Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Because that’s what they have scheduled!? 2 games will only air on “occasion”, which means most Sunday nights City stations in 3 of the 4 largest markets will be airing cancon filler in primetime.
    That's what they actually said? When ? Or is it your own deduction ?

    What I meant was, what are the odds for, example, a L.A. vs Vancouver game to happen on a sunday night, starting at 7 PT which will air in primetime on City Vancouver ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    NHL hockey is the exact opposite of a "sure investment". How much success Rogers has with hockey will depend on something they have absolutely no control over every year: how Canadian teams perform and how far they make it to the playoffs. Ratings for regular programming are far more consistent than ratings for NHL hockey.
    Those are called "variables".

    But once again, you don't seem to be happy about it and insist they keep hockey on Sportsnet. Rogers is paying 433 million per hockey season. There are 30 NHL teams, 15 possible simultaneous games (unlikely, but there are 15 NHL Center Ice channels on Shaw Direct out of the 210 they promote), but some old contracts are still being granted (TSN has Winnipeg Jets until 2021, 52 Ottawa Senators games, RDS has 60 Canadiens games, etc.). Yeah, ok, Rogers has 6 Sportsnet channels (4 regional, One and 360), they'll take over NHL Center Ice, and there are other sports than hockey that the Sportsnet channels can air. With such an investment, I don't see the problem with airing some saturday and sunday night games on Citytv.

    Just like Shaw Media, they paid a bunch of money to produce HGTV, Food, Slice and Showcase shows, on top of repeating them over, these shows cross over on some Global stations (as cancon fillers). It's no different for Rogers, except hockey is live and has way more dollar signs in jeopardy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Also, if the U.S. programming does poorly, it gets cancelled by the U.S. network and the Canadian network no longer has to pay for it.
    A show not performing in the US doesn't necessarily mean it will suck in Canada. Example : Agents of SHIELD was in the BBM Top 10 but averaged 6 millions total viewers in the US, miles away from the 20 millions for NCIS. During this time, ABC's top sitcom, Modern Family, and top drama, Scandal, struggle to get a single entry in the BBM (except its season finale for MF).

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Rogers is stuck with hockey for 12 years, regardless of ratings.
    A U.S. show can go low, lower, and lower in Canada, like, less than 200,000 total viewers, but get renewed in the US where it should be canceled in Canada.

    Hockey has variables, but by the 11th season, do you expect hockey to get low ratings, like 50,000 due to the only fact that it airs on City rather than on TSN ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Yes, the simulcast is important (although you appear to think it's more important than it actually is, suggesting Global start shows at bizarre times just to simulcast with CBS
    You must have missed my point : The odds for CBS sunday primetime shows to start at 7pm on the east coast over the course of 13 weeks was 1, and at 7:30 with a 5 minutes grace was 3. I didn't pay attention to the odds for Fox being on time at 8pm for The Simpsons but I assume it's 50 %. CBS also already expected a 30 minutes delay 6 times over the same period (see http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/60-minutes/listings/).

    I was just concluding, based on data, that Global has better maximum simulcast opportunities of The Simpsons at 8pm, CBS's two shows at 8:30 and 9:30 and Family Guy at 10:30pm.

    As for the simulcast basics, we both know that Citytv is the 3rd major private network without any station in atlantic provinces. Halifax is a bigger english market than Saskatoon, or even english-Montreal. Without any local presence, there's no ad targetted to them, and no simulcasting opportunity, and the only BBM ratings that can be counted are the viewers who actually tuned in to Citytv Toronto. Those who tune to the american station count as nothing.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66279]

    That's what they actually said? When ? Or is it your own deduction ?

