aberdeenboy's posts, page 28

OLD ITV muilt regional...

As far as I know, Tyne Tees wasn't considered a large regional. Children's and schools programmes, incidentally, were covered by yet another arrangement!

The big five, of course, were Thames, LWT, Yorkshire, ATV/Central and Granada, The "large regionals" were Southern/TVS, Anglia, STV and HTV. This was as much to do with their ambitions to make network programming as their financial strength or the size of the region.

In the 80s, LWT and TVS tried to work together to turn TVS into a "sixth major" at the weekend. It's all very complex. Thank goodness these arrangements have gone!!!

OLD ITV muilt regional...

In response to the original question, in short, the answer is yes.

Before 1993, the ITV networking arrangements were incredibly complex - the joke was that nobody in ITV even understood the system properly.

But, very basically, there were three kinds of programmes.

*Those which were available across the whole network. The big five companies bought and sold programmes amongst each other with the "large regional" companies like STV, HTV, Anglia and TVS getting some opportunities to make network output. The smaller companies had deals to ensure access to the network output at an affordable cost. In effect, the Big Five subsidised the network schedule and the smaller stations didn't pay their full whack.

* Quasi networking amongst regional companies. Basically, this was where regional companies "sold" programmes directly to each other. For instance, Tyne Tees used to "sell" Farming Outlook to the Scottish and northern regions while STV and Grampian took a lot of each other's output.

*Programmes made for transmission within an individual region which were never seen anywhere else.

It was all very complex. The kind of thing which could only happen in a monopoly.

After 1993 the network centre took care of national programmes and each region took care of its own output - simple as that. But there were still examples of deals between the regional companies for individual programmes. For instance UTV and Grampian (when it was still independently owned) both bought High Road from STV.

BBC squashing all credits still more

Cliffhanger was withdrawn after several hundred complaints from viewers who found its theme offensive and upsetting - perhaps understandably, the irony in the trailer was missed by many.

That's quite different to a modest number of e-mails from Pres enthusiasts with their own very detailed and, occasionally, obsessional views on how junctions and channel branding should look.

And before anybody says they find credit squeezes offensive and upsetting, we're talking here about the apparent implication in Cliffhanger that it was ok to sit back and do nothing while someone dangles from a cliff and falls to their doom!

If you want to complain, I'd suggest you identify individual examples of credit squeezes which you consider tastless - for instance, were a trail for a comedy programme to be placed seconds after the end of a sensitive drama. That's a fair and arguable point.

However you'll be doing well to find many people who are not Pres enthusiasts or members of Bectu or Equity who'll be too hot under the collar about the very idea of credit squeezes.

BBC squashing all credits still more

Sorry, I just love the thought of someone hanging on to find out who the Dubbing Mixer on The Apprentice was... and then being disappointed. I thought I needed a life! (Only teasing - hope nobody's offended.)

The fact is that credits - other than the cast list and key creative roles like the director - are an indulgence. They somehow became the norm in the film and tv industry in the late 50s/early 60s, largely to help freelance staff. The words "The End" were deemed insufficient.

Now, I don't dispute how they may help some individuals find work but if someone needs to prove they worked on a programme there are plenty of ways of doing this - websites could carry the information or staff could simply be given references.

Within the industry, opinion is split on credits - it largely depends on which area of programming someone works in and whether they give credits. People in news and sport especially tend to treat the indulgences of some other departments with a little ridicule.

However it is a fact that credits are, at best, treated with indifference by most viewers. They simply don't watch, go zapping or make a cup of tea.

With that in mind, I don't see what's wrong with marketing attempting to hold the audience into the next programme. Before someone says that the problem is the number of trails in the junction, most of the zapping is done before the trails get started.

The problem is the way ECPs are sometimes executed. For instance if the programme being promoted clashes with the one which is ending or if there is an obvious change of mood.

Similarly it can be difficult if the end titles are quite visual - you just need to look at BBC4's attempts at ECPs on some archive programmes. (Essentially the same problem as there's always been with announcers interrupting popular signature tunes.)

However anybody who imagines the wider viewing public - or indeed everyone in the TV industry apart from the marketing department - is going to get upset or annoyed about this is harbouring illusions. This is not the equivalent of a DOG on BBC1 or some of the loathing of the Rhythm and Movement idents. Which is not to say that there may not be worthwhile constructive criticism of the way the BBC is now handling its ECPs.

STV News

I'm sure many people would indeed rather that things continued the way they are - but is that necessarily the right thing for a commercial broadcaster to do?

