Synopsis
In the last 20 years, British television has gone from 4 to nearly 400 channels. The programme considers what this means for audiences and programme makers, both in terms of the increasingly varied ways in which programmes are accessed and watched, and the constraints and strategies by which programmes are commissioned and scheduled.
Structured around the key questions summarised above, the programme breaks down usefully into a number of sections, each of which could be viewed separately. Each section is prefaced with soundbites from a range of key TV personnel, which are then amplified and illustrated with clips from relevant programmes, graphics and more extended interviews. Those interviewed include:
Dawn Airey, Managing Director, Sky Networks
Andy Barnes, Sales Director, Channel 4
Julian Bellamy, Head of Factual Entertainment at Channel 4
Dan Chambers, Controller, Five
David Elstein, ex-Thames TV and BskyB, and ex-CEO, Five
Julian Fitzwalter, ex-producer of ITV's World in Action
Ben Frow, Head of Factual Entertainment, Five
Shobna Gulati, actress playing Sunita in Coronation Street
Lorraine Hegessy, ex-Controller of BBC1, now CEO at TalkBack Thames
Tim Hincks, Endemol UK
Roly Keating, Controller, BBC2
David Liddiment, ex-Director of Programmes, ITV
Simon London, Talkback Thames
Deborah O'Connor, Commissioning Editor, E4
Nigel Pickard, Director of Programmes, ITV
David Plowright, ex-Chair of Granada TV
Will Wyatt, ex-CEO, BBC
There are also brief appearances from presenters such as Margarita Taylor, Barry Norman and Nick Ross, the first Head of Channel 4, Jeremy Isaacs, and Greg Dyke.
To aid identification of useful material, these notes will summarise the content of each section in turn.
1 Does more choice mean better TV?
The opening section maps out the debates about the relative merits of contemporary TV. Starting with a focus on the huge and unexpected success of Strictly Come Dancing, executives from BBC and C4 suggest that TV is actually better than ever before in terms of sheer range and variety of programming, despite frequent complaints that it is derivative and packed with repetitive and impoverished formats.
Representing the viewer, Margarita Taylor suggests that audiences are more active and discriminating than ever before, and that the use of Electronic Programme Guides and interactivity has enabled them to create their own personalised schedules.
It is argued that there is a huge generation gap in television between the old guard and the new young breed of TV producers (epitomised by Dan Chambers of Five, at 36, the UK's youngest Controller) – a theme which recurs in successive sections of the programme.
2 Where do they get their ideas from?
This section investigates the different ways programmes are developed from initial brainstorm to final commission. Commissioning editors describe different ways of formulating ideas, illustrated with a clip from the Alan Partridge Show in which the character pitches ideas such as Inner City Sumo, Youth Hostelling with Chris Eubank, and Monkey Tennis to a weary commissioner.
We follow a development team from Zeal Productions, one of the UK's 600+ independent production companies, with a strong track record for factual entertainment and game shows, including Building the Dream for ITV, and Sushi TV, for satellite channel Challenge. The team researches and debates ideas for a show titled The Great British Drunk Driving Test, and a series on Stereotypes, and consider pitching Microwave Magic (100 daft things to do with a microwave) to Bravo.
Meanwhile, we learn the process involved in development, and Ben Frow from Five points out that only around 1% of all pitches ever actually make it onto the screen.
A mini case study of the popular Channel 4 Friday night gameshow Distraction is presented by Simon London, of Talkback Thames, who describes his job as producing 'edgy' (aka shocking or controversial) TV, a central part of Channel 4's brand.
3 Who decides what we get to watch?
This section looks at the role of commissioning editors in deciding which programmes actually make it onto the screen. Extracts from How Clean is Your House and Too Posh to Wash (derived from a throwaway comment at a party) are described as shows with 'eccentric presenters taking a quirky look at dirt', with added 'cringe factor'; the key question is 'What's in it for the viewer?'
