ITV To Start Charging For Crap!

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by spike7451, Nov 22, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Looks like their viewing figure's will drop even further when they start charging for the crap they show..

  2. It seems a bit of an odd thing to do, charge for channels that are essentially repeats of the channel they aren't going to charge for, do the other channels actually show any new content? probably showing my ignorance as I don't tend to watch the drivel ITV produce any way.

    If you're going to charge logic would say you'd charge for something worth paying for.
  3. The BBC have been doing this for years. Has anyone sat through a whole screening of a 'Hole in the Wall'?
  4. Who in their right mind is going to pay to watch ITV2, 3 or 4? They're even shitter than ITV1 and that's fcuking dogshite.
  5. What do I watch ITV for

    Local news and weather - Can go to the BBC for that

    News and political comment? Got ARRSE for that or read the papers

    Plays and the like? - no time to watch them

    X factor/Jungle/chav TV- Not bl**dy likely

    A quick check shows the other ITV stations (and plus 1 versions) churn out re runs of Morse/Wycliffe/Darling Buds/Kavanagh/Time Team etc

    Miss ITV if it went?

  6. A better idea, get rid of the other 3 channels and put the few half way decent programs onto the main one. We might get one channel with some decent programming then.
  7. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Nuts to them. It's bad enough that every program or film is littered with brain-dead, pointless, annoying adverts without asking me to pay for the privelage of watching dross programming too.

    Like the idea of pay-per-view sky news online - byeeeeeee!
  8. Now there's an idea. 24 hour TV pap with focussed adverts for the lottery/scratchcards/Iceland/Argos etc.

    ... or have I just described ITV 1?
  9. and why not? The fvcking BBC has been doing it for years.

    The worst with the BBC is that are into overdrive with their 'we must keep Brown and Mandelswine in power for as long as possible' - doing this with my fvcking licence fee!
  10. hahaha yes buddy, you have lol
  11. Fuck freeview. I've got freesat, it's now up to 66 channels and climbing, not including music channels and I can't be arsed to watch any of them.
  12. Commercial TV, meaning anything other than BBC, has dug itself, deservedly IMHO, into a cavernous hole, :omg: , and not least because it treats it’s audience like juvenile mong shite. They gambled with ‘supply and demand’ and no doubt repeatedly sited Septicville as examples. ‘More channels means more advertising slots means more revenue for us’. But, #1 will the viewing audience increase commensurately to watch the new transmissions? #2 Will advertisers increase commensurately and/or increase their budgets to fund all the new slots? #3 Are there enough quality programmes and/or are/will there be funds to make new ones? Overwhelmingly the answer is ‘NO’ with a possibility in some cases there just might be.

    So, instead of biting the bullet and knocking out realistically unsustainable channels, with the exception of ITV2+1 which was KO’ed, they carry on regardless squandering more money on feckless retards who know f’ck-all about real life but have pieces of paper stuck on the wall above their desk (or really know how to retrieve a thrupenny bit ;) ), and troll out selected repeats ad nauseum and offer advertisers so many pointless slots their ads actually become a total disincentive to buy.

    And the viewing public? Well f’k you pal, you’ll f’king watch what we f’king show you and be grateful for it. You’re too thick to remember anything so if we show you the same episode of Frost 27 times in a month, you’ll think it’s a new episode every time. ‘Trust us, we’re experts in retard TV’. :slow:

    ITV are going to charge to view? Well this time it’s f’k YOU pal because I do not pay to be shown adverts. If YOU can’t cut it with the ad revenue you get, cut your costs by cutting your channels. With fewer ad opportunities you can/should charge more for the ones you have. ‘Why would advertisers pay more?’ Because your quality programmes deliver the appropriately high viewing figures. They don’t? Well start transmitting quality programmes. [​IMG] You want to charge for a programme? Fine, I’d pay handsomely for a caged blindfolded tag-team match between Ant & Dec and Ross & Brand. All parts of the cage (including the floor) to be randomly electrified and all contestants to have a running chainsaw Superglued to their hands with no off switch, and Gordon ‘f’king’ Ramsay as the in-cage Ref. :twisted:

    No.9 - cheque book in hand [​IMG]
  13. I.T.V can shove it up their ARRSE!!
  14. Tossers!

    BBC & ITV are the only stations that won't allow themselves to be viewed outside of the Good Old U.K. Footprint...
  15. For every top brand item that's purchased off the shelf or elsewhere that has been advertised on ITV/SKY etc, in some cases 30% of the mark up is because of advertising by said channels.
    In other words ITV aint free! we pay at the till probably 3 times more than by TV licence!
    If ITV wish to start charging directly then that is an indication of their own problems in the advertising market.
    (Spell checker U/S )