Posts Tagged ‘ITV’

November 18th, 2009

Archie Norman takes over the reins at ITV

It’s like a real-life version of Coronation Street. Just who is going to run ITV? Well now we know. After a long, arduous and sometimes rather embarrassing search, ITV has finally found its new patriarch in the form of Asda supermarket king and ex-Tory MP Archie Norman.  I’ve said in the past that the best thing ITV can do to secure its longer-term future is look beyond the closed circle of usual TV executive suspects. This is because ITV needs fresh eyes and a new vision.  It needs  a visionary who can see the future and take ITV forward with a strong purpose. Norman, with his track record of making things happen in categories ranging from groceries to telecoms, must be one of the few people who can inject new life into this sleeping giant.  But don’t imagine it will be pain-fee. Norman will have to make some very tough decisions along the way. If anyone’s interested you can read more about him here.

May 6th, 2009

Goodbye to Michael Grade (for now)

michael-grade3Right now I should be working on a click path analysis for a client, but I thought I must drop a line about Michael Grade’s impending departure from ITV - an altogether more tempting way of passing a few minutes.  Grade is a scion of one of the UK’s leading media dynasties - a dynasty that includes Lew Grade and Bernie Delfont, and that dynasty’s contribution to entertainment has been massive, through both theatre and television (The Saint, The Persuaders and The Prisoner to name but three cult classics).  But the achievements of the family elders should not be allowed to detract from the achievements of Michael Grade himself.

Michael Grade is the man who bought us the Big Breakfast, Chris Evans, Jonathan Ross, Peter Kay, Big Brother, Time Team, EastEnders, Clive Anderson, Dennis Potter’s Lipstick On Your Collar, Friends, some really cutting edge episodes of Cutting Edge plus many other land mark events in UK television such as Football Italia and the financial backing of Four Weddings.  But as well as providing support for new editorial ventures, he was also commercially successful.  He found the perfect balance between editorial and commercial imperatives and guided the Channel into its most commercially successful years.  TV thrives on a virtuous circle of great programmes delivering strong audiences which attract good commercial revenue.  Grade placed Channel Four firmly on that upward circle.

The fact that Michael Grade cannot now crack ITVs problems is not a reflection on his ability, but an indicator of the scale of ITV’s problems.  TV is in stormy water. Just as the talkies took over from the silents and the small screen took over from the big screen, and just as video almost squashed cinema and as cinema underwent a resurgence, so television is now having to ride the heavy seas of change.  In these circumstances it needs a strong and visionary navigator at the helm.  Unfortunately, talk of Grade’s replacement inevitably includes the old “merry -go-round” of senior TV executives, but for me none of these will do. To survive, ITV must look forward not backwards to the glory days, it must find a new definition of what it stands for and it must find a new way of monetising content across multiple platforms.  These issues require experience from beyond the cosy world of television. To survive, ITV must go outside TV and into the wider communications market for its next leader.

Perhaps Grade is drawing on his family’s theatrical heritage and following that old dictum of the boards; leave the stage with them wanting more.  One possible error is that he may have left that bit slightly too late.

March 10th, 2009

A small step for Channel Four and a giant leap for TV?

So, Channel Four is to monetize its content on YouTube and Bebo by running pre-roll ads on their programme clips. This is interesting stuff. In a month when UK broadcasters have had to stomach some big doses of bad news, here is some light at the end of the tunnel. There’s a mutual raison d’etre here. Social media giants like YouTube have to find ways of monetising their content before investors start to lose patience and broadcasters like Channel Four need to find ways of monetizing their content before they fall even deeper into financial trouble.

The digital age is an age of partnerships where one time enemies can, and sometimes must, become friends. To succeed companies need to see old competitors as new companions. Rather than scrapping over content ownership and rights (another social media story today), it looks like Channel Four and YouTube are trying to make it work in the brave new world. Of course, this move won’t solve all Channel Four’s strategic and financial problems but it is the kind of creative thinking that’s going to be required to get broadcasters and social media platforms through these troubled times

On a separate but not unrelated point, it’s interesting to note that today ITV has announced it is parting company with its head of online revenue. Sometimes what these guys do behind the scenes is as interesting as the programmes they transmit.

