http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/p...005533.article

According to Broadcast, Tony Ball for Chief Executive, Peter Fincham to go to Channel 4 as Chief Executive and either Elaine Bedell or Allison Sharman to take over as ITV Director of Television. Apparently Sharman is most likely.

Obviously Tony Ball isn't a big shock or an inspiring move like Michael Grade supposedly was. But perhaps the lesson there is to go for the obvious one. In reality, what ITV needed back then was someone who would be a bit more careful with the money.

However, from a ratings perspective, it's the Director of Television job that makes a real difference. I think it's a blow to ITV if Fincham goes, they could use some consistency. And neither of those names are particularly inspiring.

Why would Fincham go to Channel 4? They are supposedly pleading poverty so they surely can't afford his wages. Mind you, they manage to get Mary Portas off the BBC so...

Losing Fincham will be a blow to ITV. While nowhere near perfect, he is starting to get the post 9pm slot onto some kind of even keel and the pre-9pm slot into a more solid state. They need more of that now, not change at the top.

I'm not sure how much he's getting paid just now? But even with his 33% cut, Andy Duncan is on nearly £600,000 a year.

Broadcast seem to be implying that Tony Ball would cut costs and that's one of the reasons Fincham would leave. Plus, Chief Executive is a step up.

Money wise, I think Fincham was made from his days at Talkback, so a few hundred thousand either way might not trouble him.


I think the current 9pm programming could really benefit from ITV1+1. If it gets a decent EPG slot and promotion. There's so little on offer at 10pm but I think there's an audience. And they should have a good autumn ahead plus some of the new drama's for next year look good.

It says in the Broadcast article he has PSB ideals which really doesn't seem to be ITV1's forte at the moment.


I agree, ITV1+1 will really help the channel with some of their 9pm offerings especially. Will help The X Factor in it's clashes with Strictly too.

In a way though that's not really what C4 need at the moment. Since the BB race row they've neglected the more commercial side of operations IMO in finding big hits and protecting those hits to pay for such PSB content.

Whilst I'm not suggesting by any means C4 needs someone in who doesn't care about PSB, what they really need at the moment is to sure up the less PSB side of it's business and get back to the sort of balance we saw a few years back where the occasional breakout hit, quality US imports and original drama and comedy sat comfortably alongside the PSB offerings.

Friday nights desperately need sorting at C4 - not that long ago you could guarantee a variety of original comedy on a Friday night, but at the moment it's perhaps an hour each week for just a few months each year.

According to the BBC it will be announced this week that the product placement ban will be lifted from commercial television in the UK.

Long overdue in my opinion and quite a turnaround. This should really help ITV. Expect to see those Coke cups on X Factor as soon as they are allowed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8252901.stm

ITV definally need some consistancy because of the last few years the director of programmes just deals with the previous person's programmes, so you end up with programmes being 'burnt off' because the new guy doesn't like them or the new person 'making their mark' and axing long running programming/changing the schedule just because they can.

The same goes for the Chairman, Grade has had to deal with Charles' Allen's mess, the economic downturn and the Friends Reunited fiasco, none of which was his doing.

I think Fincham will be fine for C4. He has been commissioning the same sort of programmes at ITV1 as he was at BBC1, albeit with a smaller budget. And he made his name (and millions) running Talkback Thames and making lots of comedy programmes (Alan Partridge, Ali G, Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Smack The Pony). He has always been at the third option of "inform, educate and entertain".

Plus, with Big Brother going, he's got a small fortune to spend on drama if he wants plus anything else he likes. Whereas staying at ITV, he'll be under the control of Tony Ball and cost cutting.

Of course, Channel 4 (Kevin Lygo and Julian Bellamy) have spent the past few years working for someone who had little or no interest in the programming side. So things might be different there.

"If you want to vote for Daniel, sponsored by McDonalds, call..."

No truth at all in that it would bring in extra revenue. All that will happen is it'll be diverted from the spend on traditional ad spends.

The ban should absolutely remain for any scripted programme where such placement could influence storylines, and if introduced it needs to be done very cautiously elsewhere - not just opening the floodgates, so for example using Big Brother as an example rather than having the chance to win a takeaway, they have the chance to win a McDonalds (which actually with current rules the existing rules they could probably have got away with too an extent as long as only the prize itself was supplied, and no further payment).


But as far as any other uses go - well that's the end of editorial independence. And I struggle to see any justification for it being used in shows like The X Factor - certainly wouldn't want the Coca-Cola cups on the desk. It should only be permitted in cases where a product might have previously been featured but been unnamed.


Anyone who sees such a move as good for television is quite frankly an idiot.

Oh, thanks.

