The MediaBlog
Friday 3 July 2009
ITN newsreader Alastair Stewart calls for 'Beeching' inquiry into BBC
Weirdly misappropriate-yet-somehow-highly-appropriate analogy of the month: TV presenter demands inquiry that results in major cutbacks based on short-term desires which most people end up regretting many years later. Well that's what happened to the railways as the result of the Beeching committee (apart from the TV presenter bit).
The 'Beeching' analogy serves a useful warning to anyone that is contemplating any major external review of the BBC's functions that could particularly happen if a future government was of the Conservative persuasion, but could such a review actually turn out to be the best thing for the BBC in the longer term?
Since the BBC hasn't escaped the prospect of its licence fee being 'top-sliced', this does seem to suggest that BBC management have singularly failed to convince central government that it deserves every penny of the licence fee as it stood.
And this also proves that the BBC Trust's periodic surveys of BBC services to assess whether or not they represent value for money are simply just that, with no indication(s) as to which service(s) are more or less important than each other - BBC One may be more important than the CBeebies TV channel, but where does 1Xtra fit into this equation?
For example, if government ministers believe that 1Xtra as a service is less important than, say, BBC News, yet BBC management thinks otherwise, then something else will inevitably suffer as a consequence of BBC management trying to preserve both services in the face of financial cutbacks.
Getting both BBC management and cabinet ministers on the same track will be crucial as to what happens next, but justifying the existing licence fee based on the BBC's components alone is the way forward as opposed to trimming back services based on theoretical desires, since that latter strategy proved to be a disaster for the railways.
More blog posts about: BBC, BBC Trust, Digital Britain, Ofcom, top-slicing
ITN newsreader Alastair Stewart calls for 'Beeching' inquiry into BBC - Guardian
ITN newscaster Alastair Stewart attacked the BBC at a CBI NW region dinner last night, suggesting that it would benefit from a "Beeching style enquiry" to assess whether its services are all really "necessary and viable".
A "Beeching"-style enquiry into the BBC? You must be joking – look at the damage Beeching did that will hit us even harder as we enter the age of climate change. Taking the country's major assets and willfully destroying them is not an answer to the question of why people aren't watching the competition.
Calling for a "Beeching-style" enquiry is equivalent to calling for a hatchet job. In fact the suggestion is very revealing of true intent.
Only someone working for a competing media producer could think of such a thing. Go out and do a better job than the BBC and then you can talk from a position of strength instead of one of desperation. Make the investments in new technologies, innovative programming, stuff that isn't dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator. Make some interesting programmes that are worth watching. And yes, cover the news better.
Everyone and their friend who still works on a newspaper wants to get at the BBC, but it is still doing a brilliant job. It just lost its nerve back in the days of the Hutton Enquiry. Yes, everyone has something to say about the licence fee - it's the worst way of raising money for PSB except for all the others - but by not being a tax it is not so much able to be influenced by a government annoyed at criticism. We need ring-fenced funding for quality broadcasting to ensure it doesn't all go the way of ITV - down to the bottom.
Yes, we also need other PSB providers, doing innovative things. We have at least one, in the shape of Channel 4 with its remarkable development initiatives like 4ip, but we need more. Is top-slicing the answer? No. Unfortunately there's a precedent for that so no doubt we'll see more, but at least keep it in the PSB arena.
We need a BBC that is free to make the programmes and deliver the services that commercial operators can't, or won't, provide. Look at the world-leading BBC web site; the world-leading BBC documentary and factual programming; the popular BBC News channel. These all offer amazing value at half the price of a daily newspaper and half the price of an average Sky subscription.
Of course there will be areas of the BBC that can be improved. I have no doubt that a bit of transparency would go a long way - a process already started. How about transparency on the commercial side? No doubt we would like the Corporation to pay less for celebrities - which is fine as long as everyone else does the same and it's not in breach of contract. There's room for improvement for sure - but a slash-and-burn dismemberment is not even slightly an answer.
Being unable or unwilling to compete is not a good reason for dissing the opposition. It sounds a lot too much like sour grapes.
More blog posts about: BBC, funding, licence fee, PSB, public service broadcasting
Wednesday 1 July 2009
Put the boot into DAB, and try to Save FM" - Jack Schofield, Guardian Technology Blog
If we are keeping digital radio in its present form, then it certainly makes sense for us to upgrade from current DAB's antiquated MP2 technology to DAB+/DMB-A, which allow the use of modern codecs and thus higher quality (current DAB stations are abysmal compared to good FM) on a far smaller bandwidth.
Yes, of course the vast majority of existing DAB radios will be obsolete at some point, but they do not have an enormously long life anyway, and we are all used to hardware going out of date in today's world, aren't we? It's a fact of life. We get new gadgets because we want to, and because they do so much more than the old ones: there isn't time for them to become technically obsolete.
However, there is a real question in my mind whether we shouldn't simply skip all that and go to an IP-based system for the "radio space".
Radio in the UK is obviously extremely popular - possibly more popular than ever, apparently paradoxically, But whether "the space occupied by radio", to use Bill Thompson's excellent phrase, has to be carried on a multiplex terrestrial broadcast structure for the foreseeable future is another matter, because carrying it via IP networks would make more sense.
Integrating the radio space into a national network infrastructure would make the current Band III and L-Band spaces available for other services - but only if that IP-based infrastructure exists. It would require true broadband of the fibre-to-the-home variety supplied on a universal service basis - one single network in which the installation of cheaper urban infrastructure would subsidise the hard-to-reach rural environments - and would thus need to be laid down by a national service provider (even if it subcontracts installation to existing private companies).
