Back in 2008, I suggested trimming Newsnight on a Friday night to 30 minutes "trim Newsnight on a Friday and free up the Newsnight Review slot. If so, it could be part of a more substantial overhaul of BBC2's arts, culture and media coverage." That's what I said, and that's what has come to pass.
The Review Show is substantially more than Newsnight Review; its still hosted by Kirsty Wark, but now runs for an hour, comes from Glasgow, and has more guests, who all talk earnestly at the same time. It had an audience of 380,000 viewers when it started last week so I'm not claiming any credit for the idea.
What else did I suggest BBC2 might do under its new controller?
There were a couple of anti-ratings suggestions. Send Top Gear to BBC1 - hasn't happened. Wonder if that's because being on BBC2 contributes to its edge? And clear out the cookery shows - er, that definitely hasn't happened.
I had a couple of genre suggestions. Respond to Channel 4's documentary challenge. Mmmm. Not sure about that,not sure about Channel 4's documentary challenge any more, either. Identify new drama - well, there's a long lead time on drama, isn't there.
And then there was 'Revitalise arts coverage - put the Culture Show out to tender.' Hasn't happened, but the Culture Show has been shifted around in the schedules. When it returned last week it had 640,000 viewers, last night it was down to 550,000 viewers. What harm would it have done to try tendering it?
Friday, January 29, 2010
New faces - new programmes?
It's astonishing, really, that its taken so long for the two major commercial terrestrial networks to resolve their leadership questions. Its been an age – first for Channel 4 then for ITV, to come to a conclusion. But here we are – David Abraham at Channel 4, Adam Crozier at ITV.
What will it mean in terms of ratings? The question is probably more easily answered for ITV because we now know it has rediscovered its entertainment credentials – it’s the X Factor channel. Admittedly there are some pressing underlying questions – most immediately about the future of regional news. And perhaps questions might be asked about some recent entertainment and factual shows, especially if the new chief asks the network to up its game in terms of volume in all genres. But nonetheless we know what ITV1 is all about as a channel – it’s the future of the business itself that most needs Crozier’s attention.
Channel 4 is in a different position – we know the future of its business does not involve asking for public funds, but its not very clear what the future holds in programming terms, beyond the end of Big Brother. Some commentators have had fun celebrating the ratings performance of Celebrity Big Brother – it had 3.2million last night as it nears its conclusion, but until a post-BB strategy emerges, there’s a sense of a channel in the waiting room.
This is highlighted perhaps by the two genres this week. In documentaries, last night’s follow-on programme after Celebrity BB last night was The Girl With Eight Limbs Grows Up, a Bodyshock special, which had an audience of 1.4 million at 10pm. It was a follow-up documentary about Lakshmi Tatma, the girl who was born with eight limbs, a year after she underwent a life-saving operation to remove her half-formed conjoined twin's arms and legs.
Meanwhile Skins is back on E4 with an audience of. Much-loved by teenagers, now in its fourth series, with 930,000 viewers. And Shameless was back on Tuesday with 3.4 million/7% share. These are strong figures for both programmes, but creatively they are very much part of Channel 4’s furniture. David Abraham is known for the audacious rebranding of channels like Dave, and I’d be surprised he doesn’t sense a big opportunity for Channel 4 once it rediscovers its capacity to innovate.
What will it mean in terms of ratings? The question is probably more easily answered for ITV because we now know it has rediscovered its entertainment credentials – it’s the X Factor channel. Admittedly there are some pressing underlying questions – most immediately about the future of regional news. And perhaps questions might be asked about some recent entertainment and factual shows, especially if the new chief asks the network to up its game in terms of volume in all genres. But nonetheless we know what ITV1 is all about as a channel – it’s the future of the business itself that most needs Crozier’s attention.
Channel 4 is in a different position – we know the future of its business does not involve asking for public funds, but its not very clear what the future holds in programming terms, beyond the end of Big Brother. Some commentators have had fun celebrating the ratings performance of Celebrity Big Brother – it had 3.2million last night as it nears its conclusion, but until a post-BB strategy emerges, there’s a sense of a channel in the waiting room.
This is highlighted perhaps by the two genres this week. In documentaries, last night’s follow-on programme after Celebrity BB last night was The Girl With Eight Limbs Grows Up, a Bodyshock special, which had an audience of 1.4 million at 10pm. It was a follow-up documentary about Lakshmi Tatma, the girl who was born with eight limbs, a year after she underwent a life-saving operation to remove her half-formed conjoined twin's arms and legs.
