MO
moss
Founding member
Same here, for the same reason. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/tv.home/forum/emoticons/biggrin.gif
AW
aztec west
although we'll probably end up with one whole ITV1 i would like each region to be separate. regions are necessary, it's part of our identity. we need to keep areas like central, granada, yorkshire, htv, etc.
GA
Gareth
Founding member
I voted for one company for each of the nations within the UK and one for the channel isles as I feel that this is what ITV1 will become from its current state, the channel should still show regional programmes but with one owner as to increase revenue from advertising.
Edit: I also think this will be good for the West as they are the bit on the side that HTV forget about, HTV appear to have pushed HTV West into the cupboard with HTV Wales in prime place removing viewers from HTV West I'm sure 'I Hate HTV West' would back this up!!
(Edited by Gareth at 3:44 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)
Edit: I also think this will be good for the West as they are the bit on the side that HTV forget about, HTV appear to have pushed HTV West into the cupboard with HTV Wales in prime place removing viewers from HTV West I'm sure 'I Hate HTV West' would back this up!!
(Edited by Gareth at 3:44 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)
CW
cwathen
Founding member
>programmes but with one owner as to increase revenue from >advertising.
The only need to increase advertising revenue so much (and the reason Carlton and Granada are in dire straights) is because of this weird desire for them to own everything. Why does GMG need to own 7 stations? Would it be so terrible if they only had Granada to worry about?
Westward in it's early days had far fewer adverts than Westcountry has now, but it still managed to break even fairly quickly. Reason: because Westward owned Westward and only Westward. If all the stations now still looked out for themselves instead of eyeing up other stations, it would be unlikely that advertising revenue would've fallen. I mean, there hasn't been that much of a decline in adverts on ITV since the launch of SkyDigital and such, and many mainstream adverts still only get onto ITV, C4 and C5. Most of the adverts on the multichannel platforms are unless ads for 'claims direct' type companies.
This single ITV idea has completely blown up in their faces, and it amazes me that they're still trying to consolidate further. A merger between Carlton and Granada will finally seal ITV's fate. Each merger only brings it's death closer, not further away.
Seriously, 10 years ago when we still had a network of independent companies, would anyone have predicted ITV's demise? I think not. It's only become a popular subject of discussion since the mid 90's; since the mergers started.
The only need to increase advertising revenue so much (and the reason Carlton and Granada are in dire straights) is because of this weird desire for them to own everything. Why does GMG need to own 7 stations? Would it be so terrible if they only had Granada to worry about?
Westward in it's early days had far fewer adverts than Westcountry has now, but it still managed to break even fairly quickly. Reason: because Westward owned Westward and only Westward. If all the stations now still looked out for themselves instead of eyeing up other stations, it would be unlikely that advertising revenue would've fallen. I mean, there hasn't been that much of a decline in adverts on ITV since the launch of SkyDigital and such, and many mainstream adverts still only get onto ITV, C4 and C5. Most of the adverts on the multichannel platforms are unless ads for 'claims direct' type companies.
This single ITV idea has completely blown up in their faces, and it amazes me that they're still trying to consolidate further. A merger between Carlton and Granada will finally seal ITV's fate. Each merger only brings it's death closer, not further away.
Seriously, 10 years ago when we still had a network of independent companies, would anyone have predicted ITV's demise? I think not. It's only become a popular subject of discussion since the mid 90's; since the mergers started.
TW
TWO ident
Founding member
Another argument against single ITV could well be that it is allowing one company to dominate the regional TV market (if the government still think regional TV would be a good idea in their globalised world.)
No we need separate rules for ITV. It *is* a different case to all the others. You cannot compare it to digital channels because the vast majority still watch it on analogue terrestrial. Even in 20-30 years time if/when analogue is switched off it will still be the dominating player in the commercial TV market. You only need to look at ratings to see this. The whole 'if Brookside was on ITV' argument is right. People still see BBC 1 and ITV as the main channels. The BBC have heaps of regulations. Why should ITV be any different? Let the other channels do what they need to survive but put ITV under painful scrutiny. Make them squirm with regulation after regulation like the old days and ratings will go up and thus ad revenue as well.
