Originally Posted by Zac Quinn:
“Okay Steve, perhaps I went a little far there, I apologise for any offence caused.
Though I would raise to you that that using the leader's debate as an example of challenging programming doing well on ITV is perhaps a bit deceptive, being as it was the lead story on every news bulletin for 24-hours either side, the result of 'negotiations' which have been in the news non-stop for six months, and a focal point of an event which 75% of the country will take part in a week today*. As opposed to a comedy programme with little advertising outside of ITV. We'll never know how much of the 7m who tuned into the leader's debate were 'typical ITV' viewers rather than those drawn in by the extensive news coverage, but I suspect it wasn't an especially high proportion.”
No need for apologies here, but it is a fact that people watch programmes, not channels (and not days and slots either). I would suggest that the leaders debate did do well for ITV because we hear much about how people don't trust ITV for challenging programming so you could forgive the public for saying oh, ITV, it'll be rubbish and not bother. It was still a political programme at the end of the day and they don't generally rate well, look at The Leader Interviews for an example.
If you get a big programme it'll attract a big audience regardless of what else is on the channel. It's obviously a different market but Mad Men in America was the first original programme on its channel AMC which was previously exclusively devoted to old films. But it was a hugely successful programme and drew new viewers to the channel.
Viewers are well used to watching challenging and innovative programmes on ITV, they've always led the way in drama for example. Chris Chibnall said that when they were doing Broadchurch they thought it might fit Sky Atlantic because they thought it was a bit unusual, but ITV wanted it for primetime. And they've always been able to do that alongside crass populist programming as well, I wouldn't suggest any of the light entertainment on ITV is now is especially worse than it was in the eighties with Blind Date and Game For A Laugh and things like that. The two can co-exist.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“ITV has always been about money but there were periods where franchise heads felt programmes were very important. To say that ITV doesn't care now is a lie, but they are making huge profits. So I wonder if Crozier cares as much about programme performance as some predecessors?”
You could spin that both ways, of course, you can argue that as a bean counter Adam Crozier has no interest in programming, but also because they're making huge profits they're able to let low-rated programmes continue because there isn't the desperation to win every slot. If you look back on what was probably ITV's lowest ever point, 2006, when it was in a right state under Simon Shaps, programmes were getting axed left, right and centre because they were struggling financially and needed quick fixes. Now they can let Newzoids play out in full, I know they're not going to be thrilled with those ratings but they don't desperately need it to be a hit so maybe there isn't the urgency to find anything else.
They do still drop programmes, though, and it does appear that Pop Gold has ended with one episode still to show and nobody has any idea when or indeed if that might be broadcast. Not a great tragedy, though, I don't think, I liked the idea but I think they've gone too far towards finding obscurities for obscurity's sake, which baffles and bores the general audience. Would have been alright on BBC4, not so on ITV.
Originally Posted by Dancc:
“And similarly I struggle to see how anyone can think a special edition in a primetime slot with all the party leaders present 7 days before a GE is comparable to a run off the mill post news episode, so there you go.
It should have done more. Having said that, the format did not work. But I suppose we have Mr Cameron to thank for that, as well as ruining the debates.”
Well, we had the same format in 2005, when it was considered an enormous leap forward, as the Radio Times billing points out...
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/488718c01...3c68d98806476b
Obviously since then we had the 2010 debates which rather overshadowed it and made this look like a bit of a backwards step. But as I say, political programming in the build-up to an election never used to rate very well at all, back in 2001 for example (I know that was a very boring election) I remember loads of reports that ratings for all news programmes had plummeted during the campaign. I think 2010 was probably a bit of a freak, given how it was a new thing and they were all in quick succession so viewers didn't get bored, and now ratings are reverting back to their usual level for this kind of thing. They're still quite high, though.