    What I meant was, what are the odds for, example, a L.A. vs Vancouver game to happen on a sunday night, starting at 7 PT which will air in primetime on City Vancouver ?
    Their schedule has the game airing Sundays from 7:00PM to 10:00PM ET / 4:00PM to 7:00PM PT. Their press release has "double headers on occasion". They haven't said exactly what these City stations will air in primetime, but they are quite limited as they need to ensure that all their stations are airing the same amount of Canadian content in primetime. Whatever cancon filler they schedule, be it an encore of the game or repeats of something else, it's likely going to do worse than what U.S. programming would have done.


    Those are called "variables".

    But once again, you don't seem to be happy about it and insist they keep hockey on Sportsnet.
    I don't care what they air, they can air whatever they want, airing hockey is just going to bring more viewers to the other conventional networks so that's a good thing. I'm just saying i'm not sure how much this decision will benefit the City network.

    Rogers is paying 433 million per hockey season. There are 30 NHL teams, 15 possible simultaneous games (unlikely, but there are 15 NHL Center Ice channels on Shaw Direct out of the 210 they promote), but some old contracts are still being granted (TSN has Winnipeg Jets until 2021, 52 Ottawa Senators games, RDS has 60 Canadiens games, etc.). Yeah, ok, Rogers has 6 Sportsnet channels (4 regional, One and 360), they'll take over NHL Center Ice, and there are other sports than hockey that the Sportsnet channels can air. With such an investment, I don't see the problem with airing some saturday and sunday night games on Citytv.

    They have more than enough room to just keep hockey on the Sportsnet channels (where it will actually turn a profit). My point is, Rogers doesn't need City to air hockey, they could shut down City and just have hockey on Sportsnet and possibly CBC, so the fact that City is giving up on everything else, from regular programming to news, just to air 3 hours of Sunday night hockey, it doesn't look like they see much of a future for the City network, which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers does shut it down in a few years. Again, it's not a good thing if the only valuable content you have is something that A). Doesn't make money for the network, and B). Doesn't need the network to be broadcast.

    Just like Shaw Media, they paid a bunch of money to produce HGTV, Food, Slice and Showcase shows, on top of repeating them over, these shows cross over on some Global stations (as cancon fillers). It's no different for Rogers, except hockey is live and has way more dollar signs in jeopardy.

    It's totally different. Shaw did not slash Global's regular programming and news budget to air repeats of HISTORY, HGTV, Food Network, etc.. programming. If Shaw cut Global's news and U.S. programming to the point of Citytv, and then started airing new episodes of HISTORY programming each night, then yeah it would be the same thing, as they would be giving up on everything else just to air programming that they could simply just air on HISTORY.


    A show not performing in the US doesn't necessarily mean it will suck in Canada. Example : Agents of SHIELD was in the BBM Top 10 but averaged 6 millions total viewers in the US, miles away from the 20 millions for NCIS. During this time, ABC's top sitcom, Modern Family, and top drama, Scandal, struggle to get a single entry in the BBM (except its season finale for MF).


    A U.S. show can go low, lower, and lower in Canada, like, less than 200,000 total viewers, but get renewed in the US where it should be canceled in Canada.

    Hockey has variables, but by the 11th season, do you expect hockey to get low ratings, like 50,000 due to the only fact that it airs on City rather than on TSN ?

    What's the point of high ratings? TO MAKE MONEY! Is hockey on City going to do that? Rogers is saying no.
    You must have missed my point : The odds for CBS sunday primetime shows to start at 7pm on the east coast over the course of 13 weeks was 1, and at 7:30 with a 5 minutes grace was 3. I didn't pay attention to the odds for Fox being on time at 8pm for The Simpsons but I assume it's 50 %. CBS also already expected a 30 minutes delay 6 times over the same period (see http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/60-minutes/listings/).
    No, I understand what you are trying to say, but the theory you are using is wrong. As I said earlier, not ALL CBS stations in the east have football starting late every week. For most stations, it's only about 6 weeks starting late, the other 6 or so weeks the shows will start on time, which Global will simulcast.