January 5th, 2009

Sarkozy’s TV advertising ban and the BBC funding debate

French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s recent move to ban commercial advertising from state TV channels during peak time adds some colour to the debate about funding the BBC in the UK, albeit in reverse order. When recently asked whether the BBC should be allowed to carry advertising my answer was ‘no’, not because I share Sarkozy’s views on the beauty of ad free state broadcasting, but because such a move would be financially disastrous for the existing commercial broadcasters in the UK. Here’s why:

Firstly, adding the BBC to the commercial airtime market would be catastrophic for existing broadcasters, forcing many into financial ruin. According to Ofcom, the UK TV market was worth around £3.16bn in 2007. Broadly speaking, TV companies aim to take a share of advertising revenue that roughly matches their share viewing. The BBC took a viewing share of around 28.5% share of viewing in December (BARB). So if the BBC were to take a similar share of the UK’s annual TV spend then it would take around £900m in advertising revenue. But the market wouldn’t necessarily grow to accommodate this, in fact all the evidence suggests that the TV market is in terminal decline with Ofcom warning the market could actually dry up by 2020. So the BBC’s £900m would have to come from the existing (and declining) £3.16bn currently being taken by the UK’s commercial broadcasters. Unfortunately, the UK’s traditional terrestrial broadcasters are not in a position to be generous to the tune of £900m. They are enduring tough times. In the last financial year (2007) ITV reported profits of £188m (down 35% on 2006) and Channel Four lost £8.8m (down from £14m in 2006). So you can see that taking £900m revenue from existing UK commercial broadcasters would completely wipe out all existing profits and leave them staring at bankruptcy.

Secondly, the BBC’s potential advertising income falls way too short of its current licence fee income to be a viable alternative. The £900m the BBC might hypothetically generate from its 28.5% share of the TV advertising market is only around one third of the £3.2bn it currently receives in licence fee income. In fact, as we have seen, the total UK TV market is worth around £3.16bn, almost exactly the amount the BBC gets to run itself annually. Even if the BBC ad sales machine were so successful that it were able to generate a level income equating to double its 28.5% viewing share, that would still not be enough to finance the Corporation.

There has been a counter argument to these views stating that allowing the BBC to carry advertising would make advertising cheaper overall therefore encourage more advertisers to use TV and expand the overall size of the TV advertising revenue “cake”. But this is a fallacy for three reasons. First, advertising could not become cheaper because the broadcasters could not survive if their yield (£ income per viewer) and margins fell further; they wouldn’t exist so any cost reduction / market expansion arguments are rendered purely hypothetical. Secondly, there are cost entry barriers to TV advertising. TV commercials are expensive to make the availability of cheap airtime may not bring TV advertising into the reach of smaller advertisers. And thirdly, any ad budgets looking for a new home are likely to find a more than satisfactory reception on the Internet where short term tactical pay back is much higher than on TV.

March 7th, 2007

It’s probably too late for ITV, despite Grade’s talents


So profits are down, ad revenue is down, and the ad market is “challenging” according to Michael Grade. The ink had scarcely dried on my “So, are people watching more or less TV?” post yesterday when ITV announced its figures. The key media soundbites were focussed on the profit drop, but the ITV revenue drop was the other big story; because revenue is driven by viewing figures and they reflect the size and quality of audiences being delivered. And the size and quality of the audiences in turn reflect the quality of the programmes being made and transmitted.

In my view both the BBC and ITV have produced some dire programming over the last few years. Reality TV has been a short term fix; it costs very little to produce (compared to real drama) and delivers reasonably good audiences - in other words it’s a highly profitable genre of programming.

Now whilst reality TV may be profitable, profitable programming does not build and maintain audiences. That’s the job of quality programming. In fact, there’s a positive correlation between the amount a programme costs to produce and the size and quality of audience it delivers.

Short term fixes, as profitable as they may be, carry long term consequences. I believe that this type of programming has changed consumers’ relationship with, and respect for, these broadcasters - particularly ITV. They are now perceived by many as peddlers of meaningless drivel. The problem is that once perceptions are set in one direction, they can be hard to shift to another. In other words these brands have been seriously damaged by this programming, possibly irreparably damaged. So even if Michael Grade can get his “eye back on the programming ball”, the audiences that ITV previously had for high quality programming will not necessarily return.

In addition, and most unfortunately for these broadcasters, this shift in the popular attitude to TV has coincided with an explosion of growth in self-scheduled media; the Internet, mobile media, ipods and pod casts. People’s expectation of media entertainment have also shifted - to a higher plane of personal satisfaction and reward.

Michael Grade is probably the only person in TV who can turn the ITV behemoth around. But the question is even when it’s pointing in the right direction, will it be able to catch up with everyone else?