We watch Zeal Productions pitching three ideas to Ben Frow of Five; he rejects the Drunk Driving and Stereotypes shows, but picks up an idea for Extreme Body Dysmorphia, which he welcomes as the right mix of voyeurism and shock/horror for Five viewers.
The key issue here is that TV is a business, in which the audience is paramount.
4 How do they know what we want to watch?
The clear message is that no one can ever be sure what will go down with viewers; gut instinct is a key to successful commissioning, and Tim Hincks, Chief Creative Officer for Endemol UK, highlights the importance of trusting the viewer.
The use of focus groups both as a means of trying out and 'selling' new ideas, is discussed. Andy Barnes of Channel 4 outlines the importance of audience measurement, and the mechanism behind BARB, which can make or break careers. The overnight ratings, delivered around 10.00am daily, determine the success of a show, and act as 'league tables' for the most popular programmes in the UK. Commissioning editors face the firing squad every day on the basis of these overnight ratings.
The need for ratings is contextualised in terms of the commercial channels' need for advertising. David Berg, Director of Strategy for ITV, comments on the importance of scheduling, and says that the pressure is not to make critically acclaimed TV but to attract big audiences.
Andy Barnes discusses the importance of demographics in selling advertising and sponsorship, citing Hollyoaks as a show that has successfully attracted a wide range of advertising for young people. The 16–34 year old audience is the crucial, but hard-to-reach, demographic for advertisers; this group has high disposable income, is more innovative and inclined to try new products and ideas. Greg Dyke, ex-Director General of the BBC, mourns the fact that at 55, he is now categorised as an old person in the same demographic as his mother. However, the most important programme for young viewers is, surprisingly, Coronation Street – the longest-running and biggest show on UK TV.
Historically, in the early 1990s ITV had twice the income of the BBC. It currently has two-thirds, and is losing audiences faster than any other competitor. In its need to 'sell eyeballs to advertisers', it faces strong pressure to stick with programming it knows will work.
5 Why are there so many makeover shows on TV – and why do they all copy each other's ideas?
Here we enter the classic debate about the merits of makeover, lifestyle and property shows. Changing Rooms has had a 9-year run, and at its peak delivered over 12 million viewers. However, having spawned umpteen 'clones', its time has passed and it has now been pulled.
The musical talent show genre is offered as a case study. ITV's Pop Idol gave rise to BBC's Fame Academy (not just a copy, with a greater emphasis on skills and musical training) and thence to ITV's X Factor, an unashamed 'clone', scheduled in the same slot, and now in litigation for 'stealing' Pop Idol's format.
But should the BBC, with a guaranteed licence fee income of £3 billion per year, and thus the ability to take bigger risks, have followed the trend? It's argued that Lorraine Hegessy was appointed Controller of BBC1 to deliver mass audiences to the BBC – but now faces accusations of 'dumbing down'. However much the BBC now avoids derivative programming, there are still four episodes of EastEnders per week. We see these issues debated by executives at the prestigious Edinburgh International Television Festival.
Five's Dan Chambers presents the 'taste and decency' debates around Five's The Farm. He points out that the show merely represented the work undertaken daily by farm workers, and that it and other reality shows are actually game shows, tackled openly and honestly as such. His view is not shared by 'the old guys' such as Barry Norman and Will Wyatt.
These debates are contextualised in a short historical section, where we examine:
- the crucial impact of commercial TV in 1955 on the BBC's remit
- the birth of Channel 4 in 1982, and the ways in which the channel has moved away from its mission to innovate and challenge – while it still takes more risks than most broadcasters, is today's Channel 4 brave enough?
- the huge changes to the broadcasting landscape with the arrival of Sky in 1988.
6 Why are there so many repeats on TV?
The issue of repeated programmes is also addressed, focusing in the huge success of Only Fools and Horses, and the insatiable appetite of digital and satellite channels for ready-made programmes to fill their schedules. It is argued that on terrestrial channels there are not actually more repeats than previously, but simply more non-terrestrial slots in which to watch them. However, an alternative to repeats is the re-visiting of previous programming, such as Selling Houses Revisited, where shows are re-packaged with new intros and endings, and updated, thus freeing up money for new programming.
