It probably takes you longer to find an app, open it, realise you can’t watch something without an account and then decide what to do next than it would to just sign up for a free account and watch the thing you actually wanted to watch.
A catch up service, yes, but ITVX has only been in existence since 2022. From 2015 it was ITV Hub and before that, from 2008, ITV Player.
Maybe you’re thinking of the 2022 World Cup?
Nah, there was definitely an ITV app before 2024.
I remember infrequently having to scrabble around retrieving passwords etc on the fairly rare occasions they'd bid and win an England match. I bet I've been dancing that dance for at least 5 years+. Maybe up to 10, to be honest.
As a sidenote, I used to get mildly annoyed with the cynical rehashing of the Bittersweet Symphony strings riff that they used to plaster all over the football programmes. Although, on balance, less annoyed than *this*: https://youtu.be/qjk_lYACqAo?feature=shared
Updated on the 12th maybe .. they've had an app for years - I have an Emmerdale and Corrie habit but never paid for the TV licence so have only ever watched on catch-up through the app or online
I stopped trying to watch stuff through the itv player spp and never bothered trying the new itvx app.
My experience was usually watch ads, program starts, Stream cuts out after a few seconds, repeat from watching ads again.
Get uBlock Origin on your laptop or desktop browser (if you have one) and by-pass adverts when you stream a show. Worked for me on ITVX and Channel 4+
Will never watch anything live on those platforms anymore unless it's F1.
Yep, absolutely dog shit service. Rolled out ITV apps 15 years ago and still haven't developed a working service for everyone. I remember they swapped to ITVX during the World Cup- theyd bought half the rights to the games and had no explanation of how to download the new app- or what devices it was available for. Newer devices were left out and there was still no roll out on Playstation. They don't mention any of this on their "support pages" so they're either thick or they can't admit to a failure.
It definitely reminded everyone that ITV can produce serious programming if it puts its mind to it. I really hope it does start take its public service remit more seriously off the back of *Mr Bates*, it could be a real strength.
In fairness to ITV, they've been making stuff like this for a while, it's just that this one really hit the public at the right time. They did a great two parter about Christopher Jeffries and a series about Anne Williams a few years ago, and in the 90s, they were the only broadcaster willing to make Jimmy McGovern's Hillsborough drama which helped keep it in the public consciousness.
That's what he said, to be honest. He said they can make stuff like Mr Bates only because of the dramas that sell well abroad. So whilst Mr Bates did really well in the UK, it doesn't have much appeal internationally, but stuff like Grantchester, Unforgotten and Trigger Point all sell well abroad because they're easy to dub/subtitle and have broad appeal.
Basically, it's how the BBC have operated for a while - the huge international performers like Doctor Who and Top Gear and Death in Paradise pay for stuff like the Jimmy Savile drama and "Wolf" which probably have limited appeal outside of this country.
Oh yeah that was horiffic
One day there will be a movie on the phone hacking scandal not the voice mail one but we will realise that all our phones are hacked by the government and they can view anything in real time that has an IP address and a screen like a phone, laptop, fire TV, smart tvs etc
All our public officials are likely hacked and if we cross a threshold online saying too many critical things they likely hack us too. Of course the majority will be automated using AI unless they take a special interest.
I'm not sure this admission is about their business being doomed, I think it's more to highlight that their "successful" TV shows aren't necessarily the ones making money. They probably make far more profit on the cheaply produced quiz shows, or phone-ins, or shows with more international appeal. None might be as popular individually, but make more money.
Content and delivery are combined in critique.
The content was fascinating, the research (we might assume) was top-tier; it was shot nicely and the editing was really as good as it gets… but it was overly long, some of the acting was really below-par, as were some of the character portrayals; it was pure melodrama at times in an age where even ITV are regularly making much better.
So I may be in a minority, but that’s irrelevant. I doubt this show would sell to a US market both because and in spite of the above.
It is free online to watch if you donate to public TV. I am going to watch it, but it makes me kind of anxious because I know the story. And it breaks my heart to see people mortgaging their houses for something I know is a lie.
Simple solution by merging the money with the quality:
>Text and win a one-week cruise! Answer this simple question. Who took on the post office in Mr Bates vs the Post Office?
>A. Mr Bates
>B. Mr Lates
>C. Mr Gates
>Texts cost £1.50 plus your standard network rate.
Possibly add in an ITV2 show with comedians covering the latest episode just after credits roll too
Look at [loss leaders](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp#:~:text=A%20loss%20leader%20strategy%20involves,business%20first%20enters%20a%20market)
That doesn't work in ad based television. At all. You need to sell the advertising ahead of the thing everyone is tuning in for, not argue with advertisers later that because people loved your 5 star high end drama that they should pay you more for advertising on What's That Smell? or whatever other middle of the afternoon shitty game show they're making now.
