Perhaps so @@johnking5174, but ITV have gone too far the other way and are more interested in profits than actually producing quality content for their viewers. That's the whole point of the thing! Globalisation has accelerated rapidly due to the Internet, but it was happening before that in the UK - regions benefited from being individual and unique - generic, bland, uniformity merely proves that the viewers are the lowest common denominator.
Notice how the programme spent the first half referring to Tyne Tees as a "large" ITV Station, then the second half as "small". This summed up the problem the company always faced; the expectation was that it would perform like an Anglia, when the reality was that it was much closer to TSW in terms of its financial strength.
9:09 - Well Bruce Gyngell actually said one correct thing here about the breakfast TV format - when you look at what the BBC did to their original Breakfast Time format in 1986 - for three successful years, they had a soft news, light magazine programme and in November 1986 reformatted it into a hard news driven programme, and they lost 50-60% of their audience to TV-am within a month.
That dutch soap, which indeed was and is produced on a shoestring budget, is still on four days a week! Don't forget, with 14 or 15 million people our market is somewhat smaller, and the language makes it difficult to sell our programming abroad. But the Swedes show us how to do it. That race to the bottom has made Endemol one of the biggest producers in Europe.... So the programmes don't sell, the programme-ideas, like the Voice do..
12:38 - I actually never knew about the impact CH4 subs had on ITV franchises, and how dramatically these “savings” affected the bids (excluding LWT which seemed to be the only gainer under the C4 subs).
Channel 4 had a very unique method funding from 1982 to 1992. ITV companies paying a subscription per year to ensure Channel 4 had a bedrock funding platform. Nice idea, but by 1992 it was looking outdated.
The 1990 Broadcasting Act was an evil curse of what was to come eventually, a crap corporate national ITV PLC with local content whittled down to purely local news and politics.
To be fair, ITV was always going to be heading down the path to make it a consolidated whole network. It was simply financially ruin if they continued on with 15 independent companies, they would have all be swallowed sooner or later. The problem with the broadcasting act was it was put together by idiots, who had no idea of the ITV system or broadcasting. The act would have been toned down, with more safeguards put into it, and that would have helped.
15 heads with unique individual regional programmes are far better than one with mere regional opt outs for local news and once a month regional politics.
The loss of the regions is terrible. I’m in the old Grampian region and the news was about Aberdeen Dundee and Inverness etc. now we have STV and they only cover Glasgow and occasionally Edinburgh. The north of Scotland has a different culture to the heavily populated central belt.
You do know who Peter Jay was don't you? Peter was the man who launched TV-am at the very start in February 1983 - and of course history will show you what happened to him at TV-am, let's just say Peter didn't last long.
To be fair, whenever GMTV wasn't given an rebate (reduction) on the £34 million license fee it promised to pay back in the 1991 franchise round the company made a loss. I think Bruce was onto something with that one.
The bidding system was barmy, if you bid too much you lost, if you bid too little you lost and there was no middle ground on which to fight or appeal the loss. Total disaster.
18:35 "The very survival of ITV's unique regional structure ... was one the ITC fought hardest to preserve."
...AND FAILED THE MOST MISERABLY.
It would have been impossible and a financial disaster to continue the old model of the franchise system.
Perhaps so @@johnking5174, but ITV have gone too far the other way and are more interested in profits than actually producing quality content for their viewers. That's the whole point of the thing! Globalisation has accelerated rapidly due to the Internet, but it was happening before that in the UK - regions benefited from being individual and unique - generic, bland, uniformity merely proves that the viewers are the lowest common denominator.
16:55 - This was the 1991 Christmas special of the Darling Buds of May called "Christmas is Coming" and aired on 22nd December 1991 to huge ratings.
Notice how the programme spent the first half referring to Tyne Tees as a "large" ITV Station, then the second half as "small".
This summed up the problem the company always faced; the expectation was that it would perform like an Anglia, when the reality was that it was much closer to TSW in terms of its financial strength.