Critics point to the recycling of hugely successful shows such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, now in its fourth year and broadcasting 30 shows annually, as offering too much of a good thing and becoming boring despite variations to the format.
In contrast, the formula of I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, based on a diet of celebrity, humiliation and voyeurism, similar to once-derided Japanese programming, continues to deliver ITV massive audiences.
So what makes people want to watch this kind of television?
7 How did they know Big Brother would work?
The answer is suggested by a case study that argues that Big Brother has changed the TV landscape for ever. Channel 4's Julian Bellamy and Endemol's Tim Hincks outline its development. The show is described as:
- a conscious and daring attempt to attract cult viewing for a particular demographic by constructing characters, sets and activities with which only young people can identify
- a means of delivering advertisers their 'dream audience' – upwardly mobile, middle-class, college-educated viewers with huge potential for sponsorship and marketing opportunities
- a process whereby housemates become like members of your family, with soap opera conventions and a need to watch 'just in case something happens'
- an attempt to surprise and confound expectation, characterised by the 'Big Brother Gets Evil' tagline for series 5
- 'a window into the world of the younger generation'
- a means of generating advertising funding which is then ploughed back into other Channel 4 shows and the programming around Big Brother.
This combination of must-see, convention-breaking, youth-focused programming with hard advertiser-oriented strategy has been fiercely attacked by the older guard of producers, who claim it has seriously damaged Channel 4's reputation and audience ratings.
8 Was it really better in the old days?
This final section contextualises this question by surveying the changing landscape of British Broadcasting. To illustrate a decline in quality, classic examples are cited from the supposed 'Golden Age' of UK television, such as The Morecambe and Wise Show (which regularly recruited audiences of 20 million and dominated notions of 'good TV' for over 20 years), Brideshead Revisited and The World at War.
In defence of contemporary programming, it is argued that until the 90s, the limited number of channels and lack of diversity for advertising revenue allowed not only for 'water-cooler' TV, which was watched by enormous numbers and could impact dramatically on public life, but also for TV which could exist for reasons other than making money – conditions which can no longer feasibly exist in today's digital and multichannel environment.
We are also reminded that for every classic TV moment there were hundreds of hours of uninspired, tacky or downright rubbish programming, including racist and sexist sitcoms such as Mind Your Language and Love Thy Neighbour. It is argued that we now have a far more diverse, multicultural and varied range of programmes than ever before.
9 What are they going to think of next?
This concluding section places the future of television squarely in the hands of the audience, and argues that each generation of viewers will determine the boundaries of what it will chose to watch. Executives, producers and presenters take a wary look at the future of UK broadcasting, arguing that the advent of new technologies and our multi-channel environment will change not only what's on offer but also the way in which we consume it.
Advertising will become increasingly limited as viewers learn to avoid it by fast-forwarding, channel-hopping and downloading content. As a result, advertising-funded channels are under threat, and will become increasingly limited in favour of subscription TV. This will affect how we pay for, and ultimately how we consume our television. The rise of the electronic programme guide has already transformed how we surf, research and select our own individual viewing, and we are becoming increasingly informed and sophisticated in creating schedules for ourselves. While there will be even more diversification and variety in the future, programme makers will have to become increasingly imaginative and creative in attracting and retaining viewers.
New technologies mean that TV will be watched very differently in the future. Family-style viewing has already been disrupted by multi-TV households; but the ways programmes are accessed are proliferating. We will see TV projectors on walls, personal TV viewing delivered to computers, mobile phones or to mini-screens that can be viewed on the way to work.
But will there be anything to watch? It's argued that past notions of public service and TV as a means of education are patronising to the intelligence of British audiences. We do not need to be 'led' to documentaries or force-fed worthy content. The future of British television is already being shaped by creative 18-20 year olds who will push the boundaries of what television can do. Their success will be in the hands of the general public.
In 20 years' time, we may look back on TV in the Noughties and see it too as a 'Golden Age' of television.