An FTTH infrastructure would be backed up by large-scale WiMax-style wireless network provision to allow mobile listening to internet radio stations and much more, including coverage of really difficult areas.
Given that, then of course you can have all kinds of 'ultra-local' 'broadcasters' - but they could be heard all over the country (and beyond). Given symmetrical broadband we can all be content providers, even if, like most blogs, the vast majority only have a tiny audience. At the same time, the network can carry all existing radio broadcasters and you no longer need to think of the "airwaves" as a scarce resource to which only the privileged few can have access - "here comes everybody".
If a true Digital Britain were in our future, then a sensible approach would be to hang on to FM until it's in place. But copper-based 2Mb/s is not what this requires.
More blog posts about: broadband, DAB, Digital Britain, FM, radio
ITV1 slumps to all-time ratings low
This is rather hard to believe even allowing for ITV1's lax summer schedule combined with Wimbledon tennis and the slow but continuing growth of multichannel television; namely the fact that ITV1 suffered the worst ratings in its 54-year history last week as it slumped to an all-hours share of just 16.1%.
As others may have suggested, ITV and its advertisers might not be unduly bothered at this ignominious milestone being reached since it can still claim the spoils of success from Britain's Got Talent and the X Factor, but this is a shocking indictment for what should still be the UK's largest (and is the most established) commercial broadcaster.
It seems that ITV's long-standing neglect of its daytime schedule for ITV1 combined with an anti-imports policy have finally caught up with it, and since it's no longer in a position to try things too radical, ITV has been left stranded with a whole raft of rapidly-aging shows with the inability to spend much money on replacing them.
Of course if ITV had spent time freshening up its schedule at the start of the decade as opposed to limping on with This Morning, Loose Women, etc., in the daytime, along with cultivating replacements for existing peak time programming that were nearing retirement (such as A Touch of Frost), then it would undoubtedly be in a stronger position today.
But ITV got distracted with the emerging Pop Idol/Popstars type of programming (remember Will Young and Gareth Gates?), whilst simultaneously planning and executing the Granada-Carlton merger together with numerous associated regional cutbacks.
So whilst ITV was merrily handing out P45's to loyal and long-serving staff, the schedule outside of quick-fix reality TV and poorly conceived drama began to stagnate, and a whole selection of failed peak time 'experiments' combined with the inability to stick with anything that remotely showed any long-term promise virtually sealed the deal.
By the time Michael Grade arrived on the scene in 2007 it was really too late to do anything much at this stage, since the peaktime schedule had turned into a virtual firefight which in turn consumed even more time and money. Then a recession came along to block the free use of what little spare income there was left at this point.
The excuse that viewer loyalty no longer exists courtesy of a greater choice of TV channels may still carry some weight, but if ITV continues to decline at this rate then ITV1 may end up faring little better than Sky 1 in terms of popularity when the soaps/reality TV juggernauts are removed from the equation.
More blog posts about: ITV, ITV1, Michael Grade
Tuesday 30 June 2009
BSkyB's Mike Darcey attacks 'culture of dependency' in UK television
Up to now, BSkyB has enjoyed a near-privileged position as the UK's dominant pay-TV operator, and this has been tolerated not just because of any claimed political influence that News Corporation may have courtesy of its newspaper division, but also through the prosperity enjoyed by major sporting clubs and other media via Sky's subscription model.
However more recently there has been a surprising change of direction signalled by central government; notably a hardening of attitude towards the dominance of BSkyB, with the first shot being directed at Sky's unwillingness to openly share its premium content amongst rivals.
So what has changed recently to suggest that the BSkyB party may now finally be over? Several factors are at play here, including the steadily waning political influence of newspapers (even if their sales haven't collapsed yet), plus Virgin Media emerging as a major player and BSkyB's increasing dominance setting off alarm bells both here and in Europe.
This cause for concern is based on the suspicion that parts of what BSkyB is currently doing might be technically speaking illegal under both UK and EU legislation, namely the abuse of sporting (and other) rights in order to shut out any potential competitors to its pay-TV service.
The very recent demise of Setanta Sports (at least in the UK) may also be a contributory factor here, since the earlier failure of ITV Digital could conveniently also be blamed on other factors such as broken pay-TV encryption codes, poor timing and - allegedly - incompetence.
BSkyB seems fit to continue the illusion that it's still an 'outsider' in the media world (and in some respects it still is, courtesy of being the dominant UK pay-TV provider) when this claim suits the thrust of its argument, whilst at the same time happily continuing to assert that it's the only source of digital TV that's worth having.
Claims like "Sky might cut back on its investment in UK original production, including drama and arts programming, if it is forced by Ofcom into wholesale deals with other pay-TV operators such as Virgin Media for its premium sport and movie channels" just aren't valid when Sky Arts is openly used as a commercial selling point for its packages.
Therefore Sky won't be cutting back on its arts programming unless a rival were to launch an arts channel (very unlikely in the current climate), or that Sky Arts (HD) somehow wasn't effective enough in attracting and retaining Sky TV subscribers; Sky needs lots of HD channels as a major selling point, at least for the next couple of years.
BSkyB's current contribution to television drama is still microscopic to say the least, and again it's very probable that any recent small increase in drama production is attestable to Sky just attempting to fill a void that is appearing as a result of ITV plc scaling back on its drama ambitions.
Plus to suggest that US drama House would be 'lost' as a result is simply laughable when you realise that Channel Five would have been showing it effectively free of charge anyway if Sky hadn't put in a higher bid, and another (possibly free-to-air) broadcaster would have picked up HBO's The Pacific if Sky couldn't have acquired it in the first place.
