The white paper on the future of ITV raises an interesting thought for me. ITV was expected to produce or source 25% of stuff from independents. How would that have been achieved at TV-am, assuming it was still broadcasting after 31st December 1992.
Depends if that's 25% per company or 25% of the channels output.
TVam had already put some children's output out to indies. Having indies doing the weekends would be 35% of its output (I think, my maths is rusty!)
It was 25% of the channel's productions, rather than output, although this obviously would impact TV-am more than the general ITV companies.
This rule was implemented long before the franchise rounds though. It'll have been around 1990 as I recall Tyne Tees gave the contract to Zenith North to produce exactly 25% of their local programming at this time (pretty much 100% of which was in-house before this point) and this was sold as an improvement in service, as TTT continued making the same amount of programming themselves in the months immediately after the decision.
:-(
A former member
Remember TVAM kids out put was already outsourced.
It was 25% of the channel's productions, rather than output, although this obviously would impact TV-am more than the general ITV companies.
Not really, if it was 25% of ITV's output then they needn't have contributed anything to that quota at all.
Though even if it was done pro-rata based on hours of broadcast then it would still only need to contribute a small amount of it
When I said 'channel' I meant company. My understanding is that if, say, a company made/commissioned, and broadcast 10 hours of programming in a week (a typical regional figure at the time for an ITV licence holder) then 2.5 hours of that needed to be made by an independent producer.
Imported stuff, or programming made by a different contractor, did not count to the total (although obviously that other contractor was subject to the same rule).
Given that TV-am's output was mostly original content, produced in-house, this would mean that a significant number of hours per week would need to be subbed out (around 50 minutes per day).
By the way, if anyone fancies a laugh, try finding a copy of TV-am's horrendous programming proposal that was submitted as part of its 1991 franchise bid. Unfortunately I don't have one or else I would have scanned it, but it waffles on about all sorts of minority programming, educational slots, religious programmes. Pure lunacy considering the process would lead to tighter budgets.
By the way, if anyone fancies a laugh, try finding a copy of TV-am's horrendous programming proposal that was submitted as part of its 1991 franchise bid. Unfortunately I don't have one or else I would have scanned it, but it waffles on about all sorts of minority programming, educational slots, religious programmes. Pure lunacy considering the process would lead to tighter budgets.
Given that TV-am's output was mostly original content, produced in-house, this would mean that a significant number of hours per week would need to be subbed out (around 50 minutes per day).
Just give the weekends to indies:
50 minutes a day,
350 minutes a week.
410 minutes of broadcast time at the weekend
According to the 1997 Sky High book, when Thames lost it's ITV London franchise Sky considered buying Thames but they ruled it out because it was too expensive. Pearson later brought Thames at relatively cheaper price so Sky must regret it.
Sky were possibly sniffing around due to Thames' interests in Astra and UK Gold & UK Living. Incidentally, Thames made no financial contribution to the latter, and their shares were in exchange for programming and resources. When Pearson sold the stake in the late 90s, they made £70million.
According to the 1997 Sky High book, when Thames lost it's ITV London franchise Sky considered buying Thames but they ruled it out because it was too expensive. Pearson later brought Thames at relatively cheaper price so Sky must regret it.
Had all it happened, would've UK Gold and UK Living channels?
Depends when they bought it, UK Gold was already running when it went off air.
Quote:
Would've Sky brought the same other production companies that Pearson brought.
Probably not
Quote:
Would Sky One original programming made a mark at its prime in the mid 90s?
No, because hardly anyone had satellite. It's hardly 'made it's mark' 24 years later with 12 million viewers
Quote:
Would've Sky supported joint venture and third party channels for original programming?
Given that TV-am's output was mostly original content, produced in-house, this would mean that a significant number of hours per week would need to be subbed out (around 50 minutes per day).
Just give the weekends to indies:
50 minutes a day,
350 minutes a week.
410 minutes of broadcast time at the weekend
Depends on whether the kids' stuff made at the weekends was original production or imported cartoons and the like (I don't remember to be honest). If the latter then it wouldn't count.
Most of TV-am's kids output was made by Clear Idea Television in the later years. In its final year on air Wacaday was made by Brilliant TV (Mallett's own company)
I struggle to understand the logic of why ITV companies had to commission 25% of productions from indies. The legislation was introduced at a time when C4 was established and satellite and cable channels were emerging which would have provided a choice of outlets for indies to get their programmes broadcast.