| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Reluctant Hero
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 3180
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: STV to drop more ITV shows |
 |
|
Following its decision to ditch The Bill, it looks as though STV is ready to axe more shows. Did anyone actually notice?!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8223261.stm
| Quote: | | ITVplc claims it subsidises STV - STV insists the opposite is true. |
Where have I heard an argument like that before!
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: STV to drop more ITV shows |
|
|
| Reluctant Hero wrote: | | Following its decision to ditch The Bill, it looks as though STV is ready to axe more shows. Did anyone actually notice?! |
Presumably the viewers and fans. STV should do what it believes will get it the most viewers, if that includes dropping programmes then that's the obvious thing to do. At least those who enjoy these programmes, if they are shown elsewhere, can still see them on non-terrestrial (extraterrestrial?) channels.
Still, if STV wants to make themselves a specialty Scottish channel, good luck to them - they'll need it!
| Quote: | | Quote: | | ITVplc claims it subsidises STV - STV insists the opposite is true. |
Where have I heard an argument like that before! |
Then they're both failures. Why the hell would one feel inclined to subsidise the other? They're both separate private companies accountable to their shareholders. Obviously they are both franchisees of the Channel 3 system and that will require co-operation, but it certainly doesn't require subsidy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babykitten
Activist
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:06 am Post subject: Re: STV to drop more ITV shows |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
Then they're both failures. Why the hell would one feel inclined to subsidise the other? They're both separate private companies accountable to their shareholders. Obviously they are both franchisees of the Channel 3 system and that will require co-operation, but it certainly doesn't require subsidy... |
It's just an example of the London midset that "we run the show, therefore we pay for everything" forgetting that their funds come from the whole of the UK, be it from the licence fee or advertising.
Much like the traditional music industry model is dying, so is the TV industry and it is being accelerated by the drop in advertising revenue. There's big changes ahead. TV advertising has to come to terms with the fact that the technology is allowing people to watch on-demand, or a recording of the show later, both of which allow (generally speaking) the viewer to skip the adverts. Add to that the fragmentation in revenues (such that some channels barely get any advertising due to low viewing figures) due to the increase in channel numbers, then something has to give.
Some say that product placement will be allowed (or relaxed) or that advertising may take the form of in-programme adverts taking up a portion of the screen while the programme is running, such that they cannot be avoided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: STV to drop more ITV shows |
|
|
| Reluctant Hero wrote: |
| Quote: | | ITVplc claims it subsidises STV - STV insists the opposite is true. |
Where have I heard an argument like that before! |
It probably does subsidise it. Parent companies generally subsidise their subsidiaries whether that be materially or by association of being part of that group. Is STV insinuating that ITV would collapse without it or something? That would, funnily enough.. be something else I've heard a similar nonsensical argument about before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not a parent company, STV is an entirely different entity. The only connection is they both have licenses to transmit programmes on the channel 3 slot, and they show some of each other's programmes which, no doubt, they pay the going rate for.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is this tiff between them all about then really? I've read the article now and I'm still not really enlightened. All it seems to be saying is that STV is not showing programmes that ITV have been making and is trying to say that that means that it doesn't have to contribute to the cost of programmes that it has decided not to show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:52 am Post subject: Re: STV to drop more ITV shows |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | Parent companies generally subsidise their subsidiaries whether that be materially or by association of being part of that group. |
This has been bugging me since I read it, so I've decided to address it. This remark so perfectly demonstrates the unionist mindset; the subsidiary must be subsidised by the centre, right? After all, it's a subsidiary so it has to be inferior, doesn't it?
In the world of business and commerce no corporation will keep a subsidiary which isn't returning a profit to the head office. Why would they? They are in business to make money, not prop up failing branch offices. Any part of the business which is not returning a regular dividend to the corporation will be ruthlessly reorganised, pruned, closed down, or sold off. Whatever it takes to improve the bottom line for the whole. It therefore follows that, far from the centre subsidising the periphery, the subsidiaries are effectively subsidising the parent company by returning profits which could otherwise have been reinvested or passed to shareholders. I'm not saying there aren't benefits for the subsidiary, but the relationship is not as one-sided as the Fidgets of this world would have us believe, and it is usually the subsidiary which provides the greater benefit to the centre.
