UN
Ranvir has presented nat a couple of times.
Last edited by Universal_r on 21 July 2020 1:31pm
JL
Missed her last week. Vaguely remember Ranvir being on the Ten coming up in discussion a few months ago.
On the topic of next gen ITV News. I think Ranvir could be a great candidate for the next lead anchor if Tom ever moves on. I know her contract is with ITV Breakfast, but IMO she's one of the best anchors on TV atm
On the topic of next gen ITV News. I think Ranvir could be a great candidate for the next lead anchor if Tom ever moves on. I know her contract is with ITV Breakfast, but IMO she's one of the best anchors on TV atm
SW
As you suggest, the reason they moved the teatime news to 6.30 was to meet the requirement for half an hour of news in primetime (ie, 6-11pm), so when News at Ten came back they were indeed now exceeding that quota by some distance with two news programmes in primetime, which had never been the case before with the teatime news out of primetime.
At the time it was sold as a compromise because after the news moved to eleven the cumulative ratings for ITV News dropped really quite substantially - I assume ITV were required to give some reassurances to the ITC about the kind of figures they were expecting based on audience research when they were given permission to move the news, and they failed to meet those. So the ITC were then seemingly required to ask ITV for some observations and suggestions as to how they could bring them back up again, hence the return of News at Ten but not every night.
It might also have had something to do with the failure to find anything else at 10pm as well, of course. The whole reason ITV moved News at Ten the first time was because the Beeb were getting millions of viewers at 10pm with shows like They Think It's All Over and The Frank Skinner Show, and millions of lucrative young ABC1 viewers to boot, and they really, really wanted to tap into the market. And the first few weeks of the new schedules looked amazing, with quality drama, film premieres, premium sport and adult comedy all running past 10pm. Unfortunately there was only a finite amount of the first three, and all their attempts at the latter were crap, and even signing Frank Skinner himself didn't help, so within months they were just showing all the same odds and sods they were showing at 10.30 before the news moved. So in the end the 10pm slot became a right dumping ground which did alright when they could run a big drama past 10pm, but not when they had to start from scratch there, so presumably the News at When era was an attempt to have the best of both worlds, the flexibility to do the former without having the issue of the latter. But it just meant nobody knew when it was on.
The second time they brought it back was absolutely because the 10pm slot was becoming a right state. 10.30 looked the best slot for the news on paper, but in practice it was probably the worst, because pretty much all their dramas were in one and two hour duration, so they needed endless half hour shows for 10pm. That would have been alright if they had a load of sitcoms and panel shows that could have played there, but they didn't, so they ended up showing all kinds of crap there, and in the end ITV were being beaten every night at 10pm by the news on BBC1, and then beaten again at 10.30 when they were showing the news. So moving the news back to ten was a no-brainer, because as well as filling that awkward slot it was an easy PR win.
Where they forced to bring it back? I thought they have a requirement for effectively a half hour news in peak time, and the 6:30pm news meets that requirement. Wasn't it just that they didn't have any other content that rated consistently at 10pm, and that they had lost a lot of viewers to the BBC?
As you suggest, the reason they moved the teatime news to 6.30 was to meet the requirement for half an hour of news in primetime (ie, 6-11pm), so when News at Ten came back they were indeed now exceeding that quota by some distance with two news programmes in primetime, which had never been the case before with the teatime news out of primetime.
At the time it was sold as a compromise because after the news moved to eleven the cumulative ratings for ITV News dropped really quite substantially - I assume ITV were required to give some reassurances to the ITC about the kind of figures they were expecting based on audience research when they were given permission to move the news, and they failed to meet those. So the ITC were then seemingly required to ask ITV for some observations and suggestions as to how they could bring them back up again, hence the return of News at Ten but not every night.
It might also have had something to do with the failure to find anything else at 10pm as well, of course. The whole reason ITV moved News at Ten the first time was because the Beeb were getting millions of viewers at 10pm with shows like They Think It's All Over and The Frank Skinner Show, and millions of lucrative young ABC1 viewers to boot, and they really, really wanted to tap into the market. And the first few weeks of the new schedules looked amazing, with quality drama, film premieres, premium sport and adult comedy all running past 10pm. Unfortunately there was only a finite amount of the first three, and all their attempts at the latter were crap, and even signing Frank Skinner himself didn't help, so within months they were just showing all the same odds and sods they were showing at 10.30 before the news moved. So in the end the 10pm slot became a right dumping ground which did alright when they could run a big drama past 10pm, but not when they had to start from scratch there, so presumably the News at When era was an attempt to have the best of both worlds, the flexibility to do the former without having the issue of the latter. But it just meant nobody knew when it was on.
