The end of ITV as we used to know it - 30 years on

[George 1978]

I don't think that it would have been kept - there was only a weekday/weekend split in the Midlands and North because ATV had both franchises in London and the Midlands - they wouldn't have had a seven day contract in the Midlands as well as London Weekends. ATV had more of a local identity in the Midlands and so that was why they got that region seven days a week.

The way those regions were formed in 1956 was the reason why a weekday/weekend split existed originally. By 1968 it was realised that local identities in the Midlands needed to be looked at, and that one company would be the best way of maintaining that. Basically, ATV swapped London for the Midlands in 1968. And even then, the formation of Central was another reason that the region needed to represent the area it served a lot more. It needed to change in order for the network to move forward - Granada was heavily biased towards the North West and it was obvious that Yorkshire needed its own company on the Eastern side of the Pennines.

[Victoria O'Keefe]

George, if in 1968, the weekday/weekend split had been kept in the ATV and Granada/Yorkshire regions like it was in London, how much difference would it make for the ITV network going forward?

[George 1978]

The Border region situation has always been a curious one - it serves areas that are too far west for Tyne Tees; too far north for Granada and too far south for STV - look at how people in Dumfries complained about getting "local" news from Gateshead if a merger with Tyne Tees was on the cards.

In 1961, Granada and ABC wanted Cumbria to be part of their area but the ITA insisted that the area was "marginal".

However, I believe that viewers in that area have an "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it" attitude to their region, mostly as it is an area that resists change than in the south.

[Victoria O'Keefe]

Transferring Southern Scotland to STV from Border is likely in the medium term.

[George 1978]

The real reason Thames lost was because it was not providing a good local service to its region, or reflecting its changing demographics. The ITC kept this secret because there would be public outrage.

Thames was, in effect, a factory for networked popular entertainment programmes with a local news service. ITV companies had to provide a good local service to their region if they were to win at the franchise round. Grampian was excellent at providing a local service which is why it won despite being outbid by two companies.

I was expecting the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude from the ITC like they did with Granada and LWT. Two programmes that Carlton helped to continue however was Catchphrase and The Bill.

Any company that relies too much on independents like Carlton was, makes me feel whether they would have succeeded the quality threshold in the first place. I always associate minority programming with being commissioned by independents for Channel 4 - I could imagine a Carlton New Year as being a sub-Jools Holland Hootnanny or Whistle Test show for Channel 4 rather than ITV in London. Makes you wish that STV's Hogmanay show was still networked south of the border.

[Victoria O'Keefe]

commercial radio - which has given me pay cheques at points in my life - is not much better today. It is firmly becoming national networks with opt-outs for local weather and ads.

[beccabear67]

If we get rid of all employees think of that much more money to be made!

[Arran]

Does anyone think that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a mistake to begin with?

Yes.

I think the biggest problem was the requirement that ITV companies in 1993 and beyond had to show a minimum of 25% of all programmes from independent producers, and could even be publisher broadcasters outsourcing all production to independent producers.

This was the result of pressure by independent producers to open up ITV to their programmes back in the 1980s, combined with the success of C4 at creating an independent TV production industry in Britain. But ITV isn't C4 and C4 isn't ITV...

The government were wrongfooted because they failed to see that satellite and cable TV was about to take off in a big way, so there would be plenty of channels other than C4 for independent producers to broadcast their programmes, and conversely the new satellite and cable channels will require programmes to fill them.

I previously mentioned that I think the entire concept of ITV companies operating as publisher broadcasters has been very unsuccessful, and is now questionably obsolete. Ironically, the most successful independent producer for ITV is Thames!

If ITV companies had to make 75% of their programmes in 1993 then it would have prevented Carlton from swinging the wrecking ball at large production facilities - such as those owned by Central. Carlton might not have bothered applying for the London weekday franchise in 1991 if they had to produce 75% of their programmes, but instead increased their stake in Central if they didn't win the south east franchise and take over the TVS studio in Southampton.

