begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Tuesday 09 January 2007 17:22 \__
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:48:54 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the end Britland we still only have four real channels, we have
>>>> channel five but I've never known anyone watch that.
>>>
>>> ??? Most of the people I know, including family members and close friends,
>>> watch Channel 5.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.barb.co.uk
>>
>> % hours of viewing per month.
>>
>> 30% BBC
>> 20% ITV
>> 8% channel 4
>> 5% Five
>>
>> Mind, the chart proves me wrong too, its seems sky isn't doing as badly as
>> I thought
>
> I guess the other ~39% just watch the Jerry Springer show or glare at the Sun
> (page 3 comes to mind). I bet the next-generation will flip this chart
> upside-down and leave the BBC with just 5%. Unless there's an SMS channel,
> in which case telly is at risk.
>
You need to grasp the economics... Sky is popular for one reason and one
only, which is that Rupert Murdoch's non-tax-paying empire have bought
up pretty much all the rights to Premiership football, Champion's League
football, and international Cricket, and most major Golf tournaments.
They have also managed to perfect pay per view for major boxing matches.
If you look at the distribution of customers, you'll see that Sky is
mainly watched by c2 and c3 people, with very few abc1s. This grouping
of people likes to watch football very much indeed, and are prepared to
pay a significant amount of money for it. That's the economic root to
Sky's success.
Personally, I quite enjoy watching BBC4. I like watching re-runs of the
Old Grey Whistle Test, most of which haven't been shown for 20 years,
and I like watching the Proms on television, which have /never/ been
shown, because they're live. None of this was available before the
freeview DTV came along. I have particularly enjoyed watching one-offs
such as the Richard III from the Globe Theatre live. In fact, I now
watch more television than I've ever done, because there are more things
that I'm interested in than ever before. That's still not a great deal
of television watching, but it's a big change. If you don't like arts
programming, in-depth science, quality drama, current affairs, analysis,
history and geography, then you probably won't get that much from
freeview.
I would not get Sky, not because I don't like football and cricket, I do
very much, but because I'm not prepared to pay the fees they want to
charge for it.
Sky's biggest problem is the BBC. The BBC produces superior
programming, and has the world's most comprehensive back-catalogue of
television and radio material. It has rights to most of the best
comedy in the world, and has an arts catalogue second to none. Although
the UK has never really taken Science Fiction as seriously as the yanks
have, the BBC still has a respectable SciFi hoard, too. The BBC has the
resources to present one of the world's most popular websites, makes its
radio programming available via the internet to everyone, and still
maintains a global radio and television broadcasting capability. The
BBC is not able to take on Sky for the purchase of major sporting
events, but is able to compete and win in pretty much every other area,
but perhaps most importantly, beats Sky hands-down in appealing to
abc1s, not just in the UK, but around the world.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The state of innocence contains the germs of all future sin.
-- Alexandre Arnoux, "Etudes et caprices"
|
|