Put another way, the free-to-air commercial television broadcast model may be suffering as the result of several factors but is still viable enough at present to deliver a reasonably comprehensive range of programming (ITV's woes are a special case in themselves) without the noble assistance of Sky.
When you start to analyse the claims being made by BSkyB representatives in greater depth and parts of them start to unravel at the seams, the problem is that you cannot go on making unsubstantiated claims if you want to be treated seriously, therefore still behaving as if you're an unchallengeable monopoly will get you nowhere fast.
And perhaps into trouble just as quickly.
More blog posts about: BSkyB, ITV, Setanta Sports
Friday 26 June 2009
Once every so often, a news story breaks of great enough importance that gets the media into such a tizz it makes everything else take a back seat for a while, although the hype on this occasion was just about justified given the cultural impact that this person had, not just on the music industry but on a global scale.
I'm of course referring to the death of pop star Michael Jackson (how could it be anything else?!), since unless you're residing in the Big Brother house (god forbid) or currently living somewhere like Iran, you can't help but have noticed what has been happening today courtesy of blanket coverage provided by most major media outlets.
Of course major news stories like this one are manna from heaven for the rolling news channels, so it was no surprise to learn that Sky News apparently got so carried away with the story that it displayed its "BREAKING NEWS" strapline for so long it almost became a running joke.
In an era of instant news coverage it's almost expected nowadays that the corresponding tribute documentary should be ready to show given five seconds' notice, and the major broadcasters didn't disappoint on this occasion, with all the terrestrial broadcasters eagerly responding to the perceived demand.
And with Channel Five controller Dawn Airey's prior pledge to specialise in fast turnaround documentaries responding to major news events, it's no surprise whatsoever that Five was quick out the gates with its "Michael Jackson: King of Pop" at 7pm. (A title coincidentally also used by 4Music's tribute; presumably there was no time to be too imaginative.)
Next up was BBC One's BBC News Special half an hour later, presented by Jeremy Vine and was predictably a bit more serious than Five's effort as well as usefully being more of a reaction piece than just a retrospective, although there were bite-sized music clips to break up what could theoretically have been a relatively lifeless studio discussion.
Then ITV1 showed its effort as an hour-long special at 8pm, axing Airline and moving Corrie to 9pm as a consequence; of interest was the fact that it wasn't made by Granada ITV Productions Studios and was narrated by club DJ Seb Fontaine, suggesting that much of it was already in the can just waiting to be shown.
As well as its news coverage at 7pm, Channel 4 also opted to show its hour-long Life Of Pop at 8pm as well, although competing with ITV1 isn't exactly the deathwish it once was (apart from when it's doing Britain's Got Talent or The X Factor), but I never saw much of this due to dodgy Freeview reception so can't comment on what it was like.
Poor Channel 4.
Even BBC Two wasn't going to be left out of the action with a 20 minute Newsnight Special at 11pm sandwiched between Glastonbury coverage and Newsnight proper. Of course Sky One and various music TV channels also got in on the tribute act, although Virgin 1 perhaps predictably wouldn't waver from showing its X-Files/Star Trek marathon.
Plus of course there were the Michael Jackson tracks liberally sprinkled all over the radio schedules, only varying in era depending on which station(s) you were listening to; stations such as Smooth Radio predictably homed in on Michael Jackson's Motown recordings whilst the trendier stations went for the likes of Thriller/Beat It/etc..
Radio 2's factual contribution largely consisted of a 30-minute Paul Gambacinni-narrated documentary at 7pm entitled An Appreciation of Michael Jackson, which of course like other BBC offerings is available to listen to via the iPlayer for the next seven days. And naturally, Radio 4 also used its Today Programme to provide relevant coverage.
It's impossible to say whether interest in the death of Michael Jackson exceeded either that of Elvis Presley in 1977 or John Lennon in 1980, even though certain people seemed to think that this was the case; for one thing there wasn't the ability to react as quickly in terms of documentary-making or multiple media outlets competing for people's attention.
Certainly this major story provided a stern test for new media in particular, with various websites recording heavy traffic even if they weren't temporarily taken offline as a consequence. Instant messaging services like Twitter and mobile phone texts reached a heady peak, especially in the US when the story was in the early stages of unfurling.
And finally, BBC management must be breathing a sigh of relief that this story came along at an opportune moment to divert some of the attention away from the BBC's publication of various staff expense claim revelations, which although might not have been on the same scale as MP's expense claims they were enough to ruffle a few feathers in the process.
RIP Michael Jackson.
More blog posts about: BBC, BBC News, Channel 4, ITV, news, radio, Sky News
Wednesday 24 June 2009
BBC's Mark Thompson attacks plans to 'top-slice' licence fee
BBC pledges crackdown on 'intrusive and humiliating' broadcasts
If politicians tend to live in a world of their own, as evidenced by the recent MP's expenses scandals, then broadcasters also tend to live in a world of their own making, as evidenced by their recent premium rate interactivity scandals as well as someone being disciplined over the naming of a cat on Blue Peter.
Put another way, if Mark Thompson and people like him within the broadcasting industry were more openly communicative in relation to what they do and how they do it, as opposed to constantly assuming that "they're always right" or by being too obsessed with minute details, then current BBC-Government relations could at least be a bit easier.
It took Mark Thompson a whole week to give a formal response to the final Digital Britain report, and his response to the previous first draft was almost as slow; indeed the BBC Trust responded to both reports much faster than Mark Thompson did. Which looks bad whichever way you look at it, even if Thompson had some justification for being late to the party.
Then there's the potentially oppressive response that has also been given to the recent 'Sachsgate' scandal, which promises to crack down on "intrusive and humiliating broadcasts" (whatever that will entail).
