Why Do We Have So Many Repeat Channels?

[Quenched]

Why do we have so many channels dedicated to repeats?

 

I grew up in a brave new world when Channel 4 was ground breaking, and we were expecting all these new refreshing programmes.

 

But it seems now, its all gone cock a hoop, and we are flooded with channels like dave, challenge tv, etc etc, repeating things from yesteryear. 

 

What happened to the promised new exciting choice? 

[jno]

who on earth promised that??

[Quenched]

Jno, 

Well I remember in 1982 when I was just aged 13, they promoted channel 4 as bringing more choice and would bring fresh choice. 

 

But today television seems tired and old hat in comparison, as we are flooded with choice, but most of it now are repeats. 

 

Its as if we have 200 channels with nothing to watch. 

[Canary42]

Unfortunately Quenched if there is enough usage to sustain this plethora of repeats (which apparently there is) they will continue.

I share your dismay, we do appear to have less real choice than 43 years ago (I was 40 in '82).

[barry1010]

Repeats make for cheap TV. Hundreds of channels, plus streaming services and the likes of YouTube means there are far fewer viewers per channel.

In the 80s a good programme could attract 20m+ viewers - which attracted lots of advertising revenue.

Now a good programme on a main channel like BBC1 or ITV might attract 6m. Less advertising revenue.

Even big brands are advertising on the likes of YouTube. Prime and Netflix offer cheaper subscriptions with adverts.

Less revenue, less money to spend on programmes.

There is an audience for repeats. Last year I rewatched every episode of Line of Duty and found it much more satisfying without the very long gaps between series. My oldsters enjoy the sitcoms of yesteryear, easy viewing compared to the often convoluted, time switching plots, dark screen atmosphere and mumbling favoured in today's series.

 

[barry1010]

I forgot to mention that in the 80s when we had four channels, TV wasn't broadcasting 24/7.

There were still school programmes on BBC1 or 2; children's programmes during the day. Horse racing broadcast on Saturdays. 

TV ended by midnight.

Plenty of repeats in the 80s too. 

In the 80s TV was mainly for evenings for adults.

[Netty7]

Talking of repeats, mainstream TV over Christmas and new year was absolute pants. Mainly repeats, same old films over and over again, and most days there was a repeat of repeats from the day before. I know everyone likes different stuff but I struggled to find something I hadn't seen or was worth watching. 

[barry1010]

We really enjoyed the new Wallace and Gromit film. That was the highlight of Christmas TV for us.

[Cloverjo]

Yes, me too, barry. Gavin and Stacey as well. And Shaun the Sheep movie yesterday. 
 

Quenched, tv viewers and viewing have changed. The channels have to move with them. There are good American programmes available. Not much on Channel 4, I agree. 

[davebro3]

On Freeview channels you sometimes get the same few movies repeated time after time over a period of weeks or even months (someone said it's due to the way movie rights are sold to TV channels).

No wonder folks are switching to streaming services - but that's what "they" want isn't it.

[Buenchico]

As Barry says, it all comes down to money.

When adjusted for inflation, ITV's income from advertising is now only 5% of what is was at its peak.  That's because most advertisers now shun expensive TV commercials in favour of far cheaper advertising through social media.  So even the 'big boys' in TV (such as ITV) have very limited budgets to spend on buying the rights to transmit programmes.  Other stations are even more restricted by their finances.  (Talking Pictures TV, for example, is run by just two people from a back garden shed).

Producing high-quality TV (such as historical costume dramas) costs around one million pounds per hour of broadcasting time.  Very few broadcasters have the money to pay for, say, a 13-part series of such a programme.  The rest have to get by through transmitting cheap-to-make TV (such as cookery shows, quizzes, gardening programmes, shows about antiques or car restorations, etc, etc) and/or buying the repeat rights to broadcast programmes which have already been aired countless times before.

[Old_Geezer]

Repeats are cheap. There are too many channels for the advertising revenue needed for them to be good. So unlike ye olden days when we has few channels but often found something worth watching, we now have a vast number of channels and struggle to find anything better than, "Oh gawd, there's nothing on, that'll have to do as background company".

[ToraToraTora]

"What happened to the promised new exciting choice? " - You clearly are not looking round. There are more new shows than ever, we are swamped with them. My play queue is larger than ever. There is also the repeat market for those that want to re watch classic shows. I recently re watched Rising Damp for example. What's the problem?

[barry1010]

I've just checked. We've recorded 8 new series we have yet to watch, so there is plenty to entertain us. I am enjoying The Traitors, not everyones cup of tea. 

[davebro3]

I've stopped recording stuff - I never seemed to make the time to watch it anyway!

[vulcan42]

It's the same old vicious circle routine isn't it?

Less money going in- less choice in what to watch- more people watching other sites- less advertising- less money going in. It's the same with BBC, less people buying a licence, and as above. I wonder where it will end, one channel showing "Where eagles dare" 24/7 perhaps😏

[Quenched]

Canary42, 

I agree, less real choice than 40 odd years ago because I think there was more quality than quantity crammed into just 3 channels. No its quantity over quality. 

 

I was just 13 when Channel 4 started broadcasting in 1982, but I was old enough to think my goodness, where will we find time to watch another channel. 

 

Because in those days VHS recorders would have cost a fortune in 82, and my parents certainly wouldn't have bought one, as we only just got colour tv, as my parents belief was if its still working ok why replace it, so we didn't have colour tv until I think it was 1981 or so. 

 

But I do remember thinking to myself, if I start watching Channel 4 I'm going to miss all my favourite shows on the other 3 channels, especially as we only had one television in the home, and lucky for it to be colour.

 

So I actually thought Channel 4 was doomed to fail because how can people watch it if they are watching what their used to on the other 3 channels, but how wrong was I?

 

Eventually Channel 5 started, and the rest is history, we now have hundreds of channels that are mainly repeats of yesteryear. Quite amazing really. 

 

Personally I would go back to the 3 channel set up, and favour quality over quantity. Theres only so much time to watch tv anyway. 

 

I normally end up these days with loads of stuff recorded and never find time to watch it, as I'm on constant catch up. 

 

I'd much rather go back to if I missed it so be it. Instead of tv overload as it is now. 

[barry1010]

There was a lot of rubbish and repeats during your childhood, they just haven't stuck in your memory.

You can find old TV listings online, have a look and you'll see I'm right

[Quenched]

barry1010, 

I don't doubt there were repeats in the days of just 3 channels, but wasn't that to give viewers a chance to see something they recently missed? It was in the days when we couldn't record anything or have catch up tv, I presume its repeats on that basis. But I could be wrong.

 

My memory of tv in the 70's and early 80's was that it was packed with quality shows, I don't remember and rubbish on, but then as you mentioned perhaps my memory only remembers the good stuff.

 

A bit like it always seemed sunny when we were kids, but is that because we choose to forget the rainy days. 

Based on that theory does global warming exist at all? 🤔 Perhaps thats a whole different topic 😏