This article by general manager JOHN McMILLAN outlines the organisation of the programme department – how it has been shaped in its present form and why. It was written for The E.B.U. Review and is published here as one of an occasional series of articles dealing with the company’s organisation.

Someone in our business – perhaps it was myself – once said: ‘Vanity is the biggest item in this particular programme budget and it has no code number of its own.’ We were examining the projected costs of a documentary film which was to be produced by someone who had created a mystique around himself in the outside world. Those who were closer to the person concerned knew that a good deal of the credit belonged to a scriptwriter and a film editor who customarily worked with him.

Vanity kept on popping up in the budget. ‘First class air fares to Rome from London … Unit to be met by special representative of XYZ Travel Agency at Rome Airport … One chauffeur-driven limousine for producer and assistant … two chauffeur-driven cars for rest of unit … both to be available at all times throughout Rome location.’ And so on and so on. The particular producer is not with us now. The film editor was promoted and the writer would write no more. But, more importantly, the producer priced himself out of our business and it was cheaper just to pay his salary until his contract ended than to make him work for it.

I had that episode partly in mind when I wrote the article for Fusion 32 (October, 1963). Specifically, I said:

‘Waste – waste of time, waste of physical resources and waste of money – is the enemy of success. Waste can frustrate the best creative resolutions. In the system of graded delegation of responsibility, which is the company’s method of organisation, every person has some particular power to protect our production ability. The simple test of the value of a decision is to ask the question: “Will the result be seen or heard on the TV set and, if so, will the viewer benefit?” … In a few words, everything we have to spare and spend must be directed towards the viewer.’

It is necessary first to describe the present organisation of the programme department in Rediffusion Television and to refer to personnel in the accounts and publicity departments.

The programme department comprises two-thirds of the total staff, including all the electronic engineers, and is presided over by the controller of programmes. He is chairman of the programme board which consists of a chief programme executive, five executive producers and three service chiefs whose titles describe their specific responsibilities. They are the programme planning executive, the programme production executive and the senior technical executive.

The programme board resists enlargement. There are no representatives of any other departments in attendance for the simple reason that their presence would obscure the points of responsibility. The controller of programmes and his executive producers particularly, are thus clearly responsible – inter alia – for budgets, for initiating publicity, for screen promotion. To assist them to carry out these duties each executive producer has a cost assistant attached to his office from the accounts department and a publicity officer from the publicity department allocated to him. Both these people are finally responsible to their own departmental heads in order to ensure that company policy is constantly maintained. In practice there are seldom any clashes and, at the same time, the lines of communication are advantageously shortened by the system.

In addition, each executive producer has one or more assistants and managers, according to the volume of production in his group, to whom he delegates routine planning and administration.

Each manager is also responsible to the programme budget officer who in turn reports directly to the chief programme executive. This arrangement enables the controller to keep in constant touch with the flow of expenditure at early planning stages. He also receives from the chief accountant weekly and three-monthly projections of future costs and reports of actual costs which are derived from the cost assistants attached to each executive producer.

All this combined information gives him considerable flexibility of control. He can immediately reinforce one programme or replace a series or take remedial action of any kind in the full knowledge of his financial position.

The programme planning executive is mainly responsible for transmission schedules. Because the independent television system in the United Kingdom is composed of 14 autonomous companies operating a co-operative network, his responsibilities are extremely complicated. He is also in charge of transmission presentation and is traditionally the main link with the BBC and the EBU on operational matters.

The programme production executive is in charge of all studio personnel, excluding stage hands, house electricians and administrative personnel. His immediate staff operates the schedules office, that is to say, the office which plans the disposal of the studio staff and location production personnel. The system used is comparable to one which is just finding its way into industry in general, particularly in building construction, and is curiously called ‘network analysis’.

