Transponder bandwidth is not cheap on the satellite service.
What a waste of money more time delayed programming is on satellite space. I don't see anyone else on satellites near New Zealand footprints doing delayed programming on another channel (other than NZ based).
However, I'm not surprised they are canning U just like they did 7. But I am surprised their best business model is time shifting. Whoever came up with that should be on minimum wage.
kiwirock: Transponder bandwidth is not cheap on the satellite service.
What a waste of money more time delayed programming is on satellite space. I don't see anyone else on satellites near New Zealand footprints doing delayed programming on another channel (other than NZ based).
However, I'm not surprised they are canning U just like they did 7. But I am surprised their best business model is time shifting. Whoever came up with that should be on minimum wage.
I think they should be forbidden from time shifting channels. It is not doing anything to help freeviews cause if a relatively high percentage of the channels are just repeated channels from 1 hour earlier.
Time shift channels actually make good business sense. Advertisers get twice as many ads for their money and the broadcaster doesn't need to do any extra work. No brainer really. I think they're annoying personally but have used TV3+1 in the past even though I can record.
To be honest. I watched U a few times. Had/has some good extreme sports which is bloody hard to get on NZ TV. Old people wouldn't get it though ;-)
minimoke: The questions that should now be asked are: - How much money has this State Owned Enterprise pumped into U - How long could TVNZ7 have been kept running for this amount.
The important distinction here is that TVNZ7 was funded by the govt, whereas U was funded by TVNZ and AFAIK received no govt funding. So it's not really fair or accurate to suggest that TVNZ7 could have gone on for a while longer with the money spent on U.
Personally, I feel bad for the U channel people. They were always good to deal with and I hope they quickly find new incomes.
ckai: Time shift channels actually make good business sense. Advertisers get twice as many ads for their money and the broadcaster doesn't need to do any extra work. No brainer really. I think they're annoying personally but have used TV3+1 in the past even though I can record.
To be honest. I watched U a few times. Had/has some good extreme sports which is bloody hard to get on NZ TV. Old people wouldn't get it though ;-)
Twice the spots doesn't mean twice the value though. I can get twice as many cars for my money in another brand, but one would go to waste :o)
I haven't worked in TV, but I've worked with commercial radio, which meant along side the sales team and over seeing their training. But one thing we agreed on with live media TV/Radio advertising and the marketing guru teachers were hired, the reality with twice the spots with less effort... usually means the heavier the discount, the more wasted air time when people probably won't be listening and hence less value. Anything that seemed cheaper was exactly that in value to clients and they were pretty savvy of bang for the buck but no real impact to revenue. Especially since 2008.
Unless you ran multiple brands where you know the audience aren't interested in the opposite. But then, there are profile advertisers rather than profit advertisers and you can always sell something to them so your theory of twice the bang for your buck would work as spin for profile advertisers more.
In TV, a time shifted channel doesn't mean you're going to watch the live broadcast, then the time shift afterwards, so chances are twice the spots might only be 20% more chance of the spot being seen so it's not immediate bang for buck at face value. I highly doubt anywhere near twice the viewers or twice the value. With TV, there's more recording and time shifting already going on. So I would argue it barely offers any more real value. Nore would I buy in to a campaign that an account manager tried to spin me on a time shifted audience - at least they wouldn't bring it up if they tried to also sell on-demand campaigns at the same time.
If you're stuck with spectrum to burn (already paid for) and exhausted from new format ideas, then I wouldn't expect anything better than another plus 1 (plus one, minus one, either way the value is in the service not the spin). But if that's the best they can do, someone doesn't deserve a bonus, maybe a negative one and it's a waste of spectrum from another broadcaster that could use it offer something competitive.
Radio went through re-branding and new formats something chronic in the 90's, I can see it's happening with the whole 7/U and plus 1 B.S. But it's like they've given up.... next we just need to waste what's left of the radio spectrum with The Sound plus 1. What I would expect, is a new format, that's actually researched properly - with content people really want, with a real potential market share that makes sense, with less rubbish, less advertising (less effort on the sales and production team and higher spot rates), now that would be expansion of TVNZ - the viewer wins, the station wins, the clients win. But then we're talking about another time shift .. it's like watching Telecom only in TV, copy the competitors that do it before them - that's my personal opinion of course ;o)
It's a waste of spectrum. Unless the film industry is getting their recall on recorders?