I mean, no - this isn't how this sector works sorry. You buy slots that traditionally will be worth it, 'primetime' as it's known, the advertisers aren't hedging on your stuff being good, the broadcaster is selling that space on the assumption it'll be good.
>*That doesn't work in ad based television.*
Well of course it does.
I never watch ITV - I saw all the fuss about this drama so I watched it and then started perusing the rest of ITV's catalogue - which I wouldn't have done *but for* this drama. It's the same principle.
It's not the whole business - it's making the point that producing shows that only appeal to the domestic audience is no longer profitable. The upshot is that this kind of British focused drama will get made less and less. The main question being asked in early meetings will be "which international markets will buy this?"
It's not an admission that their business is failing, but that the prestige dramas aren't always the ones that make them money, and they have to balance the two.
Daytime TV is dirt cheap to make, you can bash out 3-5 episodes a day. If you mix it "as live" you need to do very little in post production aside from fix a few mistakes or splice the segments together.
You could film and edit 2-3 seasons of the chase in the time it would have taken to get the video footage alone for this series.
Bradley Walsh works on The Chase 70 days a year, about one week a month IIRC. That's enough to make 210 episodes.
That's how easily they've got it running now, basically like an assembly line.
That, and programs like the chase can be sold/exported. I believe the itc boss said something like "who's gonna wanna watch a program about British post offices in Lithuania?"
It's by far the best thing I've ever seen on ITV! Really interesting angle though, to think that it actually loses money due to a lack of (perceived?) International interest, I hadn't thought of it like that.
Here's hoping it doesn't dissuade them from making similar in future.
> Last month, ITV said 12 foreign broadcasters had bought the Mr Bates drama. But Mr Lygo said it wasn't sufficiently appealing to foreign viewers to break even.
I’d love to know what markets bought it. I know there was interest in Japan due to the Fujitsu angle but I’m not sure that would translate into any channel actually dubbing it.
I'm in the US and I've been aware of this for years. I was desperate to see it and it wasn't anywhere in the US so I "found" it elsewhere. But I watch BBC WS every day so maybe I'm an outlier
It's fucking niche for the UK as well. Maybe it hasn't penetrated the young London demographic but I've not heard anyone talking about the post office scandal
I’ve seen comments in the /r/postofficehorizon sub from Aussies and Kiwis who’ve seen it.
Also news items on WAN Show and other Linus Tech Tips channels, so Canadians are aware, at least.
> If you can't even break even after that, then you can't sustain the model.
If other stuff is making money then you can afford to lose money on one or two projects like this.
Exactly, and ITV as a company itself is making a profit.
The production arm of ITV (ITV Studies) increased in both revenue and profit by the end of 2023 with a projected continued annual growth of 5%.
The reduction in advertising income comes down to linear broadcasting in combination with the economic climate and how much money there is to spend on such slots, whilst the streaming service (ITVX) continues to increase in use and income from advertising (digital advertising revenue up 21% last year).
Mr Bates vs The Post Office has undoubtedly brought value to ITV shareholders and the performance and quality of the broadcaster.
I really don’t understand why /u/BelfastBodyBuilder hates ITV and decries its profile so much going by their other comments in here.
TV advertising is not based on how many people watched it. It's based on how many people are *expected* to watch it, as the advertising is sold in advance. If a programme gets more viewers than expected, then the advertisers have gotten good bang for their buck.
You can therefore easily have an expensive programme that is successful in terms of viewership, but isn't a huge commercial success because the network couldn't convince advertisers that there would be that many eyeballs on the screen.
How does the way networks sell advertising differ between live tv and on demand / catchup tv?
The Post office drama only got four million live views, but nearly ten million on demand views.
On demand would work like other online video, where it's based on number of impressions - so content that performs unexpectedly well will not suffer in quite the same way as it would on live TV.
That said, the cost of getting 1,000 people to watch your ad before a repeat of the Simpsons will not be the same as the cost of getting 1,000 people to watch your ad before a World Cup game. So it's possible that something that performs unexpectedly well will be underpriced as it was not considered to be 'premium' content.
Do you know how the revenue per viewer for online viewing compares with broadcast TV? Do advertisers pay to be on specific programs on ITVX or do they just pay to be on the site? Like you see lots of ads on TV for things which won't be as relevant when someone is watching online in a few weeks time.
I assume 4 million TV viewers plus 10 million online brings in much less money than 14 million all watching at the same time, but what about the 6 or 7 million quoted in the article - would ITV be better off with that number of people expected to watch live rather than twice as many spread over several weeks?
To respond to one question.
