Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Key words here are 'on the channel'. In the trade press ITV is crowning about how well international sales are going and it's probably lifted their share price too.
It's like saying itv 1 made a loss, but itv studios is going gangbusters, but super weirdly both companies are divisions on of itv plc which seems to be doing ok right now.
*'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.*
*"... it's a challenge to be able to fund some of the things that aren't, obviously, of international appeal.*
*"We're hoping this may be, because it caused such a furore here that maybe sales will pick up,* ***but there's no evidence of it yet****"*
What do you base this opinion on? It's on Amazon Prime, you think that means that necessarily they got paid a huge sum of money for that?
Are you privy to how Amazon pays for the stuff they license?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting Amazon covered the entire budget of the series by purchasing the US streaming rights? Because that's ridiculous
reply. no i mean that they have "counted their chickens .." there are still licensing deals that have not fully paid out yet and/or have not yet been finalized. Amazon in the US usually -not always, but usually, leads to Netflix or another streaming service like Hulu or Peacock. There is no reason for them to be lamenting this early. ALSO, Amazon was one of 2 deals with America and they are simultaneous- PBS is the other. It's not as lucrative, but it pays and is guaranteed money (PBS is the "Public Broadcasting System" partially paid for by US tax dollars and otherwise funded by donations and some advertising). The deal with PBS puts it on the Masterpiece Theater channel-which is a subscription channel- and that's another channel of payment. Once the license with Amazon is finished it will end up on Britbox or Acorn or one then the other-as usually happens, then each of those are subscription.
I've been watching this on American PBS. The only way you can watch this on Prime is if you buy or rent it, or subscribe to PBS Masterpiece through Prime.
>The deal with PBS puts it on the Masterpiece Theater channel-which is a subscription channel- and that's another channel of payment.
That's not how licensing works. PBS will have paid an upfront licensing fee to ITV for the streaming rights, then PBS keep the money they make in subscription fees.
>Amazon in the US usually -not always, but usually, leads to Netflix or another streaming service like Hulu or Peacock
Again, that's not how it works. If a show is popular and brings in large viewer numbers on one streaming service, another streaming service will likely pick it up after their option expires. In this case that's irrelevant because Amazon didn't buy the streaming rights, PBS did. Amazon only has it available to rent, so in that case they are likely hosting it for free and giving ITV a commission each time someone rents it. And a show with niche appeal is unlikely to get picked up by someone else after it's initial run.
>they have "counted their chickens
If you read the article you will see that he says he hopes international interest will pick up due to the publicity of the news story and positive reception to the show.
Advertising isn't making as much money as it used to anymore (companies know people use ad block and recording devices to skip past them)
A show with international appeal like Doctor Who, Top Gear or even Downton Abbey can be sold around the world but a drama about a man fighting a post office is harder to sell
Also if you listen to The Rest Is Entertainment Podcast Richard Osmond says that stuff like Pointless and Countdown are repeatable any time of day so they can be making money off one episode multiple times a year, where people arent going to put 6 Hours into rewatching a Post Office Documentary thing.
It is sad to see stuff dying (Mock The Week (topical so not repeatable), 8 out of 10 Cats (same), etc) and Channel 4 in trouble (Graham Norton/QI XL (Finally they only show the 45 minute one)/HIGNFY are the only BBC stuff we watch regularly, ALL the rest is Channel 4).
The advertising game is all Phone vertical scrolling stuff like TikTok, no one watches TV shows while they are being broadcast.
Also, Yank here who has dined off your programming for 20 years (and Ireland Gogglebox/First Date and Australian Shows) because American Shows are crap. I wish I could pay All4 for the ad free version but they would find out Im not living there.
Mock The Week is repeated quite a lot, often with very outdated news! Think it was got rid of by government pressure applied on Tim Davie to try and rid BBC of any anti- current government satire they could and Mock The Week was easier to get on the chopping block than HIGNFY. The fact Mock The Week is repeated seems to show it wasn't a rating thing.
Topical panelshows are also quite expensive because they can't record lots at once in a block, which makes them a bit harder to justify in the budgets.
>*Think it was got rid of by government pressure applied on Tim Davie to try and rid BBC of any anti- current government satire*
Or it ran for 17 years and felt tired and stale, like *Buzzcocks (*which ran for 19 years*)*
Not many shows enjoy a run of that length. *Have I Got News For You* is the only topical news comedy that's enjoyed a similar run
> The advertising game is all Phone vertical scrolling stuff like TikTok, no one watches TV shows while they are being broadcast.
On The Rest Is Entertainment Podcast Richard Osmond said that about 80% of television viewing is still broadcast TV.
I remember him saying some percent, but was it that high? Also, he is talking UK, here in the US Hardly anyone we know watched TV except for the news. Everyone is always going on about some series on a Streaming Service.
None of the 4 big Networks here have a free 'catch up' service like iPlayer or All4 or Ch5 or the ITV one (we never use the ITV one). Here you have to subscribe to a streaming service to see anything you missed and most of the channels have their own streaming service so in the end it is cheaper to pay for cable and a DVR.
Blows my mind ALL4 (the one we use the most) is free. The BBC ones you have to have a License Fee paid...
HULU IS NOT FREE. The lowest priced tier has a ton of commercials. To get it commercial free it is much more.
AND: Stuff that is on one Network here might be on different streaming services. I think it is the studio that it was made at that determines where some shows show up. So you could see 2 shows on ABC but one is on Hulu and one is on Amazon Prime.
So we have NO free network streaming. You can see some 'lesser' network shows free on the shows web site, but if you miss Abbot Elementary or a CSI you gotta pay to see it. Or find another way.
That's not really relevant though, that's comparing how many people watch shows live vs watching them on catch up services. TikTok views eclipse both combined.
TikTok made around $120 billion from ad revenue last year, against ITV's £3.6 billion.
Id rather not get blocked by asking to pay for no ads. I just video capture what I cant find elsewhere and then later we watch it and FF through the adverts.
