ITV regions debate

[Steve in Pudsey]

If the BBC One North thing a) actually happens and b) is a success that might prompt ITV to do something similar. It shouldn't be too big a stretch to have dual branded idents play out for each region with a generic announcement.

How would it be quantified as a success though? People aren’t going to watch more programmes they don’t won’t to watch due to the continuity announcers having a slightly more northern twang. I’m not against the idea, but I can’t see that it’s being done for anything other than political reasons and there certainly won’t be any commercial reasons for ITV to do it.

I thought the idea was to use it to promote different programmes in the North and the South, so the ratings in each area would give an indication of it working or not?

[Humphrey Hacker]

How would it be quantified as a success though? People aren’t going to watch more programmes they don’t won’t to watch due to the continuity announcers having a slightly more northern twang. I’m not against the idea, but I can’t see that it’s being done for anything other than political reasons and there certainly won’t be any commercial reasons for ITV to do it.

I thought the idea was to use it to promote different programmes in the North and the South, so the ratings in each area would give an indication of it working or not?

Is there that much of a north/south split anymore? Looking at the schedules I can’t see anything especially in prime time that would benefit from different promotions. Sherwood recently finished and that might have benefitted from a more northern slant due to the area it was based in (and also the history surrounding the fictional story)

[Rdd]

Apologies if this sounds stupid but... what was the point of two London franchises for different parts of the week?

The real point of the split franchises in the original set up was that the ITA was supposed to include a measure of competition, and since franchises were more or less exclusive (though they were expecting ITA2/ITV2 at some point) dividing them between different contractors would at least ensure that if they couldn’t have competition for viewers they could at least have competition for the supply of programmes to the “network” (though ITV at this stage was less a network and more a system of the original contractors supplying programmes to each other). The split franchises were less necessary once the network had been expanded to the whole country, but kept for London on the basis that a single London contractor would have been so powerful that it would have dominated the network.

[Inspector Sands]

The real point of the split franchises in the original set up was that the ITA was supposed to include a measure of competition, and since franchises were more or less exclusive (though they were expecting ITA2/ITV2 at some point) dividing them between different contractors would at least ensure that if they couldn’t have competition for viewers they could at least have competition for the supply of programmes to the “network” (though ITV at this stage was less a network and more a system of the original contractors supplying programmes to each other). The split franchises were less necessary once the network had been expanded to the whole country, but kept for London on the basis that a single London contractor would have been so powerful that it would have dominated the network.

It wasn't just supply of programmes, being the region with the biggest and richest population it would have a massive advertising income. Having two companies meant they would compete with each other as well as with local newspapers and, later on, radio stations

[Rdd]

Indeed, though ISTR Southern/TVS actually had the biggest advertising revenue at least at one stage, due not to the population but how to affluent the region was and the higher rates it could therefore charge.

You have to remember that in early ITV, the four original contractors were the network, and only slowly was it extended elsewhere. Even when other regions came online their access to network programming was through affiliating to one of the original contractors (Rediffusion, ATV, ABC, or Granada). This was the beginning of what evolved into the Five and the Ten, where the successors to the original four contractors (plus Yorkshire which was carved out of the original Granada/ABC region) absolutely dominated for the next couple of decades the supply of programming to what became the ITV network and what was supplied by the Ten was limited to the fringes.

[Humphrey Hacker]

Indeed, though ISTR Southern/TVS actually had the biggest advertising revenue at least at one stage, due not to the population but how to affluent the region was and the higher rates it could therefore charge.

You have to remember that in early ITV, the four original contractors were the network, and only slowly was it extended elsewhere. Even when other regions came online their access to network programming was through affiliating to one of the original contractors (Rediffusion, ATV, ABC, or Granada). This was the beginning of what evolved into the Five and the Ten, where the successors to the original four contractors (plus Yorkshire which was carved out of the original Granada/ABC region) absolutely dominated for the next couple of decades the supply of programming to what became the ITV network and what was supplied by the Ten was limited to the fringes.

From what I understand for a long time there were weekly meetings to decide the scheduling. The big 4 (later to be 5) would have some pretty heated arguments over what would be shown. This only ended in the mid 90’s when a central scheduling unit was created

[Rdd]

Essentially yes - the arrangements differed and the names changed but there was for most of this period a small group (the Network Planning Committee or Programme Controllers Committee) on which only the Five were represented and a bigger group (the ITV Council) on which all the ITV companies were represented. It was the smaller group that had most of the day to day power over scheduling. The 1992-93 season was the last scheduled in this manner, the new ITV Network Centre took over with the autumn 1993 (after the full commencement of the Broadcasting Act 1990 on 1st January 1993) after which the ITV network had a Director of Programming and full time schedulers of its own. The smaller group was gone after this, the bigger group lasted (if effectively powerless after 2004) all the way up to 2012 when the networking arrangements were replaced and ITV plc took over running the network.

[NancerOnTheLIVEForum]

Another question: why were Carlton so despised? I wasn't around during their time so I'd love to know

[Rdd]

Why were Carlton so despised?