Yes it's true that both Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross badly overstepped the mark when it came to that infamous broadcast, but the real problem lay with the system that was already in place to protect against such a failure but at the same time gives enough creative freedom so as not to stifle genuine freedom of expression.
If someone presses the ejector seat button in a fighter aircraft, only the pilot has himself to blame for subsequently hurtling to the ground as a consequence. Likewise, if both a producer and a channel controller fails to spot a glaring problem in relation to broadcast compliance, then they are to blame for not doing their jobs properly.
And nobody else.
Adding another layer of bureaucracy to the BBC's output betrays a lack of confidence in both its staff and middle management, and when that happens it's no wonder that certain outsiders also tend to lose faith in the BBC as a consequence.
And based on recent events, it's almost as if senior BBC management have no control whatsoever over their staff, and - ultimately - no trust in their actions.
More blog posts about: BBC, Digital Britain, Mark Thompson, Sachsgate
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Setanta goes into administration with loss of 200 jobs
After numerous ups and downs that somewhat mirrored the trials and tribulations of football itself, the Setanta saga finally draws to an ignominious conclusion after several aborted attempts at a rescue deal. Those who know the circumstances behind the fate of ITV Digital won't be too surprised at this news, to be honest.
So who exactly has emerged the winner here? The Premier League certainly has come out of this very well given the current economic crisis, since they have been paid exactly the same amount of money for the 2010 rights (£159m) by ESPN/Disney, even if they have lost out in the short term through the Setanta collapse.
Plus given the interest also previously shown by US billionaire Leonard Blavatnik, you can't help think that either the Americans know more about marketing sport than the Brits, or that they're more willing to take a (highly risky?) gamble.
At least ESPN has wisely decided to play it relatively safe by opting for a more traditional premium channel approach, although they really can't afford to do things any other way in the present climate.
Of course another winner out of all of this just has to be Sky, even though they have gained no football matches as an outcome. BSkyB played a clever game of cat-and-mouse intimidation against Setanta, such as going as far as to construct a whole new terrestrial pay-TV service (remember Picnic?) as a result.
And I still maintain that Sky had no real intention of actually launching Picnic whatsoever unless it was subsequently forced into doing so if Setanta and/or Top Up TV turned out to be a runaway success. (Given the earlier failure of ITV Digital, who would have bet on that happening anyway.)
All BSkyB cared about were people opting to subscribe to Setanta as opposed to Sky, although of course they still have Virgin Media and perhaps others as well to contend with from now onwards; platforms for which ESPN could easily form separate carriage deals.
It's instructive to note that BSkyB could have easily bought one of the two football match packages that Setanta had formerly owned but decided for whatever reason not to. Bear in mind that this is the same BSkyB who bought ITV shares as "an investment" (!) and has also bid well over the odds for supposedly 'worthless' Virgin Media TV channels.
All of this combined with what previously happened to ITV Digital just goes to prove that the current system of allowing one broadcaster to dominate football rights may not exactly work as intended, even though football fans may be pleased at not having to take out two or more subscriptions in order to view the majority of matches.
Then there's another topic that hardly anyone seems to have mentioned in the context of a Setanta failure; namely what could happen to Top Up TV as a result. Although Setanta and Top Up TV are two completely separate entities, having one of these fail won't be good news at all for the prospects of terrestrial pay-TV in any form.
Which of course will be even better news for Sky.
More blog posts about: BSkyB, ESPN, Picnic, Premiership football, Setanta Sports, Top Up TV
Thursday 18 June 2009
Ben Bradshaw tells BBC: to save the licence fee, share it
It's not surprising that the final Digital Britain report has provoked a wide range of reactions, and it was perhaps inevitable that the so-called "top slicing" of the TV licence fee would become prominent given the lack of available income from other sources combined with a lack of willingness to tax digital TV subscriptions for various reasons.
Exactly how much of Digital Britain will actually convert into real life changes remains to be seen, since (and very predictably) much of it is basically just theoretical musings based on some available evidence. And that 2015 analogue radio switchoff date is simply wishful thinking based on a short term desire to boost small sections of the economy.
The European Commission's response to the contestable funding proposal - along with its actual implementation - will also determine its viability, plus there is always the risk that even if the proposal does reach the statute books there may be severe limitations as to what the available money can be used for in order to avoid infringing EU rules.
It seems fairly evident that the contents of Digital Britain have been structured around the short term problems that surround the media industry as it currently stands together with a lack of money available from the public purse, especially when combined with a restricted timescale before the next election that precludes extensive legislation.
This has inevitably downgraded public service broadcasting requirements both in terms of additional funds available and in respect of defending the status quo, leading predictably to a 'top-sliced' licence fee along with Channel 4 being more or less left to defend for itself.
From a historical perspective, regional news requirements were always a strong consideration in relation to awarding and revoking Channel 3 franchises, therefore maybe it isn't too surprising that ITV's recent regional news cutbacks combined with the future threat of total withdrawal from regional news has stung government into action of its own.
Unlike English regional television programming, regional news is still regarded as vitally important by politicians as a public service; at least important enough to make fundamental changes to the way the licence fee operates in order to preserve a two-way choice of regional news.
Regardless of who provides regional television news and who pays for it, all of this saga still leaves the question of what will now happen in relation to the BBC, what it produces, and how it justifies its use of the licence fee. That last part is especially pertinent given the occasionally hostile stance recently shown by government ministers towards the BBC.
The BBC's problem is that it has already been subjected to much of the cutbacks that have resulted from an equivalent reduction in licence fee income that was caused by Mark Thompson's desperate generous offer to help fund the digital TV switchover. And there have been no obvious service cutbacks, blank screens or broken web pages as a result.