The second time they brought it back was absolutely because the 10pm slot was becoming a right state. 10.30 looked the best slot for the news on paper, but in practice it was probably the worst, because pretty much all their dramas were in one and two hour duration, so they needed endless half hour shows for 10pm. That would have been alright if they had a load of sitcoms and panel shows that could have played there, but they didn't, so they ended up showing all kinds of crap there, and in the end ITV were being beaten every night at 10pm by the news on BBC1, and then beaten again at 10.30 when they were showing the news. So moving the news back to ten was a no-brainer, because as well as filling that awkward slot it was an easy PR win.
JO
It might also have had something to do with the failure to find anything else at 10pm as well, of course. The whole reason ITV moved News at Ten the first time was because the Beeb were getting millions of viewers at 10pm with shows like They Think It's All Over and The Frank Skinner Show, and millions of lucrative young ABC1 viewers to boot, and they really, really wanted to tap into the market. And the first few weeks of the new schedules looked amazing, with quality drama, film premieres, premium sport and adult comedy all running past 10pm. Unfortunately there was only a finite amount of the first three, and all their attempts at the latter were crap, and even signing Frank Skinner himself didn't help, so within months they were just showing all the same odds and sods they were showing at 10.30 before the news moved. So in the end the 10pm slot became a right dumping ground which did alright when they could run a big drama past 10pm, but not when they had to start from scratch there, so presumably the News at When era was an attempt to have the best of both worlds, the flexibility to do the former without having the issue of the latter. But it just meant nobody knew when it was on.
The second time they brought it back was absolutely because the 10pm slot was becoming a right state. 10.30 looked the best slot for the news on paper, but in practice it was probably the worst, because pretty much all their dramas were in one and two hour duration, so they needed endless half hour shows for 10pm. That would have been alright if they had a load of sitcoms and panel shows that could have played there, but they didn't, so they ended up showing all kinds of crap there, and in the end ITV were being beaten every night at 10pm by the news on BBC1, and then beaten again at 10.30 when they were showing the news. So moving the news back to ten was a no-brainer, because as well as filling that awkward slot it was an easy PR win.
Lorraine Heggessey was on the MediaMasters podcast and she mentioned that ITV moving News at Ten gave BBC One the opportunity to truly compete at 9pm by moving their news to 10pm because 9.30pm was an awkward slot because you were starting half way through other programmes and they felt they were wasting expensive dramas although because they moved so quickly, they have ten minute fillers because many dramas were 50 minutes.
There was a period where ITV dramas were 90 minutes in order to fill the slot on weekdays, when NAT returns, many went back to being 1 hour.
It might also have had something to do with the failure to find anything else at 10pm as well, of course. The whole reason ITV moved News at Ten the first time was because the Beeb were getting millions of viewers at 10pm with shows like They Think It's All Over and The Frank Skinner Show, and millions of lucrative young ABC1 viewers to boot, and they really, really wanted to tap into the market. And the first few weeks of the new schedules looked amazing, with quality drama, film premieres, premium sport and adult comedy all running past 10pm. Unfortunately there was only a finite amount of the first three, and all their attempts at the latter were crap, and even signing Frank Skinner himself didn't help, so within months they were just showing all the same odds and sods they were showing at 10.30 before the news moved. So in the end the 10pm slot became a right dumping ground which did alright when they could run a big drama past 10pm, but not when they had to start from scratch there, so presumably the News at When era was an attempt to have the best of both worlds, the flexibility to do the former without having the issue of the latter. But it just meant nobody knew when it was on.
The second time they brought it back was absolutely because the 10pm slot was becoming a right state. 10.30 looked the best slot for the news on paper, but in practice it was probably the worst, because pretty much all their dramas were in one and two hour duration, so they needed endless half hour shows for 10pm. That would have been alright if they had a load of sitcoms and panel shows that could have played there, but they didn't, so they ended up showing all kinds of crap there, and in the end ITV were being beaten every night at 10pm by the news on BBC1, and then beaten again at 10.30 when they were showing the news. So moving the news back to ten was a no-brainer, because as well as filling that awkward slot it was an easy PR win.
Lorraine Heggessey was on the MediaMasters podcast and she mentioned that ITV moving News at Ten gave BBC One the opportunity to truly compete at 9pm by moving their news to 10pm because 9.30pm was an awkward slot because you were starting half way through other programmes and they felt they were wasting expensive dramas although because they moved so quickly, they have ten minute fillers because many dramas were 50 minutes.
There was a period where ITV dramas were 90 minutes in order to fill the slot on weekdays, when NAT returns, many went back to being 1 hour.