9:09 - Well Bruce Gyngell actually said one correct thing here about the breakfast TV format - when you look at what the BBC did to their original Breakfast Time format in 1986 - for three successful years, they had a soft news, light magazine programme and in November 1986 reformatted it into a hard news driven programme, and they lost 50-60% of their audience to TV-am within a month.
That dutch soap, which indeed was and is produced on a shoestring budget, is still on four days a week! Don't forget, with 14 or 15 million people our market is somewhat smaller, and the language makes it difficult to sell our programming abroad. But the Swedes show us how to do it.
That race to the bottom has made Endemol one of the biggest producers in Europe.... So the programmes don't sell, the programme-ideas, like the Voice do..
The Voice is now part of ITV Studios after they bought Talpa
Which « Dutch soap » are we talking about?
@@darwincity Goede Tijden Slechte Tijden
12:38 - I actually never knew about the impact CH4 subs had on ITV franchises, and how dramatically these “savings” affected the bids (excluding LWT which seemed to be the only gainer under the C4 subs).
Channel 4 had a very unique method funding from 1982 to 1992. ITV companies paying a subscription per year to ensure Channel 4 had a bedrock funding platform. Nice idea, but by 1992 it was looking outdated.
Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
30:00 - no surpise that the Darling Buds of May was axed in 1993, the first year of Yorkshire's new franchise arrangement.
The 1990 Broadcasting Act was an evil curse of what was to come eventually, a crap corporate national ITV PLC with local content whittled down to purely local news and politics.
To be fair, ITV was always going to be heading down the path to make it a consolidated whole network. It was simply financially ruin if they continued on with 15 independent companies, they would have all be swallowed sooner or later. The problem with the broadcasting act was it was put together by idiots, who had no idea of the ITV system or broadcasting. The act would have been toned down, with more safeguards put into it, and that would have helped.
@@johnking5174The old Tory mantra of "deregulate and let the free market decide" has failed. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
15 heads with unique individual regional programmes are far better than one with mere regional opt outs for local news and once a month regional politics.
As seen repeatedly on ITV in the Face. Introduced by someone with plenty of ITV-based regrets.
The loss of the regions is terrible. I’m in the old Grampian region and the news was about Aberdeen Dundee and Inverness etc. now we have STV and they only cover Glasgow and occasionally Edinburgh.
The north of Scotland has a different culture to the heavily populated central belt.
Yorkshires massive bid is eternally baffling. They surely could've won it back with about half of what they bidded.
There was some talk of a Tyne Tees/Yorkshire/Anglia merger
10:34 George Russell you say? 🏎
I wonder if the presenter of this show was taking some delight that the ITV Breakfast Franchise holder had lost out with an too low bid.
You do know who Peter Jay was don't you? Peter was the man who launched TV-am at the very start in February 1983 - and of course history will show you what happened to him at TV-am, let's just say Peter didn't last long.
You don't think that is what Matthew was referring to?
As it happened, Central was one of the first involved, but by being bought out rather than by buying.
Look who pops up at 31:36. Bunga bunga!
So I think the question would be better put to TV-AM why did they bid so low? - Harry Roche was chairman of the Sunrise TV (GMTV).
Bruce Gyngell has work for TV-AM since Greg Dyke went to TVS was most profitable (Breakfast) television company in that time.
To be fair, whenever GMTV wasn't given an rebate (reduction) on the £34 million license fee it promised to pay back in the 1991 franchise round the company made a loss. I think Bruce was onto something with that one.
The bidding system was barmy, if you bid too much you lost, if you bid too little you lost and there was no middle ground on which to fight or appeal the loss. Total disaster.
I always liked this theme tune. Shame they only kept it for one season
Well... this largely came true, didn't it?
Clive Leach didn't last long at Yorkshire after that overly high bid.
What a joke - Peter Jay presenting a programme about new ITV franchises after the disgrace he put on screen in 1983.
This destroyed ITV