Med 6: Issues & Debates

People and creativity are at the heart of everything we do at Granada. Many successful brands have come together to shape our new company, but it’s our talented people who consistently deliver high-rating, award-winning shows and excellent results. We are proud of the fact that our reputation and programme brands attract the very best talent in the marketplace.

Granada is committed to providing a creative, exciting and challenging work environment, developing people by respecting diversity and promoting the pursuit of excellence. Every programme we make reflects Granada’s reputation and our regional, national and international diversity underpins our creative strength.

Simon Shaps, Chief Executive, Granada

Full speech
Simon ShappsSimon Shaps
Chief Executive, Granada
Speaking at an RTS Dinner on Wednesday 24 March 2004, at Bafta, 195 Piccadilly, London W1

Many years ago my father told me what I ought to do with my life. He was an actor who like most actors was insecure; he genuinely believed that his last job would be the last he ever did.

Such was his fear of unemployment or resting, that one of my strongest memories of him was walking into a hospital room a day or so after he’d had a triple by-pass. As I came in he told me to keep my voice down

“Shush” he said. “I’m on the phone to my agent. He doesn’t know I am here.”

His fondest wish, he said, was for me to join the BBC, which represented to him security, a pension and a decent salary. If he said it once, he said it a thousand times.

So it seemed only natural that when I left university, I found myself in a slightly dingy room near Portland Place, sitting opposite two men wearing near identical cardigans. This was the interview for the much sought-after BBC General Traineeship. Their opening gambit was: “You are interviewing David Owen for the “Today Programme”, what questions would you ask him?
I suggested kicking off with a question about his wife. I had read somewhere that she was pregnant. I said I would ask David Owen how she was. This didn’t seem to be what the men in cardigans had in mind.
Today, of course, I would insist as a pre-condition of the interview that David Owen agrees not to give the BBC an exclusive.

After this spectacularly unpromising start, they asked me what the BBC stood for, what I thought it was about. In an answer that surprised me at the time – and still does today – I replied, “I suppose you are trying to get me to say something about Public Service Broadcasting…” I then let out a deep sigh, stifled a yawn……and a matter of minutes later was unceremoniously shown the door.

In a few moments I want to have another go at saying something about public service broadcasting. But first I want to go back a few years earlier and talk about what television meant to me growing up in North West London in the 60s and 70s.

One of the benefits of growing up in an Orthodox Jewish household was the interdiction on going out on Friday nights and most Saturday nights. But as this was London and the 20th Century, not Warsaw and the 19th – we had a television and were allowed to watch it, even on the Sabbath. Moreover because my father had a professional interest, that meant all television watching had a point. (I have to admit that this is an excuse I use frequently myself…. in fact only last weekend, as I was slumped in front of Fox’s My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance) Watching trash we could commiserate, empathise with the plight of put-upon actors exploited by incompetent producers; watching great shows, we could marvel at the craft of the actor, understand how they had transformed the lumpen prose of the writer into art.

My memory of those years is dominated by mainstream shows such as The Brothers, Colditz, Upstairs Downstairs. More daring fare such as Aquarius, Play for Today, Civilisation…and, importantly, a diet of European cinema which found its way onto BBC2 on Friday nights: Truffaut, Goddard, Fellini. Somewhat different fare from today I might be tempted to say if I wanted to be mischievous about BBC2, which of course I don’t. Well perhaps not just yet. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that my tastes as a programme maker, and whole set of broader interests beyond television were partly shaped by that range of viewing.

After failing to impress the BBC mandarins, with a two year stint in the Siberia that was regional newspapers to teach me a lesson, I somehow found my way into Thames Television and ITV, where I have remained ever since.

There have been many different versions of ITV; its structure, culture and financial underpinning have all undergone fundamental change. One constant however has been the strength – the depth and breadth – of its own programme making resource. Unlike any other commercial network in the world, it is the vitality, the quality of its own programme makers that have been the source of its competitive edge.

In March 2004, six weeks after the birth of ITV plc, this production engine is called Granada, not Granada TV, or Granada Productions or Granada Content ….but just Granada.