    I was just concluding, based on data, that Global has better maximum simulcast opportunities of The Simpsons at 8pm, CBS's two shows at 8:30 and 9:30 and Family Guy at 10:30pm.
    No they wouldn't, and your data is wrong. With your schedule, not only would they miss out on simulcasting 2 hours of CBS programming on 6 or so weeks CBS programming starts on time, but they wouldn't be able to simulcast CBS anyway since when NFL does run over these shows almost never start at the 8:30PM mark, they start at bizzare times like 8:46PM. The result with your schedule is either Global airing these shows at 8:30PM & 9:30PM in PRE-Release, or waiting to simulcast the CBS shows at bizzare start times, both of these decisions make NO SENSE. You clearly think the simulcast is more important than it actually is if you think Global is better off simulcasting CBS shows at bizzare start times instead of starting dramas on the top of the hour out of simulcast.

    As for the simulcast basics, we both know that Citytv is the 3rd major private network without any station in atlantic provinces. Halifax is a bigger english market than Saskatoon, or even english-Montreal. Without any local presence, there's no ad targetted to them, and no simulcasting opportunity, and the only BBM ratings that can be counted are the viewers who actually tuned in to Citytv Toronto. Those who tune to the american station count as nothing.
    So the network is in 3rd place because they don't have simulcasts in the Maritimes? No simulcasts in the Maritimes are the least of their problems. The reality is, in markets where City has 100% of the same coverage as CTV and Global, their ratings are still siginfiatly lower. Rogers even admitted at their licence renewal that expanding to the new markets hasn't helped their situation and that's why they have dropped their plans to try and expand to the Maritimes. Also, FYI Halifax is not bigger than English Montreal. English Montreal is about the size of Winnipeg.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No, I understand what you are trying to say, but the theory you are using is wrong. As I said earlier, not ALL CBS stations in the east have football starting late every week.
    Reality check, Canada receives a selection of american affiliates, not all of them, namely for the east coast : New England : Boston (Bell), Vermont (Videotron), Rochester (Shaw), Buffalo (Rogers), which most likely air the same sunday night game, so the primetime schedule will start late at the same time on these stations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    but they wouldn't be able to simulcast CBS anyway since when NFL does run over these shows almost never start at the 8:30PM mark, they start at bizzare times like 8:46PM. The result with your schedule is either Global airing these shows at 8:30PM & 9:30PM in PRE-Release, or waiting to simulcast the CBS shows at bizzare start times, both of these decisions make NO SENSE.
    OK, you failed maths ?
    What do you quality as a "bizarre time"? Starting a one-hour show at the :30th minute ?
    Regardless, I never suggested for Global to wait until 8:46 to start a show, I meant they have a chance to simulcast The Simpsons at 8pm, 10 weeks out of 13. And they also have 1 chance out of 13 to simulcast two following CBS shows at 8pm sharp and 3 chances out of 13 to simulcast them IF the start time happens to be 8:27, 8:28, 8:29, 8:30, 8:31, 8:32 or 8:33. 6 weeks out of 13, CBS shows will start at a crazy time between 8 and 8:26pm, therefor Global would air them with a delay.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    So the network is in 3rd place because they don't have simulcasts in the Maritimes?
    No, Citytv cannot be 2nd place because Global has more shows in the BBM ratings. Citytv cannot be 4th place because they have more stations and coverage than CTV 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Also, FYI Halifax is not bigger than English Montreal. English Montreal is about the size of Winnipeg.
    Then why do you quality Global Montreal a small, tiny, money-losing station while you praise Winnipeg ?
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal;66282

    [QUOTE
    Reality check, Canada receives a selection of american affiliates, not all of them, namely for the east coast : New England : Boston (Bell), Vermont (Videotron), Rochester (Shaw), Buffalo (Rogers), which most likely air the same sunday night game, so the primetime schedule will start late at the same time on these stations.

    You need a reality check. Very few CBS stations air the late afternoon game EVERY week.