SO
Drama on BBC1 somehow seemed to improve when it had a 2100 start. So many of the 2130 dramas during the Nineties- as satirised by the Monkfish sketch in The Fast Show- were just abysmal. Stuff like latter-era Dangerfield and Badger starring Jerome Flynn. Post-2000 things really improved with the new timeslot showcasing the new 60 minute productions.
SW
The move of the news also coincided with an increase of the BBC1 drama budget, so there was absolutely tonnes of new drama on BBC1, probably more than there's ever been before or since.
Before that they had terrible trouble cracking popular drama on BBC1, 'stEnders and Casualty aside. Will Wyatt talks about all the trouble they had with it because the drama department was only interested in making one-offs and the Head of Drama was Mark Shivas who "presided over, rather than ran the department" and it was massively prone to self-indulgence, and when they tried to do populist stuff with Eldorado it was a disaster. One reason why Dangerfield went on so long was because it was about the nearest thing they had to a hit.
Drama on BBC1 somehow seemed to improve when it had a 2100 start. So many of the 2130 dramas during the Nineties- as satirised by the Monkfish sketch in The Fast Show- were just abysmal. Stuff like latter-era Dangerfield and Badger starring Jerome Flynn. Post-2000 things really improved with the new timeslot showcasing the new 60 minute productions.
The move of the news also coincided with an increase of the BBC1 drama budget, so there was absolutely tonnes of new drama on BBC1, probably more than there's ever been before or since.
Before that they had terrible trouble cracking popular drama on BBC1, 'stEnders and Casualty aside. Will Wyatt talks about all the trouble they had with it because the drama department was only interested in making one-offs and the Head of Drama was Mark Shivas who "presided over, rather than ran the department" and it was massively prone to self-indulgence, and when they tried to do populist stuff with Eldorado it was a disaster. One reason why Dangerfield went on so long was because it was about the nearest thing they had to a hit.
JO
The move of the news also coincided with an increase of the BBC1 drama budget, so there was absolutely tonnes of new drama on BBC1, probably more than there's ever been before or since.
Before that they had terrible trouble cracking popular drama on BBC1, 'stEnders and Casualty aside. Will Wyatt talks about all the trouble they had with it because the drama department was only interested in making one-offs and the Head of Drama was Mark Shivas who "presided over, rather than ran the department" and it was massively prone to self-indulgence, and when they tried to do populist stuff with Eldorado it was a disaster. One reason why Dangerfield went on so long was because it was about the nearest thing they had to a hit.
When you compare BBC One's dramas to ITV's drama in the 90s, ITV wiped the floor with them. Not that Ballykissangel and Pie in the Sky were bad dramas but they were a little samey compared to what ITV was offering at the time although Silent Witness was the stand out for the BBC in that era.
Once Jane Tranter came in and commissioned things like Waking the Dead, Spooks etc BBC One got their mojo back.
The move of the news also coincided with an increase of the BBC1 drama budget, so there was absolutely tonnes of new drama on BBC1, probably more than there's ever been before or since.
Before that they had terrible trouble cracking popular drama on BBC1, 'stEnders and Casualty aside. Will Wyatt talks about all the trouble they had with it because the drama department was only interested in making one-offs and the Head of Drama was Mark Shivas who "presided over, rather than ran the department" and it was massively prone to self-indulgence, and when they tried to do populist stuff with Eldorado it was a disaster. One reason why Dangerfield went on so long was because it was about the nearest thing they had to a hit.
When you compare BBC One's dramas to ITV's drama in the 90s, ITV wiped the floor with them. Not that Ballykissangel and Pie in the Sky were bad dramas but they were a little samey compared to what ITV was offering at the time although Silent Witness was the stand out for the BBC in that era.
Once Jane Tranter came in and commissioned things like Waking the Dead, Spooks etc BBC One got their mojo back.
LO
ITV's director of news and current affairs spent an hour giving evidence to the House of Lords communications committee yesterday
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9ccb9187-f12c-4c51-8d96-4edbc2434e85
He talked about plans for having more live news content on the ITV Hub - a sort of pop-up news channel for big events.
(The sort of thing they've done on social media streams in the past few years.)
He also mentioned the new Sunday morning show All About Britain which will bring together positive stories from the regions
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9ccb9187-f12c-4c51-8d96-4edbc2434e85
He talked about plans for having more live news content on the ITV Hub - a sort of pop-up news channel for big events.
(The sort of thing they've done on social media streams in the past few years.)
He also mentioned the new Sunday morning show All About Britain which will bring together positive stories from the regions
SL
The cost of running an online-stream channel, similar to ABC News Live or CBSN must be greatly cheaper than running a broadcast channel. They could quite easily fill the online channel with ITV News repeats, Tonight repeats, first look screening of Peston, all intertwined with live events, press conferences and special coverage.