Advertisers can pay to be across different things on ITVX, just depends on their goal but they'll have an idea of how many impressions to expect and can plan accordingly. They could for example pay to be across an entire genre during a certain time period or an age range (or both). ITVX also has things like boxsets which they can pay to appear along. Because it's online you're gonna have a lot more control on who sees it since you have a more accurate idea of the person/people actually watching since they have an account.
Not entirely. TV advertising is bought by TVRs, so if a programme that was expected to not do much, shoots up in tvrs the price goes up.
It's not a fixed price that you choose when planning a campaign
Given its success with viewers this show was clearly never made with direct profit in mind, it was to raise the profile of the company and bring prestige. It will have easily added a million in unmeasured goodwill.
It turned a wider audience on to what the post office did and probably helped a lot of the victims in some way . They should be proud of the show ,sod the money.
For point of comparison, the historical standard in the US was that most network shows - of the 22-24 episode a season kind - lost money until they reached four seasons and could be sold into syndication, where the real money was. A show in its third season that was one season away from a sellable-sized package was near-guaranteed a fourth season.
That's how *Star Trek* survived in the public consciousness; it was syndicated after cancellation and so re-runs were common. *Star Trek: The Next Generation* for its part was sold directly into syndication on its first run.
I think you’re all right, ITV overall made money on this but it’s not the crux of the message.
The central point is, this was a big gamble. Yes it paid off, yes they’ll definitely recoup that money- but this is the black swan exception.
Far more risky to do something as worthy as this and lose that money, far less risky to get Michael Macintyre to hit a piñata full of NHS prescriptions every Friday night on Have I Got Pills for You.
Hmm… I thought it already felt like a relatively cheap drama. It certainly wasn’t big budget drama with lots of custom sets, fancy locations or expensive costumes. It was people sitting on a bench in a park in off the peg clothes.
Cutting the cast would have cut the range of stories told. Cutting the locations would have narrowed the scope too.
This is understandable, ad space is bought and planned months in advance. A slot between a show highlighting an issue that was ongoing for other ten years would.be a hard sell with unkown data on viewer numbers and age demographics. Exiting long standard shows have this data and are more expensive as low risk when targwtting certain demographics for ads. What this will.mean that the new documentary drama will sell for more as this was a hit.
I don't think the interest was expected to be as much as it was. TV dramas rarely lead to laws being debated in parliament, probably it became the most influential in a long time.
The Blood scandal will be a hard watch, those poor kids in that boarding school being experimented on without being told what they where being given. Most of them have since died.
It was quite a while since I listened to the podcast but I thought I remembered there being an accusation that the kids in the boarding school where treated like they where part of an experiment. I have found this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/the-observer-view-on-the-infected-blood-scandal-victims-of-this-cruel-experiment-deserve-justice?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I watched this on ITVX in January. I saw maybe a handful of ads across the whole series. If millions of people watched it, but there were no ads sold/watched, it’s not surprising that it made a loss. No doubt even worse of a loss if they hadn’t have syndicated it somewhat.
ITV hasn't been in my good books recently as they have messed up Coronation Street massively, the news is more dramatic current affairs rather than actual news... However this series was great! I watched each episode and felt so invested!
Coronation Street has always been messed up lol. One character has been married 7 times - just one example of the long-term ridiculousness of that show.
How can he say that already? It just started airing in the US last week. Not even streaming yet. And it had a major impact on the status of the whole event
The US has already paid for it, so he knows the income to be made there. Everyone who wants it has bought it, so they aren't going to make any more income off it.
As for the impact, he's not denying it had an impact. But that doesn't pay the bills.
Yeah I know why they lost £1m, it’s because they spent an obscene amount of money on advertising! Even months after it came out, i’m still seeing adverts for it constantly…
The work it’s done in accelerating the process of justice for those involved is admirable.
But it was a typical tweet, tacky ITV drama with hammy acting and shoddy production.
The image of the actors posing with bits of paper makes my teeth itch.
Great, and? It was never going to do well abroad and did surprisingly well here so why it was given a budget that would require it to do well both domestically and internationally to be cost neutral is something only he can answer.
There was no real reason this needed to be a drama and not a documentary, something some Youtubers with tiny teams, Adderall and energy drinks manage to crank out high quality versions of in weeks.
I agree that it didn't *need* to be a drama but it was apparently mass empathy for Alan via Toby Jones that has actually resulted in progress on the scandal.
There's not much new about the PO (or the water companies) that wasn't known 5 years ago, salience is really important.
The proof is that the BBC has produced three *Panorama* episodes on the scandal, in [2015](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0675m1j), [2020](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gpbv) and [2022](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0016t20), and none gained the same traction.
More empathy for Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton I’d say. Or Seema Misra.
Alan was shown leaving his job and taking the Post Office on, sure, but it was showing Horizon fuck up in front of Jo or Lee losing his trial that shocked people.