Scotland Today and North Tonight do not generate revenue for STV - at least none to speak of. No advertising is sold during these programmes. In commercial terms, they are expenditure and not income. While they are valued by many people, ultimately they exist to meet a legal obligation.

That means they are tightly resourced to the level necessary to meet that obligation. Within that, hard decisions need to be made about how to provide the most effective service.

There's a very real discussion to have about exactly what kind of mix of local, regional and Scottish national news STV viewers want.

My gut feeling is that people are interested in their own local news and Scottish national news - but not news which reflects the artificial boundaries of the old Scottish and Grampian areas.

SMG could argue that viewers would get a better service if it concentrated resources on one Scottish national programme but with expanded sub-opts which were, say, 10 minutes long instead of six.

As for how politicians might react - well, for the most part they only care about how often they get their own mugs on the box. Many of them protested about the end of the Grampian name but SMG had only a handful of complaints from members of the public. Do we really want to live in a country where the views of numpty politicians about tv programmes they don't watch matter more than the views of viewers and broadcasters?

However Ofcom would very definitely need to approve any radical changes to the STV news set up. Perhaps they could even approve a joint programme for an initial period of, say, six months to test the water.

As for the branding though, nobody outside this forum would be bothered about a simple name change to STV News after a few weeks as long as the programmes themselves did not change. Indeed, the short bulletins (which were called the Grampian Headlines not so long ago) might change first with the 1800 flagships following later.

STV News

You can see what's happening a mile off....

Stage One. Reporters on Scotland Today and North Tonight start to sign off with the words "STV News."

Stage Two. Cues start referring to STV News (eg "Speaking exclusively to STV News, the husband of the dead woman said...")

Stage Three. Astons get changed so they feature the STV logo rather than the words "Scotland Today" or "North Tonight".

Stage Four. Some bright spark says that both Scotland Today and North Today/Tonight are being rebranded as STV News - but, in truth, the change hardly matters by then. It's just a little bit of history gone - and means the tv listings are a little less cluttered!

However, getting rid of the two distinct programmes would require approval from Ofcom - and, on this one, there probably would need to be a proper public consultation.

You can predict SMG's argument - viewers are either interested in Scottish news or their own local news but not in "regional" news defined by the old Scottish/Grampian areas. They might promise to lengthen the sub opts to make up for the loss of the two separate programmes.

So while the end of an entirely separate news service for the old Grampian region may still be some time away, I'll bet that both programmes will be known as STV News before long.

New BBC Scotland channel?!

This was a story based on an "exclusive" in Scotland on Sunday that the SNP were urging BBC Scotland to set up their own channel along the lines of 2W.

It may, of course, happen one day - especially after 2010. But there are no active plans for this at the moment.

The Destruction Of British Television

For the benefit of our young friend in the south west a few posts back.... I know this will be teaching grannies to suck eggs for most of you.

BBC1 introduced Breakfast Time in January 1983 and completely filled daytime gaps in October 1986. So, broadly speaking, from then on the channel was on the air from 6.30am until midnight on weekdays. Around 1994 closedown on weekdays started to get later and later - around 1.30am became the norm. In November 97 News 24 began and BBC1 became a 24 hour broadcaster.

BBC2 started to fill the afternoons regularly from October 1986 - with schools programmes filling the morning and early afternoon. However during the school holidays, BBC2 was still regularly showing Ceefax until lunchtime until Easter 1989. The Learning Zone took over most of the overnight gap in 1995.

The ITA/IBA was the regulator of ITV. It laid down the law and made quite strong demands on the ITV companies on the range, quality and quantity of programmes. But - as long as professional and regulatory standards were met - it had far more important things to consider than idents, continuity and the like. It would only step in if either programme codes were being breached or if standards were at an unacceptable level (eg ABC in the late 50s.)

The ITA/IBA had to approve ITV's schedule but did not commission, produce or schedule programmes - except in the broader sense of ensuring that particular slots in the schedule were used for particular types of programming, eg religion at 6.40pm on Sundays, children's programmes in the late afternoon. (And making Engineering Announcements on Tuesday mornings to keep us lot happy. lol)

The ITA/IBA's power has to be seen in the light of the fact that ITV franchises were then a very powerful business opportunity - the only legal chance to operate a commercial television station. Part of the ITA/IBA's job was to ensure that the viewing public did not suffer from the fact that the companies enjoyed a commercial monopoly and could have made a fortune by simply showing cheap imports and easy-to-make gameshows.

Hope this helps. (Good grief, I'm feeling old pointing this out.)

Scottish Independence

Kristian Digby or the Phillips test card? Maybe there is something to be said for the SBC afterall!