Many BBC cutbacks appeared to have been purely of a superficial nature, and when combined with partly substantiated allegations that middle management has come out of this relatively unscathed, it's not too hard to see that BBC management is now in a relatively weak position when it comes to defending the corporation.
So no obvious signs whatsoever to the casual viewer/listener that the BBC has a financial crisis apart from the publicised cutbacks relating to the salaries of its top stars, whilst at the same time there have been very visible amalgamations in relation to ITV's regional news coverage and an ever-lengthening list of commercial local radio station closures.
None of this is the BBC's fault either directly or indirectly, since if the BBC didn't exist in the first place there would be a different set of complex circumstances facing the commercial sector at this point in time.
Another problem for the BBC when opposing the contestable funding plan is that there's a fair amount of merit in the suggestion that sharing part of the licence fee will actually make the licence fee itself more tenable in future years; indeed at least some licence fee opponents have admitted that this will make their campaigning less effective as a result.
The BBC's job should now be to thoroughly defend the amount of licence fee it has been given, since so far it appears to have made a lamentable job of doing such a thing (to put it mildly); indeed it was the BBC Trust that was first to publicly speak out against the Digital Britain proposals as opposed to BBC management.
Given that some form of contestable funding obtained from the licence fee seems almost inevitable, the BBC's task should now be to ensure that such an amount is a fixed percentage which is 'hard-coded' and remains independent of future licence fee settlements as far as possible (which should solely concern the BBC's requirements).
Such a fixed percentage would also reduce the incentive for anyone to tinker with the total licence fee settlement after one has been formally agreed, since if you reduce the total licence fee amount it would also cut back on the contestable portion as well. (If it is fixed, anyway.)
Plus there's the issue of BBC Worldwide and the use of its profits for funding activities other than ones directly related to the BBC; in theory the BBC now ought to have a stronger case for retaining more of those profits as opposed to having nearly everything siphoned off in the direction of Channel 4.
A generally weakening sympathy towards Channel 4's current "problems" will certainly help here, but will BBC Worldwide and BBC management be strong enough to stand up against any additional public service-related pressure in relation to any of this?
Plus there will be further questions relating to regional news provision on Channel 3, which will become even more pertinent if ITV (or whoever occupies the Channel 3 position in England and Wales after 2013) starts to make a healthy profit again; should regional news forever remain outside the remit of such a broadcaster?
ITV may be glad to have its regional news burden lifted from its shoulders, but there could be a sting in the tail in respect of the greater accountability that might result from divesting its regional responsibilities. All these issues and more await for the final implementation, although there are unfortunately many unresolved issues that are still very unclear.
Even at this stage.
More blog posts about: BBC, Channel 4, Digital Britain, ITV, licence fee, regional news
Wednesday 17 June 2009
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the treatment of the weather bulletins on Today is getting increasingly shabby.
This morning just before eight was breathtaking, even by current standards. Jim Naughtie was interviewing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Normally I would expect the interview to be wrapped up at three minutes to, or soon after. At two minutes to, Mr Naughtie asked the Chancellor a fresh question; the forecast, such as it was, was squeezed into 25 seconds, and there was still time for a wretched trailer afterwards!
This has become an increasingly noticeable problem, and today's performance is the last straw. I have written to todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk to make a couple of suggestions. No further questions should be asked in interviews after three minutes to the hour, and the weather bulletin should last for not less than ninety seconds, even if that means sacrificing the trailer. Repeated and wilful ignorance of these points should be deemed misconduct actionable under the relevant disciplinary procedures.
More blog posts about: BBC, BBC Radio 4, Jim Naughtie, Today, Weather
Monday 15 June 2009
Primeval dropped by ITV
BBC set for clash over plans to give part of licence fee to rivals
These two media stories may be fundamentally different in their nature but they both somehow relate to one pressing subject; notably the future direction of what is still (for the time being, at least) Britain's most popular commercial broadcaster.
Ironically I would regard ITV's decision to cancel its family-orientated sci-fi drama series Primeval to be of greater importance overall than the rumoured intention to divert a chunk of BBC licence fee towards ITV regional news, because the latter still has to overcome significant hurdles before gaining any chance of reality.
Any proposed regional news funding scheme would have to be implemented via legislation during a fraught political period leading up to next year's general election which is likely to result in a Conservative victory or a hung parliament; either way there's still a reasonable chance that the proposals could be sidelined/curtailed or cancelled as a result.
Then there's a fair possibility that any plan to prop up ITV regional news may fall foul of European cross-subsidy regulations, and even if that hurdle is overcome there are still notable issues to be solved relating to the plan's actual implementation that will require much more in the way of time-consuming research.
Anyway, back to the cancellation of Primeval and why it's arguably more important for the future of ITV than preserving its regional news output. Put simply, the Primeval decision relates to the battle that exists within ITV between those who believe that newly-commissioned drama still has a place within the schedule and those who think otherwise.
It seems fairly obvious that axing Primeval is the most prominent feature of a formulated compromise strategy, namely that the only retained drama before 9pm will be the soap opera bankers Coronation Street and Emmerdale, with the rest of ITV1's drama output - such as one episode of The Bill each week - being post-watershed.
Indeed the announcement to axe Primeval makes greater sense when given the perspective of that earlier decision to move The Bill to a post-watershed slot - "shiny floor shows" like Britain's Got Talent are cheaper to produce and require less in the way of upfront investment but they only really work in the schedule before 9pm.
This may make business sense in the short term but will do absolutely nothing to salvage any lost credibility that ITV has suffered in recent times; Saturday night ITV1 ratings dropped like a stone after Britain's Got Talent (which peaked at 17+ million) finished, with programmes such as All Star Mr & Mrs struggling to reach 4 million viewers.
