:-(
A former member
Aaaaa no more finger prince..
IN
The 90s franchise debacle screwed up ITV, but I think if you look at the overall effect it's had in the grand scheme of things it's negligible. Amongst the big network producers (and excepting GMTV) the real battle was not to make up the annual fees but actually to stay alive; Granada in particular had to sell off pretty much everything they owned (Motorway Service Areas, Hotels, theme parks - probably other stuff too) over time to remain solvent, knowing that if they themselves were not buying the others Carlton, UNM or Yorkshire would be, and ultimately would themselves would be a target.
It was an unhelpful distraction, but ultimately a status-quo IBA/ITV type arrangement would have struggled just as much as ITV did initially against Sky and an emboldened independent Channel 4; and would probably have utterly failed in the digital age. The whole multichannel thing is in turn a sideshow compared to the threat/opportunity of VoD.
The only thing that hit quality in my opinion was the 1991 franchise auction, not due to the loss of Thames (which is often the reason cited) but the whole process really unsettled the industry and caused budgets to be slashed as companies struggled to make up their annual fees.
That aside, since the introduction of multi-channel TV, of course the big channels' market share has been eaten into but also the cost of making television has substantially reduced, due to improved technology and the breaking up of the unions. This has allowed the big channels to maintain quality (if not improve) - and it's this quality which helps those channels stand out from the rest.
That aside, since the introduction of multi-channel TV, of course the big channels' market share has been eaten into but also the cost of making television has substantially reduced, due to improved technology and the breaking up of the unions. This has allowed the big channels to maintain quality (if not improve) - and it's this quality which helps those channels stand out from the rest.
The 90s franchise debacle screwed up ITV, but I think if you look at the overall effect it's had in the grand scheme of things it's negligible. Amongst the big network producers (and excepting GMTV) the real battle was not to make up the annual fees but actually to stay alive; Granada in particular had to sell off pretty much everything they owned (Motorway Service Areas, Hotels, theme parks - probably other stuff too) over time to remain solvent, knowing that if they themselves were not buying the others Carlton, UNM or Yorkshire would be, and ultimately would themselves would be a target.
It was an unhelpful distraction, but ultimately a status-quo IBA/ITV type arrangement would have struggled just as much as ITV did initially against Sky and an emboldened independent Channel 4; and would probably have utterly failed in the digital age. The whole multichannel thing is in turn a sideshow compared to the threat/opportunity of VoD.
:-(
A former member
That franchise debacle did screwed up ITV, I do believe we would have been in a better footing. I don't believe the likes of Granada would have been top dog. I believe Thames/central/ TVS would have become the big players and thus had a different version for ITV. Yes studios would have closed along with cost cutting, Central and TVS were doing this before 93. There did it in a much better way.
Granada only sold off its Theatres in 1990, nearly everything else there had to sell were done after there brought LWT and ITV digital, so straight away you can see where the money was going for bad business deal.
Its meager with Radio Rentals a dieing sector. Then there was in 2000 that merger with Compass Group then demerger which took everything bar TV operations.
Granada only sold off its Theatres in 1990, nearly everything else there had to sell were done after there brought LWT and ITV digital, so straight away you can see where the money was going for bad business deal.
Its meager with Radio Rentals a dieing sector. Then there was in 2000 that merger with Compass Group then demerger which took everything bar TV operations.
IN
I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Central was owned by a diffuse bunch of investors and treated as a cash cow. They sold out almost immediately after clearance for such sellouts was given, which tells you all you need to know.
HC
It's also tosh to believe that TVS would be a major player in ITV.
This was a company being crippled by the buying of MTM Entertainment in the US. Unfortunately for TVS this was at a time when the networks were starting to up the investment in network daytime shows, so the 'mom and pop' sized affiliates had better shows to fill up daytime schedules than creaky Mary Tyler Moore show repeats from 30+ years previously.
Had TVS renewed their franchise, then they would have sold up to LWT pretty soon after relaxation of the ownership rules, and MTM would have been sold for a price way under what TVS paid for it.
