The Rise and Rise of FX

Syferus

I thought it's about time someone waxed lyrical on how nicely FX has developed over the last year or two.

It's got a great stable of shows, picking the best shows from Canada and other places where almost all stations here ignore. Some of it misses, but the tonal change from the US and UK shows is noticable and interesting even in those cases.

It's also picked up alot of great US shows that other stations foolishly passed on - the absolutely fantastic Colbert Report being the most obvious example - and have effectively placed and marketed shows that other stations picked up, but have no interest in putting on at a conductive time - like Life.

They've also commissioned their first 'home-grown' show in No Signal, which although it uses a well-worn sketch show format, is far from tripe of the likes of the Kevin Bishop Show.

Oh, and having a HD channel for it's newer shows don't hurt their reputation an ounce.

And yes, yawnsome zealots, I know FX is a regional variation of Fox US's 'FX' cable channel, and that means it's also owned by News Corporation and Ruppie Murdoch.

And it doesn't matter one single bit.

Jip

I've been waxing lyrical to 'real' people in the office and at home. It really is a great channel these days and when you look at my Sky+ planner the vast majority are for FX programs and it's been like this the last couple of years. The problem they have now is how to keep this standard going as they've set the bar really high.

Here's hoping The Listener which starts Sunday is good and there's another program starting Monday, can't remember the name, but it's about this group infiltrating a bank robbing gang, AC something or another. edit - just checked their site, it's UC Undercover. Seems to be getting mixed reviews but I'll give it a go anyway.

Oat23

Love the shows FX have right now.

Colbert Report
The Wire(sometimes still shown)
Burn Notice
Cops:D

One of my favourite channels.

KerranJast

The proper FX channel makes some cracking stuff like Rescue Me and Damages.

eddiehobbs

Anyone watch underbelly on fx?? Thought it was excellent. Im also following the border aswell and find it quite good

alpha2zulu

The Colbert Report on FX at 11/1130 Mon-Friday really is a little gem of comedy. Very Surprised no other channels had picked it up before,much more entertaining than the Daily show.

Mossy Monk

FX is one of the few channels on Sky that has managed to be consistantly entertaining. They do show some really fantastic programmes.

Syferus

alpha2zulu wrote: »

The Colbert Report on FX at 11/1130 Mon-Friday really is a little gem of comedy. Very Surprised no other channels had picked it up before,much more entertaining than the Daily show.

Well, it's actually Tuesday-Friday at midnight, as what's on on Monday's is just a clip show of the week before.

Besides that, I absolutely agree. John Stewert is a producer of The Colbert Report and of course Colbert's 'Colbert' character was first a reporter on The Daily Show, so he's at least got an eye for talent.

chalkitdown1

FX would be a great channel IF they showed things on time. Waiting a whole year after the States for things like Dexter and Generation Kill is nothing short of a joke.

Syferus

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

FX would be a great channel IF they showed things on time. Waiting a whole year after the States for things like Dexter and Generation Kill is nothing short of a joke.

It isn't year - Generation Kill was only aired about seven months ago on HBO and no other station had the sense to pick it up in that time either, nor is it indictive of all of their shows. The Colbert Report is shown on a 24 hour delay, for example.

Nor does it effect the quaility of the shows no one else even bothered to look at, let alone pick up.

MattEmulsion

It's an enjoyable channel allright, however when you look at the ratings for Generation Kill (32,000 viewers in the UK, even with promotional push and tons of press coverage) if it wasn't for Rupert's endless cash they'd be screwed

Syferus

MattEmulsion wrote: »

It's an enjoyable channel allright, however when you look at the ratings for Generation Kill (32,000 viewers in the UK, even with promotional push and tons of press coverage) if it wasn't for Rupert's endless cash they'd be screwed

Which is a completely wrong assumption.

Just because the owner of the group that owns the group that owns FX (RE: degrees of seperation) is a billionaire doesn't mean they will pump huge amounts of money into something that isn't profitable. Cable/digital channels are far less tethered by ratings than networks, so that's the first factor.

Couple that with the fact FX hasn't huge viewership conversely meaning it can get shows like Generaiton Kill for relatively cheap prices and the fact that almost all of it's promotion is on it's own station or ones affiliated to it pretty much roll back any suggestion that it's ratings are anything below normal - the station had a share of 0.1% in 2007, and 0.2% in February 2008.

It's easy for the un-informed to sneer at those sorts of shares, but that's exactly what cable stations like FX go in realistically aiming for, especially as subscribers increase and market share is far more fragmented.

MattEmulsion

Syferus wrote: »

Couple that with the fact FX hasn't huge viewership conversely meaning it can get shows like Generaiton Kill for relatively cheap prices and the fact that almost all of it's promotion is on it's own station or ones affiliated to it pretty much roll back any suggestion that it's ratings are anything below normal - the station had a share of 0.1% in 2007, and 0.2% in February 2008.

It's easy for the un-informed to sneer at those sorts of shares, but that's exactly what cable stations like FX go in realistically aiming for, especially as subscribers increase and market share is far more fragmented.