So ITV may be saving money by scrapping Primeval, but adopting an anti-drama strategy for its early evening schedule will do no favours whatsoever for its credibility. And credibility is the one thing apart from cash that ITV really needs.
More blog posts about: Digital Britain, ITV, licence fee
Thursday 11 June 2009
Broadcast Now: Five wins final Freeview HD slot
Broadcast Now: Freeview HD plans in doubt
Whilst bidding for something like a slot on the new Freeview HD multiplex, the very, very last thing you want to do prior to the final decision is to publicly state to a House of Commons select committee that you might not be able to commit to providing a service for the one Freeview HD channel you already have a claim for.
Which is exactly what Channel 4's Andy Duncan did recently, when he said in relation to Freeview HD's funding, to quote: “I would say there’s a problem for us and for ITV in terms of the funding going forward”.
Whoops.
To begin with, the two contenders for Freeview HD's fourth slot comprised of a joint bid between Channel 4 and S4/C, together with Five's winning bid which will see the slot shared between it and another unnamed broadcaster, although it has to be said that Channel 4 could still end up being Five's "unnamed broadcaster" if the price is right.
Of course it's likely that Five's proposal was the preferred choice for more reasons than just financial ones, especially as having S4/C kids' TV output broadcast nationwide during the morning might be very worthy from a public service perspective but was extremely unlikely to have a large audience.
Plus there was the recent unmitigated disaster that was Channel 4's digital radio project, when the Channel 4-backed consortium obtained a licence to operate a planned second national DAB multiplex but was subsequently forced to kill the whole project for financial reasons; that fiasco alone could have been a major deciding factor.
But all of this does prove that Channel 4's management (yes, you Andy Duncan) still ought to be far more careful of what is said and who it is said to, especially when it relates to pleading poverty - just because you managed to attract the attention of government ministers doesn't mean that everything you say suddenly becomes valid.
More blog posts about: Andy Duncan, Channel 4, Five, Freeview HD, S4/C
Monday 8 June 2009
Broadcast Now: Top 10 tips for producing cheaper TV
This Broadcast Now article provides some guidance for producers wanting to cut back on expenditure during the credit crunch, but I feel that it's actually possible to save even more money. Bearing this in mind, here are my ten tips for money-saving television:
1. Who cares about technical standards when it's cheap TV for some obscure cabsat channel, so just buy the cheapest HD camcorder from Currys and go with that. It's not as if anyone will notice anyway.
2. Save on studio sets and do everything on location; it certainly works for property porn and Bear Gryllis.
3. Reuse the same recorded sequences again and again and again; this certainly works for cheap reality TV and documentary strands such as Horizon.
4. Also make use of cheap stock footage of things such as spacecraft from NASA, and repeat them as necessary.
5. Premium rate phone revenue can still help despite all the recent scandals; just make the question ridiculously easy and the prize list ludicrously long. It works for The Gadget Show.
6. When managing expectations, choose a programme title that promises much more than you can actually deliver; for example, something like The World's Greatest Car Chases may only impress morons but they can hardly complain when the content isn't up to scratch.
7. Investigative journalism can be very expensive so why not save time and trouble by dispensing with the journalism part.
8. Since the programme you are making will most likely only be watched by halfwits, there's no need to waste precious money on being factually accurate unless you feel that Ofcom may take exception to something. But you can always bluff your way out of any trouble afterwards.
9. Round up a group of youths from the nearest hostel and tell them that they can take part in a reality TV programme and are going to become famous overnight. Neglect to tell them that the end result will only be shown on Living TV.
10. Last but certainly not least, DO NOT employ someone like Jonathan Ross under any circumstances. That is just asking for trouble.
Good luck!
Wednesday 3 June 2009
Viewpoint: Canvas will explode UK TV, but BBC must stand back
Google creeps into the living room with YouTube XL
With today's announcement of YouTube XL clearly stating Google's ambitions to dominate the TV over internet (IPTV) market along with Microsoft trying to use its XBox 360 as a video-on-demand trojan horse (especially with Sky now providing TV channels via the service in the UK), the forthcoming launch of Project Canvas really can't come soon enough.
Therefore if any involvement of the BBC in whatever form threatens the Project Canvas timescale, then the BBC ought to strongly consider what might have been previously unthinkable, namely to publicly withdraw its association with the project apart from perhaps offering to provide content via the system at some future date.
Because if there's any delay to Project Canvas that is triggered by typically British bureaucratic bickering between BBC management, the BBC Trust, BSkyB, Ofcom, the Competition Commission and government ministers including Lord Carter, then Project Canvas will easily end up being too little and too late to the IPTV party.
There are too many variables involved here that could otherwise trigger a prolonged delay even if the BBC hasn't technically put a foot wrong (remember Project Kangaroo?), and a mere month's delay now poses an even greater risk of a proprietary system dominating the IPTV market. (Even if it's run the by the supposedly 'benign' Google.)
Plus the involvement of BSkyB and Microsoft may further assert the dominance that BSkyB has in pay-TV, and in turn could further undermine both BSkyB's commercial rivals and the BBC in the longer term, regardless of what happens next in relation to the licence fee.
Therefore now is the time for the BBC to sign an undertaking to temporarily withdraw from Project Canvas for a year or so if it means that its rivals can proceed with an immediate launch (even on a conditional basis), especially if BSkyB is arrogant enough to accept such a proposal on the pretext that it will fail without initial BBC support.
Because the whole future of UK television could well depend on what happens next.