This was a company being crippled by the buying of MTM Entertainment in the US. Unfortunately for TVS this was at a time when the networks were starting to up the investment in network daytime shows, so the 'mom and pop' sized affiliates had better shows to fill up daytime schedules than creaky Mary Tyler Moore show repeats from 30+ years previously.
Had TVS renewed their franchise, then they would have sold up to LWT pretty soon after relaxation of the ownership rules, and MTM would have been sold for a price way under what TVS paid for it.
WH
The 90s franchise debacle screwed up ITV, but I think if you look at the overall effect it's had in the grand scheme of things it's negligible.
Oh absolutely, I'm not suggesting there was a long term effect, but enough to cause a lapse of quality through part of the 90s. In fact, dare I say it, the whole debacle actually set ITV up to be a stronger, leaner operation against multi-channel TV.
Whataday
Founding member
The only thing that hit quality in my opinion was the 1991 franchise auction, not due to the loss of Thames (which is often the reason cited) but the whole process really unsettled the industry and caused budgets to be slashed as companies struggled to make up their annual fees.
That aside, since the introduction of multi-channel TV, of course the big channels' market share has been eaten into but also the cost of making television has substantially reduced, due to improved technology and the breaking up of the unions. This has allowed the big channels to maintain quality (if not improve) - and it's this quality which helps those channels stand out from the rest.
That aside, since the introduction of multi-channel TV, of course the big channels' market share has been eaten into but also the cost of making television has substantially reduced, due to improved technology and the breaking up of the unions. This has allowed the big channels to maintain quality (if not improve) - and it's this quality which helps those channels stand out from the rest.
The 90s franchise debacle screwed up ITV, but I think if you look at the overall effect it's had in the grand scheme of things it's negligible.
Oh absolutely, I'm not suggesting there was a long term effect, but enough to cause a lapse of quality through part of the 90s. In fact, dare I say it, the whole debacle actually set ITV up to be a stronger, leaner operation against multi-channel TV.
:-(
A former member
I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Central was owned by a diffuse bunch of investors and treated as a cash cow. They sold out almost immediately after clearance for such sellouts was given, which tells you all you need to know.
Yet there made good programmes and won many awards. You can treat any company like a cash cow if your making tons of money while providing which it did award winning shows.
It's also tosh to believe that TVS would be a major player in ITV.
This was a company being crippled by the buying of MTM Entertainment in the US. Unfortunately for TVS this was at a time when the networks were starting to up the investment in network daytime shows, so the 'mom and pop' sized affiliates had better shows to fill up daytime schedules than creaky Mary Tyler Moore show repeats from 30+ years previously.
Had TVS renewed their franchise, then they would have sold up to LWT pretty soon after relaxation of the ownership rules, and MTM would have been sold for a price way under what TVS paid for it.
This was a company being crippled by the buying of MTM Entertainment in the US. Unfortunately for TVS this was at a time when the networks were starting to up the investment in network daytime shows, so the 'mom and pop' sized affiliates had better shows to fill up daytime schedules than creaky Mary Tyler Moore show repeats from 30+ years previously.
Had TVS renewed their franchise, then they would have sold up to LWT pretty soon after relaxation of the ownership rules, and MTM would have been sold for a price way under what TVS paid for it.
I would have to agree about LWT and TVS. I dare say MTM would have still been sold off to Family channel but the maidstone studios would have been kept by LWT and just rented space.
But my point would be from 1999 ITV would have been in the hands of old school people and not the awful money grabbers. Yes I know what LWT did in the late 80s but it had to be done.
I still believe making ITV have 25% of its show made by indi is wrong.
SW
I disagree with this, sometimes I think it's harder for a sitcom not to get a second series than it is to get one, Count Arthur Strong is a good example, it got next to nothing first time round and got recommissioned, Watson and Oliver was another one. The former at least had critical acclaim, the latter certainly didn't. You've also got Stewart Lee who's had three series and has been recommissioned for a fourth. Yes, the BBC need to get ratings but more than ever they need to be distinctive.
