MK
To be fair, I'd have felt sick too if I'd won the bidding but was disqualified on a fairly arbitary quality threshold. The ITC may have had a point and Mersey Vision would've had a task in affording the relatively high payments whilst ensuring good local output, major facilities in both Liverpool & Manchester with smaller facilities in more minor towns whilst being major network provider or commissioner. The quality threshold gave the ITC quite a bit a wiggle room to not award franchises to people they simply didn't fancy, so it would've been a lot harder to take than if they were simply outbid.
Their model was also not in tune with how the government of the time (and by extension, the ITC) viewed the future of ITV to look like. Large studio complexes in two quite near cities, whilst pragmatic to the Liverpool/Manchester rivalry, weren't going to fly. Unlike the previous round, where certain larger companies were expected to serve seemingly neglected parts of their region by beefing up their output and opening major studios in more cities, this time round it was very much about consolidation and becoming lean & efficient. London went down from four major studios (Euston Road, Teddington, South Bank & Camden Lock), complete with three different transmission centres playing out ITV during the course of the week to just the South Bank 24/7, as Carlton & GMTV shared LWT's transmission facilities.
If Mersey Vision went more down the publisher-broadcaster route, proposed a far more leaner operation, had a less regionally biased name and bid a bit less, then who knows?
I seem to remember seeing a news report on the franchise anouncements which showed Phil Redmond storming out of his office and down a corridor on hearing the news he hadn't won.
To be fair, I'd have felt sick too if I'd won the bidding but was disqualified on a fairly arbitary quality threshold. The ITC may have had a point and Mersey Vision would've had a task in affording the relatively high payments whilst ensuring good local output, major facilities in both Liverpool & Manchester with smaller facilities in more minor towns whilst being major network provider or commissioner. The quality threshold gave the ITC quite a bit a wiggle room to not award franchises to people they simply didn't fancy, so it would've been a lot harder to take than if they were simply outbid.
Their model was also not in tune with how the government of the time (and by extension, the ITC) viewed the future of ITV to look like. Large studio complexes in two quite near cities, whilst pragmatic to the Liverpool/Manchester rivalry, weren't going to fly. Unlike the previous round, where certain larger companies were expected to serve seemingly neglected parts of their region by beefing up their output and opening major studios in more cities, this time round it was very much about consolidation and becoming lean & efficient. London went down from four major studios (Euston Road, Teddington, South Bank & Camden Lock), complete with three different transmission centres playing out ITV during the course of the week to just the South Bank 24/7, as Carlton & GMTV shared LWT's transmission facilities.
If Mersey Vision went more down the publisher-broadcaster route, proposed a far more leaner operation, had a less regionally biased name and bid a bit less, then who knows?
MK
To be fair, I'd have felt sick too if I'd won the bidding but was disqualified on a fairly arbitary quality threshold. The ITC may have had a point and Mersey Vision would've had a task in affording the relatively high payments whilst ensuring good local output, major facilities in both Liverpool & Manchester with smaller facilities in more minor towns whilst being a major network provider or commissioner. The quality threshold gave the ITC quite a bit a wiggle room to not award franchises to people they simply didn't fancy, so it would've been a lot harder to take than if they were simply outbid.
Their model was also not in tune with how the government of the time (and by extension, the ITC) viewed the future of ITV to look like. Large studio complexes in two quite near cities, whilst pragmatic to the Liverpool/Manchester rivalry, weren't going to fly. Unlike the previous round, where certain larger companies were expected to serve seemingly neglected parts of their region by beefing up their output and opening major studios in more cities, this time round it was very much about consolidation and becoming lean & efficient. London went down from four major studios (Euston Road, Teddington, South Bank & Camden Lock), complete with three different transmission centres playing out ITV during the course of the week to just the South Bank 24/7, as Carlton & GMTV shared LWT's transmission facilities.
If Mersey Vision went more down the publisher-broadcaster route, proposed a far more leaner operation, had a less regionally biased name and bid a bit less, then who knows?
I seem to remember seeing a news report on the franchise anouncements which showed Phil Redmond storming out of his office and down a corridor on hearing the news he hadn't won.
