TV Live Forum

UploadTV post_id=69209 time= user_id=1157 Wrote:(Hardly a shock) but Channel 4 have confirmed to fans they have no plans to pick up the show. https://twitter.com/adam13648254/status/...50025?s=21

Scheduling wise it was the only place it would fit really but financially it was never likely going to happen, especially as it would have compromised Hollyoaks.

How would it affect Hollyoaks? It'd probably just push The Simpsons back half an hour. Not surprised they won't be picking up Neighbours though.

JAS84 post_id=69256 time= user_id=881 Wrote:How would it affect Hollyoaks? It'd probably just push The Simpsons back half an hour. Not surprised they won't be picking up Neighbours though.

Because they'd be investing in a failing Aussie soap when they're own(arguably failing) soap needs a bit of attention too, and prioritising jobs here has to be the main motivation of a British PSB.

Keith post_id=69228 time= user_id=1115 Wrote:

This is UTV post_id=69161 time= user_id=1188 Wrote:

gottago Wrote:The key problem with this idea is that viewers no longer want to watch Neighbours.

I'm sure UKTV would want 1.2m viewers who currently watch on C5 to be watching W instead.

Get W on Freeview, hopefully a decent rebrand of the channel, get as low a EPG position as possible then welcome 1.2m sets of eyeballs daily, and hey they might even stay around for other content too and watch those ads.
I appreciate BBC Studios is not a charity, but this really could be a smart business decision the BBC could be tapping into.

Sorry 'This is UTV' but that sounds like something a deluded (The) Apprentice candidate would suggest.

I think Ten announcing NCIS Sydney (see previous page) is telling. It would presumably fulfill their Aussie drama quota, meaning they wouldn't have to continue Neighbours on their own. Also the NCIS franchise has a more global audience, with it probably being shown in other countries as well as via Paramount+. Given this it'll probably cost Ten less than Neighbours, and potentially give them higher ratings (possibly even on their main channel).

I don't feel or appreciate being called deluded Keith....(Rob's post a few pages back about not insulting others)

Rob post_id=69148 time= user_id=2 Wrote:Let's calm down a bit please. Again, express your opinions, but don't insult other members for posting theirs.

Thanks.

But anyway, to provide a robust challenge to continue the debate....
Whats deluded about getting a bland, currently 'nothingness' of a channel like W onto the main free TV platform with the most eyeballs, and then helping it out with potential 1.2m daily viewers??
If W just limped onto Freeview with it's currently mix of random odds and ends I can't see it drawing that many viewers.

The 1.2m who bother to watch Neighbours don't just have it on in the background...(it's BBC1 or ITV Daytime chit chat that's background wallpaper for most households). The dedicated Neighbours viewers who are currently speaking out to show their support will find W or seek out what ever channel its on.

I'm sorry but when people provide robust arguments (which aren't personal) against an idea which the entire history of TV tells us is an absolute non-starter that isn't being insulting - it's pointing out the obvious. It is not fair on other members and fans to show false support to an idea which is not based in reality in a situation like this.

UKTV accounts show they spend about £150m on original content across all their channels - they're certainly not going to spend a fifth of that on a soap deemed financially unviable by a bigger channel. For UKTV it wouldn't be a question of Neighbours on W - it would be a question of "Neighbours or W?" - I suspect that £30m a year is close to the entire budget of the channel.


Buying in imported content is just not a sustainable business model in television anymore either, hence why there are far fewer imports on the bigger channels. The money is in production and rights, hence newer, cheaper, content, where a broadcaster may have some stake in future sales of the programme or format, whether as a co-production or a financing partner, is of far more value than spending millions on a show which will bring in no returns beyond advertising on your own channel, and has already maxed out it's potential in the international market.

JAS84 post_id=69256 time= user_id=881 Wrote:How would it affect Hollyoaks? It'd probably just push The Simpsons back half an hour. Not surprised they won't be picking up Neighbours though.

The budget for Neighbours would need to come from somewhere too- and likely Hollyoaks would have a budget cut as a result.

James2001 post_id=69269 time= user_id=956 Wrote:

JAS84 post_id=69256 time= user_id=881 Wrote:How would it affect Hollyoaks? It'd probably just push The Simpsons back half an hour. Not surprised they won't be picking up Neighbours though.

The budget for Neighbours would need to come from somewhere too- and likely Hollyoaks would have a budget cut as a result.

Not really, if they thought Neighbours was going be profitable it could pay for itself. I think even Channel 4 did think they could make it work for them, the even bigger issue would be not wanting to take something on even Channel 5 didn’t want.

I'm not going to call you delusional. But the idea that W - a channel that virtually nobody watches currently and has almost zero commissioning budget - is suddenly going to spend millions a year on a soap that has been unprofitable on an established 'big five' channel for years clearly is delusional. They won't even be able to repeat it to fill the hours - it'll be millions a year on new episodes that have a shelf life of a day (or a week with an omnibus).