Scottish Independence

Before I get started... I'm talking purely about the desirability or not of an "SBC" here. Don't read anything into this about my views on the wider issue of Scottish independence or who I'd like to see win the election.

The BBC, for all its faults, has made an immeasurable contribution to life in Scotland over the past 84 years. The SNP's plan for an SBC seems to be based on the same economic argument that they use when they're talking about oil revenues. While it's true that BBC Scotland's own budget is less than the amount raised from Scottish licence fees, it completely ignores the fact that Scots also enjoy network programming.

Radio Scotland is not BBC Radio in Scotland - Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 and Five Live all have substantial audiences here. Together they dwarf Radio Scotland in popularity. Radio 3 may not have a big audience but the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra is one of its bedrocks.

As for the effect on television, I shudder. A licence fee to pay for a service which also carries adverts? And where the independent SBC has to buy in the programmes it needs to fill a schedule from the BBC or elsewhere at market rates.

So the independent SBC struggles to maintain the current range of BBC Scotland opt-out programming and is deprived of the right to make programmes for BBC Network? Why would London ever spend licence payers' money on programmes from the SBC or independent producers here? When did you last see an RTE Production on BBC1?

In fairness, you could imagine a compromise where the BBC channels were still broadcast, even on Freeview. But as people here would not actually be paying for them, the BBC in London would be perfectly entitled to ignore them and simply treat Scots as an overspill audience. Just like the situation in Southern Ireland or the Netherlands. It really would become the English Broadcasting Corporation.

The idea of an SBC is based on the mistaken premise that the BBC is part of the British state - not an organisation which helps bring people across Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland together. Indeed Margo Macdonald, who's no longer in the SNP of course, once described the BBC as the perfect example of the kind of co-operation between Scotland and England which could be a role model after independence.

Another point. Does anyone seriously think an independent SBC would be in the process of moving to Europe's most advanced broadcasting centre? Like RTE in the nineties, it would probably still be showing the Phillips test card until lunchtime.... with a loop of endless Scottish country dance music!

Scottish Independence

It might be useful for some of the people reading to get an explanation of the current position in Scotland and the process which could potentially lead to independence. You hear so much nonsense from people - north and south of the border - who think it would happen days after an SNP election victory!!

Here's the potential process.

1 The SNP becomes the single largest party in the Scottish Parliament next month. With a PR system there's no realistic chance of them having a majority - and with the current arithmetic it's virtually impossible the SNP and the minor parties which also back independence will have a majority. (eg the Greens, Solidarity.)

2 The Liberal Democrats agree to a coalition deal with the SNP - but are forced to accept a referendum of independence as part of the package. (The Lib Dems say they won't do this but that's an argument for another place. It's not inconceivable they may accept a referendum as long as they have the right to campaign for a No vote. Another option may be a multi-option referendum with more devolution also a choice)

3 A referendum is held in 2010 as promised by the SNP - with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives all campaigning vigorously for a No vote along with most of the popular press. However, a Yes vote is still achieved. (The result is by no means certain. Opinion polls on independence vary widely - I suspect this is because a lot of people don't know the difference between independence and further devolution.)

As for the effect on broadcasting, the SNP's current policy is to create a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation which would, in effect, be a Scottish version of RTE.

This would, in effect, mean the main BBC tv and radio services would be replaced in Scotland - even if the SBC and the BBC maintained a close working relationship. There was a very interesting article on SNP broadcasting in the Sunday Herald a few weeks back - apologies for not having a link.

However the impact on commercial broadcasters is likely to be minimal. The links between STV and ITV Network are commercial ones - and the SNP recognise how difficult commercially it might be to actually force STV to increase Scottish output though they certainly would not complain if STV did.

I don't think there's even a suggestion of trying to interfere with C4 or five let alone the channels with no pretence of being public services.

I hate to say this, but the possibility of Scots being deprived of favourite BBC programmes would probably be quite an effective campaigning tool for unionists in the run up to any referendum. You can just imagine the headlines in the Daily Record. ("Doctor Who Faces Extermination After Independence". "Strictly No Dancing - Brucie To Disappear in Independent Scotland" etc etc etc)

To be honest I suspect many nationalists realise how unpopular this would be and, whatever their policy may be just now, they would probably leave the BBC alone in return for a Scottish Six - plus a Scottish One and Ten!!!

STV News

I doubt if it will trouble our beloved politicians very much. Most of them probably don't even know the GMTV bulletins exist.

Given that we're talking here about the briefest of summaries illustrated mostly by library pics, one can hardly make it a great issue of principle. Will the new look bulletins really be much different or any worse?

I'm surprised GMTV hasn't tried to get out of its regional commitments completely to tell you the truth.