With all TVNZ's content arrangements you would think they would have access to a stack of older classic NON New Zealand shows. They could of easily cloned "Jones!" and called it TVNZ BOB or whatever and picked up some audience share.
Just play them out off a server it would cost very little to run, no need for presenters etc.
Apsattv: With all TVNZ's content arrangements you would think they would have access to a stack of older classic NON New Zealand shows. They could of easily cloned "Jones!" and called it TVNZ BOB or whatever and picked up some audience share.
Just play them out off a server it would cost very little to run, no need for presenters etc.
That channel is called 'TVNZ Heartland' which is currently broadcasting on Sky. Unfortunately running a TV channel is much more expensive than you are saying here and that is the reason U died. It was run dirt cheap. When I was watching it I heard them mentioning that the presenters themselves do filing of tapes/content. It is run dirt cheap and if that cannot survive then what could?
I would have preferred if TVNZ just put the space up for sale. Then another broadcaster that actually has content to broadcast can properly utilise the space. With the advent of PVRs and online Ondemand services, +1 channels are redundant today.
Twice the spots doesn't mean twice the value though. I can get twice as many cars for my money in another brand, but one would go to waste :o)
Oh I totally agree. I was just saying it from a business point of view and what their sales people would say. They would mention a business would have twice and many ads but they'll only charge them 20% more than what they used too. Or for the rest of the year, to celebrate, they're not going to charge any more. It's lazy TV but logic business sense.
naggyman:
That channel is called 'TVNZ Heartland' which is currently broadcasting on Sky. Unfortunately running a TV channel is much more expensive than you are saying here and that is the reason U died. It was run dirt cheap. When I was watching it I heard them mentioning that the presenters themselves do filing of tapes/content. It is run dirt cheap and if that cannot survive then what could?
I would have preferred if TVNZ just put the space up for sale. Then another broadcaster that actually has content to broadcast can properly utilise the space. With the advent of PVRs and online Ondemand services, +1 channels are redundant today.
I don't think a channel could be run cheaper than what U did that included live content etc. I'm pretty sure their "studio" was a pokey little corner tucked away somewhere. They were pretty damn lean.
It's funny, we have PlayTV on the PS3 but I've only recorded half a dozen programs with it. It hardly ever crosses my mind. The wife or I either miss out, watch it on demand, or catch it on +1 if we're only a little out. I wonder if the general population does that too.
yep agree with some here a +1 of 2 would be welcomed in this house. Although we have 2 MySky units and two freeview TV's we often use the +1's when moving upstairs for the evening or can do other non TV watching stuff at the same time as regular broadcast and know we can simply flick over to the +1 an hour later. Also saves having to be too involved in playing back a recording.
Not everyone have PVRs, even fewer with the option to record once analogue finishes. Dare I suggest that the audience on TV1+1 is way higher than it ever was for TVNZ7, and the same will apply to TV2+1. All the commercial channels in the UK operate +1 channels, so it must work.
jamesrobert: Not everyone have PVRs, even fewer with the option to record once analogue finishes. Dare I suggest that the audience on TV1+1 is way higher than it ever was for TVNZ7, and the same will apply to TV2+1. All the commercial channels in the UK operate +1 channels, so it must work.
I dare say that in the UK they have way more channels on their version of Freeview to watch. maybe the poms don't like recorders..
+1 channels here are a waste of bandwidth and should be should to people who could use them. TVNZ can't even put the Americas Cup racing on TV1+1
What disappoints me more than anything else about NZ television is Prime. They have a number of popular shows such as Downton Abbey, Top Gear and Thrones, which they screen in glorious low definition. They should all have been snapped up by TV1, TV2, or dare I say it, TV3.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
ID Verified
Trusted