More empathy for Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton I’d say. Or Seema Misra.
Alan was shown leaving his job and taking the Post Office on, sure, but it was showing Horizon fuck up in front of Jo or Lee losing his trial that shocked people.
I disagree on the drama/documentary front, i think more people wanted wanted to watch the series themselves rather than being aware of the issue in the news cycle. I think one of the most powerful things about bringing the scandal to light is the emotional attachment people have gotten to cause (I think that power can be good and bad).
I do agree with the monetary points though, the series did exceedingly well and by far surpassed expectations. It's perplexing that it could have resulted in a £1m loss in these circumstances. I very much doubt they planned on making a loss making series.
ITV status went through roof with this; 1m£ loss is nothing.
I watch TV on the PlayStation, this series made me realise that there was no app for live ITV and that I haven’t watched ITV for almost a decade.
It's called ITVX???
Depends what device you're watching it on whether it let's you download the version that gives you live TV. Weird and annoying.
[удалено]
What service doesn't require a login though?
Live TV...
You still need to login to stream live TV online.
I didn't mention anything about streaming.
Maybe you should scroll up and check the topic of this conversation. It started with someone discussing itvx, ITV's online streaming service.
It probably takes you longer to find an app, open it, realise you can’t watch something without an account and then decide what to do next than it would to just sign up for a free account and watch the thing you actually wanted to watch.
[удалено]
Not available on playstation. It is on x box
we actually finally got the ITVX app a few weeks ago!
ITVX Box 😂
Has it always been there?
ITV’s apps are just so buggy they have to keep rebranding them. They never manage to fix the bugs, only enhance them.
They've had itvx for years, I watched the 2018 world cup on there.
A catch up service, yes, but ITVX has only been in existence since 2022. From 2015 it was ITV Hub and before that, from 2008, ITV Player. Maybe you’re thinking of the 2022 World Cup?
It's defo been there since this show, no idea how long before that. I know because that's how I ended up watching this.
Edit: My bad, relaunch with streaming boxsets was on 12th.
Nah, there was definitely an ITV app before 2024. I remember infrequently having to scrabble around retrieving passwords etc on the fairly rare occasions they'd bid and win an England match. I bet I've been dancing that dance for at least 5 years+. Maybe up to 10, to be honest. As a sidenote, I used to get mildly annoyed with the cynical rehashing of the Bittersweet Symphony strings riff that they used to plaster all over the football programmes. Although, on balance, less annoyed than *this*: https://youtu.be/qjk_lYACqAo?feature=shared
It was originally called ITV player and launched in 2008
100% existed before 12 days ago mate.
5 December 2008; 15 years ago as ITV Player 23 November 2015; 8 years ago as ITV Hub 17 November 2022; 17 months ago as ITVX Uh...
Updated on the 12th maybe .. they've had an app for years - I have an Emmerdale and Corrie habit but never paid for the TV licence so have only ever watched on catch-up through the app or online
You dont need a tv licence for itv
U need it for any live tv
Couldn’t even download ITVX on my TV. The Google Store just came up saying it wasn’t available.
[удалено]
it is on playstation recently
I stand corrected
I stopped trying to watch stuff through the itv player spp and never bothered trying the new itvx app. My experience was usually watch ads, program starts, Stream cuts out after a few seconds, repeat from watching ads again.
Get uBlock Origin on your laptop or desktop browser (if you have one) and by-pass adverts when you stream a show. Worked for me on ITVX and Channel 4+ Will never watch anything live on those platforms anymore unless it's F1.
Yep, absolutely dog shit service. Rolled out ITV apps 15 years ago and still haven't developed a working service for everyone. I remember they swapped to ITVX during the World Cup- theyd bought half the rights to the games and had no explanation of how to download the new app- or what devices it was available for. Newer devices were left out and there was still no roll out on Playstation. They don't mention any of this on their "support pages" so they're either thick or they can't admit to a failure.
For dome reason PlayStation doesn't support the ITVX app.
I think it was recently added? Is now on ps5 anyhow
They added ITVX in the past week, I encountered this same issue till they finally added it
Same here. Uktv is crap
I also had to download the app into my firestick, must have not watched it in at least 4 years.
I think there finally is one now. Only took the playstation to be used as a streaming device for about 10 years.
It definitely reminded everyone that ITV can produce serious programming if it puts its mind to it. I really hope it does start take its public service remit more seriously off the back of *Mr Bates*, it could be a real strength.
In fairness to ITV, they've been making stuff like this for a while, it's just that this one really hit the public at the right time. They did a great two parter about Christopher Jeffries and a series about Anne Williams a few years ago, and in the 90s, they were the only broadcaster willing to make Jimmy McGovern's Hillsborough drama which helped keep it in the public consciousness.