    OK, you failed maths ?
    What do you quality as a "bizarre time"? Starting a one-hour show at the :30th minute ?

    8:30PM is not an ideal time to start a one hour drama. Global would be the only major network in North America starting dramas at 8:30PM and 9:30PM, and they would never be able to simulcast if aired in these slots, and on the 6 or so nights that CBS starts these dramas at 8:00PM & 9:00PM, they would lose those viewers to CBS, since CBS would be starting them at more ideal times like 8:00PM and 9:00PM.


    Regardless, I never suggested for Global to wait until 8:46 to start a show, I meant they have a chance to simulcast The Simpsons at 8pm, 10 weeks out of 13. And they also have 1 chance out of 13 to simulcast two following CBS shows at 8pm sharp and 3 chances out of 13 to simulcast them IF the start time happens to be 8:27, 8:28, 8:29, 8:30, 8:31, 8:32 or 8:33. 6 weeks out of 13, CBS shows will start at a crazy time between 8 and 8:26pm, therefor Global would air them with a delay.
    Again, they will not only have 1 chance to simulcast CBS. They will have a chance to simulcast 2 hours of CBS drama every other week CBS stations do not air the late NFL game, on the 6 or so weeks CBS airs the late NFL game, viewers will still watch these dramas on Global as they are not going to wait until whatever time these shows start on CBS when they know they can watch them on Global at the top of the hour. The simulcast doesn't matter if the Canadian network has the show at a far more ideal time.

    You think the simulcast is way more important than it actually is if you think Global is better off not starting these dramas at the top of the hour just to simulcast a 30 minute show with FOX. Also, as I already explained, since The Simpsons skews heavily male, it's going to have an audience over-lap with NHL Hockey on City, so instead of placing The Simpsons directly against hockey at 8:00PM, they are placing it at 10:00PM when the game is over and that large male audience is going to be looking for something to watch.

    No, Citytv cannot be 2nd place because Global has more shows in the BBM ratings. Citytv cannot be 4th place because they have more stations and coverage than CTV 2.

    Just making sure you didn't think no coverage in the Maritimes was the reason for their low ratings.


    Then why do you quality Global Montreal a small, tiny, money-losing station while you praise Winnipeg =
    All of Global's small market stations lose money. Global Montreal is smaller than other stations because of their position in the market. Global is far more competitive with CTV in other small markets like Winnipeg than they are in Montreal, so they have more resources and news programming in these markets. Montreal is a unique situation where one station (CTV) has this massive dominance in the market, so the other stations struggle, although Global Montreal is starting to perform better than the rest, for the first time ever this fall Global Montreal's Evening News outperformed CBC's 6:00PM news in Adults 25-54, and I'm sure you have already read by now that Montreal's #1 English Local Morning Show, Global Montreal's Morning News continued to gain viewers this winter/spring, while City Montreal's Breakfast Television LOST viewers. Montreal viewers have changed the channel and joined viewers in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg in flat out rejecting City's "BT only" local television model, which is a big reason why City struggles more in the ratings than CTV and Global, they don't have any strong local programming to drive viewers to their stations outside Toronto.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 06-10-2014 at 12:36 PM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Their schedule has the game airing Sundays from 7:00PM to 10:00PM ET / 4:00PM to 7:00PM PT. Their press release has "double headers on occasion"

    Although the original press release last winter said that 2 games will air Sunday nights on occasion, the schedule released Sunday only has 1 game on City Sunday nights, all outside of primetime for Western Canada. Also, despite claims from others here that Sportsnet would also air hockey Sunday nights, the schedule released does not have this.

    I noticed they renamed "Hometown Hockey" to "Sunday Night Hockey" which I think makes a lot more sense (in fact, I was already referring to it as Sunday Night Hockey before Rogers started using it)

    Also released is the Saturday night schedule for October, which confirms that the most popular games will be airing on CBC with the leftovers airing on City, the Sportsnets, and FX Canada. It also appears that City will only air 4:00PM PT game on Saturday nights as the 7:00PM PT games are only scheduled on CBC and Sportsnet at least for October. Rogers has still not yet announced what type of Cancon filler will air on City stations in Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton in primetime Saturday and Sunday nights.

