:-(
A former member
Let's hope they do get their backsides kicked again -- the arrogance of ITV PLC is incredible. They see rules as guidelines, and guidelines as there to be broken. It's time they were put in their place.
IS
Part of the problem is that even though a programme like Doc Martin is made in Cornwall, it's counted as a London production for various reasons - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/22/itv.mediabusiness
MB
The whole reason the regional production ethos that ITV used to have is that it no longer has any need to regional commissioning.
This is the fundamental flaw in the de-regionalisation of ITV. It wasn't just about having a selection of 15 different company names appearing at the start and/or end of the programme. It represented a little enclave - 15 eco-systems of artistic, technical and commercial mechanisms which was able to justify programme production without network commission but in blissful 'ignorance' to the big wide world try things out. As we all know, many ITV network shows started as small-time, non-network fare.
If ITV still commissioned at the local level, with each company not having to bear the burden of other companies' losses, they could take a few small-time risks, which would be less risky because (a) they'd have a lower budget - they wouldn't immediately have to fork out for The London Studios, TVC or similar, and (b) they'd be able to support the costs with more local advertising. Wales, Scotland and N.I. show that you can still make a viable business out of advertising for regional advertisers and, whilst not reaping the big bucks national and multinational firms do, it would be enough to cover smaller budgets.
Out of such little acorns, you never know, classics may evolve, either part-networked or fully-networked, with audience share more effectively competing with that for the internet due to word-of-mouth recommendations for what someone saw in their region. "Oh, didn't you get that in London?" "No - can you put a clip on YouTube?" "OK". "Wow - that's great." ITV Network Centre sense demand and commission said regional show for the network.
You see, the model could still work and would still be a REALLY Unique Selling Point for having a 'preferential commercial broadcaster' in this country - as in the old Rediffusion saying, "the BBC with adverts".
Channel 3/103 should always be open to whatever organisation wants to make this model work - and it can for the reasons outlined above. Clearly, ITVplc don't want to do this; clearly, UTV and STV would, can and do (as far as they can whilst having to carry so much network ITV1 fare). Why do you think those two companies don't simply pack up and go home? Even plucky little Channel, whilst not doing much in terms of making programmes for "The ITV Network", do a lot of tangential stuff which keeps them busy in the corporate communications arena with ITVplc themselves as one of their clients. Central had their "Business Breaks" initiative - at one time, giving local business short spots in a short infomercial-style package (the descendent of ATV Telespots). Again, if all ITV licencees had remained truly regional they could all have found their own niche markets and continued blazing trails for corporate, business and domestic communications for the good of the businesses and people of the region, in a way that funded the broadcast side of their business.
ITV as a regional network of independent but affiliated media centres with their own financial and development agendas did NOT become outmoded with the growth of the internet; it just failed to seize the new opportunities of this new age - and so resting on its laurels didn't become the player in the brave new world they could and should have been to warrant staying where they are.
Quote:
the level of resources staff in Manchester and Leeds is higher than required for the business levels forecast.
The whole reason the regional production ethos that ITV used to have is that it no longer has any need to regional commissioning.
This is the fundamental flaw in the de-regionalisation of ITV. It wasn't just about having a selection of 15 different company names appearing at the start and/or end of the programme. It represented a little enclave - 15 eco-systems of artistic, technical and commercial mechanisms which was able to justify programme production without network commission but in blissful 'ignorance' to the big wide world try things out. As we all know, many ITV network shows started as small-time, non-network fare.
If ITV still commissioned at the local level, with each company not having to bear the burden of other companies' losses, they could take a few small-time risks, which would be less risky because (a) they'd have a lower budget - they wouldn't immediately have to fork out for The London Studios, TVC or similar, and (b) they'd be able to support the costs with more local advertising. Wales, Scotland and N.I. show that you can still make a viable business out of advertising for regional advertisers and, whilst not reaping the big bucks national and multinational firms do, it would be enough to cover smaller budgets.
Out of such little acorns, you never know, classics may evolve, either part-networked or fully-networked, with audience share more effectively competing with that for the internet due to word-of-mouth recommendations for what someone saw in their region. "Oh, didn't you get that in London?" "No - can you put a clip on YouTube?" "OK". "Wow - that's great." ITV Network Centre sense demand and commission said regional show for the network.