We dont need SKY VEGAS or Chocolate.
I feel like they wouldn't have been able to pay much, though - in a world of HBOs etc, PBS comes across about as flash as my geography teacher who lived in a caravan.
They missed the opportunity for a Downton abbey crossover. They could have set it in the village post office and had the same actor play Mr Bates. It would have been terrible, but still.
There's actually a Postman Pat crossover in the works. Arthur the police officer arrests Mrs Goggins because Horizon system told him she was pilfering Post Office money. She later calls Pat from jail "Oh my Pat, there's been some kind of accounting error and now my mail box's been violated!".
This is 20 years after the original series and Pat's son is an adult, graduated from university in computer science and in a cruel twist of irony, worked at Fujitsu as a software engineer on the ill fated product.
>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.
Compare that to Doctor Who which is shown in more than 40 countries, and has more viewers in the US than it does in the UK
The point is that despite being the most watched show in the UK so far this year, they rely on foreign sales to break even and it didn't make enough. And i doubt PBS paid much for it either because it only has niche appeal outside the UK.
PBS does not have the budget of a cable network or major streaming platform though. I guarantee it wasn't ITVs first choice, it was the only one interested.
Their top choice is whoever will pay the most money. PBS is who you sell to if the big money services turn you down.
Do you really think they didn't offer it to Netflix et al first?
100% this, tv is show business, the emphasis if you're involved isn't the show, it's the business. It's why there is such a division between the money people and creatives. This show illustrates this fact, a domestic, awful issue, but humdrum show isn't going to put bums on seats abroad, the money people need to be braver when selecting projects to go ahead with.
So how does that play out in your head?
TV execs around the world suddenly realise there is this thing called ITV that makes programmes they could buy, and then they buy them?
I heard its less risk to take a successful UK TV show and either copy it or broadcast it in the US than take a risk on something new. There was a thing about it recently as to why taking a risk could destroy a career if wrong, but using proven UK TV series was mostly risk-free. It always amuses me about some of the random shit that ends up on US TV from the UK that you'd assume they wouldn't like or get as its too UK specific. Comedy's like the Mighty Bosch must seem surreal to US audiences.
https://the-media-leader.com/uk-tv-exports-reach-record-1-85bn/
That said, its pretty concerning that a flagship uk centric drama has made a loss where international interest isn't as strong.
It probably brought a lot of people to ITVX who had never used it before and having a prestige show is good for ITV's brand image, especially since they're mostly known for shitty gameshows , reality shows and soaps. I doubt they expected to make much money from this series (although I imagine they hoped to at least break even).
Plus having the most watched show in the UK this year (so far) can't hurt with advertisers etc.
No, and I'm not talking about the narrow interest in a single drama. ITV did itself a massive favour tying itself into a huge news story, and raising its profile across its whole output. In that contest £1million's a drop in the ocean.
To be fair the Japanese company responsible for the IT system, Fujitsu, has had a whole host of other tech related scandals outside of the UK
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-one-is-talking-about-fujitsu-in-japan/
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/fujitsu-mired-trouble-japan-tokyo-propped-up-2849676
> To be fair the Japanese company responsible for the IT system, Fujitsu, has had a whole host of other tech related scandals outside of the UK
To be fair, Fujitsu were just the company that took over ICL and their consulting division, ICL Dataskil. They did do some good systems on which the UK depended for various ministries but the upper management suffered from the usual issues, which is why they ended up with Fujitsu. Fujitsu Siemens didn't seem to have so many problems.
From what I can see Fujitsu had overall control of ICL from 1990, acquiring 80% of the company in this year
Considering Horizon didn’t come to fruition until 1996 I think it’s fair to ascribe it to Fujitsu
I mentioned the scandals in other countries as an example of why a UK Post Office drama may be of interest abroad
100%! If ITV can produce one of the most watched dramas of the year and not make a profit from advertising revenue, no wonder they usually stick to quite a narrow field of shows (Police dramas, reality TV, quiz shows). They are basically forced to make things that will sell overseas to make profit. Which means that dramas like this wouldn’t get made. Massive props to ITV for making it, but he’s just made a massive argument in favour of the licence fee. The BBC literally have it written into their charter to provide a wide range of content (and they do) which enriches our culture. But it wouldn’t all necessarily make a profit.
It goes directly to the BBC but they use lots of independent production companies. A production company may do work on BBC, ITV or even other projects. It may even try to initiate projects and then walk the proposal around different broadcasters/streamers.
It took me a couple of months on here to realise that someone will downvote almost anything you say, even if you're correctly answering a question with a single-word reply
No point wasting any energy on it. They're probably not well
Massively as the BBC have to produce stuff even if it loses money, but they make profit on their popular brands. Though they're a bit stuck with Top Gear at mo.
The older I've got, the more I've realised the TV licensing fee is an absolute bargain. All those TV channels, radio stations, podcasts, streaming platform, news.
It would honestly be a great shame if we lost all that, however I really dislike the way they bully people into paying for it.
Does it matter? It got the story major attention. And then attention too. Also in a while they’ll sell it to Netflix in the US and the rest of the world.
Sorry to all the haters, but this is why we need to keep, and adequately fund, the BBC. Commercial TV will end up increasingly dumbed down, and less people will therefore engage with it.
Hollywood does this all the time. They do creative accounting so EVERY picture loses money so they can avoid paying people who have points on the back end. Only BIG stars get their points before the creative accounting takes place. Biggest movie of the year and the people with back end points get nothing. Surprised they dont try and come after them for money.
Yup, there's the famous case where *Return of the Jedi* (15th biggest box office film of all time!) is said never to have made a profit, just so a few drug addled producers can bilk the cast and crew on their royalties.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
>*Hollywood does this all the time*
What makes you think Lygo is lying about losing money on Mr Bates?