    Last edited by TVViewer; 06-24-2014 at 10:34 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by lostjon View Post


    As earlier speculated, The Biggest Loser has been dropped by Rogers.
    ,,,, and picked up by CTS.

    CTS has also picked up Judge Judy (along with the new court show The Hot Bench) from Rogers, which was a strong performer (
    clearly City's cost cutting didn't just include primetime but daytime and late night as well). Rogers has also dropped all of OMNI's talk shows. Pretty much the only U.S. shows left on OMNI are the syndicated sitcoms which they are unable to get rid of as they have multi-year deals.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 06-25-2014 at 09:46 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,106
    Wow, It looks like Rogers is gutting both City and Omni?! Aside from the aforementioned NHL games, what other marquee programming will they be airing on these stations?!

    It appears as though either they have no money left to spend on these conventional networks or they are intentionally re-organizing their spending, putting more money into their sports broadcasting empire and less money into City & Omni?! I wonder how long these stations will continue broadcasting, it would seem that a sale or shutdown is on the horizon?!

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Wow, It looks like Rogers is gutting both City and Omni?! Aside from the aforementioned NHL games, what other marquee programming will they be airing on these stations?!

    It appears as though either they have no money left to spend on these conventional networks or they are intentionally re-organizing their spending, putting more money into their sports broadcasting empire and less money into City & Omni?! I wonder how long these stations will continue broadcasting, it would seem that a sale or shutdown is on the horizon?!
    I don't think they will shut City down as they need it for hockey.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Odd. As of writing this, Citytv's website already purged Nashville from their website's "Shows" section, but Resurrection is still there eventho there's no summer reruns and the show moves to CTV next season.

    In normal circonstances, Netflix will add the entire "last" season a few weeks after its DVD release. Season 2 ain't coming out until september 23, but it's already available on Netflix Canada, with a "New episodes" banner at the bottom... Since CHCH and CTS already revealed their fall schedule, I guess Nashville will be a Netflix exclusive next season...

    Edit : Yikes! Rogers "Media TV Access" section still lists old cancelled shows from last fall like Betrayal, Super Fun Night, Back in the Game, Crazy Ones... They don't look serious on advertisement sales, and they want to run City and Omni on the cheap like FX Canada, counting on a few hits shows people want to watch to make the channel work, but the thing is, they can't sit back doing nothing and collect subscription revenues like G4 or Bell's BookTV, as conventional stations are advertisement-based only. Rogers' profits from cable services operations will now finance their City and Omni networks ?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 06-25-2014 at 11:57 AM.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Odd. As of writing this, Citytv's website already purged Nashville from their website's "Shows" section, but Resurrection is still there eventho there's no summer reruns and the show moves to CTV next season.

    In normal circonstances, Netflix will add the entire "last" season a few weeks after its DVD release. Season 2 ain't coming out until september 23, but it's already available on Netflix Canada, with a "New episodes" banner at the bottom... Since CHCH and CTS already revealed their fall schedule, I guess Nashville will be a Netflix exclusive next season...
    I could see Cmt picking up Nashville.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    ... Yikes! Rogers "Media TV Access" section still lists old cancelled shows from last fall like Betrayal, Super Fun Night, Back in the Game, Crazy Ones... They don't look serious on advertisement sales, and they want to run City and Omni on the cheap like FX Canada, counting on a few hits shows people want to watch to make the channel work, but the thing is, they can't sit back doing nothing and collect subscription revenues like G4 or Bell's BookTV, as conventional stations are advertisement-based only. Rogers' profits from cable services operations will now finance their City and Omni networks ?
    I would assume so.
    From all appearances in the last few months, Rogers has stopped caring about anything except promoting NHL hockey on their channels. Everything else is just filler. City would seem to exist only as an over-the-air network to show part of their large slate of hockey games to a potentially wider audience, while also promoting the Sportsnet channels to that audience (and presumably Sportsnet promoting City). The fact that City by itself might not turn a profit may not matter much to them if the hope and intention is to improve the entire combined TV operation relying almost entirely on hockey. I'm not saying putting all their eggs in one basket will definitely work, but there is obviously a lot of people who watch hockey, even if there's more who don't and will now be less likely to watch City.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Wow, It looks like Rogers is gutting both City and Omni?! Aside from the aforementioned NHL games, what other marquee programming will they be airing on these stations?!