To be fair, I'd have felt sick too if I'd won the bidding but was disqualified on a fairly arbitary quality threshold. The ITC may have had a point and Mersey Vision would've had a task in affording the relatively high payments whilst ensuring good local output, major facilities in both Liverpool & Manchester with smaller facilities in more minor towns whilst being a major network provider or commissioner. The quality threshold gave the ITC quite a bit a wiggle room to not award franchises to people they simply didn't fancy, so it would've been a lot harder to take than if they were simply outbid.
Their model was also not in tune with how the government of the time (and by extension, the ITC) viewed the future of ITV to look like. Large studio complexes in two quite near cities, whilst pragmatic to the Liverpool/Manchester rivalry, weren't going to fly. Unlike the previous round, where certain larger companies were expected to serve seemingly neglected parts of their region by beefing up their output and opening major studios in more cities, this time round it was very much about consolidation and becoming lean & efficient. London went down from four major studios (Euston Road, Teddington, South Bank & Camden Lock), complete with three different transmission centres playing out ITV during the course of the week to just the South Bank 24/7, as Carlton & GMTV shared LWT's transmission facilities.
If Mersey Vision went more down the publisher-broadcaster route, proposed a far more leaner operation, had a less regionally biased name and bid a bit less, then who knows?
JA
To be fair, a lot of it ws arbitary, even the "financial grounds" that lost TVS and TSW their franchises.
WH
Hmm... it was an informed decision - the ITC felt TVS and TSW couldn't meet their programming commitments while paying so much per year to the treasury. TSW bid more than double what Westcountry did (TSW bid around the same as HTV, which was nearly crippled by its successful bid, and possibly would have lost if the other bidders hadn't made almost identical bids)
TVS bid £60m which was absolute lunacy. Obviously too tied up with its own complicated business dealings to suss out who else was bidding, which was the game at the end of the day.
Whataday
Founding member
To be fair, a lot of it ws arbitary, even the "financial grounds" that lost TVS and TSW their franchises.
Hmm... it was an informed decision - the ITC felt TVS and TSW couldn't meet their programming commitments while paying so much per year to the treasury. TSW bid more than double what Westcountry did (TSW bid around the same as HTV, which was nearly crippled by its successful bid, and possibly would have lost if the other bidders hadn't made almost identical bids)
TVS bid £60m which was absolute lunacy. Obviously too tied up with its own complicated business dealings to suss out who else was bidding, which was the game at the end of the day.
NW
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4z902n_bbc1-bbc-news-about-the-itv-franchise-changes-affecting-atv-southern-westward-plus-the-new-tv-am-28t_tv
BBC News report from 28 December 1980. I didn't know ATV only had one month to outline to the IBA what it was going to do. Also note that BBC Radiovision at Breakfast never materialised, thankfully.
BBC News report from 28 December 1980. I didn't know ATV only had one month to outline to the IBA what it was going to do. Also note that BBC Radiovision at Breakfast never materialised, thankfully.
SW
Bit of confusion, here - the consortium bidding for the franchise in 1980 was called Mersey Vision. Phil Redmond's consortium in 1991 was North West Television.
If Mersey Vision went more down the publisher-broadcaster route, proposed a far more leaner operation, had a less regionally biased name and bid a bit less, then who knows?
Bit of confusion, here - the consortium bidding for the franchise in 1980 was called Mersey Vision. Phil Redmond's consortium in 1991 was North West Television.
RO
One upshot of the 1980 franchise round was that Trident television, which had stakes in both Tyne Tees and Yorkshire, had to relinquish the stakes. Back then the IBA was still very concerned about each ITV company being an individual, competing with others to get shows networked, but also being independent to focus on their area.
We can only speculate on how things may have turned out in 1991, if the IBA was still around, and had its bite which it had in 1980.
We can only speculate on how things may have turned out in 1991, if the IBA was still around, and had its bite which it had in 1980.
TT
ttt
Hmm... it was an informed decision - the ITC felt TVS and TSW couldn't meet their programming commitments while paying so much per year to the treasury. TSW bid more than double what Westcountry did (TSW bid around the same as HTV, which was nearly crippled by its successful bid, and possibly would have lost if the other bidders hadn't made almost identical bids).