Meanwhile Skins is back on E4 with an audience of. Much-loved by teenagers, now in its fourth series, with 930,000 viewers. And Shameless was back on Tuesday with 3.4 million/7% share. These are strong figures for both programmes, but creatively they are very much part of Channel 4’s furniture. David Abraham is known for the audacious rebranding of channels like Dave, and I’d be surprised he doesn’t sense a big opportunity for Channel 4 once it rediscovers its capacity to innovate.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Take Me Out is taking its time to build an audience
After the success of X Factor in the autumn re-confirmed ITV’s status as an entertainment network, can the network re-visit the success it once enjoyed with dating formats? Take Me Out, is ITV1’s would-be successor to Blind Date, and is presented by Paddy McGuinness, who deploys his wit and a particularly irritating catchphrase to support a very simple premise – match a single man with one of thirty girls.
Maybe it is too simple, as it is rating under 5 million – the first show had 3.6million/14% share on 2nd January at 7.20pm. However, it has shown some growth – last Saturday’s show ran at a slightly later time of 8pm and its audience was 4.6 million/19% share. Not surprisingly its particularly popular with 16-24 year olds, with a 24% share for Saturday’s show.
The opposition during the final quarter hour of the show is BBC1’s So You Think You Can Dance, which had 5.4 million/22% share for its 30 minute segment. Earlier, at 7pm it had 5.8 million/25% share for its 60 minute show. So You Think You Can Dance, presented by Cat Deeley, and judged by Nigel Lythgoe and Arlene Phillips, comes from the USA with strong credentials, but its audience has slipped since it debut of 6.4 million/27% share.
Not surprisingly Dance is very popular with older viewers – 30% share among over 65s, and not popular with younger viewers, under 20% for the 16-24 year olds who like Take Me Out. BBC1 enjoyed a primetime lead over ITV1 on Saturday of 24% to 19%, but among younger viewers ITV1 had 23% to BBC1’s 18%. The issue for Take Me Out is whether, without the volume enjoyed by its BBC1 dance opposition, its has sufficient demographic strength to be regarded as a success. The fact that it is building suggests ITV1 will have to wait until the end of this first run to know whether its got the new Blind Date or not.
However ITV1 will be looking critically at its Friday night celebrity singing show, Popstar to Operastar, which had just 3.7 million/15% share on Friday at 9pm, down from 3.9m/15% share when it launched a week earlier – last Friday it was out-rated by Silent Witness, with 6m/24% share. There is an awkwardness about this show, unlike Take Me Out, which comes across as show which feels it ought to be on ITV1.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
What could Dispatches learn from Dancing on Ice?
Try as I might, I can’t find much enthusiasm for the news that the new series of Dancing on Ice launched with 8.9 million last Sunday at 6.45pm. Admittedly, if I was in charge of ITV1 I’d take a very different view, and I know there are those who argue that X Factor, Strictly, I’m a Celebrity, Dancing on Ice, and so on, have unexpectedly revived family viewing. But the context for family viewing today is not the same as family viewing twenty or thirty years ago.
The achievement of the entertainment shows is not to be underestimated, but there is a real contrast with the schedules of thirty years ago. In the highly regulated television era when Morecombe and Wise reigned, the viewing options were limited – and non-entertainment genres were protected.
Not so now. Gradually choice has been narrowed – even the most protected species of factual programming, The South Bank Show, has dropped from the schedules. Another heavily protected genre, current affairs, struggles to make its voice heard – Channel 4’s Dispatches on Monday night had just 620,000 viewers, competing against and losing to Police Interceptors on Five, with 960,000 viewers.
It’s all the more suprising as this edition of Dispatches was a follow-up to last year’s highly rated Alzheimers programme with Fiona Phillips.
It’s interesting to look at the titles of some of the other higher rating Dispatches – What’s in Your Breakfast was the highest rated show in the autumn, with 1.6 million; Squander our Billions had 1.2 million in March; Bankers Still Cashing in had 1.1 million in May. Lower down the list are shows like Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby with 700,000 viewers and Afghanistan’s Dirty War with 470,000 viewers.
