Are there too many channels?

There is a question whether a high proportion of satellite channels exist to make and broadcast programmes of a particular genre or programmes aimed at a specific target audience, or whether they exist primarily to make money so care little about their audience or the quality of programmes they show providing money rolls in from the commercials? Do they even care about the commercials and whether they are relevant for the target audience or is it a matter of who is willing to pay the most for a slot?

This gets back to the previous point I made about the potential (lack of) profitability of satellite channels and how it can impact on the types of programmes offered. Is it very difficult to make programmes that are simultaneously good quality and profitable? Can anybody afford to operate a TV channel with a tightly focused audience or is the only way to break even is to offer bludgeoned mass entertainment cut down to a low common denominator in order to attract a broader audience?

I think that one area where satellite channels have the potential to succeed are with people of foreign origin who are after programmes connected with their culture and religion or in languages that they speak. Programmes which are rarely, if ever, shown on the main channels. ITV1 might be the most watched commercial channel in Britain by far but I wouldn't be surprised if millions of people of foreign origin rarely watch it nowadays because it is very biased towards British popular culture.

I make an intelligent guess that few people watch more than a dozen TV channels on a regular or semi-regular basis although the exact channels vary from person to person.

Surely there are a lot of channels that do both? Apart from the obvious exception of the BBC every channel's got to make money somehow

Channel Four are also, at least currently, in the same camp as the BBC in not needing to make a profit.

There's a good argument that multi channel has killed off creativity off-peak. Much of prime time ITV2 content for example would have been late night ITV content a few years ago. Arguably some of it, say for the sake of argument, Celebrity Juice, would be late night Channel 4 material. Look back to the early overnight pioneers on ITV and again it's great stuff but now going out in prime time elsewhere.

5 USA is honestly driftwood, so that, Pick, and tru TV, which had potential but it's poor choice of slot in all the guides render it a flop.

Outside of the world of television, there are some businesses which are very passionate about the product or service they sell, and there are other businesses which exist just to make a fast buck. The way the laws of economics work is that businesses which are passionate about the product or service they sell often have mediocre profit margins but their objective is to stay in the black more so than to amass large amounts of money in the short term. The same is almost certainly true for television.

This goes back to my question as to which TV channels are truly passionate and which are trying to make a fast buck for their owners and shareholders.

Something to also take into account is cross subsidy of TV channels. It's possible for a broadcaster to own a highly profitable channel then use it to subsidise other channels offering programmes of a particular genre or programmes aimed at a specific target audience that otherwise has a low profit margin or is even lossmaking simply to have a presence in these areas. Profitability is not the only metric of success in business. Market share and presence also are. This is another reason why I disagree with the OP that broadcasters should only be allowed one TV channel.

They still have to make money,as in an income, just not a profit

This is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but are there any genres where programmes either do not exist or are few and far between that you would like to see more of?

I'm of the opinion that many broadcasters have only a so so understanding of the needs and wants of society and are quite unadventurous in their outlook being reluctant to try anything new or offbeat.

We could close most of the channels and no one will really notice now, Also 10 channels showing Wheeler Dealers all of the time is worthless.

One way to look at this is outside of the BBC, ITV, C4, and C5 channels which ones do you consider to be most valuable, and why? Viewing figures are a bit too blunt a tool to use on their own because there could be particular channels that provide a very useful service to a small but tightly defined audience.

Well if I was going to shut BBC Three, I'd hand the remit lock stock and barrel back to BBC Two. In the same way E4 and More4 have diluted Channel 4, I think the same us true of two. As it is, stuff has either gone to commercial rivals (eg. Family Guy) gone "online" or to BBC Four (eg. Eurovision).

What I'm saying is the brand extensions of the "big four" have diluted the offering of the "main five" channels.

These debates can vary between very banal, and exceedingly interesting, and it always strikes me how there is really no objective way of determining whether a channel is really any good.

Somebody further up the thread said that 5USA was driftwood. The ratings tell a very different story. According to the latest BARB figures, 5USA reaches over 4.7million viewers a week, and has a 1.00% share of the audience. Very very few 'multi-channels' can manage a share of 1% or better, so that doesn't sound like driftwood to me.

Also, interestingly, whilst 5USA has a reach of over 4.7million viewers for their 1% share, Dave, who also have a 1% share, reaches over 10.5million viewers. This can be looked at two different ways. Yes, they have a much greater reach than 5USA, but it's obvious that viewers to 5USA watch the channel for much longer, than Dave viewers do.

Look at the BARB ratings, and see how many channels do not reach more than 1% of the population, which currently stands at over 64.7million, so that would be 647k. The list includes Sky Atlantic +1, Sky Movies Select, Sky Sports F1, 5 Star +1, At The Races, BET, BT Sport/ESPN, Chart Show TV, Discovery Home & Health, Discovery Shed, DMAX, Eden, Fox News, H2, Heart TV, Heat, Kerrang, Kiss TV, Movies 24, MTV Live and Sony Movie Channel. Even those that barely get above that, but still reach less than 1million people, must be considered to be less worthy for staying on the air, or at least have a harder time justifying their existence, though you could never tell me that S4C should be considered for closure, because at least it does something public service that other stations just don't or indeed won't do.

But I think that really this is far more nuanced than just how many channels there are. What are some of these channels really doing? Actually, mostly they are splitting the audience up unnecessarily. It's getting harder and harder for really good programmes to get a large audience now, because there are so many channels. Again, look at the multi-channel top 10s. Apply the same metric, how many individual programmes get an audience greater than 1% of the population, 647k. Using the latest BARB data, we get 2 programmes on BBC4, 2 Premier League games on BT Sport 1, 1 programme on Channel 4+1, the top 9 shows on E4, 2 shows on Fox, 4 programmes on ITV2, 3 episodes of Midsomer Murders on ITV3, 2 editions of TOWIE on ITV Be, 1 show on More 4, 1 show on MTV, the entire Sky 1 top 10, 2 shows on Sky Living, 3 premier league games on Sky Sports 1 and Gillette Soccer Saturday on Sky Sports News HQ. That's really a small selection of programmes outside the main 5 channels.

So what's the net result of all this? The good programmes end up getting shown so much that they get tired and just can't attract the viewers as they once did. It's like a CHR station playing a hit song 162 times a week, which equates to a play every 70 minutes, it's just way too much, and it severely shortens the shelf life of great programmes. But here's the really weird thing. There are many great programmes that air outside the UK that we never get to see for many different reasons, and those shows are out there for people to find, but are basically stuck with a limited audience, and they could do so much more.

Are there too many channels? Probably. Are they showing too few programmes too often? Certainly. Will the shows be well remembered in the future? Unlikely.