From the ITV web site
ITV is the biggest commercial television network in the UK, broadcasting the most talked about television and making a major contribution to the UK’s culture, economy and communities.
What is ITV for? This isn't just an idle question. We know what the BBC's for (sort of): it's for public service brodcasting and higher quality populist fare – that sort of thing. That's why we watch it. Channel 4's there for a brave stab at public service broadcasting, US imports and daft rubbish. Five is there for, well, that's actually a tricky question but US imports plus whatever else their Lucky 8 ball suggested that week, or what they could get away with making for crap-all budget.
But ITV's trickier. Not only is it contemplating giving back its terrestrial licence to get out of public service broadcasting, no one really has an idea of what it's for, apart from rubbish these days. It used simply to be an alternative to the BBC for the 'common man', designed to increase competition, improve standards and make programmes the Beeb wouldn't because it was too snooty. But now the Beeb makes some very good programmes, not all of them snooty, and ITV makes some very bad programmes – is the television of the 'common man' simply crap TV or should it be something better?
Okay, standards are improving, with a number of goodish shows making it on to our screens of late (eg The Fixer and Lost in Austen). But we all know roughly what BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 are for. Do you honestly know what ITV1, ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 are doing with their lives? Here's the blurb:
ITV1: Britain's most popular commercial channel
ITV2: An exciting mix of talent, celebrity gossip and factual shows
ITV3: Delve into the archives with classic drama from the ITV vaults
ITV4: Challenging drama, cult films and premium sports events
Are you feeling any wiser? Do these feel like well thought out focuses? Does it help to realise this is all lies anyway (eg Secret Diary of a Call Girl on ITV2, US imports like Life and BBC shows like Lovejoy on ITV3, old ITC shows like Space: 1999 and manly documentaries on ITV4).
So if ITV's not there for public service broadcasting and doesn't produce good TV, does it have a purpose? Or is it simply just another broadcaster these days – just like Five? And if it's just like Five, are ultimately its ratings going to end up just like Five's unless it can think of a proper place for itself in the world?
Over to you…
October 21, 2008 | Reply
Recent stuff on ITV seems to be a bit better - I loved Lost in Austen, and have really enjoyed Lewis. Saw the first episode of Wired last week and thought it was enjoyable tosh. But THEN I saw Frost this week and was really disappointed as it wasn't a patch on what it used to be (I noticed David Jason complaining about production values being compromised because of lack of revenues).
ITV inevitably has to change as the advertising revenues aren't there anymore, but I would be sorry to see it go altogether. With my children's books/Mum head on I am also dismayed by the loss of children's TV. Not all of it was crap - My Parents are Aliens and Don't Eat the Neighbours were two very very good kids tv shows that have fallen by the wayside. From what I understand (having joined the Save Kids TV campaign) the Beeb wanted CITV to stay as they think it provides healthy competition. We're in danger of kids TV being reduced to cheap American imports and cartoons which is no good for the future of the medium I'd say.
So I'd like to see ITV come up with some imaginative ways of raising revenue and go back to producing good drama the way they (sometimes) used to. Watching Frost I thought we could certainly do with a modern day Morse/Frost adaptation of some more recent crime hero (of course my head has now gone blank and I can't think of any), but also Lost in Austen shows that they can do something a bit off the beaten track if they do but try.
And of course. How could I have forgotten Primeval. More Primeval say I. That'll save them.
October 21, 2008 | Reply
I think you have a really good point. As you say, BBC is the quality, C4 is the 'licence to be different', I'm not sure what Five ever was for aside from there was space and it fitted existing broadcast policy to setup a new channel... but ITV was about regionalism at the very start.
It was never set up as a single entity - it's point was to be a regional *network*. And then they just shared each others programmes, then became very similar and then just ate each other... I think losing the regionalism - a prime aspect of its PSB - has been partly responsible for the loss of direction because, as you say, all it has left now is an aim to be popular and not like the others... which leaves being a bit shit and tacky. And you can't break it up again because the reason it centralised was that making programmes is so expensive that it needs economies of scale.
I was at a meeting in the Commons today about the Ofcom review of broadcasting, and amongst other things, Mark Thompson said the BBC were considering sharing facilities (to save costs) of news production and other things I'm sure with the other PSB broadcasters.
As an aside I'm just reading about That Was The Week That Was and 6os TV. It's hard enough to imagine what it was like when there was just two channels. Weird.
October 21, 2008 | Reply
I'll echo Jane Henry - can't think why - and say thank you ITV1 for Primeval. But I'd also add in some of their recent drama - Lost in Austen was highly successful (and I want the DVD as I missed it for shame), Place of Execution was brilliant and I still have a fondness for Poirot et al. Does ITV have a clear purpose overall though? No, and certainly not across its four channels...
October 22, 2008 | Reply
Tis more or less as I thought: that we can all say what ITV was, we can all says what's wrong with it now and we can suggest things it should do. But no one actually knows what it is now.
October 22, 2008 | Reply
ITV4 is Bloke Telly.
ITV2 is Heat Magazine Telly - celebrities, fashion, gossip behind the scenes of reality shows.
ITV3 is old repeats which remind you that ITV used to make some good programmes (and some crap ones).
ITV1 is ... a weird mix of dumbed down telly (eg the news, the sad current affairs efforts, the supposedly populist documentaries which are usually six months after the subject has been done to death on Channel 4) + programmes which are a bit better than that, but not much watched because no one expects them to be (eg TV Burp - though I know that gets quite good ratings, decent thrillers like Mobile or Wired) + soaps + reality shows. It's a long time since they've had a new series which really captures the public imagination like Doctor Who or Life On Mars or Bleak House.
October 22, 2008 | Reply
In the above, I shouldn't really say reality shows, as I'm thinking of X Factor and Britain's Got Talent along with I'm A Celebrity. Contest shows, perhaps.
October 22, 2008 | Reply
ITV4 is relatively well-defined, although not by its own advertising. ITV3 is more of a mish-mash now than just old repeats, although that's certainly what it used to be, since it has a number of US acquisitions - I think ITV3 is slowing moving back to what it used to be which is crime TV à la Alibi. Those are the better defined channels.
But ITV2 is mostly Heat and behind the scenes stuff, as you say, but it's also US imports (Bionic Woman, Supernatural, Smallville), some drama (Secret Diary of a Call Girl), ITV1 repeats, etc. It's clearly aiming to be a younger version of ITV1 but can't quite be brave enough to ditch some of the older stuff and to cut its lifeline to ITV1.
ITV1 though. Oh dear.
I think the general strategy with ITV1's drama output at the moment is that they're trying to woo us back. They're creating a culture where ITV1's drama isn't necessarily regarded as toxic any more and where we might get into the habit of watching ITV1 again. So they'll put on Lost in Austen as a four-parter, knowing it won't get great ratings, because it - and other shows - might persuade people who used to watch ITV1 that it won't be a waste of time to try other ITV1 dramas in future.