What is the budget for W right now? What other UKTV channel spends millions a year on new content? What BBC Studios backed channel anywhere is spending millions a year on a single programme franchise? If a FTA digital channel could make money on such a proposition, why hasn't ITV3 ever invested in any of its own new shows rather than show 30yr old Emmerdale repeats rather than even a spin off? And frankly, what makes you think that 'potential' 1.2 million viewers is going to be attractive to advertisers when Ch5 has struggled? All this other nonsense about then being able to then sell on Neighbours to other international markets via BBC Studios - don't you think Fremantle would have done that themselves if anyone else in the world wanted it? Why would say the USA suddenly start watching it 37 years in to the series?

The simple fact is Neighbours hit a moment of great popularity really only here and in Ireland when it began, it had a good few years ending around the late 90s and has been in slow decline ever since. Australia soon lost interest and doesn't watch it. No other significant international audience bothered to engage with it even at its height. I've just read they trialled it in the USA as late as 2014 - 65 episodes made it over and then it got pulled from Hulu. 65!

Keith has it absolutely right. Ten wants to invest its money in new franchises that have a more realistic chance of selling in other markets and for streaming rather than a moribund soap it has no interest in. Fremantle probably wants to get rid of it because its making no money for them and they want rid of the old studio complex that is sat on valuable land - just look on Google Maps how close the new houses now are to the studio complex boundaries!

ITV. Ch4. W. Anyone else rescuing Neighbours or making reunion shows. It isn't going to happen!

This is UTV post_id=69260 time= user_id=1188 Wrote:

Keith post_id=69228 time= user_id=1115 Wrote:Sorry 'This is UTV' but that sounds like something a deluded (The) Apprentice candidate would suggest.

I think Ten announcing NCIS Sydney (see previous page) is telling. It would presumably fulfill their Aussie drama quota, meaning they wouldn't have to continue Neighbours on their own. Also the NCIS franchise has a more global audience, with it probably being shown in other countries as well as via Paramount+. Given this it'll probably cost Ten less than Neighbours, and potentially give them higher ratings (possibly even on their main channel).

I don't feel or appreciate being called deluded Keith....(Rob's post a few pages back about not insulting others)

Rob post_id=69148 time= user_id=2 Wrote:Let's calm down a bit please. Again, express your opinions, but don't insult other members for posting theirs.

Thanks.

I am aware of Rob's request and rules, which was why I chose my words carefully. The word 'deluded' was attached to the apprentice contestant, not at you personally.

The reason for the comparison is that it is an unrealistic claim, which is the sort of thing you hear some contestants say on the apprentice. Realistically not all of Channel 5's 1.2m viewers for Neighbours would still watch it if it moved to Watch. Whilst there's certainly a hardcore of fans who would, I think Watch would be lucky to get half that figure. I'm fairly certain something similar happened when the programme moved from BBC1 to C5, and others may be able to provide the stats.

Also I refer to NCIS Sydey again as a pointer for how Ten is looking to get it's Aussie drama quota in the likely absence of Neighbours (if it ceases completely). I suspect another similar type franchise or two and they'd hit that quota.

I do think there is a bit of cluelessness on how TV budgets work. UKTV does spend a fair bit on original content like Annika and Traces on Alibi, various comedies on Gold to name a few but acquiring Neighbours would wipe out any money they spend on those originals.

It's probably fair to say that Ten wants to invest their money in programmes, that will bring them back in money and more, i.e. viewers, and thus advertising revenue. Neighbours doesn't tick those boxes, perhaps something else will. Remember that to TV companies, viewers are life blood; if you don't get viewers, advertisers will not spend their money, and the channel goes broke.

As I mentioned before, I think Ten wants to bury Neighbours, before Neighbours buries Ten.

Brekkie post_id=69265 time= user_id=976 Wrote:I'm sorry but when people provide robust arguments (which aren't personal) against an idea which the entire history of TV tells us is an absolute non-starter that isn't being insulting - it's pointing out the obvious. It is not fair on other members and fans to show false support to an idea which is not based in reality in a situation like this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that members offer false support - just be respectful to others and perhaps members could bite their tongues if they don't like a post rather than shoot down every single post that they don't like.

The announcement that Doctors is going to be on BBC Two at 7pm sort of puts the kibosh on the chances of THREE showing Neighbours at 7pm.

This is UTV post_id=69532 time= user_id=1188 Wrote:The announcement that Doctors is going to be on BBC Two at 7pm sort of puts the kibosh on the chances of THREE showing Neighbours at 7pm.

I mean, I don't think that was ever going to happen anyway, was it?