The programme production executive also has two other interesting responsibilities. He is in charge of the allocation of all programme directors who are centralised in a pool in order to ensure that they do not become victims of specialisation. This poses special problems at frequent intervals and requires delicate handling of what can only be described as negotiations. His other interesting responsibility is that of an executive producer for one series at all times. (In effect, we thus have six executive producers.) The purpose of this arrangement is to ensure that the person responsible for the running of the studios is constantly in practical touch with the forces and problems of creative evolution and remains sympathetic to the demands of television life at its most critical point. The senior technical executive is, as his title implies, responsible to the controller of programmes, for all technical staff and operations. This is an unusual arrangement in an organisation as large as Rediffusion Television. In many much smaller companies the chief engineer is independent. But we so believe in our method that even if we were to increase our size and output by 10 or 20 times we woulld not have it otherwise. As a director of the programme board, the senior technical executive is also a member of the creative force and is expected to play an equal part in discussions and decisions on all subjects. In that way we ensure that we get the most out of our equipment without demanding too much from it and that the programme people run the machines rather than being run by them.

The chief programme executive is the controller of programmes’ right-hand man and deputy. Consequently, the controller is relieved of much day-to-day management and is free to concentrate on the refinement of programme content and to maintain a wide range of contacts in the outside world. It will now be obvious to readers of this article that the central point of production efficiency is at the programme board. The chairman has the latest financial information at his disposal and it provides the essential background for all decisions in a business which must be bold and adventurous to maintain its pre-eminence in the world of communicating information, education and entertainment.

The programme board also knows what studio, outside broadcast and film facilities will be available because one of its directors is the expert and the board can safely decide whether to do this or that without fear of disappointment. The same applies to transmission scheduling on network, or locally, and to technical operations, including fine points such as the relative advantages of telerecording or videotape conversions of programmes being imported from a specific station or network in any other part of the world. The programme board meets weekly. Responsibility is established. Authority is vested in a particular member. From that moment onwards the executive machinery takes over in the different offices concerned. If an urgent improvement is conceived or an emergency arises between meetings it is referred by the authorised programme board member to the chief programme executive or to the controller of programmes according to the extent of its importance.

In general, we manage by our method of control to maintain a strict sense of intention which communicates itself throughout the production force. Because deviations from purpose are unlikely and unwelcome, the rest of the staff, including the programme directors, are not often presented with wasteful temptations and when they occur they detonate alarm signals very quickly.

Finally, it is of the utmost importance that the controller of programmes must be left to control within the broad framework of company policy set by the board of directors of Rediffusion Television which meets every two weeks. Between those meetings he has many other opportunities to consult, in case of doubt, with the managing director who takes the chair at weekly management meetings and, at all times, with the general manager.

However, he is undoubtedly the company’s chief programme man and he is given freedom to do what he thinks is right and the responsibility to do the right things. Thus, he is solely in charge of the general programme budget and can use it as he thinks fit. He is responsible for his own organisation and if (within his budget) he wishes to change it he may do so after consulting the general management. However, the production system cannot be assumed to be 100 per cent efficient. It is unlikely that it ever will be. But it is equally likely that it will be improved by the injection of new blood from an old respected and experienced source. It so happens that Stuart Hood has now become controller of programmes and he will, without doubt, take us much further towards the point when everything we have to spare and spend is directed towards the viewer.

Pictures by Dick Dawson.

The post Target: Production efficiency appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

As things now stand at the time of going to press, Government policy is to broadcast colour transmissions using a 625-line standard, to be radiated by the BBC on an Ultra High Frequency in Bands IV and V.

This decision will effectively preclude the 47,000,000 viewers who normally watch the Independent Television channels from receiving colour transmissions on their normal channels and means that the programmes will reach the minimum audience at the maximum, indeed astronomical, cost.

These questions and answers by general manager, john mcmillan attempt to discuss a possible alternative in terms comprehensible to the non-technical reader.

The technology of the subject is such that any discussion of colour must additionally cover the frequency bands to be used for transmission and the line standard. These things are closely connected.

1 There is much talk regarding the relative quality of 625 and 405-line television pictures. What determines the quality of a picture?

The quality of a television picture is fundamentally determined by the amount of ‘information’ transmitted, and received. More ‘information’ – better pictures.

The ‘information’ in its turn is limited by the frequency bandwidth of the video signal. More bandwidth – better pictures.

The line standard adopted affects the bandwidth. More lines – more bandwidth.

The more bandwidth used, the fewer transmitters can be accommodated in a particular slice of the available frequency spectrum allocated to television broadcasting.