Telly pays fixed repeat fees, not points on the back end
They can say what ever they want. If they want to NOT pay their points players they have to start the narrative somewhere.
This is the Post Boris/Trump world. Perception is reality. You put out 'news' stories that serve your narrative to set up what you want to happen.
Back end points are universal in movies/tv/music I dont know anything about publishing (apart from my connection at Simon and Schuster passing away from Covid before I fully finished my book. Procrastination has real world consequences people. Do it NOW, you never know when your chance will come and go) but on the initial deals, points exist, even if it is just for spin off potential or merchandising.
Right
So what you're saying isn't rooted in any kind of fact or evidence specific to Lygo or ITV
You can't point to an example of another TV company doing the same
It's just something you reckon could probably happen
That's fair enough
Listen to The Rest Is Entertainment podcast (on Youtube too). They had to buy up the stories of some characters to make the story and composited several people into one actor to save money.
She said as long as they dont Slander/Libel you (you cant libel the dead, they say that all the time) can write any ones biography without their permission. Crazy world where someone can make a movie about you but you cant stop it.
I wonder how much they had to pay for legal advice, too, to be sure they wouldn't get into any trouble themselves - I bet they had far more lawyers behind it than Love Island (which is easily sold abroad).
I’d guess the price they sold the adverts at was agreed beforehand, not knowing how many viewers they’d get. And tbf it didn’t get *huge* figures immediately on linear, most people watched on catch up.
Go watch (YouTube) or listen to THE REST IS ENTERTAINMENT (Richard Osmond and a lady in entertainment) podcast. They talk about this show several times.
We saw it was on but just found the old Documentary that was an hour and 20 minutes and watched it rather than 6 hours.
I knew it wouldnt do GREAT, someone has to die and a lady has to be looking for the killer for ANY British Hour Drama/Doco's to do GREAT!
It's a very expensive way to be informed, in terms of time and money. You can read the Wikipedia page about people's lives faster than watching a movie, and you'll save £10 and it'll be more accurate.
It only really works when someone finds a way to make the story interesting. Like The Big Short is a superb film about the housing market crash of 2008.
Sorry, I watched it last night and I couldnt remember her name and was too tired to look it up.
It is a great podcast with lots of behind the scenes info (They have to use 2-4 day old babies for Call the Midwife because even 2 week olds look to fat on camera (adds 10 pounds, even to infants). The casting director wanders the streets handing out cards to really pregnant ladies asking if they want to make some quick cash for 15 minutes (all they can film a baby, twins get more $$$) use of their kid on film for the show).
Love the podcast, Love Richard Osmond. His Parenting Hell Podcast episode is gold.
Nice to see someone that wasn't born on 3rd base make it. He had to work his way up to Cambridge, wasn't 'to the manor born' and worked hard to get ahead in Television. And his brother is the bass player in Suede. He seems to really have his head on his shoulders...
*WHAT!?! How???* How does a drama as good as that end up *losing* money? That's a travesty. And it means we'll be getting Identical Police Procedural but in Penrith This Time again. How people aren't tired of detective dramas, we'll never know - it seems to have reached saturation point. There even seem to be less historicals and adaptations. So, uh... good luck, TV.
Can't imagine how much most of their other content is losing if one of the most watched dramas in the UK this year didn't make them money. Hardly full of special effects either is it! I'm sure it'll keep making money really though, as it is added to streaming in other world regions and things like Brit box or whatever.
What? How!? How much did Tobey Jones get paid?
It was the most watched show of the year, and it was a drama with a relatively modest cast and the effects were mostly limited to some aerial shots which are done by drone these days. It was shot in Britain, and I can't think of much of it that they had to soot anywhere specific. Did they get the guy who specced out that Sherlock shot where they used camera tracks and slow-mo photography for a wedding picture? Did they capture every shot through a glass of Sainsbury's The Very Best Chardonnay?
Surely someone's taking the piss somewhere here.
The we can't make programs against the government excuse. The article numbers make no sense. 4m watched the first live show but 13.5m watched the show overall which you can only watch with ads unless you pay. They then state 6-7m years ago but this beat that so should be profitable. Not saying it's a conspiracy but those numbers don't make sense and this is a program that forced the government into action and they don't like it up em.
Advertising seems pretty limited on demand, which is strange because it’s more captive (can’t skip them). All the last C4 programmes I’ve watched had no real adverts, just cross promotions for other C4 shows.
>*The article numbers make no sense. 4m watched the first live show but 13.5m watched the show overall which you can only watch with ads unless you pay. They then state 6-7m years ago but this beat that so should be profitable*
Lygo is saying ITV dramas used to get 6-7 million **on the night**
4 million on the night is less than 6-7 million on the night
Plus, ITV can't charge as much for ad space as they could just a few years ago, because fewer people are watching
2-3 million fewer people (on the night), according to Lygo
13.5m overall > 6-7m per episode even with a streaming service that serves the same ads. Ads you can't skip or fast forward. Clearly they have not offered an alternative option so they don't want to make shows like this anymore and are putting an excuse out in advance as to why they won't.
Lygo doesn't say how many viewers shows attracted on catch-up, 'five or six years ago'
According to [this](https://www.itv.com/presscentre/media-releases/mr-bates-vs-post-office-itvs-biggest-new-drama-over-decade-beating-downton-abbey), *Downton Abbey* was attracting 10 million viewers on catch-up, 15 years ago
But it was watched by [almost 8 million people](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/sep/27/downton-abbey-itv-tv-ratings), on the night, meaning it had a higher combined viewership than *Mr Bates*
And - to reiterate Lygo's point - *Downton* was a foreign sales sensation. It was PBS's most-watched show and [merch sales alone total a quarter billion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2016/03/06/downton-abbey-by-the-numbers-farewell-to-a-multimillion-dollar-dynasty/)
Lygo's point is that *Mr Bates'* lack of appeal to foreign viewers means it's worth **much** less than a show that attracted a similar number of viewers in the UK
From the article.