Now, how does that fit into the Unionists' worldview?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It bugged me when I read it too 
My last employer was a wholly owned subsidiary of a one time larger company. Our part of the business made varying profits from year to year and laterally was one of the most profitable parts of the business with the most prosperous looking future.
Easch part of the business was distinct from the others serving different markets with different products and services.
The profits of this subsidiary helped to support other parts of the business which were either in the embrionic stages of development or were going through redevelopment.
The actual holding company itself had sold off the largest part of it's business to allow the chairman/owner to retire in comfort and ceased to make any money itself at that point. The parent company effectively became a centre for particular business wide functionality, i.e. accounting and payroll. So the parent company was effectively subsided by the subsidiaries it owns providing no services outside of the group and thereby generating no income ...
... a bit like government.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babykitten
Activist
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | It's not a parent company, STV is an entirely different entity. The only connection is they both have licenses to transmit programmes on the channel 3 slot, and they show some of each other's programmes which, no doubt, they pay the going rate for. |
As usual, Fidget makes comments about something he knows nothing about, Holebender. Here he has just confirmed my comment about the "London mindset" above. He simply assumed that (London-based) ITV was the parent company of STV.
Laughable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| babykitten wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | It's not a parent company, STV is an entirely different entity. The only connection is they both have licenses to transmit programmes on the channel 3 slot, and they show some of each other's programmes which, no doubt, they pay the going rate for. |
As usual, Fidget makes comments about something he knows nothing about, Holebender. Here he has just confirmed my comment about the "London mindset" above. He simply assumed that (London-based) ITV was the parent company of STV.
Laughable. |
Well, to be fair, it's quite confusing. STV is part of the Channel 3 franchise, which is generally known as 'ITV' - with good reason, and yet there is also another organisation, ITV plc, which holds the ITV/Channel 3 franchise in only certain areas of the country, yet is large and significant enough to be pretty dominant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The confusion, if there is any, is caused by the new upstart company which swallowed all the other channel 3 franchisees calling itself ITV plc.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babykitten
Activist
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
Well, to be fair, it's quite confusing. STV is part of the Channel 3 franchise, which is generally known as 'ITV' - with good reason, and yet there is also another organisation, ITV plc, which holds the ITV/Channel 3 franchise in only certain areas of the country, yet is large and significant enough to be pretty dominant. |
It may well be _slightly_ confusing, but still, one should research things before making comment in that way.
My parents just recently replaced their television dating from around 1978 and it had buttons on the front labelled "BBC1", "BBC2", "IBA1", "IBA2" and then 4 "*"s. So, no confusion for me!
Incidentally, I have always thought it a bit stupid that STV is called STV, and at various times "Scottish" or "Scottish Television", because it gives an impression that it is a national broadcaster, when it isn't.
The regional breakdown of the 'ITV' channels is probably outdated now and more to do with past technical reasons of broadcast area. Like I said, big changes are ahead.
Anyone remember Lanarkshire TV? "Free channel fur nuthin'?" and "It's aboot time, by the way." are still etched into my brain from the months of test broadcasting featuring the views of the local population. I always wondered if the old guy who said "It's aboot time, by the way." really HAD been demanding a Lanarkshire TV station for years and finally got his wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | The confusion, if there is any, is caused by the new upstart company which swallowed all the other channel 3 franchisees calling itself ITV plc. |
Only you would immediately think that this should be some sort of competition to attribute blame between the dastardly English and the Scots... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you on about? You said it was confusing because there is a company called ITV and there is a TV channel generally called ITV. (I suppose a bit like vacuum cleaners being called hoovers.) I simply pointed out that this confusion, if it exists, has come about because a new company has adopted a name which up until now has been generally used to describe a network.
Only you could interpret my remark as some sort of English-Scottish thing and, furthermore, only you could prefix English with an adjective like dastardly. You really have an unhealthy obsession there, and I suggest you have a wee lie doon. If that doesn't work for you, seek help.
Honestly, there are some strange folk in the anti-independence camp. I suppose it comes from your constant reinforcement of your inadequacies. It isn't them that's the problem, you know, it's yourself.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin04
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 462
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't even realise they had ditched the Bill. I've not seen that program in years, but I hear it's all serious now and like the Wire  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reluctant Hero
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 3180
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
stv is crap and i hope it goes out of business.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