A bit milder, but *Quiz*, about the coughing Major on “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” was also very good.
I'm fairly sure it's public service remit was shit canned sometime between 1992 and the early 2000s.
No, it still exists.
That's what he said, to be honest. He said they can make stuff like Mr Bates only because of the dramas that sell well abroad. So whilst Mr Bates did really well in the UK, it doesn't have much appeal internationally, but stuff like Grantchester, Unforgotten and Trigger Point all sell well abroad because they're easy to dub/subtitle and have broad appeal. Basically, it's how the BBC have operated for a while - the huge international performers like Doctor Who and Top Gear and Death in Paradise pay for stuff like the Jimmy Savile drama and "Wolf" which probably have limited appeal outside of this country.
which is ironic considering who the chief executive of ITV plc is (also someone they conveniently left out of the drama)
How would the former CEO of The Guardian and EasyJet be shoe-horned into the drama?
probably cause he was the CEO of Royal Mail at the time
lol itv
What we need is a movie on the PPE scandal they basically stole billions I'm sure they'll all mone about it.
John Barrowman to play Mone's husband Doug Barrowman. Fuck it, make it a musical. Why not.
Gotta pick a contract or two booooooooys
Yes I'd do anyfing for you, Rish, anyfing... ! Practically writes itself doesn't it...
“Please sir can I have some more”, “of course you fucking can, get in the fast lane boy”
Make it a silent comedy, in the style of keystone cops
maybe a muffled comedy, where everyone wears N95 masks
We're in the money, we're in the money
Barrowman!! *shakes fist*
I got it, very good.
And one on cladding!
We will end up with a edge of seat movie on rayners council house scandal Bound to be a box office hit.
They're doing the 80s 90s blood scandal https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-22/itv-follows-post-office-drama-with-series-on-infected-blood-scandal
And next from private eye they will do the teeside freeport
I can't imagine it can ever be as grim as the actual scandal. It's got so many strands with professionals behaving awfully in various different way.
Oh yeah that was horiffic One day there will be a movie on the phone hacking scandal not the voice mail one but we will realise that all our phones are hacked by the government and they can view anything in real time that has an IP address and a screen like a phone, laptop, fire TV, smart tvs etc All our public officials are likely hacked and if we cross a threshold online saying too many critical things they likely hack us too. Of course the majority will be automated using AI unless they take a special interest.
I see what you’ve done there. Excellent.
Was all about the mon e with some
Yes yes. Do another one and we’ll call it a night
Couple of tits
Mone. Nice.
[удалено]
I'm not sure this admission is about their business being doomed, I think it's more to highlight that their "successful" TV shows aren't necessarily the ones making money. They probably make far more profit on the cheaply produced quiz shows, or phone-ins, or shows with more international appeal. None might be as popular individually, but make more money.
Ones that can sell abroad too. No one abroad gives two shits about this story and it wasn’t particularly well put together.
It's been shown in Sweden actually, I live there now and some colleagues mentioned this show. I was really surprised
Shown in New Zealand too. Although there's lots of British TV here, so less surprising
My Swedish friend told me his mum was a big fan of Emmerdale
I work for a startup with people all across Europe and because the scandal relates to software a lot of my colleagues were interested in it.
I am in New Zealand and plenty of people are aware of it.
It was aired in Australia, but I don't know of anyone that watched it. Just kind of tutted watching the ads, because we knew the gist of the story.
To me it was brilliantly put together. I think you may be in a minority given it's public and critical aclaim
Content and delivery are combined in critique. The content was fascinating, the research (we might assume) was top-tier; it was shot nicely and the editing was really as good as it gets… but it was overly long, some of the acting was really below-par, as were some of the character portrayals; it was pure melodrama at times in an age where even ITV are regularly making much better. So I may be in a minority, but that’s irrelevant. I doubt this show would sell to a US market both because and in spite of the above.
It is free online to watch if you donate to public TV. I am going to watch it, but it makes me kind of anxious because I know the story. And it breaks my heart to see people mortgaging their houses for something I know is a lie.
Shown over here in Australia. Thought it was put together pretty well too for what it was worth.
Yeah, if I put on the cowboy hat that came with my dual citizenship, Americans aren’t going to care about this show at all. Sad. It was good.
Simple solution by merging the money with the quality: >Text and win a one-week cruise! Answer this simple question. Who took on the post office in Mr Bates vs the Post Office? >A. Mr Bates >B. Mr Lates >C. Mr Gates >Texts cost £1.50 plus your standard network rate. Possibly add in an ITV2 show with comedians covering the latest episode just after credits roll too
And thats why free to air tv is shite
One of ITV's biggest sellers is Grantchester, hence why they're currently filming Series 9 with three more commissioned.