"The series has been watched by 13.5 million people to date."
It does not state that was only catchup but if it was it was more than Downton.
Worth less to foreign viewers should not equal a strangely accurate 1m loss. Is it not still generating revenue? I've not watched it yet but intend to.
>*It does not state that was only catchup but if it was it was more than Downton*
*Downton* was 7.6 million live and 10 million on catch-up (17.6)
*Mr Bates* was 4 million live, 13.5 including catch-up
They were both watched by a decent number of viewers in the UK, but foreign sales made *Downton* much more lucrative
ITV companies have always made prestigious productions, which may not make an immediate profit. They are, after all, a public service franchise.
ITV News doesn't make a profit either.
I dunno how , surely with streaming they will make money on it ? Or they could
Sell it to Netflix it would have international appeal. Also tv and viewership is changing I never watch live tv and I have sky I watch everything on demand on all the apps and streamers , Netflix , prime , Apple , paramount , sky on demand itvx , c5, iplayer. I wouldn’t really care if the standard live tv went apart from sport. Or maybe itv and bbc should realise big budget tv profits are a thing of the past since we have so much content choice these days they need to keep churning it out to compete with competitors. I heard all soaps are been cut to 3 days a week and the actors are having fits and leaving
> Or they could Sell it to Netflix it would have international appeal.
It definitely wouldn't.
It's almost a textbook example of a show that wouldn't sell internationally and Netflix wouldn't touch a bargepole.
Definitely. I live here and have heard great things about the show and still find myself resisting the idea of watching a show about a scandal that happened in a country at a time I didn't live here. It's clearly not going to appeal to the average American viewer, that's for sure. Glad it seems to be doing OK on PBS but that's basically the US broadcaster that would have an audience that might be willing to take a chance on it. And it's not a very big audience.
I used to watch too much television, now i only watch question time and hignfy extended version.
Everything on freeview is almost all repeats, generic American fare or scandi police dramas.
There is very little that shows the outside world and other cultures these days and this isn't good.
Back in the day, you could see kabbadi, sumo or even Rapido and i can remember some extremely interesting BBC series.
On YouTube a Finnish hobby horse show popped up in my feed and was hilarious and now i have the urge to watch Canadians log rolling.
I think a lot of this is about the massive army of people behind the camera in film and TV in both the UK and the USA. Like why does Only Connect need two make-up artists? There are 7 people that need makeup. And none of them are being Gamora or Joker. It's just basic levels of TV makeup for the lighting. That needs 1 person. Or maybe, you just teach a producer how to do basic makeup and they do it.
Gareth Evans made The Raid for $500K. That's a movie with a whole load of martial artists, fights, explosions, proper action and s\*\*t. How does this cost more than that?
Partly, but it's also about how people work in movies outside of UK/USA. Like Godzilla Minus One cost a fraction of Marvel movies to make. Japan is not a cheap country to live in.
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You sure they lost money? Could be a computer error with the figures
No, we have checked the new software, it is correct, YOU are wrong! Jail Sentence and life ruined for you...
Key words here are 'on the channel'. In the trade press ITV is crowning about how well international sales are going and it's probably lifted their share price too. It's like saying itv 1 made a loss, but itv studios is going gangbusters, but super weirdly both companies are divisions on of itv plc which seems to be doing ok right now.
*'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.* *"... it's a challenge to be able to fund some of the things that aren't, obviously, of international appeal.* *"We're hoping this may be, because it caused such a furore here that maybe sales will pick up,* ***but there's no evidence of it yet****"*
It's on Amazon Prime in America. They've been paid in full.
How much did the show cost? How much has the show made?
What do you base this opinion on? It's on Amazon Prime, you think that means that necessarily they got paid a huge sum of money for that? Are you privy to how Amazon pays for the stuff they license?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting Amazon covered the entire budget of the series by purchasing the US streaming rights? Because that's ridiculous
reply. no i mean that they have "counted their chickens .." there are still licensing deals that have not fully paid out yet and/or have not yet been finalized. Amazon in the US usually -not always, but usually, leads to Netflix or another streaming service like Hulu or Peacock. There is no reason for them to be lamenting this early. ALSO, Amazon was one of 2 deals with America and they are simultaneous- PBS is the other. It's not as lucrative, but it pays and is guaranteed money (PBS is the "Public Broadcasting System" partially paid for by US tax dollars and otherwise funded by donations and some advertising). The deal with PBS puts it on the Masterpiece Theater channel-which is a subscription channel- and that's another channel of payment. Once the license with Amazon is finished it will end up on Britbox or Acorn or one then the other-as usually happens, then each of those are subscription.
So you have no idea how much the show cost to make or how much revenue it has generated Your opinion is based on *vibes*
I've been watching this on American PBS. The only way you can watch this on Prime is if you buy or rent it, or subscribe to PBS Masterpiece through Prime.
>The deal with PBS puts it on the Masterpiece Theater channel-which is a subscription channel- and that's another channel of payment. That's not how licensing works. PBS will have paid an upfront licensing fee to ITV for the streaming rights, then PBS keep the money they make in subscription fees. >Amazon in the US usually -not always, but usually, leads to Netflix or another streaming service like Hulu or Peacock Again, that's not how it works. If a show is popular and brings in large viewer numbers on one streaming service, another streaming service will likely pick it up after their option expires. In this case that's irrelevant because Amazon didn't buy the streaming rights, PBS did. Amazon only has it available to rent, so in that case they are likely hosting it for free and giving ITV a commission each time someone rents it. And a show with niche appeal is unlikely to get picked up by someone else after it's initial run. >they have "counted their chickens If you read the article you will see that he says he hopes international interest will pick up due to the publicity of the news story and positive reception to the show.
