You are Michael Grade

I don't get the point of this. The viewer then has the choice on the main channels of a) News or b) News. What if they don't want news? I don't think it will be moving back.

Does it actually make a difference to the broadcaster - somehow not!!!! The broadcasters will alwaysa find someone to fill the gap - just like they have done with the sponsors of Emmerdale and just like they will do for Coronation Street. Now that Grade is at the helm, with his overall "Feel Good" factor and IF the fortunes of ITV do start turning then it won't be much of a hassle to find new advertisers. The so-called Fast Food Advertisers got the slots cheap because ITV are currently in the duldrums and advertisers don't, in general, want to pay for slots on the channel and ITV do need to make money.

Fast Food were never the biggest advertiser in the past and they won't be in the future so honestly speaking I feel that ITV will recover from the loss of Fast Food adverts with some other advertisments.

Is it just purely down to advertisments, though. If a programme is good then the broadcaster can sell the programme world-wide and actually make more money than from the advertisments (big exmaples of that are many of the BBC children's programmes being sold - actually creating more revenue (I beleive although not concrete in fact) than what ITV does for the whole of its children's slot on ITV1).

Also if its the case that broadcaster will lose money then what are C4, Sky et al going to do for the programmes that are not actually classed as children's but still having to lose advertisers/sponsors due to possible number of children watching (i.e. The Simpsons, Malcom In The MIddle, Futurama etc...).

This fear is just exactly the same as The MIllenium Bug and the Weapons of Mass Destruction - very unbelievable and do they broadcasters have concrete fact that they will lose money - IMHOP its just scare-mongering!

Until the law comes into force why not continue as normal and mock at what could/should happen with children's programming.

Now back to "If I Was MIchael Grade"

You have to laugh at some of the amateur economists in here who think they know the market place better than those proven in the industry.

Keep going, you're priceless.

all year round?

Some posters seem to just be harking back to the past for no reason except nostalga. Using the brand "Watch it"?!. Nobody under the age of 30 even remembers that.

so who will rmemeber Milkshake in 30 years, or even CITV???? It was used as an example and I'm sure the people with an affinity for marketing could come up with a "decent" gimmick - such as those at Red Bee who created the first phase of new idents!!!!

Hence the exact reason as to what's wrong with this country - instead of taking the gut instinct its all about money and the economists point of view. How many times have economists got it wrong and the common person using gut instinct got it right?

I am not an economist and you scoff at me, like you did, but if it wasn't for my gut instinct I wouldn't be as successful as I am today - if I purely based my life on the economy I effectively would be broke - gut instinct on ideas, chances etc have given me my career - do you think that the business people on Dragons Den or even Alan Sugar knew about the economy when they first started or after their first few initial successes.

Sounds like most of the people in this thread. God, why don't they just broadcast in black and white again? People have no vision.

You run a thriving television network do you ?

And which 'thriving network do you refer to?

Do you? If not, why not? If you think you have to nouse to make one successful - take the chance rather than just implying!

I don't run a TV company but I do have a very successful company - luckily not based in the UK otherwise economists would take it over and destroy not only it soul but also the company itself!

Everything always has to descend into a feud with egomaniacs battling to show their 'superiority'. In this case Square Eyes has said something anyone could have said for maximum effect really.


Better than the likes of Charles Allen? He may be good with sums but he was still a greedy b astard, out of touch with what viewers wanted, determined to make ITV lowest-common-denominator TV.

Course we're not economists or TV executives, but we are the viewer and though some if not many of our ideas may be a bit implausible, they are still valid, however idealistic.

Makes me angry how people treat others with such little respect.

*does best Nan Taylor impression* "TV Forum? What-a-loada S HIT!"

I am an economist, so I can safely say that the junk food ban will have a negative effect on the advertising revenues. There will be fewer companies that are willing and able to advertise in any given slot, so the end result is that those who remain and wish to advertise at those times will pay less to do so. However it is of course possible that is there is a significant contraction in the number of programmes as a result of this drop in revenue, the change in the supply could even force the price above the current levels.

Not being an expert on the broadcast advertising market, I couldn’t say to what extent revenues will fall; and it is clearly in the interests of those likely to be effected to campaign to reduce the size of the effects.


amosc100 – not quite sure why you have this seemingly irrational dislike of economists. Do you think that members of the Government Economic Service (which actually exists – although to advise government departments in the development of policy), are going to walk into your business and tell you what to do? That certainly wouldn’t be very free market; is it actually economists you fear or accountants (if of course you do have a 'very successful company' which your last sentance leads me to believe that you don't)?