Advertisers are always looking for new places to put their money. It cant hurt to have as many possible ways for them to reach consumers as possible.

We already get product placement on all the international shows, we might as well get some of the benefits from it.

ITV will go to Coca-Cola and Pepsi and say one of you is going on X Factor which one of you will give us more? Then they go to McDonalds and Burger King and do the same. That's why these huge companies spend these ridiculous sums sponsoring things like the Olympics. McDonalds could easily do without sponsoring the Olympics - probably loses them money overall, but what would be worse is if Burger King were to win that contract, because they lose some of their status.

It's the same thing here. It's a status thing. These big headline brands will want in on this. The more people see a Coke bottle the higher value they place on it.

I don't believe for a second these will be funds diverted from direct advertising budgets.

According to Media Monkey Five has a big announcement on Monday. Any ideas?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog

Is 'eyes peeled' a clue?

Product Placement is fine as long as it isn't too blatant and I think we will add a bit of realism to many dramas and comedies while still getting money from it, Watching American Idol on ITV2, it is obviously it's Coke Cups even though it's been blurred but if the cups were not blurred, most viewers would take one glance and go back to what the judges are saying.

I'm sure ITV will be happy because you can imagine that advertisers would want to PP in show like The X Factor and BGT and pay big money for the priveldge.

I suspect they have signed someone big to a goldencuff deal or a major new programme, doubt it's an announcement of a acquisation or a commission.

Live from Stuido Five starts on Monday - I wonder if it could relate to that?

Product placement could do really well for ITV as they do have a strong international sales department (not as big as the BBC or any American network, but it still does well.) so I expect some multi-national companies would be willing to pay extra as their advert would be seen across the world.

I can't see audiences being that bothered by it as long as it's done as subtly as the Americans do it. We're already exposed to product placement through American TV programmes and practically every Hollywood film out there including kids films. IMO Ofcom over-estimated the effect product placemention has on viewers and should this be approved it would be long overdue.

I agree and I don't believe the arguments that all the money just comes from traditional advertising. This is a new way in which to market a brand and offering alternatives to advertisers depending on their needs is a good thing. Not to mention that PP reaches more people. Not only do we know that audiences and their attention levels dip during ad breaks, but people can't skip PP with their DVR's. Where ITV may sell a 30 second ad during The X Factor on the basis of 9 million viewers (many not paying much attention), they could sell placements on the basis of 11 million focussed on the programme.

I always find it funny that so many Brits are horrified by the idea when our very own James Bond is the most famous example. Or that people could be put off by judges sipping from Pepsi glasses but not remotely troubled by the endless logo's and brand names which cover football stadiums and Formula 1 racing. US TV seems to manage just fine with it. Sometimes, programme makers get it wrong, but generally, it works. Anything that can get commercial broadcasters investing in new programming is good.

The US do PP quite well especially in scripted shows, Mad Men although a period drama uses brands like Jack Daniels and it's intergrate very well. Casino Royale IMO is quite a case of PP done wrong with the overuse of Sony products (the distributor of the film is Sony Pictures) and the 'Rolex? No Omega'.

Do you think that may result in issues for ITV's showing of it next week - in regards to edit and such to get rid of the PP?

They dont take the PP out of films. Another reason why a ban is a bit stupid.

I've seen suggestions that TV Burp is 45 minutes this year. Does anyone know if that's true or just a random rumour?

(It would really help ITV if it were true!)

I'm been wracking my brain about what this big announcement from Five and I remembered that I did a survey yesterday on Five's website similar to the one that I did a few months ago which featured JLC, Ian Wright etc now JLC and Ian Wright has signed up to Five but this survey features names such as Davina, Frank Skinner, Gary Barlow, Liza Tarbuck and Charlotte Church as well as people who are going to be presenting Five shows like Ian Wright, Kate Walsh and Melinda Messenger plus Jamie Theakston and Zoe Ball.

On the subject of PP, I wonder if certain shows like The Gadget Show will benefit from it? I imagine that the companies probably supply for free for both the show's content and the competition but I read that in Broadcast that The Gadget Show makes money for Five.

Maybe Davina is going to host that talent show Gary Barlow was working on, with Charlotte Church as a judge? OK, sounds a bit naf, but you never know.

They are all good names though, it will be interesting to see if they do appear on Five soon in new programming.

I wouldn't be surprised, as it's always felt a bit short, and it would be a help to ITV. It also means they can get an extra ad break out of it!

It won't affect the quality, as I'm sure that each recording takes a couple of hours, so there's always been enough material for 45 minutes. Where have you heard this?

If you're thinking Big Brother, then Five's controller ruled that out: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bigbroth...other-bid.html




A extra ad break := net positive (for them, anyway)