What is Granada now and what is its role within ITV and outside it?

How do we ensure the continuing strength of the UK’s production sector?

What do we, as producers, have to say about the role of a Commercial PSB?

Is it practical to address all of these questions in the next 15 minutes?

Of course not, but I’ll have a go anyway.

Over the last few weeks and months, as ITV consolidation has moved from idea to reality, the role and purpose of its so-called in-house production arm has become an issue.

The ITC inquiry into Programme supply, David Elstein’s here today, gone tomorrow reincarnation as the saviour of ITV and the scourge of the BBC, Indies fresh from conversations with VCs, have all raised this as an issue.

The otherwise incredibly reasonable Gerhard Zeiler, of RTL, has in the last few weeks, called for a ceiling on “in house” production…..which given that we gave him Ich Bin Ein Star – I’m A Celebrity to you and me – feels a touch ungrateful.

But let’s look at the history of this argument, before coming to Granada today. I think this history has three distinct eras.

For about 35 years after the birth of ITV, in-house production was the motherhood and apple pie of commercial television. Granada TV had in that time created a track record which was the envy of the world. It was the breadth of the programming ambitions of Granada that was so extraordinary, over and above any individual shows. Coronation Street and Disappearing World; Jewel in the Crown and World in Action. Critically, ITV’s creative success was inextricably bound up with its regional roots. Unlike the BBC, which still seemed unduly London-centric, the network production coming out of its regional production bases defined the character of ITV. And it wasn’t just Coronation Street. In Entertainment, Factual Programmes, Comedy and Drama, ITV was enriched by the variety of voices it could call upon to shape its output.

The 1990 Broadcasting Act marked a change of direction. Guaranteed levels of production for the major ITV productions companies came to an end and the era of the Publisher Broadcaster appeared to be at hand. Carlton, of course, bid for its ITV licence on that basis. Throughout the 90s, Granada took a different tack. It flew in the face of fashion and decided to stick with the Producer Broadcaster model. The decision paid off as it slowly acquired the licences, and production arms of the strongest Producer Broadcasters in ITV. LWT and Yorkshire…and then United, as greater Granada was born.

Today Granada – the production arm within ITV plc - represents the totality of that history and the aggregate of production activity across what was once 11 individual licences.

The third era will be defined by what I am calling the “Indie Inside”…..ITV’s Pentium chip.

Our culture, the requirement to compete for every single hour of television we produce, makes us feel like an Indie, albeit a pretty big one. Although we emobody the history, the values and culture of ITV production, we are not - and this marks a crucial difference between us and BBC production – simply an in house producer. Granada will continue to make programmes for all channels in the UK: BBC production is limited to the BBC.

Let’s look at some of the areas where critics have questions about this new Granada.

It is said that we are unable to compete with the creativity of the Independent sector, and that ITV’s commercial interests would be better served by cutting back, or even eliminating its own production arm.

Lets look at the facts.
in 2004 10 out of the top 20 programmes in the UK, were produced by Granada.
We had six of the top ten new dramas on any channel and, to prove that decline in a multi-channel world isn’t inevitable we added, on average, a million viewers to each episode of Coronation Street, compared to 2002. And then there was a rainforest, ten celebrities, two diminutive Geordie presenters and the now legendary bushtucker trials.

That success comes from a great team. A team, like the greatest football teams with some star strikers and midfield generals – Andy Harries said he would kill me if I didn’t mention him and his perma-tan, Jim Allen said he’d chin me, whatever I said. John Cresswell said don’t worry too much about the analysis: he’ll straighten that out afterwards. But it is also a team with strength in depth. More than that, it’s a team that now works within, a single, focussed business: ITV plc.

It would seem perverse – to put it mildly – to constrain ITV strength as a Broadcaster, because of a belief that other people can make its programmes better….. when there is no evidence they can.

Don’t get me wrong. Independents produce big and important shows for ITV, but taken as a whole their performance does not match Granada’s.

