G Bigger in UK than TV?


Channel 4's chief executive says that Google will overtake Channel4's advertising revenue before the end of the year.

According to Brand Republic

The search giant, which acquired video-sharing site YouTube for $1.65bn (£884m) last month, will pull in around £900m of ad revenue in the UK by the end of the year according to Duncan, in comparison with Channel 4's estimated £800m.

Channel 4 is the UK's 4th terrestial TV service with a myriad of secondary digital channels including Film4 which recently changed from a subscription to advertising supported, free to view digital channel.

The Financial Times says.

Mr Duncan said he had visited Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California last month, and Channel 4, the second largest commercial broadcaster in the UK after ITV, had held discussions about making its programming available through Google.

Remember that Channel 4 is not a traditional media business and (in effect) is state owned Who Owns Channel 4?


Channel Four Television Corporation was set up by an Act of Parliament. It is a publicly owned corporation and does not have any shareholders.

Is G bigger that TV, at least in the UK, now ?


define bigger :)

Bigger in advertising revenue? Well bigger than Channel 4 by the sounds of it but Channel 4 is a tiny part of TV ad revenue.

Bigger in terms of audience reach? Again bigger than Channel 4 yes but not bigger than TV in general

Google and Channel 4 are somewhat different I would say. Google has the huge strength of targeted advertising - if you're looking for 'cheap DVD's' then ads for cheap DVD's are going to be pretty well targetted while the best the TV can really do is offer you an ad slot during the chart show.

TV has other benefits however. Its rare for a kid to write their christmas list based on Adwords they have seen but I'd bet that a fair few are watching the ads with more interest than the programmes on afternoon TV about now.

At the point when TV's and PC's become interchangable then TV advertising will likely suffer badly but for the moment my TV has split screen and full laptop compatibility and I'm a (oh no!) geek but I still watch TV on my TV and surf the net on my laptop and don't have any real urge to watch Utube instead of TV, dire as it can sometimes be.

Excellent points Gurtie and

Excellent points Gurtie and I agree entirely, but it definately makes you sit up and take more notice of G and our industry.

more notice....

Geez, I've had dreams about Google.
How sad is that?

TV's and PC's become interchangable

I watch movies on my PC, what's your point?

I don't have a tuner card in it yet, but the next PC will be a one-stop entertainment center, with the minor exception that I won't be plugging it into the 50" plasma.

That's next decade.

my point is that you're not normal, Bill.

I don't watch movies on my PC, and in fact I don't use my laptop to play the DVD's even through the TV, which I can, I went and got a DVD player to do that. The way I do it is currently much more common than the way you do.

Most people use a PC and a TV for leisure use but don't consider the two the same thing - so discussions about online ads being bigger than TV ads aren't comparing like to like (yet), its sort of like my saying that the spend on newspaper ads is bigger than the spend on billboards in the UK. Irrelevant.

Even those who do use their computer to watch movies probably use a DVD and don't see online ads. They see what's on the DVD. No benefit for Google there unless you hunt for takeout pizza while watching.

Interesting trend though and when those 1960's illustrations of the digital house come true and we're all watching TV on our fridges then the 'in' that the online players have now will doubtless be leveraged to the detriment of the more traditional agents.

Not a lot channel 4 can do about that at the moment though unless they fancy buying Yahoo out.

You guys / girls missed the point

You guys missed the point.

See the TV stations didn't have this problem 10 years ago.

In a few years from now they won't be able to go to a day of work without thinking about it.

A few years after that they would be sitting there wondering why they are laid off from their former TV station.

Something changed in the industry people... this article is stating that... not just a simple measure of how many dollars went where.

It's a trend that is growing at an alarming (for the stations) pace.

Didn't miss the point pal,

Didn't miss the point pal, simply accepting that the marketplace is changing and that it is a good thing that the stations identify and act now before it is 10 years down the line.

Although this is about Channel4 it could well be any tv station anywhere in the world. And although it would have been better to act historically, acting now is better than tomorrow

is there a point to miss?

I still don't agree with the basic premise that TV is dying a death, but lets accept it for the moment.

And lets stick with channel 4 since they're the original example and I know a little about them.

So yeah, people watch less moving pictures on TV and more on their computers. So? Channel 4 does have to continue to focus on TV in the main because its public funded and its remit is that - it has to produce educational programmes etc etc. However Channel 4 has been producing mobile content for a couple of years now - it produces clips of programmes, different interactive stuff, all sorts of crud which it provides as mobile content and it signed a new deal with Vilantis a couple of months ago to expand the offering.

I'm not sure what it provides online as yet but a really quick look at the homepage shows a simulcast, radio, online films, news clips etc. There's probably more I'm missing.

It also makes a load of TV which it sells to whoever wants to buy it. I guess if Google wants to buy it and show ads against it its no skin off channel 4's nose.

So that's a public service broadcaster - one which doesn't really have to worry too much because if TV dies overnight it will still get money to tick over producing what it was started to produce. I'm sure that not all TV companies are as advanced as that, and of course ones which only exist to make money from commercials will suffer, but they go bust all the time - most of the majors have fingers in many pies already.

The internet is not going to be the death of every other type of media, any more than TV was the death of newspapers. It caused some problems, sure, because making, say, a third channel where people can easily get news is naturally going to dilute the existing two channels. It may even turn out to be more popular than the other two, but so what?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.