BR
Election night was different - people made their choice beforehand. With breaking news viewers would have had the option - I guess it depends how quickly people switch from Emmerdale to EastEnders. ITV wouldn't have won by any stretch of the imagination, but they'd have had a healthy 2-3m viewers, and would definitely had seen a boost to News at Ten's figures that evening.
BU
Yes, but that doesn't mean they'd get the same worth from them. Plus this is peak minutage, meaning they'd be trying to cram it in between 6 and 11 which is already pretty full in the areas that they want to run them. You'd end up doing it in areas that don't usually have many breaks such as 6-7 and 10-11, I.e. worth less than they would have been otherwise at 2000-ish.
The breaks are not a factor - if ITV had to lose them they are permitted to reschedule them on other days under OFCOM rules.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they'd get the same worth from them. Plus this is peak minutage, meaning they'd be trying to cram it in between 6 and 11 which is already pretty full in the areas that they want to run them. You'd end up doing it in areas that don't usually have many breaks such as 6-7 and 10-11, I.e. worth less than they would have been otherwise at 2000-ish.
NI
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings (with the exception of the Six O'Clock News, I guess, which probably rated higher than the old 5:40pm bulletin). I don't attribute the loss of the ITN name and the proliferation of ITV branding to falling ratings - after all, what's in a name - but to how news stories are covered. Yes, the general decline in TV viewing figures are a partial cause, but the fact of the matter is that ITV and the BBC were neck and neck in the ratings when they were the only two options; the BBC News ratings have remained remarkably steady over the last decade, whereas ITV News' ratings (and reputation) have sunk. And yes, it's all very well saying that an "alternative" to the BBC is needed, but we had a perfect set-up for many years until certain people came into the picture and decided that ITV News had to be straightforwardly populist in nature - and let's face it, it is clear to see from the ratings that people don't like hyperbolic language taking centre stage in, of all things, a news programme.
We've had this debate all too often, and I've made my feelings quite clear over the last couple of years about the treatment of news and current affairs on ITV and so apologise if you think I've repeated myself.
I think the argument is that everyone is watching the other side I guess - ITV News has dropped massively in reputation in the last decade in the UK. Witness the huge drop in figures for their election show this year compared to 2005/2001/1997 etc.
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings (with the exception of the Six O'Clock News, I guess, which probably rated higher than the old 5:40pm bulletin). I don't attribute the loss of the ITN name and the proliferation of ITV branding to falling ratings - after all, what's in a name - but to how news stories are covered. Yes, the general decline in TV viewing figures are a partial cause, but the fact of the matter is that ITV and the BBC were neck and neck in the ratings when they were the only two options; the BBC News ratings have remained remarkably steady over the last decade, whereas ITV News' ratings (and reputation) have sunk. And yes, it's all very well saying that an "alternative" to the BBC is needed, but we had a perfect set-up for many years until certain people came into the picture and decided that ITV News had to be straightforwardly populist in nature - and let's face it, it is clear to see from the ratings that people don't like hyperbolic language taking centre stage in, of all things, a news programme.
We've had this debate all too often, and I've made my feelings quite clear over the last couple of years about the treatment of news and current affairs on ITV and so apologise if you think I've repeated myself.
BE
I think there was some impact with that, the ITV brand covered much more than being a reliable source of high quality news and when that became somewhat tarnished you can't help thinking that the reputation of the news output suffered too. Then again when the branding changed so too did the timing of the news - which was a ludicrous decision anyway.
Probably not a major impact but it did have an impact. Interesting too, often when you hear someone praise something done on ITV News they seem to use the ITN name instinctively.
Ben
Founding member
I don't attribute the loss of the ITN name and the proliferation of ITV branding to falling ratings - after all, what's in a name
I think there was some impact with that, the ITV brand covered much more than being a reliable source of high quality news and when that became somewhat tarnished you can't help thinking that the reputation of the news output suffered too. Then again when the branding changed so too did the timing of the news - which was a ludicrous decision anyway.
Probably not a major impact but it did have an impact. Interesting too, often when you hear someone praise something done on ITV News they seem to use the ITN name instinctively.
MA
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings
The decline of ITV news seemed to start around the same time that ITN moved from Wells St, to GIR. Around 1990.
It was a slow decline, but as you point out, accelated from the end of the 90s.
It's a terrible shame. I can remember ITN's output during the 70s and 80s, and it was streets ahead of the BBC, at all levels. Technical innovation, presentation, and journalistically . ITN can still 'do it', C4 News demonstrates that, it's just that what ITV want from them is terribly watered down.
I think the argument is that everyone is watching the other side I guess - ITV News has dropped massively in reputation in the last decade in the UK. Witness the huge drop in figures for their election show this year compared to 2005/2001/1997 etc.