    It appears as though either they have no money left to spend on these conventional networks or they are intentionally re-organizing their spending, putting more money into their sports broadcasting empire and less money into City & Omni?! I wonder how long these stations will continue broadcasting, it would seem that a sale or shutdown is on the horizon?!


    I wouldn't be suprised that Rogers has been looking for suiters to dump the Citytv and OMNI networks. The only ones I see who would want these stations are: Blue Ant, Torstar, an combind ownship between BlueAnt and TorStar or Cours (highly unlikely, but still possible).
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I wouldn't be suprised that Rogers has been looking for suiters to dump the Citytv and OMNI networks.
    I don't see any reason for Rogers to get rid of Citytv : It's the most accessible asset owned by Rogers, distributed on basic service of virtually all canadian BDUs, it gives them a plateforme to promote their other products and services (specialty channels, magazines, cell service, etc.) for free.

    Concerning Omni, its licenced as a local ethnic channel. With over 150 ethnic channels on cable/satellite and low interest by Rogers to serve the community, Toronto-based ethnic companies should band together and take it over as a cooperative just like ICI (CFHD) Montreal.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    I don't see any reason for Rogers to get rid of Citytv : It's the most accessible asset owned by Rogers, distributed on basic service of virtually all canadian BDUs, it gives them a plateforme to promote their other products and services (specialty channels, magazines, cell service, etc.) for free.
    They could still do that as part of condition of sale. Allow Roger to promote their products on City for n number of years and have Sunday reserved for NHL games (or something to that effect).

    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Concerning Omni, its licenced as a local ethnic channel. With over 150 ethnic channels on cable/satellite and low interest by Rogers to serve the community, Toronto-based ethnic companies should band together and take it over as a cooperative just like ICI (CFHD) Montreal.
    That would make sense, but I doubt the CRTC will approve the sale to an co-op or ICI, seeing that they would have to prove they can support the current employees pensions and pay cheques.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    I don't see any reason for Rogers to get rid of Citytv : It's the most accessible asset owned by Rogers, distributed on basic service of virtually all canadian BDUs, it gives them a plateforme to promote their other products and services (specialty channels, magazines, cell service, etc.) for free..
    First, it wouldn't benefit Rogers for City to air Rogers commercials for free as any "free" commercials would be in place of paid advertisements, so they would just be throwing away money. It also doesn't benefit Rogers if the channel they are promoting their services on has few people watching and is losing money.

    The biggest benefit a conventional network can bring to a content driven company like Rogers is an outlet for them to air content that they can use on other services. It was reported last winter that Rogers is looking to launch its own Netflix type subscription service which will also include programming and movies from their competitors. Once that gets off the ground and if it is successful, they may not need City as an outlet to air U.S. content they acquire. If you are buying top rated expensive hit shows you need a conventional network, Rogers isn't doing that for City anymore, they are buying cheap shows nobody else wants that a successful online service could probably pay for on its own. If you are spending a lot of money on news and producing very popular news content at stations across the country then you need a conventional network, Rogers is spending barely anything on news and the little news they have does horrible outside of Toronto so it wouldn't provide any benefit to an online service. Basically, City doesn't really have anything Rogers would need the network for once their Netflix service is up and running (assuming it is successful). They are not positioning City for the future at all.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I wouldn't be suprised that Rogers has been looking for suiters to dump the Citytv and OMNI networks. The only ones I see who would want these stations are: Blue Ant, Torstar, an combind ownship between BlueAnt and TorStar or Cours (highly unlikely, but still possible).

