ITV - Cutbacks & Proposed merger

I can't help but think that if ITV had just been left as it was - Independent Television with all the regions doing their own output and not turned into a PLC then ITV would not be in the state it is in now... and with Ofscum so far up their arse and allowing them to get into this state it hasn't helped.

Let's face it, management probably didn't have a clue what they were doing, and now they're paying for it. Carlton ruined London TV, and now by merging with Granada they've ruined national ITV.

Sadly, I can't see things going back in time, though so it looks like we're stuck with it - prepare the white on blue captions, please!

On the BBC News ticker is...
"Broadcaster ITV says it is to shed 600 jobs as part of a cost-cutting exercise."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7922770.stm

According to Breakfast ITV made £211m profit once the devaluation is taken out of the headline figure, and even after one-off costs they still made £167m. Confusingly though there is also the figure of £2.7 billion of losses. It does strike me though that the profit is still fairly healthy. I wonder if 'one off' costs where included in this years accounts to help their argument for cutting costs.

EDIT: There's more information at: http://www.itvplc.com/media/newsrelease/?id=13821

That wasn't what the 'Independent' referred to.

Don't you think that if it was still 14 or so different companies they would be in even more trouble collectively? The overheads for each would be more than now but the income wouldn't necessarily be any greater



It's nothing to do with it being a PLC, virtually all the old regional companies were PLCs




How would more regulation have helped them. Ofcom and the ITC have been relaxing the rules to help them. Without that relaxation they'd be spending more money and in more trouble.

The only hinderance they have made to ITV are the CRR rules regarding advertising minuteage which were part of the deal to get the big merger cleared

I'm convinced that if the old structure was maintained that collectively there'd be more viewers. Each region had it's own style which suited it's audience within an overall umbrella. What was essentially the same service was presented so differently that it APPEARED as if they were totally separate institutions. In vision continuity was popular in some areas wheras it was a quaint eccentricity in others BUT it worked where it was shown.

The ambitions of the channel would be different yes, but I'm convinced that the distancing of the viewer has had a serious effect on the channel, and consequently has reduced it's clout with advertisers and it's collective revenue as an organisation and bottom line has sufferred.

It's narrowcasting as a channel to the C2, D and E classes has further diluted it's performance.

It can all be a bit confusing, but this just about sums it up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/04/itv-slashes-costs-profits-drop

The thing that stands there to me is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that £1.6bn of the write-off is down to "goodwill" - not physical assets. It's basically ITV admitting that all the cut backs they've made have seriously affected the value of the ITV brand. Numerous factors at play of course, but perhaps it shows that saving a few million here and there by cutting regional and kids programming especially is, as I've always said, not healthy for the image of ITV at all, and makes ITV a less valued company as a result - literally it appears.

Ignoring that and the adjusted pre-tax figure is better than expected IMO. The response - unfortunately this time I do see the logic in closing the Yorkshire studios, even though in the long run they'll be a cost to pay for just having two major production hubs, but hopefully it'll be good news for Manchester, who haven't really been as dominant lately as they were in the 90's. I'd like to see some of the new midweek entertainment formats coming from Manchester. The programme budget being cut isn't unexpected, but a bit harsher than I thought. It makes their purchase of the FA Cup rights even more questionable though, taking up a large chunk of the budget and not making the return in ratings.

I also think now it's very unlikely ITV will even bid for the Rugby World Cup rights in 2011. Hopefully the BBC will pick them up rather than Sky/Setanta, but regardless of where they go I think it's important that ITV Sport show they can cover a major international tournament on their own to show they can compete with BBC Sport, and IMO their Rugby World Cup coverage has been ITV Sport at it's best.

The scaling back of ITV Local is the thing that worries me, as of course it was used as a carrot when ITV wanted to cut back the regions, and is actually a pretty good service. I also found it odd that in one breathe they were saying they're selling Friends Reunited as it didn't fit in with their online video strategy, then in the next they're scaling back ITV Local, which is pretty much solely based on videos. Also, surely it is a rare opportunity to tap into the regional online advertising market, something I doubt they can do with ITV.com itself.

That happens over the first week of the Christmas holidays, in the summer its business as usual except with Ruth & Eamonn instead of Philip & Fern. I think its a good decision to take it off air for the summer whether or not its anything to do with cost cuts. The format has become quite stale lately so a break could do it the world of good. It hasn't been off air (barring the week or two over Christmas) since summer 2006!

This Morning always used to be off air during the Summer through the 90's, even a stronger ITV at that time simply replaced it with old Rubbish films and crappy cartoons like James Bond Junior.

Nothing new at all, makes sense if they rest it for the Summer.

Michael Grade in denial as ever on Jeff Randall Live, and once again treating the viewer like fools if he really believes they won't notice the difference in drama output in ITV1. I very rarely watch dramas on ITV myself, yet it only takes a browse through the schedules to see this year there's only new 9pm drama a week, compared to this time last year where it was in the schedules on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays.

Also looks like itvlocal.com is on it's way out already - notice tonight how the URL had been removed from the regional news programmes.


itvplc.com have the full report for anyone who can stomach it - one of the interesting things there I thought was how the digital channels cost £112m a year and brings in over twice as much - £242m - in revenue, while GMTV costs £34m and brings in £56m. It's a shame they don't do a regional breakdown of ITV1's earnings, though it would probably now be quite difficult to account for, but overall ITV1 "costs" £979m (£112m of that was attributed to the regions in 2008 - that'll fall this year) and brings in £1,127m - so the digital channels combined are just as profitable as ITV1.

Sponsorship is at £58m, up from £56m last year - so if OFCOM did cave in on product placement (and they always cave in for ITV!) I can't see Product Placement bringing in more than that, which although it may seem a large amount compared to profits, looking at the revenue as a whole it's a very small fraction of £2bn.

I think many of ITV's problems come from previous management and buying Ask Jeeves and Friends Reunited was just stupid. They were on their way out even then.

Don't think ITV owns ask.com

I remember they had something to do with the UK ownership of Ask Jeeves, I didn't realise that ITV had such a strong interest in Scoot, in fact I didn't realise Scoot still existed. Anyone remember G-Wizz? That didn't last very long.

I really can't see an regional ITV like we use to do prior to the 90s working no more. Could 15 seperate regional identities with their studios fully operate in todays climate. The larger companies would more than likely do so. The days of stations doing their own output more or less went by the end of the 90s (excluding news) Anything else was being reduced.

I recommend a book to you entitled The Day The Dream Died: The Rise and Fall of ITV it is written by Raymond FItzwater who was executive producer of World In Action. In there it talks about after the 1991 Franchise Round how Granada wanted to be like the Carlton model even before Carlton took to the air in 1993.

Carlton may have ruined London in your eyes but the Thames I remember in its last few years wasn't as good as say a selected list of highlights throughout their history. Granada did the most damage in terms of making ITV less regionalised. They took over more regions, Charles Allen was committed into talking to the regulators to strip down PSB commitments in favour of more money to share holders.

Carltons worse crime was removing the names from regional names but Granada removed regionality all together and don't forget Granada had a majority share of Carlton in the merger.

The real loser in all this is the PSB requirements or making ITV unique compared to other channels. Its a shame that shareholders eyed glistened with the thought of more money by making the business leaner. True in any successful business when you can get away with it but with television, the only loser in the end is the viewer.