Also as well there are just as many genres in primetime as there used to be, and indeed there's probably more intelligent programming in primetime. You can look at People's Century, the Beeb's history of the 20th Century, in the mid-nineties. That wasn't shown in primetime, the first series was at 10pm - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/4bc5ddd75e3e4a8d9f0278167580d96f - the second on Sunday teatime - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/9bd81a37d1094cb780c8377e9e041565 - and the third late on Sundays - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/e516f287938d4355bc67f2c586ab7054 These days that would be at 9pm on BBC1, guaranteed. I remember when BBC1 showed Finest Hour in 1999 (http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/7d116c7f888743da989cf5927e435172) and it was considered quite big news at the time because it was the first history show on primetime BBC1 for years. Nowadays it would be really common.
Some things have got worse, but we do get lots more factual, and intelligent factual, in primetime than we used to.
That's a good point actually. In the early multi channel days, channels like that would show a varied schedule. Now they show their few biggest ones back to back every single day.
This is reducing the chances of success of new shows, as people can just watch Big Bang Theory every night instead of watching a new comedy.
It's quite sad that many new shows don't even get a good rating for their first episode. Plus people make their mind up very quickly, so all those hit shows that were actually poor in the first series, wouldn't have become hits in today's world. Wasn't Only Fools and Horses' first series a bit poor.
This is reducing the chances of success of new shows, as people can just watch Big Bang Theory every night instead of watching a new comedy.
It's quite sad that many new shows don't even get a good rating for their first episode. Plus people make their mind up very quickly, so all those hit shows that were actually poor in the first series, wouldn't have become hits in today's world. Wasn't Only Fools and Horses' first series a bit poor.
I disagree with this, sometimes I think it's harder for a sitcom not to get a second series than it is to get one, Count Arthur Strong is a good example, it got next to nothing first time round and got recommissioned, Watson and Oliver was another one. The former at least had critical acclaim, the latter certainly didn't. You've also got Stewart Lee who's had three series and has been recommissioned for a fourth. Yes, the BBC need to get ratings but more than ever they need to be distinctive.
Also as well there are just as many genres in primetime as there used to be, and indeed there's probably more intelligent programming in primetime. You can look at People's Century, the Beeb's history of the 20th Century, in the mid-nineties. That wasn't shown in primetime, the first series was at 10pm - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/4bc5ddd75e3e4a8d9f0278167580d96f - the second on Sunday teatime - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/9bd81a37d1094cb780c8377e9e041565 - and the third late on Sundays - http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/e516f287938d4355bc67f2c586ab7054 These days that would be at 9pm on BBC1, guaranteed. I remember when BBC1 showed Finest Hour in 1999 (http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/7d116c7f888743da989cf5927e435172) and it was considered quite big news at the time because it was the first history show on primetime BBC1 for years. Nowadays it would be really common.
Some things have got worse, but we do get lots more factual, and intelligent factual, in primetime than we used to.
HC
And name a US drama import that BBC One show in peaktime these days..
Your point about sit-coms is quite interesting, because I keep saying at work that Mrs Browns Boys only got on air because of the theatre following Brendan O'Carroll had, so in effect there was a ready made audience for it, and he took the 'smashing of the 4th wall' element of his stage show into the tv series - although I've heard an interview with him on RTE Radio and said it went through 3 pilots, all of which removed that element and it simply didn't work, and almost gave up bringing the show to the tv screen.
Another show that the BBC seem to like is Citizen Khan. I find it laboured and heavy going in parts, and needs a more assertive script editor to cut some scenes so they don't outrun the humour. But moving it from 9.30 down to 8.30 and becoming more mainstream (and making the title character more cartoon-ish in the process) seemed to have worked - although I do wonder if it also ticks some convenient boxes.