    But what value does the network have to any of these companies?

    Even though Rogers paid CTV $375 million to get the network, I think it's going to be hard for Rogers to get someone to buy it even for $1 dollar. This wouldn't be the same as Canwest buying WIC or CTV buying CHUM or Shaw buying Canwest or Bell buying CTV, all of those buys came with very profitable assets. There is nothing profitable about Citytv, the network is losing millions of dollars and none of their stations are profitable. The network isn't just losing money, it has almost nothing of any value. Their U.S. programming lineup is weak and their schedule has tons of programming holes, all of the stations outside of Toronto are losing money with almost non-existent news operations producing just an understaffed morning show barely registering in the ratings, and the stations operate under the broken advertising only model. They would be buying a network that requires a significant programming and news investment operating under a model that offers almost no hope of profitability.

    They could still do that as part of condition of sale. Allow Roger to promote their products on City for n number of years

    So not only would the new owner be buying a financial disaster, but they would need to promise to give up advertising revenue to promote Rogers services?



    and have Sunday reserved for NHL games (or something to that effect).

    They don’t need the City network to air hockey. They have more than enough room on their other channels (Sportsnet, Sportsnet 360, Sportsnet One, FX Canada) and CBC. They have it airing on City now because they own the network and might as well use it to cover the costs but they don’t need the City network to air hockey, the only big games City has are the ones on Sunday nights and those could easily be moved to Sportsnet.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post


    Even though Rogers paid CTV $375 million to get the network, I think it's going to be hard for Rogers to get someone to buy it even for $1 dollar. This wouldn't be the same as Canwest buying WIC or CTV buying CHUM or Shaw buying Canwest or Bell buying CTV, all of those buys came with very profitable assets. There is nothing profitable about Citytv, the network is losing millions of dollars and none of their stations are profitable. The network isn't just losing money, it has almost nothing of any value. Their U.S. programming lineup is weak and their schedule has tons of programming holes, all of the stations outside of Toronto are losing money with almost non-existent news operations producing just an understaffed morning show barely registering in the ratings, and the stations operate under the broken advertising only model.



    Have you ever stop to think that maybe their are buyers still out there? Blue Ant Media, founded by the
    man who created those Shaw Media speciality channels that you promote so heavily and Torstar, deep pockets and owning the largest newsroom in Canada might be better at fixing what is ailing City and OMNI than Rogers.

    I know you really love Global and Global News with a passion, but I would think you of all people would want someone like Rogers to sell the City and OMNI networks to someone who has better experience running an network and gathering news.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post


    They would be buying a network that requires a significant programming and news investment operating under a model that offers almost no hope of profitability.

    Doesn't seem to be bothering Shaw, Global was an financial wreak outside B.C, still can't make an dent in the largest market in Canada, and is still pour money into it and CTV still knocks them out.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    So not only would the new owner be buying a financial disaster, but they would need to promise to give up advertising revenue to promote Rogers services?
    Ya, just like how Rogers couldn't sell any advertisements on top of the Dundas Street studios for three years, and that the billboards across the street on the Eaton Centre couldn't sell advertisement space to Global or CTV. Just think of all those loss Rookie Blue ads that they couldn't make money off of; no advertisements that took those spots could ever match the the buying power of Global's Rookie Blue.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    First, it wouldn't benefit Rogers for City to air Rogers commercials for free as any "free" commercials would be in place of paid advertisements
    It's a known fact that any unsold "paying" advertisements spots (15-18 minutes per hour) are replaced with the promo for another show on the same channel, on another channel by its owner, or a product from its owners.