Clearly non-domestic stories play less well than domestic issues. And the series has put a lot of its resources into credit crunch and recession themed programming. Yet the show which seems to have resonated most is a lifestyle edition, about the content of food.
It might be argued that Dispatches is being asked to work pretty hard in order to carry an hour of primetime on Channel 4 on a Monday evening – the first half is up against EastEnders with almost 11 million, the second half contends with Coronation Street with 11.3 million, as well as Delia Through the Decades on BBC2 with 3.5 million.
And, of course there’s also BBC1’s flagship current affairs programme, Panorama. It featured a full-on investigation into the Northern Ireland First Minister’s and his wife’s troubles. Highly watchable for those of us who like that sort of television - but the audience was 2.7 million. Contrast that with last week’s midweek Big Freeze programme, which had almost 6 million viewers. The gap between what really interests an audience, and what the current affairs agenda suggests they might be interested in, is a wide one.
In the case of Channel 4, investment in Dispatches was a significant part of its case for public funding - a case rejected by government. Now, with a new chief executive yet to be appointed, its difficult to know how the strategy will change – but isn't it likely that Dispatches will come under scrutiny in the year ahead? The length of the programme – the range of subject matter – the role of celebrity presenters. I’d surprised if there isn’t some thought about re-engineering the strand, especially now that all Channel 4’s output is available online. What is achieved by placing a current affairs programme in hostile ratings territory when viewers who really want it can find it online?
And perhaps there’s a clue in that line of thinking which links with the success of entertainment. With so much choice, when viewers find something they like, they have a strong attachment to it - in the case of current affairs, there may be fewer of them, but I’d be surprised if those who continue to watch these shows aren’t a lot more attached to them than in the past.
How else to explain the audience for Newsnight – almost 800,000 viewers last night. That’s a pretty dedicated audience. The challenge for current affairs shows is to find a way to engage these viewers as successfully as the entertainment shows do with their devoted fans.
The achievement of the entertainment shows is not to be underestimated, but there is a real contrast with the schedules of thirty years ago. In the highly regulated television era when Morecombe and Wise reigned, the viewing options were limited – and non-entertainment genres were protected.
Not so now. Gradually choice has been narrowed – even the most protected species of factual programming, The South Bank Show, has dropped from the schedules. Another heavily protected genre, current affairs, struggles to make its voice heard – Channel 4’s Dispatches on Monday night had just 620,000 viewers, competing against and losing to Police Interceptors on Five, with 960,000 viewers.
It’s all the more suprising as this edition of Dispatches was a follow-up to last year’s highly rated Alzheimers programme with Fiona Phillips.
It’s interesting to look at the titles of some of the other higher rating Dispatches – What’s in Your Breakfast was the highest rated show in the autumn, with 1.6 million; Squander our Billions had 1.2 million in March; Bankers Still Cashing in had 1.1 million in May. Lower down the list are shows like Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby with 700,000 viewers and Afghanistan’s Dirty War with 470,000 viewers.
Clearly non-domestic stories play less well than domestic issues. And the series has put a lot of its resources into credit crunch and recession themed programming. Yet the show which seems to have resonated most is a lifestyle edition, about the content of food.
It might be argued that Dispatches is being asked to work pretty hard in order to carry an hour of primetime on Channel 4 on a Monday evening – the first half is up against EastEnders with almost 11 million, the second half contends with Coronation Street with 11.3 million, as well as Delia Through the Decades on BBC2 with 3.5 million.
And, of course there’s also BBC1’s flagship current affairs programme, Panorama. It featured a full-on investigation into the Northern Ireland First Minister’s and his wife’s troubles. Highly watchable for those of us who like that sort of television - but the audience was 2.7 million. Contrast that with last week’s midweek Big Freeze programme, which had almost 6 million viewers. The gap between what really interests an audience, and what the current affairs agenda suggests they might be interested in, is a wide one.
In the case of Channel 4, investment in Dispatches was a significant part of its case for public funding - a case rejected by government. Now, with a new chief executive yet to be appointed, its difficult to know how the strategy will change – but isn't it likely that Dispatches will come under scrutiny in the year ahead? The length of the programme – the range of subject matter – the role of celebrity presenters. I’d surprised if there isn’t some thought about re-engineering the strand, especially now that all Channel 4’s output is available online. What is achieved by placing a current affairs programme in hostile ratings territory when viewers who really want it can find it online?
