Lets be fair here, If TVS had been saved, TVS would have faced even further cut back, i bet play out would have moved to kent house, I would have expected Southampton to close down pretty quick. I do wonder if there would have created the family channel on sky? it would have had LWT, TVS and MTM archive and might have made it very good channel.
I don't think the loss of Thames specifically is what affected ITV in the early 90s. Moreso, it was the replacement of Thames by a publisher broadcaster at a time when the independent production sector was in its infancy. The same goes for replacement of TVS by Meridian.
Both Thames and TVS spawned many independent production companies such as Tetra Films, Topical Television and The Media Merchants but they were very inexperienced and it showed on screen.
I don't think ITV Network Centre got it right in the early days either, and Channel 4 was also flapping after having its umbilical cord cut from ITV. Add to that increased competition and the early 90s were never going to be a golden age.
I don't think ITV Network Centre got it right in the early days either, and Channel 4 was also flapping after having its umbilical cord cut from ITV. Add to that increased competition and the early 90s were never going to be a golden age.
Good to see someone else agree the ITV network centre didn't get right.
Lets be fair here, If TVS had been saved, TVS would have faced even further cut back, i bet play out would have moved to kent house, I would have expected Southampton to close down pretty quick.
I'm convinced that had a TVS LWT merger taken place then the Southampton studios would have been axed shortly afterwards and replaced by a newsroom similar to that in Whiteley.
Quote:
I do wonder if there would have created the family channel on sky? it would have had LWT, TVS and MTM archive and might have made it very good channel.
It would certainly have been quite an impressive channel at the time. If TVS later took over Anglia then it would also show programmes from the Anglia archive.
It would be a bit like saying 'I've made this programme that's not good enough to go out in my airtime, would you like to buy it and transmit it?'.
.
Yes, though during the era when the ITV companies sold the ad revenue on C4, there where
Thames progs at the weekend, and LWT ones weekdays. Same principle, each were making programmes, and
collecting ad revenue from showing the rival company's programme ?
The only difference was C4 were scheduling and commissioning the programmes, otherwise it was in essence 'ITV2' .
You could argue even today that University Challenge isn't considered good enough by ITV to show it on any of their own channels ? And didn't one of the XX-Up programmes that Granada had been making since 1964 end up on BBC 1 in 1999 ?
As you know C4 just commissioned programmes from whomever they wanted, THS and LWT were just like any other other independent provider in that respect and their ITV franchises and on-air slots were not at all pertinent. And as you point out, ITV had no say in C4's programme scheduling and I think the people at the time would be slightly offended as being referred to as ITV2!
In the case of UC, I think it is more a case of it is a good enough show but would not gain enough commercial revenue to justify a slot in the ITV schedule.
I think the XX-up programme you refer to was shown on BBC2? but no matter. Same reason I would think, not enough commercial revenue to justify the cost at the time.
Things have moved on now, hence why ITV make the Graham Norton Show for the BBC etc etc and indeed the BBC setting itself up as a programme producer for whoever in the future.
My theory is that had TVS survived then ITV would have been dominated by three companies around 2000ish
TVS - Owns LWT and possibly Anglia.
No chance. TVS was in financial difficulties already and would have had to pay £50 million a year for its licence. No way it would be in a position to take over anyone. It would have been sold fairly cheaply to a company with deep pockets
Things have moved on now, hence why ITV make the Graham Norton Show for the BBC etc etc and indeed the BBC setting itself up as a programme producer for whoever in the future.
What prevents ITV from keeping The GN Show for themselves as it has clear commercial value? I know morals probably come into play and Norton might refuse to move, but I'm just wondering what's stopping them from trying to be complete b***ards.
:-(
A former member
It's like tesco or disney, the top of the tree might say itv but branches are all sperate operations.
The same reason why cetain programmes never magically appeared on five even thought at the time it was owned by the same owners.
Things have moved on now, hence why ITV make the Graham Norton Show for the BBC etc etc and indeed the BBC setting itself up as a programme producer for whoever in the future.
What prevents ITV from keeping The GN Show for themselves as it has clear commercial value? I know morals probably come into play and Norton might refuse to move, but I'm just wondering what's stopping them from trying to be complete b***ards.
Like you, I have no idea what Graham Norton's contractual arrangements are. It could be that he is signed directly to the BBC so a change of the broadcast channel might mean the programme goes without him. A bit of a bizarre concept if you think about it. I don't think morals come into it one bit.
Things have moved on now, hence why ITV make the Graham Norton Show for the BBC etc etc and indeed the BBC setting itself up as a programme producer for whoever in the future.
What prevents ITV from keeping The GN Show for themselves as it has clear commercial value? I know morals probably come into play and Norton might refuse to move, but I'm just wondering what's stopping them from trying to be complete b***ards.
Like you, I have no idea what Graham Norton's contractual arrangements are. It could be that he is signed directly to the BBC so a change of the broadcast channel might mean the programme goes without him. A bit of a bizarre concept if you think about it. I don't think morals come into it one bit.
GN's chat show has circumnavigated the main channels over almost the last 20 years, started off on C5 replacing in effect Jack Docharty's show, then to C4, then BBC2, and finally at present on 1. ITV next stop !?
What prevents ITV from keeping The GN Show for themselves as it has clear commercial value? I know morals probably come into play and Norton might refuse to move, but I'm just wondering what's stopping them from trying to be complete b***ards.
The point of ITV Studios, and the other companies ITV owns, is to allow ITV to diversify and make money from other channels. ITV Studios would be unlikely to get many commissions if it kept all the good stuff for itself, only sold the stuff ITV had rejected, and grabbed stuff back at the drop of a hat.
I don't think the loss of Thames specifically is what affected ITV in the early 90s. Moreso, it was the replacement of Thames by a publisher broadcaster at a time when the independent production sector was in its infancy. The same goes for replacement of TVS by Meridian.
I don't think ITV Network Centre got it right in the early days either, and Channel 4 was also flapping after having its umbilical cord cut from ITV. Add to that increased competition and the early 90s were never going to be a golden age.
People say this but I don't think ITV were doing that badly in the early nineties in any case. Yes, Carlton took their time getting up to speed and some of their shows were very bad, but in terms of network productions it was quite a successful period for ITV with big hits in drama and entertainment, and high quality ones too like Cracker and Prime Suspect. There was a lot of crap on ITV in the nineties, but when wasn't there?
What prevents ITV from keeping The GN Show for themselves as it has clear commercial value? I know morals probably come into play and Norton might refuse to move, but I'm just wondering what's stopping them from trying to be complete b***ards.
Like you, I have no idea what Graham Norton's contractual arrangements are. It could be that he is signed directly to the BBC so a change of the broadcast channel might mean the programme goes without him. A bit of a bizarre concept if you think about it. I don't think morals come into it one bit.
GN's chat show has circumnavigated the main channels over almost the last 20 years, started off on C5 replacing in effect Jack Docharty's show, then to C4, then BBC2, and finally at present on 1. ITV next stop !?
Apart from his BBC show being shown on BBC America, I'm surprised he hasn't been tempted by a direct American deal? Perhaps he prefers to be a big fish in a little pond. We like him and always tune in.
