1988 episodes on That's TV 2-Discussion

[nenehcherry2]

Is it not just possible that the H&A reruns on 7Two were not that commercially viable? Or that Seven got far more viewing figures (thus revenue) from whatever they replaced it with?

Sure, the costs to play the repeats would have been minimal (potentially some royalty fees to the actors if that is true, maybe some costs to improve the visual quality) but Seven are a for-profit organisation at the end of day who want to maximise their ROI. Just a theory. Do we have any viewing figures for the repeats? What replaced it on the schedules? Again, viewing figures?

Or course, this does not excuse Seven's non-transparency (& potential lies) when folks have contacted them to query the removal of the series. But maybe they're just lying to keep their audience happy. And to protect their reputation. 

Just throwing it out there.

 

[hapitoby]

4 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Is it not just possible that the H&A reruns on 7Two were not that commercially viable? Or that Seven got far more viewing figures (thus revenue) from whatever they replaced it with?

Sure, the costs to play the repeats would have been minimal (potentially some royalty fees to the actors if that is true, maybe some costs to improve the visual quality) but Seven are a for-profit organisation at the end of day who want to maximise their ROI. Just a theory. Do we have any viewing figures for the repeats? What replaced it on the schedules? Again, viewing figures?

Or course, this does not excuse Seven's non-transparency (& potential lies) when folks have contacted them to query the removal of the series. But maybe they're just lying to keep their audience happy. And to protect their reputation. 

Just throwing it out there.

 

I may be misremembering but I'm certain the viewing figures did very well and like you said it most likely is cheap for them to do. I think there were articles (maybe on this site if I recall correctly) that showed how well it was doing consistently. I'm sure someone has more information on it.

7 just haven't seemed loyal to the fanbase in years. I think it was just too much hassle for them and they had other things they could throw on so they could focus their attention on more profitable things in their main channel. Current Home And Away rates pretty well so they're probably not too fussed with focusing on previous years.

[cymbaline]

6 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

And yet, yet again, we had two episodes from later in 1996 in Channel 5's latest online old episodes package, which leaves me continuing to doubt that this so-called rights issue is anything other than a convenient excuse or, at most, a minor inconvenience.

If they're only re-showing random episodes from that time, it's not going to cost them a lot. Aside from the money that might be involved, I think they mostly can't be bothered dragging those old episodes out of storage. I assume they digitised the original 2 series for Amazon Prime and those files are what they're wheeling out again. 

[CaptainHulk]

8 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Is it not just possible that the H&A reruns on 7Two were not that commercially viable? Or that Seven got far more viewing figures (thus revenue) from whatever they replaced it with?

Sure, the costs to play the repeats would have been minimal (potentially some royalty fees to the actors if that is true, maybe some costs to improve the visual quality) but Seven are a for-profit organisation at the end of day who want to maximise their ROI. Just a theory. Do we have any viewing figures for the repeats? What replaced it on the schedules? Again, viewing figures?

Or course, this does not excuse Seven's non-transparency (& potential lies) when folks have contacted them to query the removal of the series. But maybe they're just lying to keep their audience happy. And to protect their reputation. 

Just throwing it out there.

 

More people were probably watching it than that Tosh they replaced it with.

Just throwing out there.

[nenehcherry2]

1 hour ago, CaptainHulk said:

More people were probably watching it than that Tosh they replaced it with.

Just throwing out there.

I'm going to throw it out there that I don't know what tosh they replaced it with...

[Martin2013]

I understand that both ITV2 and Living previously repeated episodes from 1921 onwards but am pretty sure 1881 to 1920 have never been rerun here since their first broadcast so what would the rights issues with those eps be?

 

 

[early years fan]

1 hour ago, nenehcherry2 said:

I'm going to throw it out there that I don't know what tosh they replaced it with...

repeats of an old game show million dollar minute

[nenehcherry2]

3 hours ago, early years fan said:

repeats of an old game show million dollar minute

Sounds hideous!

[homeandawayroxsomuch.]

On 06/01/2024 at 19:56, Martin2013 said:

I understand that both ITV2 and Living previously repeated episodes from 1921 onwards but am pretty sure 1881 to 1920 have never been rerun here since their first broadcast so what would the rights issues with those eps be?

 

 

I'm sure that I've seen episode 1912 (the flood, episode ending with Michael going missing) on 5 Star or My5 at some point and episode 1917 has appeared in the famous faces (Michael Palin) week in the selection of episodes that has been on My5 over this just past end-of-year break period.

Shouldn't those episodes also be affected by whatever issue this is?

[cymbaline]

10 minutes ago, homeandawayroxsomuch. said:

I'm sure that I've seen episode 1912 (the flood, episode ending with Michael going missing) on 5 Star or My5 at some point and episode 1917 has appeared in the famous faces (Michael Palin) week in the selection of episodes that has been on My5 over this just past end-of-year break period.

Shouldn't those episodes also be affected by whatever issue this is?

If paying actors etc. is the issue, showing one-off episodes is unlikely to be a big deal.