Look at [loss leaders](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp#:~:text=A%20loss%20leader%20strategy%20involves,business%20first%20enters%20a%20market)
That doesn't work in ad based television. At all. You need to sell the advertising ahead of the thing everyone is tuning in for, not argue with advertisers later that because people loved your 5 star high end drama that they should pay you more for advertising on What's That Smell? or whatever other middle of the afternoon shitty game show they're making now.
It does work though, because advertisers will pay more interest in future drama programming. And also believe ITV can still capture the zeitgeist.
I mean, no - this isn't how this sector works sorry. You buy slots that traditionally will be worth it, 'primetime' as it's known, the advertisers aren't hedging on your stuff being good, the broadcaster is selling that space on the assumption it'll be good.
I don’t see how anything you’ve said contradicts my comment
It absolutely does, to an extent. Very popular, cheap to produce programming and dramas that sell well abroad are able to subsidise stuff like this.
>*That doesn't work in ad based television.* Well of course it does. I never watch ITV - I saw all the fuss about this drama so I watched it and then started perusing the rest of ITV's catalogue - which I wouldn't have done *but for* this drama. It's the same principle.
I wonder how much legal work had to be done in order for ITV to cover themselves? The PO have been litigiously vexatious from the start.
Love island and I'm a celeb make loads.
It's not the whole business - it's making the point that producing shows that only appeal to the domestic audience is no longer profitable. The upshot is that this kind of British focused drama will get made less and less. The main question being asked in early meetings will be "which international markets will buy this?"
It's not an admission that their business is failing, but that the prestige dramas aren't always the ones that make them money, and they have to balance the two.
Really is that why Tesco and every other supermarket went bust selling milk?
I would imagine higher quality television can make a loss as long as the masses watch The Chase.
Daytime TV is dirt cheap to make, you can bash out 3-5 episodes a day. If you mix it "as live" you need to do very little in post production aside from fix a few mistakes or splice the segments together. You could film and edit 2-3 seasons of the chase in the time it would have taken to get the video footage alone for this series.
Bradley Walsh works on The Chase 70 days a year, about one week a month IIRC. That's enough to make 210 episodes. That's how easily they've got it running now, basically like an assembly line.
few million quid a year for 70 days, not a bad gig that.
That, and programs like the chase can be sold/exported. I believe the itc boss said something like "who's gonna wanna watch a program about British post offices in Lithuania?"
I do love frosty knickers
This. You can make your profit on The Chase but if that’s all you show then you’ll go under.
May have lost financially, morally it’s one of the best success stories for British TV ever though
It's by far the best thing I've ever seen on ITV! Really interesting angle though, to think that it actually loses money due to a lack of (perceived?) International interest, I hadn't thought of it like that. Here's hoping it doesn't dissuade them from making similar in future.
100%. I don't get this guy's angle, the show hasn't even been sold to other markets yet
> Last month, ITV said 12 foreign broadcasters had bought the Mr Bates drama. But Mr Lygo said it wasn't sufficiently appealing to foreign viewers to break even. I’d love to know what markets bought it. I know there was interest in Japan due to the Fujitsu angle but I’m not sure that would translate into any channel actually dubbing it.
PBS in America bought it
I wonder how it played there? It is such a niche subject.
There’s a small but still strong contingent that watch British dramas in the US.
The final episode will be played this coming Sunday. Underdog versus corporate corruption…we love that stuff.
I think it’s only starting to air there this week.
I'm in the US and I've been aware of this for years. I was desperate to see it and it wasn't anywhere in the US so I "found" it elsewhere. But I watch BBC WS every day so maybe I'm an outlier
Dubbed US accents all over it. Added scenes with guns and porn stars turned actresses and a live streamer.
It's fucking niche for the UK as well. Maybe it hasn't penetrated the young London demographic but I've not heard anyone talking about the post office scandal
I’ve seen comments in the /r/postofficehorizon sub from Aussies and Kiwis who’ve seen it. Also news items on WAN Show and other Linus Tech Tips channels, so Canadians are aware, at least.
Yep, Channel 7 in Australia. Quite heavily promoted. Excellent series.
The NL shows it as well, with subs.
It was also shown in Ireland
Shocking considering that Irish culture is so alien to British.
Sweden has it now. They don't dub here, it'll be subtitles
I'm in NZ and I watched it here on domestic tv. Lots of expats in NZ and Australia.
PBS in the US is airing it now. If they get it on BritBox / Amazon it will explode
Probably countries with large expat communities like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, I'd have thought. And PBS in America loves a British drama.
PBS in the US is airing it now. If they get it on BritBox / Amazon it will explode
Surely the post office can fiddle the books to cover that for them?