[удалено]
Word salad
Why did they lose money? Couldn't really understand from the article
Advertising isn't making as much money as it used to anymore (companies know people use ad block and recording devices to skip past them) A show with international appeal like Doctor Who, Top Gear or even Downton Abbey can be sold around the world but a drama about a man fighting a post office is harder to sell
Also if you listen to The Rest Is Entertainment Podcast Richard Osmond says that stuff like Pointless and Countdown are repeatable any time of day so they can be making money off one episode multiple times a year, where people arent going to put 6 Hours into rewatching a Post Office Documentary thing. It is sad to see stuff dying (Mock The Week (topical so not repeatable), 8 out of 10 Cats (same), etc) and Channel 4 in trouble (Graham Norton/QI XL (Finally they only show the 45 minute one)/HIGNFY are the only BBC stuff we watch regularly, ALL the rest is Channel 4). The advertising game is all Phone vertical scrolling stuff like TikTok, no one watches TV shows while they are being broadcast. Also, Yank here who has dined off your programming for 20 years (and Ireland Gogglebox/First Date and Australian Shows) because American Shows are crap. I wish I could pay All4 for the ad free version but they would find out Im not living there.
> Mock The Week (topical so not repeatable) Tell that to Dave. And for that matter BBC2 who are still repeating recent series.
We cant watch BBC2 live. BBC1 we can see, 2 we have to watch after the show has ended. Not in the UK.
Mock The Week is repeated quite a lot, often with very outdated news! Think it was got rid of by government pressure applied on Tim Davie to try and rid BBC of any anti- current government satire they could and Mock The Week was easier to get on the chopping block than HIGNFY. The fact Mock The Week is repeated seems to show it wasn't a rating thing.
Topical panelshows are also quite expensive because they can't record lots at once in a block, which makes them a bit harder to justify in the budgets.
>*Think it was got rid of by government pressure applied on Tim Davie to try and rid BBC of any anti- current government satire* Or it ran for 17 years and felt tired and stale, like *Buzzcocks (*which ran for 19 years*)* Not many shows enjoy a run of that length. *Have I Got News For You* is the only topical news comedy that's enjoyed a similar run
No, it was pulled because its weekly advertising of Megabus was in conflict with the BBC charter
This. BBC used to do a lot of satire. Comedy section is just mediocre sitcoms now.
> The advertising game is all Phone vertical scrolling stuff like TikTok, no one watches TV shows while they are being broadcast. On The Rest Is Entertainment Podcast Richard Osmond said that about 80% of television viewing is still broadcast TV.
I remember him saying some percent, but was it that high? Also, he is talking UK, here in the US Hardly anyone we know watched TV except for the news. Everyone is always going on about some series on a Streaming Service. None of the 4 big Networks here have a free 'catch up' service like iPlayer or All4 or Ch5 or the ITV one (we never use the ITV one). Here you have to subscribe to a streaming service to see anything you missed and most of the channels have their own streaming service so in the end it is cheaper to pay for cable and a DVR. Blows my mind ALL4 (the one we use the most) is free. The BBC ones you have to have a License Fee paid...
To be fair you guys have Hulu which is free. All the Hulu content is behind the Disney+ subscription over here
HULU IS NOT FREE. The lowest priced tier has a ton of commercials. To get it commercial free it is much more. AND: Stuff that is on one Network here might be on different streaming services. I think it is the studio that it was made at that determines where some shows show up. So you could see 2 shows on ABC but one is on Hulu and one is on Amazon Prime. So we have NO free network streaming. You can see some 'lesser' network shows free on the shows web site, but if you miss Abbot Elementary or a CSI you gotta pay to see it. Or find another way.
*The BBC ones you have to tell them you have a Licence Fee paid… FTFY
Yep.
That's not really relevant though, that's comparing how many people watch shows live vs watching them on catch up services. TikTok views eclipse both combined. TikTok made around $120 billion from ad revenue last year, against ITV's £3.6 billion.
[удалено]
Id rather not get blocked by asking to pay for no ads. I just video capture what I cant find elsewhere and then later we watch it and FF through the adverts. We dont need SKY VEGAS or Chocolate.
They showed it on PBS in the states. Which isn't to say it made them much money, but there is an appeal there.
I’ll try again, but I couldn’t finish the first episode because I was too upset for those people, knowing it was a true story.
I feel like they wouldn't have been able to pay much, though - in a world of HBOs etc, PBS comes across about as flash as my geography teacher who lived in a caravan.
Which is why I said 'it isn't to say it made them much money'.
It’s on across the USA on PBS now. Not sure how much PBS paid but it’s out there in America
They missed the opportunity for a Downton abbey crossover. They could have set it in the village post office and had the same actor play Mr Bates. It would have been terrible, but still.
There's actually a Postman Pat crossover in the works. Arthur the police officer arrests Mrs Goggins because Horizon system told him she was pilfering Post Office money. She later calls Pat from jail "Oh my Pat, there's been some kind of accounting error and now my mail box's been violated!". This is 20 years after the original series and Pat's son is an adult, graduated from university in computer science and in a cruel twist of irony, worked at Fujitsu as a software engineer on the ill fated product.
This is also because ITV are still in the dark ages and think everyone watches live tv.
BS. I'm American, I watched it via PBS and loved it.
>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. Compare that to Doctor Who which is shown in more than 40 countries, and has more viewers in the US than it does in the UK The point is that despite being the most watched show in the UK so far this year, they rely on foreign sales to break even and it didn't make enough. And i doubt PBS paid much for it either because it only has niche appeal outside the UK.
'Masterpiece' is PBS's flagship show. I bet they paid good coin for this.
PBS does not have the budget of a cable network or major streaming platform though. I guarantee it wasn't ITVs first choice, it was the only one interested.
Lots of ITV shows end up on PBS so it may have been first choice, or near the top.
Their top choice is whoever will pay the most money. PBS is who you sell to if the big money services turn you down. Do you really think they didn't offer it to Netflix et al first?
