That's why most people with satellite
subscribe to Sky.

And yet, even in 'digital' homes, the BBC channels remain the
'most-watched' so there's your theory out the window ;-)



Not at all. For example, I have Sky for two main reasons, football, and
Sky+, but I still watch 'the big 5' for the majority of the time. I suspect
the same would apply to many households that got Sky because they wanted
sports, or MTV, or Movies, they still might end up watching a majority of
other channels. It doesnt negate the point that their primary reason for
getting Sky was sports, or MTV, or Movies or whatever.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

You are clearly unaware of just how many people do indeed get
satellite yet pay no sub.

About 554,000 according to the last Ofcom report. Compared to 8
million or more subscription homes.

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.


And, of course, you have just given evidence
yourself that there clearly is a big demand for non-pay channels,
otherwise what are C4 doing? You need to make your mind up.

What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.


Freeview clearly has a much larger potential audience than Top Up TV,
so being FTA is the logical choice.

And yet the identical situation isn't logical with satellite? As I
said, you need to make your mind up.

You're not thinking this through. TopUp is currently estimated to have
around, what, 200,000 subscribers? Whereas Freeview as a whole is
suppoed to be in something like 7 million homes. The difference is
enormous.

FTV and FTA channels on sat can be viewed by subscribers and
non-subscribers. Clearly for many channels there is another reason for
being part of a pay package, and it is the one I gave.



If being subscription as opposed to FTA saves you, what, let's say
£75,000 at a guess, then for being FTA to be worthwhile, you'd have to
earn that £75,000 back from an additional potential audience of just
500,000 (of which even a half-decent channel would only ever expect to
get a 2.5% share, tops - so 12,000 actual viewers). That's over £6 per
viewer, which is totally unrealistic.

No, for the reason I gave above. FTA and FTV can be viewed by all, not
just non-subscribers.

Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"loz" wrote in message
...

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
And yet today, when Channel 4 makes the decision to make FilmFour
available to a wider audience, do they choose to go FTA? Well.. no.
They choose to go FTV. A choice made of their own free will, and FTV
is what they want. Pretty much shoots a hole in your predictions,
there.

Unlike More4 on Sky it will be FTV though, with no Sky subscription
package required.
Presumably FTV because they use the transponder with the wider european
footprint, and would need to renogiate rights if they went FTA

Actually I understand it is on Asta 2D so shouldn't have right's issues.

However, I note several comments on other forums that it isn't quite clear
whether C4 mean FilmFour will be FTV or FTA on satellite

Loz



Channel 4 / Channel 4's Public Relations muppets do not know what FTV or FTA
means.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:21:45 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.

Oh, OK. Obviously you're more likely to know than they are.

You're also assuming that everyone who churns out never ever comes
back. Yet when the advice you give here to people who want a new dish
and box is to cancel and then take out a new subscription, you must
realise that not everyone who cancels remains a non-subscriber.

What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

You're not thinking this through. TopUp is currently estimated to have
around, what, 200,000 subscribers? Whereas Freeview as a whole is
suppoed to be in something like 7 million homes. The difference is
enormous.

FTV and FTA channels on sat can be viewed by subscribers and
non-subscribers.

What has that got to do with why a channel would choose Freeview over
Top-Up?

No, for the reason I gave above. FTA and FTV can be viewed by all, not
just non-subscribers.

Yes, but the point I was making is that if you can't recoup the extra
costs of not being subscription from those 500,000 non-subscription
viewers, then you may as well be subscription.

Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

Channel 4 are making a commitment to non-subscription television
because they're a large, well-funded commercial organisation available
in nearly twice as many homes as less advantaged digital-only channels
are. They can afford it.

Other channels are not necessarily in the same position - they will
make their own choices according to their needs. If providing a
service to those extra 500,000 viewers has an unreasonable and
commercially unjustifiable cost, then they're going to stick with the
8 million homes that already have a subscription. That's quite enough
to be going on with.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...