More blog posts about: BBC, BSkyB, Google, IPTV, Microsoft, Project Canvas, YouTube XL
Tuesday 2 June 2009
Ah, do you remember the days? Everyone was rushing off pay TV, determined to embrace the world of free to air television. It would be great! Advertising would pay for all the channels. Punters would be able to watch them! Everything would be perfect. Plus it would stop Sky dominating the universe! Top one!
Until a recession kicks in anyway.
And so one comes along. And one comes along when ITV is already in a very bad state financially. So the story comes along that ITV met BSkyB to discuss doing the exact opposite - moving ITVs 2 to 4 under subscription.
It's a sign of the desperation of our leading free to air commercial broadcaster and one which could have huge repercussions for it. ITV2 after all is the most popular digital channel - helped by it being on Freeview. You only have to look at the decline that followed when Sky One and Sky News were removed from Virgin Media to see that such moves have a huge impact.
However, much as we all love free TV, there remains the broader question of what happens to free to air TV in a world where people can skip through adverts at a touch of the remote control on their PVR. And in the long run, maybe it's a sign that the only way to make TV pay is for us to stump up more cash.
More blog posts about: BSkyB, Freeview, ITV
Friday 29 May 2009
BSkyB tables £160m bid for Virgin Media channels, reports say
Whilst many broadcasters are still bitterly complaining about an advertising downturn (ITV's short term Britain's Got Talent/football windfall notwithstanding), BSkyB still seems oblivious to the financial storm that currently surrounds it, although of course it's conducting business from the relative shelter of a large number of pay-TV subscriptions.
Therefore it's no surprise that BSkyB is easily capable of effortlessly outbidding rivals for seven Virgin Media channels that it may want for its own purposes (strategic or otherwise), and any previous public disdain for the likes of Virgin 1 seems to be a typical BSkyB response to something that it views as a potential direct competitor or asset.
And paying a £30m+ premium for something is perhaps expected for a company who had bought ITV shares just to prevent an easy Virgin Media takeover, but it's also likely that BSkyB considers these channels when combined with the rest of the Sky premium channels to be of much greater value in total than their constituent parts.
Therefore purely from a strategic viewpoint these channels would be of much greater value to BSkyB than they would be to anyone else, hence the high bid for the seven channels. And if Virgin Media refuses to licence the Virgin brand to BSkyB, Sky can always rechristen Virgin 1 as Sky 4 (or FX 2?), losing nothing in the process.
So what should Virgin Media do? My advice is to call their bluff and accept the offer, because if BSkyB are subsequently investigated for anti-competitive behaviour as a result it's likely that they could be forced to sell on the channels again for a loss. (Just like what may inevitably happen with their ITV shareholding.)
More blog posts about: BSkyB, Virgin 1, Virgin Media
Thursday 28 May 2009
Granada name to disappear from ITV businesses
When Apple Inc.'s Steve Jobs first introduced the Apple TV set top box (which displays media content downloaded from the iTunes Store) during one of his famous presentations, Jobs referred to the product as 'iTV', helpfully adding that this wouldn't be the final name used for the product since that name had been taken already.
This incident is worthy of note because it illustrates that 'ITV' as a brand is still relatively unknown in the US, whereas Granada still has the benefit of some recognition (along with Thames) courtesy of its export production history.
Therefore dropping the use of Granada for the US market is most likely to be a retrograde step (even if ultimately not that critical), especially as major US media brands such as NBC, Universal and Warner Bros. have remained the same for many years and show no signs of being abandoned in the 21st century.
Of course the reason why Granada has been unsurprisingly dropped as a brand is to standardise on ITV as a single, worldwide brand both in the UK and abroad for both broadcasting and production, therefore Granada became second best in the "ITV versus Granada" tussle courtesy of ITV being the preferred name for the UK market.
However there may still be one place where you can see the Granada name being used on-screen at least for the time being if you live in the North West of England, namely the regional news bulletin Granada Reports, although given the current disdain given to English regional news programming it may or may not stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Plus that Granada TV sign may hopefully remain on the side of ITV's Quay Street building (especially as ITV seems to be staying there), as a perpetual reminder of what ITV used to be and a nagging reminder of its true heritage.
And I also suspect that the Granada name will be reintroduced at some point in the not too distant future, especially if someone else takes over ITV and decides to embark on a makeover in order to distinguish itself further from its competitors, such is the fickle nature of media branding.
RIP Granada TV, 1956-2009.
More blog posts about: Granada, ITV
Tuesday 26 May 2009
Broadcast Now: Channels agree five-year ban on revisiting Kangaroo
If you want ample evidence as to what degree the Competition Commission hated the whole idea of Project Kangaroo, then look no further than this agreement drawn up between them and the ex-participants of Project Kangaroo which effectively prevents any cooperative video on demand activities between broadcasters for the next five years.
In short, the commission seems hell bent on preventing absolutely anything that was remotely similar to Project Kangaroo from being even fleetingly thought of, including going as far as to prevent directors of the three broadcasters from moving to video on demand-related positions with rival broadcasters without written permission.
But what exactly was so scary about Project Kangaroo from a competitive viewpoint?
After all it's the major broadcasters that hold all the cards in terms of popular programming via their commissions, whether it's EastEnders, Britain's Got Talent or Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, and these broadcasters can dictate to a fair extent when and who buys their programming and for how much.
Of course all of this just serves to raise more questions than answers, notably how will this impact on the forthcoming Project Canvas, especially given Ofcom's public misgivings about broadcasters clubbing together to establish a common standard as opposed to competing against each other with numerous different and incompatible 'standards'.
Given the extremist (and downright incomprehensible) attitude that the Competition Commission has shown towards Project Kangaroo, there is now a fair chance that Project Canvas will at least be stalled for another year or two, even if the actual reason is only based on a technicality.