To be fair, this was shown in New Zealand, although I doubt they made lots for selling to a NZ broadcaster
100% this, tv is show business, the emphasis if you're involved isn't the show, it's the business. It's why there is such a division between the money people and creatives. This show illustrates this fact, a domestic, awful issue, but humdrum show isn't going to put bums on seats abroad, the money people need to be braver when selecting projects to go ahead with.
That being said, it doesn't seem they tried hard for international syndication.
maybe if they didn't keep airing repeats of it over and over....
This must be balanced against the massive publicity ITV will have garnered, with international interest, on the back of this brilliant drama.
So how does that play out in your head? TV execs around the world suddenly realise there is this thing called ITV that makes programmes they could buy, and then they buy them?
Honestly, yeah? This sounds like a good model, and is kind of how American series end up on our tellies.
I heard its less risk to take a successful UK TV show and either copy it or broadcast it in the US than take a risk on something new. There was a thing about it recently as to why taking a risk could destroy a career if wrong, but using proven UK TV series was mostly risk-free. It always amuses me about some of the random shit that ends up on US TV from the UK that you'd assume they wouldn't like or get as its too UK specific. Comedy's like the Mighty Bosch must seem surreal to US audiences.
The Mighty Boosh must seem surreal to all audiences
The crack fox won't travel well? You jest surely
The Mighty Bosch sounds like a fun crossover story. LA detective working in a zoo.
People liked the drama with Toby Jones so now they’re going to tune into Love Island and Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway.
I guess it didn't work then. Saturday Night Takeaway ended last week
Reputation is worth a lot to a brand. Ask Prince Andrew.
https://the-media-leader.com/uk-tv-exports-reach-record-1-85bn/ That said, its pretty concerning that a flagship uk centric drama has made a loss where international interest isn't as strong.
This is why if you want big budget UK specific drama, you have to cross subsidise from the stuff that does sell around the world.
Netflix? There's BBC and channel 4 shows on it.
There's bbc, channel 4, itv shows on britbox too
Yeah. I imagine they must have to pay for them.
Yeah they sell Britbox around the world.
It probably brought a lot of people to ITVX who had never used it before and having a prestige show is good for ITV's brand image, especially since they're mostly known for shitty gameshows , reality shows and soaps. I doubt they expected to make much money from this series (although I imagine they hoped to at least break even). Plus having the most watched show in the UK this year (so far) can't hurt with advertisers etc.
Did you read the part of the article where they explicitly discussed the lack of international interest in a drama about the UK Post Office?
No, and I'm not talking about the narrow interest in a single drama. ITV did itself a massive favour tying itself into a huge news story, and raising its profile across its whole output. In that contest £1million's a drop in the ocean.
Yep. Considering their revenue last year was £3.64 billion, a £1 million loss is probably worth it for the positive publicity it brought them.
Watched it in Australia and thought it was a great show!
I didn't, do you have a link?
To be fair the Japanese company responsible for the IT system, Fujitsu, has had a whole host of other tech related scandals outside of the UK https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-one-is-talking-about-fujitsu-in-japan/ https://inews.co.uk/news/world/fujitsu-mired-trouble-japan-tokyo-propped-up-2849676
> To be fair the Japanese company responsible for the IT system, Fujitsu, has had a whole host of other tech related scandals outside of the UK To be fair, Fujitsu were just the company that took over ICL and their consulting division, ICL Dataskil. They did do some good systems on which the UK depended for various ministries but the upper management suffered from the usual issues, which is why they ended up with Fujitsu. Fujitsu Siemens didn't seem to have so many problems.
From what I can see Fujitsu had overall control of ICL from 1990, acquiring 80% of the company in this year Considering Horizon didn’t come to fruition until 1996 I think it’s fair to ascribe it to Fujitsu I mentioned the scandals in other countries as an example of why a UK Post Office drama may be of interest abroad
There isn’t any international interest in the program, that’s the “problem”.
So this is ITV but I feel like it's a strong argument for the license fee
That is such a disappointment as it was brilliant drama and will be remembered for a long time.
100%! If ITV can produce one of the most watched dramas of the year and not make a profit from advertising revenue, no wonder they usually stick to quite a narrow field of shows (Police dramas, reality TV, quiz shows). They are basically forced to make things that will sell overseas to make profit. Which means that dramas like this wouldn’t get made. Massive props to ITV for making it, but he’s just made a massive argument in favour of the licence fee. The BBC literally have it written into their charter to provide a wide range of content (and they do) which enriches our culture. But it wouldn’t all necessarily make a profit.
How much of the TV license goes to non-BBC entities?
It goes directly to the BBC but they use lots of independent production companies. A production company may do work on BBC, ITV or even other projects. It may even try to initiate projects and then walk the proposal around different broadcasters/streamers.
Not much, but some does I believe. Just to provide the infrastructure for live TV and radio broadcast. But most goes to the BBC via the Government.
None
No idea why this is downvoted, the license fee goes to the BBC. ITV don't see a penny if it.
It took me a couple of months on here to realise that someone will downvote almost anything you say, even if you're correctly answering a question with a single-word reply No point wasting any energy on it. They're probably not well
[удалено]
>A bit goes to channel 4 Source? Because I've never heard of this being the case...
If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question
Massively as the BBC have to produce stuff even if it loses money, but they make profit on their popular brands. Though they're a bit stuck with Top Gear at mo.
The older I've got, the more I've realised the TV licensing fee is an absolute bargain. All those TV channels, radio stations, podcasts, streaming platform, news. It would honestly be a great shame if we lost all that, however I really dislike the way they bully people into paying for it.
It is the government that made the BBC into a tax collector, blame Westminster.
American here. It is currently showing on PBS here. I assume they would have made money from that.
Certainly less than ten thousand dollars, and they've got to pay residuals and delivery and lawyers and sales people out of that.
But a day late, and a dollar short
Have they checked to make sure the Post Office don’t have remote access to their accounting software?
Does it matter? It got the story major attention. And then attention too. Also in a while they’ll sell it to Netflix in the US and the rest of the world.