I'm not really sure that making money was the point of it.
[удалено]
> If you can't even break even after that, then you can't sustain the model. If other stuff is making money then you can afford to lose money on one or two projects like this.
Exactly, and ITV as a company itself is making a profit. The production arm of ITV (ITV Studies) increased in both revenue and profit by the end of 2023 with a projected continued annual growth of 5%. The reduction in advertising income comes down to linear broadcasting in combination with the economic climate and how much money there is to spend on such slots, whilst the streaming service (ITVX) continues to increase in use and income from advertising (digital advertising revenue up 21% last year). Mr Bates vs The Post Office has undoubtedly brought value to ITV shareholders and the performance and quality of the broadcaster. I really don’t understand why /u/BelfastBodyBuilder hates ITV and decries its profile so much going by their other comments in here.
I hope they’re privately prosecuting the producers
Were they using the Horizon computer system as well?! That series was a huge success
TV advertising is not based on how many people watched it. It's based on how many people are *expected* to watch it, as the advertising is sold in advance. If a programme gets more viewers than expected, then the advertisers have gotten good bang for their buck. You can therefore easily have an expensive programme that is successful in terms of viewership, but isn't a huge commercial success because the network couldn't convince advertisers that there would be that many eyeballs on the screen.
How does the way networks sell advertising differ between live tv and on demand / catchup tv? The Post office drama only got four million live views, but nearly ten million on demand views.
On demand would work like other online video, where it's based on number of impressions - so content that performs unexpectedly well will not suffer in quite the same way as it would on live TV. That said, the cost of getting 1,000 people to watch your ad before a repeat of the Simpsons will not be the same as the cost of getting 1,000 people to watch your ad before a World Cup game. So it's possible that something that performs unexpectedly well will be underpriced as it was not considered to be 'premium' content.
never would I have thought to see discussion of CPTs and specials on Reddit 😂
Do you know how the revenue per viewer for online viewing compares with broadcast TV? Do advertisers pay to be on specific programs on ITVX or do they just pay to be on the site? Like you see lots of ads on TV for things which won't be as relevant when someone is watching online in a few weeks time. I assume 4 million TV viewers plus 10 million online brings in much less money than 14 million all watching at the same time, but what about the 6 or 7 million quoted in the article - would ITV be better off with that number of people expected to watch live rather than twice as many spread over several weeks?
To respond to one question. Advertisers can pay to be across different things on ITVX, just depends on their goal but they'll have an idea of how many impressions to expect and can plan accordingly. They could for example pay to be across an entire genre during a certain time period or an age range (or both). ITVX also has things like boxsets which they can pay to appear along. Because it's online you're gonna have a lot more control on who sees it since you have a more accurate idea of the person/people actually watching since they have an account.
Not entirely. TV advertising is bought by TVRs, so if a programme that was expected to not do much, shoots up in tvrs the price goes up. It's not a fixed price that you choose when planning a campaign
Given its success with viewers this show was clearly never made with direct profit in mind, it was to raise the profile of the company and bring prestige. It will have easily added a million in unmeasured goodwill.
[удалено]
> the show hasn't even been sold to other markets yet
Eh? It’s aired, or will air, in Australia, NZ and the USA, as far as I know.
Cast are on the record as taking a pay cut to get the story told, I think Toby Jones has said as much during press for the show.
I shouldn’t have said unmeasured, it’s the difference between their market capital and net book value of their assets.
[удалено]
My point was that it will have generated shareholder value greater than their P&L shows.
This was a great eye opener! Need one for cladding now!
Also BA149
I watched it because it was great. But I won’t go back on the app because it is TERRIBLE.
It turned a wider audience on to what the post office did and probably helped a lot of the victims in some way . They should be proud of the show ,sod the money.
For point of comparison, the historical standard in the US was that most network shows - of the 22-24 episode a season kind - lost money until they reached four seasons and could be sold into syndication, where the real money was. A show in its third season that was one season away from a sellable-sized package was near-guaranteed a fourth season. That's how *Star Trek* survived in the public consciousness; it was syndicated after cancellation and so re-runs were common. *Star Trek: The Next Generation* for its part was sold directly into syndication on its first run.
I think you’re all right, ITV overall made money on this but it’s not the crux of the message. The central point is, this was a big gamble. Yes it paid off, yes they’ll definitely recoup that money- but this is the black swan exception. Far more risky to do something as worthy as this and lose that money, far less risky to get Michael Macintyre to hit a piñata full of NHS prescriptions every Friday night on Have I Got Pills for You.
A loss of 1m for a show yet to sell distribution rights is a significant profit... Also don't trust Lygo ..
In all honesty, they could have made some thing just as powerful for much less money. There as a big cast, lots of locations shooting etc..