And perhaps there’s a clue in that line of thinking which links with the success of entertainment. With so much choice, when viewers find something they like, they have a strong attachment to it - in the case of current affairs, there may be fewer of them, but I’d be surprised if those who continue to watch these shows aren’t a lot more attached to them than in the past.
How else to explain the audience for Newsnight – almost 800,000 viewers last night. That’s a pretty dedicated audience. The challenge for current affairs shows is to find a way to engage these viewers as successfully as the entertainment shows do with their devoted fans.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Snow - TV's winners and losers.
With big numbers for regional TV news as it covers the big freeze – 9 million watching the various regional shows on Tuesday for instance – the importance of the news and weather information outweighed the traditional poor relation nature of regional programming.
It comes at a time when regional newspaper groups have formed a number of consortia – with ITN, regional broadcasters such as STV and UTV, and independent companies like Ten Alps and Tinopolis – to bid to operate regional news services on ITV, funded by public money, in Scotland, Wales and the North East of England. Will the newspaper groups news services be able to match the coverage of the existing broadcasters – ITV regionally, ITN nationally, and the BBC?
I was interested to see how the two national news services approached the challenge of covering the snows. ITN took its news anchor, Mary Nightingale, to present the evening shows from Manchester, whereas the BBC stayed with its studio presentation and focused on Yorkshire. To my mind the ITN coverage was in the right place, more direct and better – but the audience, as usual, defaults to the BBC for major stories and so went with the BBC's 10 O'Clock News – 7m vs 3.85m for ITN's News at Ten.
One of the winners – in terms of news presentation, was BBC anchor, Sophie Raworth who presented the BBC coverage and then was brought back the following day to present a half-hour 8pm special, with an audience of 5.9m. The programme drew on items which were, essentially, regional news items, and repackaged through BBC News 24. It highlighted the scale of the BBC’s news organization, compared with its commercial rival.
Will public funds be sufficient to preserve the regional news on ITV? Clearly audiences seek out the local and regional information they need in difficult times, and will not forgive a service that does not deliver. The cost of providing a service that meets viewers expectations will not be insignificant – something that might be difficult to accept for regional newspaper groups more familiar with cost savings. Perhaps they should look at the Channel M experiment in Manchester, where Guardian Media Group spent nearly £15m on its expensive city channel – only to have to scale it back its local news and programming as advertising revenues failed to match expectations. The history of newspaper groups and local television – Channel One, Live TV, Channel M – is not a happy one, and does not augur well for the future of regional news.
It comes at a time when regional newspaper groups have formed a number of consortia – with ITN, regional broadcasters such as STV and UTV, and independent companies like Ten Alps and Tinopolis – to bid to operate regional news services on ITV, funded by public money, in Scotland, Wales and the North East of England. Will the newspaper groups news services be able to match the coverage of the existing broadcasters – ITV regionally, ITN nationally, and the BBC?
I was interested to see how the two national news services approached the challenge of covering the snows. ITN took its news anchor, Mary Nightingale, to present the evening shows from Manchester, whereas the BBC stayed with its studio presentation and focused on Yorkshire. To my mind the ITN coverage was in the right place, more direct and better – but the audience, as usual, defaults to the BBC for major stories and so went with the BBC's 10 O'Clock News – 7m vs 3.85m for ITN's News at Ten.
One of the winners – in terms of news presentation, was BBC anchor, Sophie Raworth who presented the BBC coverage and then was brought back the following day to present a half-hour 8pm special, with an audience of 5.9m. The programme drew on items which were, essentially, regional news items, and repackaged through BBC News 24. It highlighted the scale of the BBC’s news organization, compared with its commercial rival.
Will public funds be sufficient to preserve the regional news on ITV? Clearly audiences seek out the local and regional information they need in difficult times, and will not forgive a service that does not deliver. The cost of providing a service that meets viewers expectations will not be insignificant – something that might be difficult to accept for regional newspaper groups more familiar with cost savings. Perhaps they should look at the Channel M experiment in Manchester, where Guardian Media Group spent nearly £15m on its expensive city channel – only to have to scale it back its local news and programming as advertising revenues failed to match expectations. The history of newspaper groups and local television – Channel One, Live TV, Channel M – is not a happy one, and does not augur well for the future of regional news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)