But if that’s the case, why compel ITV and the BBC to commission 25 per cent from Independents? Strangely, this is a question which is almost never asked. The Independent sector has fought a good fight on retention of rights, can raise money in the City and its mergers and acquisitions bear all the hallmarks of a rapidly maturing sector.

The Independent sector is now well into its third decade. It is no longer new, or in need of special treatment. We should have a free-market in ideas, supported by regulated commissioning which imposes a clear separation between Broadcaster and Producer.

If you look back at the history, the origins of the Independent Quota tells an interesting story.

In 1986, the Peacock Committee, set up by Thatcher to look at the funding of the BBC, recommended a 40 per cent Independent Quota for the BBC and ITV.

Part of the impetus behind the quota was a desire to reduce the historic over-manning and restrictive practices within the ITV companies, which inflated production costs. As the BBC attempted to compete, it too was forced to pay too much for its programmes, inflating the licence fee.

In the end, the quota was 25 per cent – largely because of fears about the effect a 40 per cent quota would have on network production in the regions.

Those two arguments resonate in different ways today. On the first, there has been a complete about-turn. Production costs are, I believe significantly higher at the BBC today, than they are within ITV, particularly in drama...as my drama controllers endlessly tell me, well Michele does anyway.

But the second argument, the affect on network production outside London, remains as true today as it was 20 years ago.

The independent sector has an overwhelming concentration of membership within London – despite a couple of valiant attempts to explore the outer reaches of Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

In ITV, well in excess of 25 per cent of commissions are won by qualifying independent producers. The system, which has been in place for more than a decade, requires equal access, and equal terms of trade for Independent producers, and is reviewed on an annual basis , previously by the ITC and now Ofcom.

The three ITV Network Directors, in private as well as in public, have told anybody who asks them that not merely do they commission on merit by law, they also do so because – in the end – they are judged on the commercial performance of the ITV Network. I see no reason why this system shouldn’t now move to an absolute meritocracy, a system which commissions from any producer, on the basis of quality of idea and ability to execute it. The quota for ITV is obsolete and irrelevant, an insult to Independents, and a constraint on commissioners.

Two decades on, a temporary market intervention in the form of a quota is now perceived of as a permanent birthright.

Under a zero quota system, the 800 members of PACT might reduce Granada’s share of the NPB dramatically, or we might increase it further. That is as it should be. Any commissioning system which requires commissioners to do anything but pick the best shows is out of place in this era.

The BBC, the recidivist in this context, with a hat trick of 25 per cent quota misses, demands special treatment. It too should commission on merit, without quotas, but as with its governance, a change is long overdue. Charter Renewal should be conditional on establishing an independent regulated commissioning arm, for all production – independent of BBC production.

The BBC needs its Network Centre, as ITV did in the early 90’s.
Arguably the need for such a system for the BBC is far greater than for ITV – and not merely because of the BBC’s lamentable track record in this area. For ITV a dud commission from Granada, costs real money. For the BBC the penalties are less acute.

You can’t rely on the commercial self-interest of a non-commercial broadcaster.

There are no obvious barriers to such a move.

It would be relatively simple to amend the Charter to require the BBC to set up an independent, arms length commissioning body, and give Ofcom responsibility for approving the arrangements and monitoring behaviour. Simpler, certainly than David Elstein’s suggestion that BBC production be flogged off.

With improvements to the terms of trade for all producers, arms length commissioning at the BBC and the protections in place at ITV, we have the right conditions for an effective market in programme production.

How does this relate to the current debate about PSB?

Certainly, the regional diversity of network production, the high levels of origination ought to play a more central role in the debate.

But if I go back to my ill-fated BBC interview, I think the notion that irritated me, even if I didn’t quite know it, was that PSB could be a formula, a prescribed set of hours, a type of content, a style that could be written down on a piece of paper and recited by prospective employees as a kind of mantra.

I have a vision, which I occasionally amuse myself with, which is how the regulator wearing a PSB hat might approach the works of William Shakespeare.

Coriolanus:
A fine piece of political theatre, with strong use of history….although largely unwatchable, unless taken with two spoonfuls of cod liver oil….three and a half hours.