And there should be a separate authority for ITV and C4 similar to the IBA. The other channels could, arguably, do with less regulation as people pay to watch them, it's their funeral
. Public-service commercial television and digital commercial television. Two different markets, they should be treated differently.
(Edited by TWO ident at 5:54 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)
No we need separate rules for ITV. It *is* a different case to all the others. You cannot compare it to digital channels because the vast majority still watch it on analogue terrestrial. Even in 20-30 years time if/when analogue is switched off it will still be the dominating player in the commercial TV market. You only need to look at ratings to see this. The whole 'if Brookside was on ITV' argument is right. People still see BBC 1 and ITV as the main channels. The BBC have heaps of regulations. Why should ITV be any different? Let the other channels do what they need to survive but put ITV under painful scrutiny. Make them squirm with regulation after regulation like the old days and ratings will go up and thus ad revenue as well.
And there should be a separate authority for ITV and C4 similar to the IBA. The other channels could, arguably, do with less regulation as people pay to watch them, it's their funeral
. Public-service commercial television and digital commercial television. Two different markets, they should be treated differently.
(Edited by TWO ident at 5:54 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)
TW
TWO ident
Founding member
Quote:
TWO ident on 5:51 pm on Jan. 3, 2002
Another argument against single ITV could well be that it is allowing one company to dominate the regional TV market (if the government still think regional TV would be a good idea in their globalised world.)
No we need separate rules for ITV. It *is* a different case to all the others. You cannot compare it to digital channels because the vast majority still watch it on analogue terrestrial. Even in 20-30 years time if/when analogue is switched off it will still be the dominating player in the commercial TV market. You only need to look at ratings to see this. The whole 'if Brookside was on ITV' argument is right. People still see BBC 1 and ITV as the main channels. The BBC have heaps of regulations. Why should ITV be any different? Let the other channels do what they need to survive but put ITV under painful scrutiny. Make them squirm with regulation after regulation like the old days and ratings will go up and thus ad revenue as well.
And there should be a separate authority for ITV and C4 similar to the IBA. The other channels could, arguably, do with less regulation as people pay to watch them, it's their funeral. Public-service commercial television and digital commercial television. Two different markets, they should be treated differently.
Another argument against single ITV could well be that it is allowing one company to dominate the regional TV market (if the government still think regional TV would be a good idea in their globalised world.)
No we need separate rules for ITV. It *is* a different case to all the others. You cannot compare it to digital channels because the vast majority still watch it on analogue terrestrial. Even in 20-30 years time if/when analogue is switched off it will still be the dominating player in the commercial TV market. You only need to look at ratings to see this. The whole 'if Brookside was on ITV' argument is right. People still see BBC 1 and ITV as the main channels. The BBC have heaps of regulations. Why should ITV be any different? Let the other channels do what they need to survive but put ITV under painful scrutiny. Make them squirm with regulation after regulation like the old days and ratings will go up and thus ad revenue as well.
And there should be a separate authority for ITV and C4 similar to the IBA. The other channels could, arguably, do with less regulation as people pay to watch them, it's their funeral
. Public-service commercial television and digital commercial television. Two different markets, they should be treated differently.
JA
There is less advertising on UTV than the Carlton channels now, but UTV still manage to make a nice tidy profit for themselves thankyou very much, whilst Carlton made a loss of 400 million this year.
I don't think we can blame consolidation for this, but I think these facts can definitively nail the rubbish spouted by some on this board that a single ITV is the only way to make profits and be competitive.
I think the ultimate form ITV will take is a single channel for England and Wales, with a seperate one for Scotland, another for NI and another for the Channel Islands (for no other reason than Channel TV is too insignificant in the grand scheme of things to matter very much to ITV).
I don't like this idea, because I think a region, particularly a well-defined one a long distance from London, needs a media company to cater for it's needs and provide a learning base for young talent from the respective areas. This does still exist in the present form of ITV, to a broadly-acceptable degree, but if one ITV company is created it will kill this outlet off, by definition, unless a strong regional network is put in it's place -- and the BBC is not enough.