2 What line standards are in actual use today?

In order of theoretical ‘goodness’ and somewhat simplified, they are as follows:

3 We seem to be right at the bottom of the league table. Surely a change to a ‘better’ standard is most desirable?

Not so. It so happens that the British Standard as specified by Messrs. Schoenberg and Blumlein of EMI some 36 years ago was a singularly good choice in all respects. It is a fact that it is possible to transmit enough information to give a first class picture on a 3 Mc/s video bandwidth.

4 What about the actual line structure? Does not 405 lines give a coarse-grained picture?

Viewed at the proper viewing distance, the line structure of any standard is virtually invisible.

5 So you think 405 lines is an adequate standard?

Yes. If a 405-line receiver has a good aerial and is properly tuned it gives a very good picture. Above all things, a 405 lines system is already in being and gives excellent coverage with the minimum number of transmitters.

6 Why did the Government of the time elect to move to a 625-line standard?

Largely due to a desire to operate on a common European Standard and so facilitate interchange of programmes.

This was a nice idea rather than a useful practical facility. It is no longer a nice idea because Europe has now decided on two different methods for colour.

7 BBC 2 transmission is often heavily criticised. What are the facts?

Of the frequency bands available under international agreement for TV broadcasting two Bands. I and III are VHF and two Bands, IV and V are UHF.

The transmission and reception characteristics are quite different.

On VHF the BBC attains 99.5 per cent coverage of the country with 30 main stations and 62 major fill-in stations.

Similar figures for 97 per cent coverage by the ITA are 32 main stations and 30 fill-in stations. For UHF and an estimated coverage of 95 per cent some 64 main stations and 250 major fill-in stations are required.

To extend this to 97 per cent a further 1,000 minor fill-in stations are estimated to be necessary. Further extension to a higher coverage figure is considered to be economically impractical.

At 97 per cent coverage over 1,500,000 people will be without television on UHF due to local screening difficulties.

Present official policy is to abandon the present economic Bands I and III and move all television broadcasting to Bands IV and V. Surely a most unsound scheme requiring a huge increase in cost for an inferior result.

8 If the VHF bands are so effective and economical, why does the Government not convert them to 625 lines?

Because the additional Channel bandwidth required for 625 lines (8 Mc/s) restricts the number of transmitters which can be accommodated in the space available to a level which would not give the high percentage national coverage deemed to be necessary for mass viewing.

9 So if we are to adopt 625 lines for colour we will positively have to go to UHF and accept the costs and consequences?

Yes. However, it must be re-emphasised that on all counts reception in lay hands is much worse on these bands. They have never been a real success in any country (USA, UK. Germany).

10 Is there any way out of this?

There is indeed. We could transmit colour on 405 lines on the existing VHF channels and forget about Bands IV and V except for additional programme services if, indeed, this country feels it can afford them.

11 Are there any technical difficulties?

None at all. On the contrary, certain features of the 405 lines transmission characteristic (positive modulation, amplitude modulated sound) are peculiarly suited to the transmission of colour. This is by far the cheapest, quickest, and most efficient way of getting colour TV off to a flying start with an immense potential audience on both BBC and ITV channels.

12 It is being said that the compatible picture in monochrome is inferior on 405 lines. Is this true?

Practically speaking, no. All things are. however, relative. It is true that compared with 625 lines the black-and-white compatible picture is, technically, slightly inferior as indeed is the case in normal black-and-white transmissions.

This, however, is a third order effect and would quite certainly not be noticed by the normal viewer.

All compatible black-and-white pictures from a colour channel are slightly inferior to those from a monochrome channel.

This is the inevitable price of introducing colour. It is of no practical importance.

13 Is it true that this country will not be able to sell colour receivers overseas unless we adopt 625 lines UHF standards for Great Britain?

That allegation is false. A receiver designed and originally manufactured for VHF 405-line colour and UHF 625-line black-and-white can be produced at minor additional expense in the factory for any other system. Our export prices would still be competitive. Incidentally, one of the main arguments some years ago for the adoption of a UHF 625-line black-and-white standard in this country was the same export argument. It was adopted for BBC 2 but there is no evidence of large export results.

14 If the existing BBC 1 and ITV VHF networks were converted to colour as you suggest what would happen to BBC 2?

It would stay in black-and-white … at least for the time being. Thus viewers would have two reliable colour programmes and one black-and-white instead of the present plan which provides for one unreliable colour service and two black-and-white.

The post The case for 405 line VHF colour appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.