You see, the model could still work and would still be a REALLY Unique Selling Point for having a 'preferential commercial broadcaster' in this country - as in the old Rediffusion saying, "the BBC with adverts".
Channel 3/103 should always be open to whatever organisation wants to make this model work - and it can for the reasons outlined above. Clearly, ITVplc don't want to do this; clearly, UTV and STV would, can and do (as far as they can whilst having to carry so much network ITV1 fare). Why do you think those two companies don't simply pack up and go home? Even plucky little Channel, whilst not doing much in terms of making programmes for "The ITV Network", do a lot of tangential stuff which keeps them busy in the corporate communications arena with ITVplc themselves as one of their clients. Central had their "Business Breaks" initiative - at one time, giving local business short spots in a short infomercial-style package (the descendent of ATV Telespots). Again, if all ITV licencees had remained truly regional they could all have found their own niche markets and continued blazing trails for corporate, business and domestic communications for the good of the businesses and people of the region, in a way that funded the broadcast side of their business.
ITV as a regional network of independent but affiliated media centres with their own financial and development agendas did NOT become outmoded with the growth of the internet; it just failed to seize the new opportunities of this new age - and so resting on its laurels didn't become the player in the brave new world they could and should have been to warrant staying where they are.
MN
I personally think that a fitting punishment would be a one day suspension of the broadcasting license, meaning that ITV would be literally unable to broadcast anything from midnight to 23:59:59 on one day. Perhaps a saturday.
I think the reason this would be a fitting punishment is that a fine dealt to a company with -profits- of over £100m (well over, i imagine) of £5m is only going to cause a downsizing of the sales execs fuel budget within the year at least.
Hit them where it hurts. A one day broadcasting suspension would mean that they a) would default on advertising contracts b) would lose credibility / viability as a trustable broadcaster c) would have the issue brought out of the 'and finally's of public domain news and into the headlines.
It's time ITV learnt its lessons.
I think the reason this would be a fitting punishment is that a fine dealt to a company with -profits- of over £100m (well over, i imagine) of £5m is only going to cause a downsizing of the sales execs fuel budget within the year at least.
Hit them where it hurts. A one day broadcasting suspension would mean that they a) would default on advertising contracts b) would lose credibility / viability as a trustable broadcaster c) would have the issue brought out of the 'and finally's of public domain news and into the headlines.
It's time ITV learnt its lessons.
BR
Obviously ITV aren't as good as fiddling things as the BBC where they just shift things to Scotland to fulfil the quota.
To be honest though them missing this quota by just 6% doesn't raise serious alarm bells with me - I'm far more concerned with their treatment of children's programming and how since they pledged five hours a week have barely managed two.
To be honest though them missing this quota by just 6% doesn't raise serious alarm bells with me - I'm far more concerned with their treatment of children's programming and how since they pledged five hours a week have barely managed two.
PE
that would work best. and in theory would only work, if they forced network centre to continue to provide the main feed and therefore allowed the other free franchises to broadcast perfectly normally whilst the ITV licences were taken off.
Pete
Founding member
MarkNewby posted:
I personally think that a fitting punishment would be a one day suspension of the broadcasting license, meaning that ITV would be literally unable to broadcast anything from midnight to 23:59:59 on one day. Perhaps a saturday.
that would work best. and in theory would only work, if they forced network centre to continue to provide the main feed and therefore allowed the other free franchises to broadcast perfectly normally whilst the ITV licences were taken off.
AN
Andrew
Founding member
This news is quite surprising when you consider that ITV often feels quite northern, more so than any other channel, what with Coronation Street, Emmerdale, Heartbeat, The Royal, The Royal Today etc dominating the schedules
EDIT: Having just read the MediaGuardian article, this now becomes clear, whereas ITV are supposed to make 50% of their programmes out of London, The BBC and Channel 4 only need to make 30% and Five only 10% which seems a bit strange
EDIT: Having just read the MediaGuardian article, this now becomes clear, whereas ITV are supposed to make 50% of their programmes out of London, The BBC and Channel 4 only need to make 30% and Five only 10% which seems a bit strange
SE
Square Eyes
Founding member
It's that ITV are required to have a higher proportion of their content originated outside of London than the other channels.
50% compared to 30% for BBC and C4, 10% for Five.
50% compared to 30% for BBC and C4, 10% for Five.