The 1991 Franchise round - 20 years on

It's hard to believe that it's 20 years since the infamous (if that's the right word to use) ITV franchise renewals. These were the only ones conducted by the ITC, and led to the loss of Thames, TSW, TVS, and TV-am from the ITV Network, replaced by Carlton, Westcountry, Meridian, and Sunrise (later GMTV).

What are peoples feelings now on those renewals, and was it a fair system? Why did the winners win and the losers lose?

Several of the "winners" suffered from winners' curse, and frankly the whole system was irrevocably injured. I will never forgive Thatcher for imposing this legislation.

GMTV soon became TV-am Mk II and I think it's fair to say that Meridian and Westcountry soon came to be accepted by their regional audiences. Indeed those two regional companies, if I recall, put in lower bids than the incumbents. Only Thames and TV-am were outbid.

The big loss to the system, which the whole of ITV suffered from, was the loss of Thames but at least this was parly mitigated by the fact some of their network programmes remained. TVS did some decent network material but was no loss - STV took on their children's output - while TSW did virtually nothing for the network.

Ultimately, the bigger change nationally did not come from the franchise-changes as such. It was the newly deregulated world which, in the short term, meant the end of the god slot, serious current affairs and the 1210 children's slot... but in the longer term changed ITV fundamentally.

I'm sure that, even if the franchisees had not changed, we would still have ended up where we are today through deregulation even if the path may have been different.

Arguably the most expansionist ITV company after deregulation was Granada... owning three of the big licences within 5 years - companies that were all established producers. Carlton merely bought Central and, of course, had few big programmes til they bought Central.

Granada was ultimately responsible for one hell of a lot of ITV's content from 1994 and most of it from the moment they got YTV,

Her Government? I'm not sure she personally will have been entirely responsible for the idea, if at all. There was a lot more in the Broadcasting Act than just the ITV auction of course

Was it also true that TVS's financial projections actually turned out to be correct, but Meridian were allowed to reduce their payments to the ITC in 1995/6?

In so far as the idea of awarding franchises to the highest bidder - and not necessarily the company best-placed to provide a television service - was ideologically driven, I think it's fair to ultimately hold Mrs Thatcher to account. John Major's government introduced the quality threshold just in time to stop the feared disaster.

However, her government did an awful lot of things which were MUCH more controversial at the time and which have had a MUCH more significant long-term impact.

If it had not been for the 1990 Act and deregulation, the old ITV might have lasted a few more years. But ultimately it would have been killed as soon as it had to start facing full-scale commercial competition and I'm sure we wouldn't be in that different a place today. That came about, to a very large degree, through Sky. And while, of course, Mrs T and Murdoch were supportive of each other Sky would have grown into a big company regardless of the abolition of the IBA and the franchise auction.

The abolition of the IBA was a good thing, it's splitting into 2 in particular helped the radio industry expand during the 90's in a way that wouldn't have under the IBA or similar. It also couldn't exist in the form it did for much longer, once a broadcaster bypassed the franchise system by broadcasting from abroad the regulatory framework it had was unworkable

The ITC and Radio Authority were only suitable for that era though, once the media and communications platforms started converging a combined regulator (Ofcom) is the correct model now

There's a distinction between the abolition of the IBA... and the change in the nature of the regulation of Channel 3.

The IBA, with ITV, was the publisher. It approved the schedule in advance, imposed significant technical and editorial requirements, condemned programmes for simply not being good enough, encouraged broadcasters which were adequate to raise their game, defended tough journalism once it was sure the journalism was sound. It was on the side of viewers by ensuring companies aspired to providing a worthwhile service for everyone. The ITC, of course, didn't have most of these powers - its role was essentially to ensure minimum standards and protect consumers.

I'm not seriously suggesting ITV as we knew it or the idea of this kind if regulation of ITV could realistically have lasted much longer. But the role of the ITA after Pilkington and then the IBA in building a system of commercial television which often matched, or even exceeded, the BBC as a public service should be remembered as a triumph. What could have been a commerical monopoly run primarily for its investors short-term interests - as some ITV stations like Tyne Tees and STV were guily of at first - instead became a valuable public service.

And that's before we get started on the ITA/IBA's technical achievements.

Bruce Gyngell was very pissed off with her too!

IBA should have been kept, and should have also had control over Sky and cable channels. Some aspect of the Franchise I dare say would have been kept in, such as one company own two stations etc.

I starting to think HTV and, Yorkshire should have went, I know if TVS had stayed it would have merged with LWT at speed of light, and dare say Southampton would have closed, Kent house would have been used for play out and CA only kept for weekdays at Maidstone.

I don't know. It's a tough one. On one hand we keep the integrity of ITV but are limited to four channels, on the other hand we have access to many hundreds of channels but all of decreasing quality.