TSW bid an almost identical amount to Tyne Tees, a company with a similar turnover (£40m vs £50m respectively in 1990). And we all know what happened to the latter. The ITC made the right decision there. TTTV wasn't viable paying £15.5m and TSW, which was even smaller would have probably gone bankrupt.
JA
Though it was the awful bidding format that led to the companies putting in such high amounts to keep their franchises in the first place!
So on the one hand you have companies nearly bankrupting themselves to bid enough to beat their competetors and survive, on the other hand you have Central and Scottish bidding £2000 because nobody went against them, it was a bit of a joke really.
Then you had the fact that some companies had their payments reduced a few years in (like GMTV having their reduced to less than TV-am bid- which makes it feel like they died in vain).
So on the one hand you have companies nearly bankrupting themselves to bid enough to beat their competetors and survive, on the other hand you have Central and Scottish bidding £2000 because nobody went against them, it was a bit of a joke really.
Then you had the fact that some companies had their payments reduced a few years in (like GMTV having their reduced to less than TV-am bid- which makes it feel like they died in vain).
RD
I think it would only have delayed the inevitable TBH.
Originally the ITV system was not bourne out of a desire for regional distinctiveness - look at the identities of the first four contractors (three of which had the word "Associated" in their title and the fourth ultimately named after a region in the south of Spain!). Rather it was an attempt by the ITA, as was, to square an imperative to have competition within the system with the fact that they were only licenced for one network. They decided that if they could not have competition for advertising, then they would have competition for the supply of programmes to the network. Thus the regional system started, but it was only in the 1960s and the expansion of ITV that the need to reflect regional identity became a criteria and that perhaps reached its height in the 1981 franchise round and with the particular IBA board that were in place at that point.
But by 1991 Sky was on air, as was BSB, and cable too. It was becoming clear that the idea of a state body interfering with the running of a business on such a micro level wouldn't last. While ITV was one channel there was perhaps a "scare resource" argument to do so. But with satellite and cable TV, and digital to come, regulation would inevitably get lighter in touch anyway. Can you imagine how many staff Ofcom would need if it was going to become involved in programme planning and content for the now hundreds of UK licenced channels at the level the IBA was in 1970s ITV? Either the regulation would get lighter, or you simply wouldn't have had that explosion in numbers of channels. But I fear you'd have been fighting a losing battle if the latter approach had been taken.
rdd
Founding member
One upshot of the 1980 franchise round was that Trident television, which had stakes in both Tyne Tees and Yorkshire, had to relinquish the stakes. Back then the IBA was still very concerned about each ITV company being an individual, competing with others to get shows networked, but also being independent to focus on their area.
We can only speculate on how things may have turned out in 1991, if the IBA was still around, and had its bite which it had in 1980.
We can only speculate on how things may have turned out in 1991, if the IBA was still around, and had its bite which it had in 1980.
I think it would only have delayed the inevitable TBH.
Originally the ITV system was not bourne out of a desire for regional distinctiveness - look at the identities of the first four contractors (three of which had the word "Associated" in their title and the fourth ultimately named after a region in the south of Spain!). Rather it was an attempt by the ITA, as was, to square an imperative to have competition within the system with the fact that they were only licenced for one network. They decided that if they could not have competition for advertising, then they would have competition for the supply of programmes to the network. Thus the regional system started, but it was only in the 1960s and the expansion of ITV that the need to reflect regional identity became a criteria and that perhaps reached its height in the 1981 franchise round and with the particular IBA board that were in place at that point.
But by 1991 Sky was on air, as was BSB, and cable too. It was becoming clear that the idea of a state body interfering with the running of a business on such a micro level wouldn't last. While ITV was one channel there was perhaps a "scare resource" argument to do so. But with satellite and cable TV, and digital to come, regulation would inevitably get lighter in touch anyway. Can you imagine how many staff Ofcom would need if it was going to become involved in programme planning and content for the now hundreds of UK licenced channels at the level the IBA was in 1970s ITV? Either the regulation would get lighter, or you simply wouldn't have had that explosion in numbers of channels. But I fear you'd have been fighting a losing battle if the latter approach had been taken.