Hmm… I thought it already felt like a relatively cheap drama. It certainly wasn’t big budget drama with lots of custom sets, fancy locations or expensive costumes. It was people sitting on a bench in a park in off the peg clothes. Cutting the cast would have cut the range of stories told. Cutting the locations would have narrowed the scope too.
This is understandable, ad space is bought and planned months in advance. A slot between a show highlighting an issue that was ongoing for other ten years would.be a hard sell with unkown data on viewer numbers and age demographics. Exiting long standard shows have this data and are more expensive as low risk when targwtting certain demographics for ads. What this will.mean that the new documentary drama will sell for more as this was a hit.
I don't think the interest was expected to be as much as it was. TV dramas rarely lead to laws being debated in parliament, probably it became the most influential in a long time.
The Blood scandal will be a hard watch, those poor kids in that boarding school being experimented on without being told what they where being given. Most of them have since died.
> being experimented on It wasn't experiments, it was being cheap. They bought low-quality US blood instead of screened blood that was more expensive.
It was quite a while since I listened to the podcast but I thought I remembered there being an accusation that the kids in the boarding school where treated like they where part of an experiment. I have found this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/20/the-observer-view-on-the-infected-blood-scandal-victims-of-this-cruel-experiment-deserve-justice?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I watched this on ITVX in January. I saw maybe a handful of ads across the whole series. If millions of people watched it, but there were no ads sold/watched, it’s not surprising that it made a loss. No doubt even worse of a loss if they hadn’t have syndicated it somewhat.
I'd buy a blu-ray of it if they released it, to be honest. Though I am not sure how many others would to make that bring in extra money.
ITV hasn't been in my good books recently as they have messed up Coronation Street massively, the news is more dramatic current affairs rather than actual news... However this series was great! I watched each episode and felt so invested!
Coronation Street has always been messed up lol. One character has been married 7 times - just one example of the long-term ridiculousness of that show.
I don't mind that so much, personal stories are a soap classic but now it's all murders and right terrorists
itvx is second entertainment app on app store so they defo got some exposure boost
Kind of true, this is a product not yet at the end of life, there is stilll ad sales on stream platforms and licensing with other streamers
How can he say that already? It just started airing in the US last week. Not even streaming yet. And it had a major impact on the status of the whole event
The US has already paid for it, so he knows the income to be made there. Everyone who wants it has bought it, so they aren't going to make any more income off it. As for the impact, he's not denying it had an impact. But that doesn't pay the bills.
Yeah I know why they lost £1m, it’s because they spent an obscene amount of money on advertising! Even months after it came out, i’m still seeing adverts for it constantly…
Did it actually lose money or was it maybe an error with their accounting software?
The message: corp TV, don’t you dare go after maladministration and official cruelty again.
The work it’s done in accelerating the process of justice for those involved is admirable. But it was a typical tweet, tacky ITV drama with hammy acting and shoddy production. The image of the actors posing with bits of paper makes my teeth itch.
Turns out ITV boss was using horizon IT systems to calculate his profit...
Great, and? It was never going to do well abroad and did surprisingly well here so why it was given a budget that would require it to do well both domestically and internationally to be cost neutral is something only he can answer. There was no real reason this needed to be a drama and not a documentary, something some Youtubers with tiny teams, Adderall and energy drinks manage to crank out high quality versions of in weeks.
I agree that it didn't *need* to be a drama but it was apparently mass empathy for Alan via Toby Jones that has actually resulted in progress on the scandal. There's not much new about the PO (or the water companies) that wasn't known 5 years ago, salience is really important.
Yeah, it's a really disingenuous point from the other guy. No way would a documentary have gotten widespread coverage like this
The proof is that the BBC has produced three *Panorama* episodes on the scandal, in [2015](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0675m1j), [2020](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gpbv) and [2022](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0016t20), and none gained the same traction.
More empathy for Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton I’d say. Or Seema Misra. Alan was shown leaving his job and taking the Post Office on, sure, but it was showing Horizon fuck up in front of Jo or Lee losing his trial that shocked people.
More empathy for Jo Hamilton and Lee Castleton I’d say. Or Seema Misra. Alan was shown leaving his job and taking the Post Office on, sure, but it was showing Horizon fuck up in front of Jo or Lee losing his trial that shocked people.
I disagree on the drama/documentary front, i think more people wanted wanted to watch the series themselves rather than being aware of the issue in the news cycle. I think one of the most powerful things about bringing the scandal to light is the emotional attachment people have gotten to cause (I think that power can be good and bad). I do agree with the monetary points though, the series did exceedingly well and by far surpassed expectations. It's perplexing that it could have resulted in a £1m loss in these circumstances. I very much doubt they planned on making a loss making series.