1) I was not sneering mearly pointing out a fact about ratings (I fail to see how saying 'it's an enjoyable channel' is sneering
2) I know how tv works and would consider myself fairly welll informed.
3) It's a fact studios dont sell based on market share (if so channel 6 would have bought up Lost, Desperate Housewives, Coronation Street etc at a cheaper price than RTÉ, Sky or TV3 pay) i.e. they don't sell cheap to smaller operators cheap because they have no share, HBO would have sold this to any operator in the market at the market rate - this is how capitalism works
(now I am sneering)
4) since cable digital operators are tied by ratings (unless you subscribe to them directly a la Sky movies) they are fighting for the same adverting buck.
(Note: When you speak of subscribers, I have FX but it comes free with my Sky package in the same way The Paranormal Channel or Bravo does so fail to see your point.)

Sir, you are wrong

Syferus

MattEmulsion wrote: »

1) I was not sneering mearly pointing out a fact about ratings (I fail to see how saying 'it's an enjoyable channel' is sneering
2) I know how tv works and would consider myself fairly welll informed.
3) It's a fact studios dont sell based on market share (if so channel 6 would have bought up Lost, Desperate Housewives, Coronation Street etc at a cheaper price than RTÉ, Sky or TV3 pay) i.e. they don't sell cheap to smaller operators cheap because they have no share, HBO would have sold this to any operator in the market at the market rate - this is how capitalism works
(now I am sneering)
4) since cable digital operators are tied by ratings (unless you subscribe to them directly a la Sky movies) they are fighting for the same adverting buck.
(Note: When you speak of subscribers, I have FX but it comes free with my Sky package in the same way The Paranormal Channel or Bravo does so fail to see your point.)

Sir, you are wrong

It's a 'fact' that cable stations don't get charged in the same manner as networks, and 3e is a cable station so you brought up a terrible example as they can buy up the irish cable rights to shows already on networks - they show CSI even though RTÉ has the rights to it too - and shows like Coronation Street are shown because it's also owned by Granda, who produces the show.

Your suggestion that there's almost a flat rate for shows on cable is pretty absurd. It's a far more complex process.

You also ignored the point that since FX is owned directly by FOX, rather than bSkyb, it has established agreements to show these shows on its multiple international stations, and in many cases active shares in the production houses involved.

FX isn't free-to-air - it's subscription is part of the Entertainment pack almsot everyone opts for. That doesn't mean you don't pay for it. As is Bravo.

To that, ratings are far less important on cable due to the amount of stations and thus fragmentation of the audience. Do you realy think there would be so many long established stations with market shares of 0.1% if it was not a profitable venture to buy these shows efficiently and cheaply and sell advertising in a simliar manner? Cable channels make modest profits, which also enables them to be freer in the content they can put on.

In any case, when I spoke of subscribers it was about subscribers to Sky, Virgin, et al - not that FX was a premium stand-alone channel.

On point two - we all think we're well informed. It doesn't mean we are.

MattEmulsion

Syferus wrote: »

It's a 'fact' that cable stations don't get charged in the same manner as networks, and 3e is a cable station so you brought up a terrible example as they can buy up the irish cable rights to shows already on networks - they show CSI even though RTÉ has the rights to it too - and shows like Coronation Street are shown because it's also owned by Granda, who produces the show.(1)

Your suggestion that there's almost a flat rate for shows on cable is pretty absurd. It's a far more complex process. (2)

You also ignored the point that since FX is owned directly by FOX, rather than bSkyb, it has established agreements to show these shows on its multiple international stations, and in many cases active shares in the production houses involved.(3)

FX isn't free-to-air - it's subscription is part of the Entertainment pack almsot everyone opts for. That doesn't mean you don't pay for it. As is Bravo.

To that, ratings are far less important on cable due to the amount of stations and thus fragmentation of the audience. Do you realy think there would be so many long established stations with market shares of 0.1% if it was not a profitable venture to buy these shows efficiently and cheaply and sell advertising in a simliar manner? Cable channels make modest profits, which also enables them to be freer in the content they can put on.(4)

1> Yes they can buy the rights but the rights holder for these shows tends to be the established players and they would have to pay full network rates for the new season of CSI, at the moment they get the old stuff cheap

2> Ok please explain the complex process to me then, if it's not based on the amount of money you are willing to pay (bulk international deals excluded) then please explain the magic formula to me

3> Yes I did, but given they can spread the cost across multiple platforms then well done them, doesnt change the fact that FX UK which is the case in point relies on the ability to spread the cost and risk across other stations in the Fox family, therefore they are still relying on other parts of News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch - and don't get me wrong I admire the man)

4> Ditto part 2 but lets see who gets shook out of sky with the crunch - imo the companies who still have deep pockets, NewsCorp, Viacom etc will still be standing whilst a hell of a lot of .1%s will be lost as they don't have the backing of the others

Elmo

The TV3 Group of channels are not owned by Granada (Now ITV plc). The TV3 Group have a contract with ITV plc until 2013 for ITV Network shows.

I do not think that "The TV3 Group" Terrestrial Rights for CSI or Law & Order hence they are not shown on TV3. And as stated cheaper then the terrestrial rights as described above.

Like Channel 6 and House, FX may have bought the exclusive rights to such shows as The Wire.

I don't have FX it sounds better the Sky One and Virgin One.

Ruppie Murdoch

Sir Rupert Murdoch, we wouldn't like to continue looking foolish now would we