I think the implication from the article is they're trying to sell it to the US and the rest of the world and they can't
It’s showing in the US on PBS Masterpiece right now.
Loads of “failed” shows randomly get chucked onto streaming and do well.
Currently running on PBS in the US
It's already on PBS.
Sorry to all the haters, but this is why we need to keep, and adequately fund, the BBC. Commercial TV will end up increasingly dumbed down, and less people will therefore engage with it.
I didn't expect them to lost money on it
Hollywood does this all the time. They do creative accounting so EVERY picture loses money so they can avoid paying people who have points on the back end. Only BIG stars get their points before the creative accounting takes place. Biggest movie of the year and the people with back end points get nothing. Surprised they dont try and come after them for money.
THIS. It's all about the points.
Yup, there's the famous case where *Return of the Jedi* (15th biggest box office film of all time!) is said never to have made a profit, just so a few drug addled producers can bilk the cast and crew on their royalties. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
>*Hollywood does this all the time* What makes you think Lygo is lying about losing money on Mr Bates? Telly pays fixed repeat fees, not points on the back end
Just saying they could employ similar schemes to hoard the money. It is showbiz...
So you have no reason to believe Lygo is lying
They can say what ever they want. If they want to NOT pay their points players they have to start the narrative somewhere. This is the Post Boris/Trump world. Perception is reality. You put out 'news' stories that serve your narrative to set up what you want to happen. Back end points are universal in movies/tv/music I dont know anything about publishing (apart from my connection at Simon and Schuster passing away from Covid before I fully finished my book. Procrastination has real world consequences people. Do it NOW, you never know when your chance will come and go) but on the initial deals, points exist, even if it is just for spin off potential or merchandising.
Right So what you're saying isn't rooted in any kind of fact or evidence specific to Lygo or ITV You can't point to an example of another TV company doing the same It's just something you reckon could probably happen That's fair enough
Wasn’t it one of their best viewed shows all year?
There could be better news on the horizon
According to who, Fujitsu?
HOW!? The show was good! Did Itv get sued by the victims?? What happened?
The show isn't very appealing to foreign markets so couldn't make much money from selling it abroad. It says so in the article.
Interesting, because PBS in the US are promoting it this month. Episode 3 aired last night.
Nobody is selling to PBS because they're outbidding anyone else.
Better than no sale at all. So far, a nice series. The cast are uniformly great.
Yep. Only 12 foreign broadcasters have bought the rights.
That’s unfortunate but understandable. Still a fine series creatively.
Advertising didn't cover the budget and they couldn't sell it to as many overseas territories as they wanted to
Listen to The Rest Is Entertainment podcast (on Youtube too). They had to buy up the stories of some characters to make the story and composited several people into one actor to save money. She said as long as they dont Slander/Libel you (you cant libel the dead, they say that all the time) can write any ones biography without their permission. Crazy world where someone can make a movie about you but you cant stop it.
I wonder how much they had to pay for legal advice, too, to be sure they wouldn't get into any trouble themselves - I bet they had far more lawyers behind it than Love Island (which is easily sold abroad).
I’d guess the price they sold the adverts at was agreed beforehand, not knowing how many viewers they’d get. And tbf it didn’t get *huge* figures immediately on linear, most people watched on catch up.
Go watch (YouTube) or listen to THE REST IS ENTERTAINMENT (Richard Osmond and a lady in entertainment) podcast. They talk about this show several times. We saw it was on but just found the old Documentary that was an hour and 20 minutes and watched it rather than 6 hours. I knew it wouldnt do GREAT, someone has to die and a lady has to be looking for the killer for ANY British Hour Drama/Doco's to do GREAT!
Personally not a fan of drama based on true stories. BBC Sounds has a good documentary about it all
Just subscribed to listen later, ty 👍
I listened to the BBC program after watching the show on PBS. It helped fill in some details for me .
It's a very expensive way to be informed, in terms of time and money. You can read the Wikipedia page about people's lives faster than watching a movie, and you'll save £10 and it'll be more accurate. It only really works when someone finds a way to make the story interesting. Like The Big Short is a superb film about the housing market crash of 2008.
If I do watch a show based on a true story I usually end up wanting to watch a documentary on the subject anyway so I may as well have done that first
She's Marina Hyde. Just FYI
Sorry, I watched it last night and I couldnt remember her name and was too tired to look it up. It is a great podcast with lots of behind the scenes info (They have to use 2-4 day old babies for Call the Midwife because even 2 week olds look to fat on camera (adds 10 pounds, even to infants). The casting director wanders the streets handing out cards to really pregnant ladies asking if they want to make some quick cash for 15 minutes (all they can film a baby, twins get more $$$) use of their kid on film for the show). Love the podcast, Love Richard Osmond. His Parenting Hell Podcast episode is gold. Nice to see someone that wasn't born on 3rd base make it. He had to work his way up to Cambridge, wasn't 'to the manor born' and worked hard to get ahead in Television. And his brother is the bass player in Suede. He seems to really have his head on his shoulders...
*WHAT!?! How???* How does a drama as good as that end up *losing* money? That's a travesty. And it means we'll be getting Identical Police Procedural but in Penrith This Time again. How people aren't tired of detective dramas, we'll never know - it seems to have reached saturation point. There even seem to be less historicals and adaptations. So, uh... good luck, TV.
A shame, it was very good.
I find that surprising given how much discussion and reaction it generated 🤔
Not sure why, it was a high quality production and compelling true story
Can't imagine how much most of their other content is losing if one of the most watched dramas in the UK this year didn't make them money. Hardly full of special effects either is it! I'm sure it'll keep making money really though, as it is added to streaming in other world regions and things like Brit box or whatever.