I don't think we can blame consolidation for this, but I think these facts can definitively nail the rubbish spouted by some on this board that a single ITV is the only way to make profits and be competitive.
I think the ultimate form ITV will take is a single channel for England and Wales, with a seperate one for Scotland, another for NI and another for the Channel Islands (for no other reason than Channel TV is too insignificant in the grand scheme of things to matter very much to ITV).
I don't like this idea, because I think a region, particularly a well-defined one a long distance from London, needs a media company to cater for it's needs and provide a learning base for young talent from the respective areas. This does still exist in the present form of ITV, to a broadly-acceptable degree, but if one ITV company is created it will kill this outlet off, by definition, unless a strong regional network is put in it's place -- and the BBC is not enough.
MB
Mark B
I voted for option 2, but I have a proviso to add to it.
I would say two companies for England - one for Northern England and one for Southern England. So, for example, Granada would be allowed to run GTV, YTV, TTTV and Border, but not Anglia and Meridian.
Carlton would not be able to control any franchise north of Central.
As an act of parliament, I would make Wales a separate authority, in the way the S4C is, apart from main Channel 4.
I would keep Scottish/Grampian independent, and UTV, as is currently the case, to ensure that all non-England parts of the UK have a 'devolved' ITV service.
I think Granada should continue to dominate Northern ITV, but they should be forced to stay there, so they HAVE to concentrate on 'Northern telly'. Granada would, under my scheme, have to sell Meridian and Anglia to Carlton, so Carlton would have a southern 'super-region'. After all, with programmes like London Tonight and Carlton Country very often featuring Kent, Sussex and the Home Counties, and as most people in those areas can get Carlton/LWT and Merdian/Anglia together, this wouldn't be any great shakes.
LWT would have to be sold to Carlton. But again - they work out of the same studios (in London), they transmit to the same region - London Tonight wouldn't change much as a result - what input do LWT have anyway apart from supplying more staff? Again, it wouldn't be noticeable on-screen.
Granada's ownership on the London Studios would have to be reduced. A ceiling level of ownership of facilities would have to be created - OR - a broadcaster with an ITV franchise would be forced to sell all facilities NOT in their 'patch' to the regional franchisee OR a partnership company - i.e. like LNN. So, The London Studios would become owned by an LNN-type company (who are the building's main clients anyway, and all joint continuity is 'provided' by LNN - the name is really out of date already).
(Edited by Mark B at 7:49 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)
I would say two companies for England - one for Northern England and one for Southern England. So, for example, Granada would be allowed to run GTV, YTV, TTTV and Border, but not Anglia and Meridian.
Carlton would not be able to control any franchise north of Central.
As an act of parliament, I would make Wales a separate authority, in the way the S4C is, apart from main Channel 4.
I would keep Scottish/Grampian independent, and UTV, as is currently the case, to ensure that all non-England parts of the UK have a 'devolved' ITV service.
I think Granada should continue to dominate Northern ITV, but they should be forced to stay there, so they HAVE to concentrate on 'Northern telly'. Granada would, under my scheme, have to sell Meridian and Anglia to Carlton, so Carlton would have a southern 'super-region'. After all, with programmes like London Tonight and Carlton Country very often featuring Kent, Sussex and the Home Counties, and as most people in those areas can get Carlton/LWT and Merdian/Anglia together, this wouldn't be any great shakes.
LWT would have to be sold to Carlton. But again - they work out of the same studios (in London), they transmit to the same region - London Tonight wouldn't change much as a result - what input do LWT have anyway apart from supplying more staff? Again, it wouldn't be noticeable on-screen.
Granada's ownership on the London Studios would have to be reduced. A ceiling level of ownership of facilities would have to be created - OR - a broadcaster with an ITV franchise would be forced to sell all facilities NOT in their 'patch' to the regional franchisee OR a partnership company - i.e. like LNN. So, The London Studios would become owned by an LNN-type company (who are the building's main clients anyway, and all joint continuity is 'provided' by LNN - the name is really out of date already).
(Edited by Mark B at 7:49 pm on Jan. 3, 2002)