Nine out of ten.

Romeo and Juliet:
Soapy tosh, with no real sense of cultural context and a somewhat contrived ending. 2 hours and twenty minutes.

Six out of ten.

Note to Bard: beware of being glib and superficial. Avoid stereotypes.

Troilus and Cressida:
Dense, philosophical, illuminating the origins of war and the conflict between cultures. 4 and a half hours. Very foreign.

Ten out of ten.

The debate about PSB, is for me reminiscent of the debate about multi-cultural programmes in the 80s. For a period it seemed sensible to ring-fence parts of the schedule for programmes of particular interest to minorities. Today, we want those interests to be part of the mainstream, and the same should be true of PSB.

From a Granada perspective, there are two key areas where we can contribute to a redefinition of PSB. First, the huge investment in original production much of it produced out of London. Currently we employ around 2000 people in network production, outside London, who are responsible for hundreds of hours of programming. Last year, 51% of ITV’s network budget was spent outside London.

Second, the delivery of mass audiences. As Ofcom’s own initial research suggested, audiences regard soap and sport as part of a public service offering. These are programmes which audiences value, and are deemed to provide a service over and above pure entertainment.

Stephen Carter spoke, in his speech at Oxford, of the “watercooler” effect of some programming, how it provides a common experience and social value. I would add, the great popular dramas, from Coronation Street to Cold Feet and Life Begins; Emmerdale to The Royal, Heartbeat, Prime Suspect and William and Mary exhibit a craft, a level of innovation which in the debate about PSB, is consistently under estimated. The experience of sitting in on a long-term story conference for Coronation Street, is to be overwhelmed by the level of imagination and innovation that goes into that show….how else could anybody have dreamt up Tracy Barlow’s seduction of Roy Cropper.

Some years ago, I was on a judging panel for an industry award. I can’t say which it was ….although I am happy to make it clear it wasn’t for the RTS. One panellist walked in to the room and said “We can’t give the award to Touch of Frost….it got 16 million viewers”. That attitude is not unusual.

A friend of mine has recently taken over the role of TV critic for the highbrow magazine Prospect. Almost everything he has to say about television is wrong-headed, except of course his suggestion – not yet taken up by the mainstream press - that John Whiston ought to be made DG. He makes, however one good point, and I think it has some bearing on the debate about PSB and it’s this.

Television for all of its 50 years has lacked a critical vocabulary to talk about its programmes. From Clive James to Ally Ross, people have written well, entertainingly about programmes, without ever developing a consistent critical perspective, to compare with writing about music, cinema or literature. My 15-year-old daughters GCSE drama course demands more systematic thinking about theatre as a medium, than most TV critics exhibit in their writing.

In some ways, that doesn’t really matter. Unlike theatre or film, we are not dependent of previewers or reviewers to get our audience to watch what we make.

But there is another area where this is a problem, and that is in the area of regulation.

Let me paint an entirely fictional picture of a conversation which might, over the last few years, have taken place between a TV executive and a regulator.

TV executive: “Did you see the drama we made the other day, wasn’t it fantastic. I think it is probably the best thing we have done for ages?”

Regulator: “I didn’t really like it at all. Why can’t you do something other than police dramas?”

TV Executive: “But don’t you see, it was a really high quality show. Great script, great performances, beautifully shot….and wasn’t it good to see David Jason in a slightly different role… and Jordan really can act, you know.”

Regulator: “It wasn’t Bloody Sunday or Hillsborough, was it?”

In my experience, old-style, pre-Ofcom regulation was full of surreal exchanges just like that. Ofcom, and the debate it has started, offers up something new. In all the analysis it is doing, it can signal one simple and important message. I believe now is the time for the regulator to join with viewers in valuing the strength and innovation – the creative excellence – of the mainstream.

It is then up to Granada and the independents to compete without guarantees on one side, or quotas on the other, to deliver the strongest ideas, into the most demanding part of the schedule, for viewers who now have almost unlimited choice.

Thank you.