Yes, but the point I was making is that if you can't recoup the extra
costs of not being subscription from those 500,000 non-subscription
viewers, then you may as well be subscription.

I am getting a bit lost as to who is argueing what in this thread now :-)

As I understand it, C4's simple arguement is they believe they can make much
more from advertising by making FilmFour available as a FTV/FTA channel that
is accessible by several million people, than they can by running it as a
subscription only channel.
I don't see where the 500k difference between sky subscribers and
non-subscribers comes in to it.
For C4 it is the difference between 300k paying subscribers, and a potential
advertising audience of something like 15m on Sky and Freeview.

Loz

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

As I understand it, C4's simple arguement is they believe they can make much
more from advertising by making FilmFour available as a FTV/FTA channel that
is accessible by several million people, than they can by running it as a
subscription only channel.

Yeah, pretty much, although it's more "We can make more money by
shutting down this subscription-funded world cinema channel and
replacing it with a commercial-laden free product showing Hollywood
blockbusters. And we might show some world cinema really really late
at night, and even then only if it's vaguely porny."

I don't see where the 500k difference between sky subscribers and
non-subscribers comes in to it.

That's a side argument about why some channels are free on Freeview
but subscription on satellite.

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

With churn alone at nearly 1 million this figure seems unlikely to say
the least. Personally I doubt that Ofcom have a clue what they are
talking about.

Oh, OK. Obviously you're more likely to know than they are.

You're also assuming that everyone who churns out never ever comes
back. Yet when the advice you give here to people who want a new dish
and box is to cancel and then take out a new subscription, you must
realise that not everyone who cancels remains a non-subscriber.

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.


What evidence was that? Sure, some non-pay channels are popular, (ones
that people have been used to watching for 20 or 30 years, for
example) but most aren't.

You informed us that FilmFour was ceasing to be a premium channel and
becoming totally free, rather than just being part of the basic
package. So you make a mockery of your own argument that there is no
interest in being FTA or FTV outside of the main terrestrial channels.

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

So? Most channels are owned by someone else. FilmFour is certainly not
a mainstream terrestrial channel.



Presumably FilmFour have carefully thought this through and have
rejected your argument.

Channel 4 are making a commitment to non-subscription television
because they're a large, well-funded commercial organisation available
in nearly twice as many homes as less advantaged digital-only channels
are. They can afford it.

As can the Horror channel and the various other similar channels, we
must suppose. Even though they are small and digital-only.

No, the numbers and the facts are against you.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:22:08 +0100, Jomtien wrote:

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.

Ofcom say that ex-sub users are included. Quote: "This figure includes
viewers who are no longer Sky subscribers but still receive the public
service channels through their set-top box. Also included in this
figure are viewers who are able to receive the public service channels
through using a ‘Solus’ card. "

In case you hadn't noticed, FilmFour is owned by Channel 4, one of the
main terrestrial channels.

So? Most channels are owned by someone else. FilmFour is certainly not
a mainstream terrestrial channel.

Not yet, no. Once it goes free it should be very mainstream indeed.

As can the Horror channel and the various other similar channels, we
must suppose. Even though they are small and digital-only.

The Horror Channel might not have had the choice. Ultimately no
channel can demand carriage and subscription income (or discounts) -
there will always necessarily be some element of "I'm sorry, we think
your channel is too low grade / too niche / too awful to retail".

Ftn, UKTV History, More4
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

I'm aware of that but the figures still add up to far more than just
half a million. I will bet a small sum that the figure given by Ofcom
is only for FTV card users and does not include expired sub card users
or indeed those who have no card at all. Simply because these figures
cannot be verified except by a house to house search.

Ofcom say that ex-sub users are included. Quote: "This figure includes
viewers who are no longer Sky subscribers but still receive the public
service channels through their set-top box. Also included in this
figure are viewers who are able to receive the public service channels
through using a ‘Solus’ card. "

The figures just don't add up.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)