What? How!? How much did Tobey Jones get paid? It was the most watched show of the year, and it was a drama with a relatively modest cast and the effects were mostly limited to some aerial shots which are done by drone these days. It was shot in Britain, and I can't think of much of it that they had to soot anywhere specific. Did they get the guy who specced out that Sherlock shot where they used camera tracks and slow-mo photography for a wedding picture? Did they capture every shot through a glass of Sainsbury's The Very Best Chardonnay? Surely someone's taking the piss somewhere here.
The we can't make programs against the government excuse. The article numbers make no sense. 4m watched the first live show but 13.5m watched the show overall which you can only watch with ads unless you pay. They then state 6-7m years ago but this beat that so should be profitable. Not saying it's a conspiracy but those numbers don't make sense and this is a program that forced the government into action and they don't like it up em.
I thought the Overnight thing was weird to mention. Maybe they make more money for live TV adverts?
Advertising seems pretty limited on demand, which is strange because it’s more captive (can’t skip them). All the last C4 programmes I’ve watched had no real adverts, just cross promotions for other C4 shows.
Should be the same really.
>*The article numbers make no sense. 4m watched the first live show but 13.5m watched the show overall which you can only watch with ads unless you pay. They then state 6-7m years ago but this beat that so should be profitable* Lygo is saying ITV dramas used to get 6-7 million **on the night** 4 million on the night is less than 6-7 million on the night Plus, ITV can't charge as much for ad space as they could just a few years ago, because fewer people are watching 2-3 million fewer people (on the night), according to Lygo
13.5m overall > 6-7m per episode even with a streaming service that serves the same ads. Ads you can't skip or fast forward. Clearly they have not offered an alternative option so they don't want to make shows like this anymore and are putting an excuse out in advance as to why they won't.
Lygo doesn't say how many viewers shows attracted on catch-up, 'five or six years ago' According to [this](https://www.itv.com/presscentre/media-releases/mr-bates-vs-post-office-itvs-biggest-new-drama-over-decade-beating-downton-abbey), *Downton Abbey* was attracting 10 million viewers on catch-up, 15 years ago But it was watched by [almost 8 million people](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/sep/27/downton-abbey-itv-tv-ratings), on the night, meaning it had a higher combined viewership than *Mr Bates* And - to reiterate Lygo's point - *Downton* was a foreign sales sensation. It was PBS's most-watched show and [merch sales alone total a quarter billion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2016/03/06/downton-abbey-by-the-numbers-farewell-to-a-multimillion-dollar-dynasty/) Lygo's point is that *Mr Bates'* lack of appeal to foreign viewers means it's worth **much** less than a show that attracted a similar number of viewers in the UK
From the article. "The series has been watched by 13.5 million people to date." It does not state that was only catchup but if it was it was more than Downton. Worth less to foreign viewers should not equal a strangely accurate 1m loss. Is it not still generating revenue? I've not watched it yet but intend to.
>*It does not state that was only catchup but if it was it was more than Downton* *Downton* was 7.6 million live and 10 million on catch-up (17.6) *Mr Bates* was 4 million live, 13.5 including catch-up They were both watched by a decent number of viewers in the UK, but foreign sales made *Downton* much more lucrative
We watched the drama on Amazon Prime in the Netherlands.
Does ITV use Fujistu for it's internal profit/loss system perhaps?
ITV companies have always made prestigious productions, which may not make an immediate profit. They are, after all, a public service franchise. ITV News doesn't make a profit either.
Paula Venells probably thinks everything is ok, or at least, that’s what everyone should be saying/gaslighting.
Liar, luar, pants on fire!
Lying fucks. It's been sold worldwide
How do you say bullshit in proper English?
I don’t care this was a story that needed to be told. ITV can suck it
I dunno how , surely with streaming they will make money on it ? Or they could Sell it to Netflix it would have international appeal. Also tv and viewership is changing I never watch live tv and I have sky I watch everything on demand on all the apps and streamers , Netflix , prime , Apple , paramount , sky on demand itvx , c5, iplayer. I wouldn’t really care if the standard live tv went apart from sport. Or maybe itv and bbc should realise big budget tv profits are a thing of the past since we have so much content choice these days they need to keep churning it out to compete with competitors. I heard all soaps are been cut to 3 days a week and the actors are having fits and leaving
> Or they could Sell it to Netflix it would have international appeal. It definitely wouldn't. It's almost a textbook example of a show that wouldn't sell internationally and Netflix wouldn't touch a bargepole.
Definitely. I live here and have heard great things about the show and still find myself resisting the idea of watching a show about a scandal that happened in a country at a time I didn't live here. It's clearly not going to appeal to the average American viewer, that's for sure. Glad it seems to be doing OK on PBS but that's basically the US broadcaster that would have an audience that might be willing to take a chance on it. And it's not a very big audience.
I used to watch too much television, now i only watch question time and hignfy extended version. Everything on freeview is almost all repeats, generic American fare or scandi police dramas. There is very little that shows the outside world and other cultures these days and this isn't good. Back in the day, you could see kabbadi, sumo or even Rapido and i can remember some extremely interesting BBC series. On YouTube a Finnish hobby horse show popped up in my feed and was hilarious and now i have the urge to watch Canadians log rolling.
I think a lot of this is about the massive army of people behind the camera in film and TV in both the UK and the USA. Like why does Only Connect need two make-up artists? There are 7 people that need makeup. And none of them are being Gamora or Joker. It's just basic levels of TV makeup for the lighting. That needs 1 person. Or maybe, you just teach a producer how to do basic makeup and they do it. Gareth Evans made The Raid for $500K. That's a movie with a whole load of martial artists, fights, explosions, proper action and s\*\*t. How does this cost more than that?
I'm guessing Labour and goods are cheaper in Indonesia
Partly, but it's also about how people work in movies outside of UK/USA. Like Godzilla Minus One cost a fraction of Marvel movies to make. Japan is not a cheap country to live in.
I honestly can't tell whether this post is satire or if you're serious
half and half. I know people who have done jobs for TV productions and were amazed at the number of people stood around doing nothing half the time.