Crime No 1: Not being Thames. Any company would have a hard act to follow after a company that was truly, to use a phrase Carlton would later use, the heart of the ITV Network.

Crime No 2: Commissioning some seriously bad programming in their early years, up until they bought Central and suddenly became one of the biggest producers of programming in the ITV Network.

Crime No 3: getting rid of the Central and Westcountry names, although they were never truly gone (still used for regional news) and both regions had separate continuity throughout this period. And the idents have probably never been bettered on ITV since. Perhaps would have been viewed better if people knew what was about to happen to ITV continuity less than three years later.

[Neil Jones]

Another question: why were Carlton so despised? I wasn't around during their time so I'd love to know

For all Carlton's faults, they were good at two things: 1) making money, and 2) branding (aside from their first stab at it). The Carlton 1999 presentation package was beautiful and still looks good today - little else has probably touched it in the presentation stakes.

And yes they made absolutely sod all themselves (farming the whole lot out to indies I believe) until they swallowed Central whole in the 1990s and then suddenly found themselves with more production resources and sites and whatever else than they knew what to do with. So it came to pass, Central was downsized and ultimately reduced to a pokey little office in Gas Street.

[Steve Williams]

And yes they made absolutely sod all themselves (farming the whole lot out to indies I believe) until they swallowed Central whole in the 1990s and then suddenly found themselves with more production resources and sites and whatever else than they knew what to do with. So it came to pass, Central was downsized and ultimately reduced to a pokey little office in Gas Street.

Another broadcaster who made "absolutely sod all themselves" was Channel Four, who also farmed the whole lot out to indies. That was the way Channel Four was supposed to work, and that was the way Carlton wanted to work - they would have been obliged to commission a percentage of their output from indies in any case, so they decided to do all of it like that.

But it's not that Carlton couldn't be bothered and just waited to see what turned up so they take the credit for it, they commissioned these programmes and were wholly responsible for them, and without Carlton those programmes would not have been made. The same as It's A Sin wouldn't have been made without Channel Four or Line of Duty wouldn't have been made without the BBC. Carlton did exactly what they said they would do and met all their commitments. And anyone writing them off for contracting it all out to indies would presumably have the same problem with Channel Four.

Crime No 2: Commissioning some seriously bad programming in their early years, up until they bought Central and suddenly became one of the biggest producers of programming in the ITV Network.

Crime No 3: getting rid of the Central and Westcountry names, although they were never truly gone (still used for regional news) and both regions had separate continuity throughout this period. And the idents have probably never been bettered on ITV since. Perhaps would have been viewed better if people knew what was about to happen to ITV continuity less than three years later.

It's certainly true that some Carlton programmes were quite bad, although they were obviously launching a lot of new programmes all at once, and not all of them are going to catch on. What I do think was perhaps an issue is that the people behind Carlton had huge experience in television, but perhaps not masses of experience in primetime ITV which is a particularly tough market to crack. A lot of the early Carlton shows were perhaps a bit too much like BBC2 or C4 shows which didn't quite fit on the network. The early light entertainment shows like Lose a Million and Fantastic Facts are great examples, they were all a bit too arch for mainstream consumption - trying to parody the conventions of ITV light entertainment while also being ITV light entertainment.

And as you suggest, despite getting rid of the Central and Westcountry names (although they lived on via the regional news programmes), they continued with local continuity throughout, continued to find decent slots of local programming and were aware of the stations' history, hence in 2001 they made a point of celebrating forty years of ITV in the South West. Compare that to the Granada stations which, yes, kept their regional names, but reduced to a tiny logo in the middle of the screen, introduced pan-regional continuity which didn't mention the station names at all and simulcast a lot of "regional" shows across all the regions.

[Humphrey Hacker]

Another question: why were Carlton so despised? I wasn't around during their time so I'd love to know

For all Carlton's faults, they were good at two things:  1) making money, and 2) branding (aside from their first stab at it).  The Carlton 1999 presentation package was beautiful and still looks good today - little else has probably touched it in the presentation stakes.

And yes they made absolutely sod all themselves (farming the whole lot out to indies I believe) until they swallowed Central whole in the 1990s and then suddenly found themselves with more production resources and sites and whatever else than they knew what to do with.  So it came to pass, Central was downsized and ultimately reduced to a pokey little office in Gas Street.

I’ll add a third although slightly OT. They gave Dave Allen a couple of more series.

[London Lite]

As part of farming off everything, Carlton along with LWT formed the London News Network which led to the best period of regional news for London on ITV.

While Thames were applauded for their network commissions, Thames News wasn't the best.

[Inspector Sands]

As part of farming off everything, Carlton along with LWT formed the London News Network which led to the best period of regional news for London on ITV.

While Thames were applauded for their network commissions, Thames News wasn't the best.

Though that wasn't purely Carlton's idea, LWT proposed it in their lecense application in 1991. So it would probably have happened eventually if Thames had won, particularly as their Euston studios only had a few more years left

[NancerOnTheLIVEForum]

Another question I have: Before ITV plc was formed in 2004, who owned the trademarks to the ITV name and brand?