I also blame the NuLab government for not holding another franchise round in the early 2000s when there was still interest in regional terrestrial TV by viewers and broadcasters.

[Victoria O'Keefe]

Oh, yes!
But technology will force a change - once automation becomes commonplace in the 1990s, even a surviving IBA ITV won't need such big studio complexes or amounts of equipment so the different independent ITV companies will scale things down any way.

[George 1978]

Does anyone think that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a mistake to begin with?

[Arran]

And it was Carlton that took over Central - at least Central still made their own programmes. I actually thought that London weekday and Midlands would have been two powerful on the network, even if Granada had took over most of the other Engish regions.

The problem with Carlton in the 1990s is that it's London weekday region was a publisher broadcaster from the outset but it's Midlands region was a massive programme factory. Carlton had no interest, or experience, in producing television programmes, so they ran down Central over the years. The huge Broad Street studios in Birmingham were closed in 1997 following the construction of a very small studio in Gas Street, now used only for local news. The Lenton Lane studios in Nottingham - constructed in the early 1980s as part of the restructuring of ATV into Central in order to better serve the East Midlands - were closed in 2005 as they were surplus to requirements following the merger of Carlton with Granada.

Central, like Thames, was large enough in the early 1990s to become a successful national satellite TV channel.

[Arran]

I have always said that it was conspiracy theories around the TV industry, that Death on the Rock was responsible for Thames' loss.

The real reason Thames lost was because it was not providing a good local service to its region, or reflecting its changing demographics. The ITC kept this secret because there would be public outrage.

Thames was, in effect, a factory for networked popular entertainment programmes with a local news service. ITV companies had to provide a good local service to their region if they were to win at the franchise round. Grampian was excellent at providing a local service which is why it won despite being outbid by two companies.

[George 1978]

It was a sad demise to Central...

Mountains of stuff have been written about Thames losing their franchise in 1991 and the resulting impact it has had on ITV and its programmes. Less has been written about the decimation of Central following the mergers which created a unified ITV.

I have always said that it was conspiracy theories around the TV industry, that Death on the Rock was responsible for Thames' loss.

[George 1978]

Yes he was.

A notable feature of Meridian is that they offered 3 local news services - south coast, south east, Thames valley - whereas TVS only offered 2 local news services.

I have wondered if Meridian was partially inspired by Network South from the 1980 franchise round which proposed 5 sub regions each with a local news service. Meridian did not produce as many programmes as TVS did. Neither did Network South intend to produce much apart from local programmes, with fewer networked programmes than Southern produced.

Meridian has been criticised for being more like a Southern Television mk2 and lacking the ambition that TVS had, but they should be given credit that in 1994 their parent company MAI took over Anglia Television, then in 1995 MAI became a major shareholder in the consortium that won the franchise for Channel 5.

In 1996 MAI merged with United Newspapers to form United News and Media (UNM). This now resulted in a company which owned both print and television media, like the owners of Southern Television did. A position which was very unpopular with the IBA during the 1980 franchise round.

In 1999 there were proposals to merge UNM and Carlton. This failed when it was revealed that Meridian would have to be sold off as a condition of the deal. Meridian and Anglia were instead sold to Granada, and HTV sold to Carlton in exchange for the 20% stake in Meridian owned by Central. This was due to regulations limiting the audience share of ITV companies at the time.

The takeover of Meridian by Granada represented the point where Meridian began to decline to little more than a local news service for the south of England.

And it was Carlton that took over Central - at least Central still made their own programmes. I actually thought that London weekday and Midlands would have been two powerful on the network, even if Granada had took over most of the other Engish regions.

[George 1978]

I would like to read the applications for the ITV companies to find out what they really proposed to do if they won the franchise. Any idea where they can be viewed by the public?

When the Breakfast TV franchise was offered in 1980, there were eight different ones, although that they generic names like Daytime TV and Morning TV, as well as Good Morning TV - practically the same name as GMTV.