And whilst the UK goes out of its way to prevent broadcasters from presenting a united front in terms of commercial, internet-based video-on-demand content provision, no such scruples exist across the Atlantic where the joint broadcaster venture Hulu has recently overtaken YouTube in terms of popularity.
Whether a UK launch of Hulu now stands a chance in the aftermath of the great Project Kangaroo failure will be very interesting, since to prevent two giant US broadcasters from offering their video on demand service in the UK could effectively kill the prospects of video on demand altogether outside of certain limited applications.
Conversely if Hulu is allowed to operate in the UK then that by definition will further question any move(s) that prevent the ex-Project Kangaroo participants (ie. the major broadcasters) from operating something similar, as well as putting British broadcasting at a distinct disadvantage compared with its American cousins.
Given government ministers' previous efforts to promote the UK as a major centre of excellence for media content, preventing UK broadcasters from matching the likes of Hulu will inevitably cause major problems in this regard both in terms of credibility and the ability to compete on a world stage.
Plus what difference would it have made if major UK broadcasters are forced to offer their content via a foreign-owned dominant platform (like Hulu) compared with what Project Kangaroo could have offered if it had been allowed? And don't respond with the suggestion that competition would be somehow "fairer" as a result - that's just a myth.
Otherwise UK viewers will presumably have to either make do with iPlayer/ITV Player/4oD, etc. - or a few bits and pieces from the likes of YouTube - unless it's buying programmes outright from iTunes or on DVD/Blu-ray from your local HMV. Which won't be the desired approach to either promote broadband as part of "Digital Britain" or to combat piracy.
Of course killing services such as Project Kangaroo (and perhaps even Hulu) could also be construed as being a protectionist measure in relation to established pay-TV provision such as Sky and Virgin Media services, since by making things difficult for broadcasters in turn makes things easier for the "old guard", at least in the short term.
Still there's at least one other broadcast platform that's dominated by the major broadcasters, where commercially-funded operators stick to a basic set of rules together with charging fair prices for advertising and the subsequent resale of content where desirable/permitted, even if these broadcasters can't/don't offer bulk programming deals.
It's called Freeview.
More blog posts about: Hulu, Project Canvas, Project Kangaroo
Thursday 21 May 2009
Ed Richards warns against setting 'meaningless' radio switchoff date
Today's Radio 3.0 conference in London seems to have basically regurgitated the usual set of proclamations along with a few announcements along the way (Bauer's withdrawal of radio stations from Sky being one of them); indeed much of the content had a distinctly 2.0 feel to the proceedings as opposed to the shiny new 3.0 that some might have hoped for.
And no serious radio conference would have been complete without Ed Richards from Ofcom telling the radio industry (yet again) that they need a digital migration plan in place before even contemplating a switchoff date for analogue radio. At least on this occasion he showed a sense of humour, to quote: "It wouldn't be helpful if the date was next year".
Rejigging DAB transmission areas and contracts may be a belated attempt to do something, but until DAB carriage costs are actually reduced then any benefit(s) gained may as well just be theoretical. And minimal as well, since all of this is essentially tinkering around the edges without any real sense of making progress.
Plus the radio industry seems to have completely forgotten about the contentious subject of DAB sound quality, probably because it doesn't show up on their radar of concerns at this point in time. But Ofcom and the radio industry would be doing both the public and the radio industry a real disservice if this issue continues to be totally neglected.
At least a partial switchoff of analogue radio will require DAB transmission coverage of the major radio stations to at least equal that of FM, which will take five years as a bare minimum and will demand a significant sum of money; that alone will effectively kill any hope of a quick migration to digital radio.
More blog posts about: DAB digital radio, Ofcom
Radio Today: Bauer withdraws from Sky platform
If you want further evidence that commercial radio is still in a spot of bother despite a healthy number of listeners, look no further than this announcement that Bauer is withdrawing five of its stations from the Sky satellite platform (Q, Heat, Kerrang, The Hits, Smash Hits), leaving just Kiss and Magic out of the Bauer stable available via Sky.
This is ostensibly for Bauer to concentrate resources on the two 'biggest' platforms (DAB and Freeview), although the real replacement/threat for satellite-based radio stations is actually internet audio streaming; something that is not only significantly cheaper from a transmission perspective but a more versatile and flexible medium for home listening.
It will be many years before internet radio seriously threatens either FM or DAB transmissions, but satellite radio's only potential advantage over internet radio - namely coexisting with television services plus a standard EPG system - won't be enough to stop a station exodus unless Sky/Astra makes radio transmission costs ridiculously low.
The Freeview platform may still be dependent on a strong transmission signal, but digital terrestrial TV set top boxes are now very cheap and can be easily connected to existing aerial sockets, unlike satellite receivers that often require additional cabling and/or LNB provision to effectively operate.
And why mess around with such a setup for a few extra radio stations when a wireless router is all you need to make internet radio easily available in any room? Or for that matter a DAB radio will easily provide a selection of the most popular UK digital radio stations both around the home and outside as well, sound quality issues aside.
It's easy to conclude therefore that when combined with a political will to promote the DAB radio platform, satellite radio can end up looking fourth best despite the potential audience numbers that are available, although radio listening via satellite and Freeview platforms is still a minority pursuit compared with FM and DAB radio listening.
Sky did try to make satellite radio listening via its platform more versatile with its Sky Gnome device that allowed its radio stations to be listened to in other rooms, but that idea didn't catch on and it now looks as if satellite radio has missed its moment altogether.
More blog posts about: Bauer, DAB digital radio, Freeview, satellite radio
|