All of which makes the ending of the Reeves and Mortimer vehicle 'House Of Fools' by BBC Two even more baffling. Apparently it didn't rate well, and there was one episode in the last series which almost collapsed under it's own weight of finding a storyline, but in general, it was distinctive, subversive to the sit-come genre and above all an original comedy series - which is what the BBC is supposed to be about.
Your point about sit-coms is quite interesting, because I keep saying at work that Mrs Browns Boys only got on air because of the theatre following Brendan O'Carroll had, so in effect there was a ready made audience for it, and he took the 'smashing of the 4th wall' element of his stage show into the tv series - although I've heard an interview with him on RTE Radio and said it went through 3 pilots, all of which removed that element and it simply didn't work, and almost gave up bringing the show to the tv screen.
Another show that the BBC seem to like is Citizen Khan. I find it laboured and heavy going in parts, and needs a more assertive script editor to cut some scenes so they don't outrun the humour. But moving it from 9.30 down to 8.30 and becoming more mainstream (and making the title character more cartoon-ish in the process) seemed to have worked - although I do wonder if it also ticks some convenient boxes.
All of which makes the ending of the Reeves and Mortimer vehicle 'House Of Fools' by BBC Two even more baffling. Apparently it didn't rate well, and there was one episode in the last series which almost collapsed under it's own weight of finding a storyline, but in general, it was distinctive, subversive to the sit-come genre and above all an original comedy series - which is what the BBC is supposed to be about.
:-(
A former member
Of course Mrs brown boys it seems may only have been for BBC One Scotand, until someone else looked at it. It wasnt the network which wanted to make the series.
AN
I disagree with this, sometimes I think it's harder for a sitcom not to get a second series than it is to get one, Count Arthur Strong is a good example, it got next to nothing first time round and got recommissioned, Watson and Oliver was another one. The former at least had critical acclaim, the latter certainly didn't. You've also got Stewart Lee who's had three series and has been recommissioned for a fourth. Yes, the BBC need to get ratings but more than ever they need to be distinctive.
I was thinking more your big hit comedies on BBC1 and ITV. Comedy on BBC2 and Channel 4 has always aired to a small but appreciative audience and with critical acclaim and there hasn't been any change in that department.
This is notable at the British Comedy awards when almost all the winners are shows you've barely heard of due to this the ceremony is a low rating after thought. Even when it was still on ITV it rated quite poorly.
Andrew
Founding member
That's a good point actually. In the early multi channel days, channels like that would show a varied schedule. Now they show their few biggest ones back to back every single day.
This is reducing the chances of success of new shows, as people can just watch Big Bang Theory every night instead of watching a new comedy.
It's quite sad that many new shows don't even get a good rating for their first episode. Plus people make their mind up very quickly, so all those hit shows that were actually poor in the first series, wouldn't have become hits in today's world. Wasn't Only Fools and Horses' first series a bit poor.
This is reducing the chances of success of new shows, as people can just watch Big Bang Theory every night instead of watching a new comedy.
It's quite sad that many new shows don't even get a good rating for their first episode. Plus people make their mind up very quickly, so all those hit shows that were actually poor in the first series, wouldn't have become hits in today's world. Wasn't Only Fools and Horses' first series a bit poor.
I disagree with this, sometimes I think it's harder for a sitcom not to get a second series than it is to get one, Count Arthur Strong is a good example, it got next to nothing first time round and got recommissioned, Watson and Oliver was another one. The former at least had critical acclaim, the latter certainly didn't. You've also got Stewart Lee who's had three series and has been recommissioned for a fourth. Yes, the BBC need to get ratings but more than ever they need to be distinctive.
I was thinking more your big hit comedies on BBC1 and ITV. Comedy on BBC2 and Channel 4 has always aired to a small but appreciative audience and with critical acclaim and there hasn't been any change in that department.
This is notable at the British Comedy awards when almost all the winners are shows you've barely heard of due to this the ceremony is a low rating after thought. Even when it was still on ITV it rated quite poorly.