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings
The decline of ITV news seemed to start around the same time that ITN moved from Wells St, to GIR. Around 1990.
It was a slow decline, but as you point out, accelated from the end of the 90s.
It's a terrible shame. I can remember ITN's output during the 70s and 80s, and it was streets ahead of the BBC, at all levels. Technical innovation, presentation, and journalistically . ITN can still 'do it', C4 News demonstrates that, it's just that what ITV want from them is terribly watered down.
NE
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings
The decline of ITV news seemed to start around the same time that ITN moved from Wells St, to GIR. Around 1990.
It was a slow decline, but as you point out, accelated from the end of the 90s.
It's a terrible shame. I can remember ITN's output during the 70s and 80s, and it was streets ahead of the BBC, at all levels. Technical innovation, presentation, and journalistically . ITN can still 'do it', C4 News demonstrates that, it's just that what ITV want from them is terribly watered down.
I disagree. The move to GIR was one of the best things ITN ever did. The demise you speak about came about when ITN was dropped from the branding. Right up until then it was authoritative, oozed importance and trounced the BBC.
I think the argument is that everyone is watching the other side I guess - ITV News has dropped massively in reputation in the last decade in the UK. Witness the huge drop in figures for their election show this year compared to 2005/2001/1997 etc.
Very true, and how sad it is. ITV used to receive huge viewing figures for important news events. Even as recently as the late 1990s, I believe ITV's news programmes were equalling if not beating the BBC equivalents in the ratings
The decline of ITV news seemed to start around the same time that ITN moved from Wells St, to GIR. Around 1990.
It was a slow decline, but as you point out, accelated from the end of the 90s.
It's a terrible shame. I can remember ITN's output during the 70s and 80s, and it was streets ahead of the BBC, at all levels. Technical innovation, presentation, and journalistically . ITN can still 'do it', C4 News demonstrates that, it's just that what ITV want from them is terribly watered down.
I disagree. The move to GIR was one of the best things ITN ever did. The demise you speak about came about when ITN was dropped from the branding. Right up until then it was authoritative, oozed importance and trounced the BBC.
BR
The dropping of News at Ten was a key factor as well and the fact that the BBC moved their 9 bulletin to 10 o'clock. ITV has got very 'American' in the last few years - Mary Nightengale is particularly a fan of this trend.
NW
You have Carlton to blame for that, in the 'And Finally' book published in 2005, Carlton were very keen on opening up the 10-11pm slot, as they figured that as time would go on NaT's audience would decline and that if they opened the 10-11pm slot it would be more commercially viabale. Although they had to convince the rest of the ITV companies that this would be a good idea and indeed convince the ITC.
Even Michael Grade admitted that moving NaT was the worst commercial mistake ITV has made in the last ten years.
The dropping of News at Ten was a key factor as well and the fact that the BBC moved their 9 bulletin to 10 o'clock.
You have Carlton to blame for that, in the 'And Finally' book published in 2005, Carlton were very keen on opening up the 10-11pm slot, as they figured that as time would go on NaT's audience would decline and that if they opened the 10-11pm slot it would be more commercially viabale. Although they had to convince the rest of the ITV companies that this would be a good idea and indeed convince the ITC.
Even Michael Grade admitted that moving NaT was the worst commercial mistake ITV has made in the last ten years.
AN
Andrew
Founding member
It was the worst commercial mistake, not just for news, but because it opened up the BBC's 9pm slot, although to be fair they didn't know that the BBC would move to 10 when they vacated it.
The fact that ITV News operate with a fraction of the budget of BBC News can't be ignored. ITV have to compete commercially with many channels that don't have news programming as well as having to compete with the giant budget of the BBC.
It should also be noted that people still opt for ITV News on occasions when the BBC aren't there. Weekend bulletins get high figures when the BBC bulletin is moved to the edge of the schedule due to sport, so it's not as if they are ignoring ITV News on principle.
None of this has anything to do with last night though. I'm sure they could have taken ad breaks during the Breaking News coverage when nothing much was happening. But this may have driven viewers to the BBC.
The fact that ITV News operate with a fraction of the budget of BBC News can't be ignored. ITV have to compete commercially with many channels that don't have news programming as well as having to compete with the giant budget of the BBC.
It should also be noted that people still opt for ITV News on occasions when the BBC aren't there. Weekend bulletins get high figures when the BBC bulletin is moved to the edge of the schedule due to sport, so it's not as if they are ignoring ITV News on principle.
None of this has anything to do with last night though. I'm sure they could have taken ad breaks during the Breaking News coverage when nothing much was happening. But this may have driven viewers to the BBC.