    Are you even watching City sometimes ?

    I mean, c'mon, how many times per hour can they air the same "Next Issue" promo ?
    http://brioux.tv/2014/04/worst-comme...er-next-issue/
    How many time per hour can they promote any of Rogers cellphone-related commercials ? I guess the same amount of ads for Bell Fibe on CTV, regardless of the show and time... and I don't see any ads for Shaw Direct (and their lying 210 HD channels) on CTV or Citytv... I wonder why.
    Last edited by InMontreal; 06-26-2014 at 05:29 PM.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Elaborating...

    Back in 2005-2006, there was 6 american networks : ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, The WB and UPN. Ratings were down, consolidations happened, The WB and UPN folded and launched The CW. Fox launched MyNetworkTV to affiliate back the remaining stations not picked up for The CW, but eventually had to convert to a syndication service just like Pax (Ion).

    Looking back at ratings from the 90's, 32.9 million viewers with a 20/32 share was a top show, while a show with 6.7M viewers (4.7/7) was in the "Bottom 5" and cancellation was its only fate.
    (See : http://anythingkiss.com/pi_feedback_..._TVRatings.pdf )
    Nowadays, most shows are below the 10M barrier, TBBT hitting 20M viewers is phenomenal, and some CW shows with 700k viewers (BATB) is bottom low but tolerable.

    In Canada, Canwest killed off its E! system back in 2009. Just like in the US, cable channels multiplied, internet brings new content, and some young adults don't even own a TV set. The CBC just decided to cut off some shows.

    So, question, with our population of 33 million canadian residents (they're 318M in the US), have we reach the point where another conventional network or TV system have to shut down ? Is Citytv the one having to fold ?
    Last edited by InMontreal; 06-26-2014 at 06:29 PM.
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=Mayhem;66431]

    Have you ever stop to think that maybe their are buyers still out there? Blue Ant Media, founded by the
    man who created those Shaw Media speciality channels that you promote so heavily and Torstar, deep pockets and owning the largest newsroom in Canada might be better at fixing what is ailing City and OMNI than Rogers.
    I don't think Blue Ant Media and Torstar are stupid. It's not like the Citytv network needs just a few small changes and everything will be profitable. If Blue Ant Media wants to expand their programming they can launch a new specialty channel, and Torstar will need its deep pockets for its dying newspaper business.
    I know you really love Global and Global News with a passion, but I would think you of all people would want someone like Rogers to sell the City and OMNI networks to someone who has better experience running an network and gathering news.
    I would love Rogers to sell the Citytv network to any company that would rebuild their news operations, I'm just being realistic here. Expecting any company to just buy a financial disaster and invest a bunch of money into it is not realistic, especially since it operates under the broken advertising only business model.
    Doesn't seem to be bothering Shaw, Global was an financial wreak outside B.C, still can't make an dent in the largest market in Canada, and is still pour money into it and CTV still knocks them out.


    Shaw didn't just buy Global, they bought Canwest broadcasting which included extremely profitable specialty channels. That being said, Global was never even close to the same position as City. Global was not a financial wreck and programming Global had was far more valuable. Global also had far stronger news operations than Citytv, yes Shaw made some investments, but they didn't have to re-build Global's news operations, anyone who buys City would need to make significant investments and basically launch news operations from scratch. Global also had far more of an existing audience for their news programming, CityNews really doesn't have an existing audience outside Toronto.



    Ya, just like how Rogers couldn't sell any advertisements on top of the Dundas Street studios for three years, and that the billboards across the street on the Eaton Centre couldn't sell advertisement space to Global or CTV. Just think of all those loss Rookie Blue ads that they couldn't make money off of; no advertisements that took those spots could ever match the the buying power of Global's Rookie Blue.
    My point is, they are already trying to sell them something losing millions of dollars each year, for them to then also demand they give up advertising revenue for free commercials is ridiculous.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 06-26-2014 at 07:46 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •