On Wednesday, November 24, 1954 I walked into the offices (two rooms) of Associated-Rediffusion in Stratton House as the third member of the staff: the company secretary, Arthur Groocock, and his personal secretary, Fay Caddy, were already there. The company’s name was fixed – an accountant in Rediffusion was presented with a gold watch for having thought of it, especially the hyphen – and the Board of Directors had been chosen – the chairman from B.E.T., three directors from Rediffusion and four from Associated Newspapers. Nothing else was fixed.

I do not propose to trace the build-up of the company, nor to describe the intriguing excitement with which I entered, for me, the unknown worlds of entertainment and advertising. Suffice it to say that the company went on the air on Friday, September 22, 1955 with a crashing and most expensive programme, and will end its present Licence period on Wednesday, July 29, 1964 with, I hope, another outstanding programme: and that between these two dates, the company has been so successful financially as to become the envy of many people, and so successful programme-wise that it is the provider of the majority of live/taped hours to the network. Some call us doggedly decent; I say we are reliably good.

Most people think of a general manager as a man in command, even at times as a dictator, but in fact no one is a successful general manager unless he serves. In our case he has to serve the viewers, the staff and the shareholders. Also, of course, he has to manage.

If the viewers are not given the sort of programme they can admire and like, they will switch off or switch on to the BBC. First, therefore, the general manager must develop a programme policy which will serve the viewers. We have now evolved a programme policy over the years which, I think, meets the viewers’ needs. From 7.00 p.m. till about 10-10.45 p.m. we give programmes likely to appeal to all members of the family over the age of 17. Before 7.00 p.m. and after 10-10.45 p.m. we give programmes likely to appeal to substantial minorities. Sport in the afternoon; small children at 4.45 p.m.; older children at 5.00 p.m.; news at about 6.00 p.m.; the till 7.00 p.m. Similarly, in the late evening a more sophisticated audience is always served by at least one programme. Up till 7.00 p.m. programmes are suitable for children; between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. they are not unsuitable for children; after 9.00 p.m. they are suitable for adults, but not always for children.

To arrive at this pattern of programming, and to make a success of individual programmes, a great deal of research is essential in order to find out the types and the sizes of minority audiences, and to find out if a particular minority audience likes the programme aimed at it. If, for instance, we transmit a programme on the lives of pop singers, and we know that a minority of three million homes in the country are interested in pop singers, then if 80 per cent of this minority of three million homes switch on and stay with the programme, we have got a successful programme; whereas, if only 40 per cent switch on or if the 80 per cent dwindles to 40 per cent, then we have a failure. The viewers must be served and, therefore, the programme must be altered or withdrawn.

We are sometimes accused of being too rigid in our programme schedules, especially by the television critics – poor chaps, they have to watch all the time – who long for a surprise. It is said that we are forced into a rigid pattern by the advertisers: this is not so. We do not lightly change a programme schedule because we feel that we should keep faith with our viewers. If the keen followers of “This Week’ switch on only to find we have substituted boxing, then they are maddened; if the followers of Hughie Green find a Cape Canaveral programme substituted, then they are saddened, whilst family men will know the result if ‘Small Time’ is pre-empted for tennis. My policy throughout has been to try and serve the viewers; the touchstone is whether or not the viewers will be satisfied by and grateful for the programmes. To make them grateful, however, it is necessary to advance a little beyond their present taste; always to improve the programme content.

Strange as it may seem to many of you, a general manager also has to serve the staff. Firstly, he must establish an organisation which is clear and workable, so that everybody knows who does what. Nothing is more frustrating than not knowing who deals with what and who can give a decision. Secondly, he has to create a staff relationship in which the staff feel that promotions or demotions are fairly done, that discipline is tempered with understanding. Nothing can engender bitterness more than a feeling that something has been decided unfairly or ruthlessly and, in this connection, the same ill feeling can be caused if the general manager allows one person to get away with something – bad time-keeping or excessive expenses – whilst his colleague has abided by the rules. Thirdly, the general manager must see that conditions under which the staff work, and the equipment that they operate are the best that can reasonably be provided. It may be the creative freedom given to the programme directors, or it may be the vision mixing panel in master control, but whatever it is, it should enable the creative staff to be creative and the servicing staff to be able to do their job efficiently.

The shareholders are certainly considered by the staff less than any other part of the company: I doubt if the majority of the staff ever give them a thought. Nevertheless, they are a most important part of the organisation. They provide the money and it was their faith which launched the company. The general manager must serve the shareholders. Therefore, he must set up and supervise an advertising sales department which will bring in the revenue; he must be attentive to the views of advertisers and their agents, since they are entitled to get good value for the money they spend with the company. The shareholders want revenue, not only to pay for the cost of our operations and to pay a dividend on their capital, but also to provide cash for improving the equipment and programmes. 625 lines standard and colour are on their way, and will need a lot of money to install. The shareholders through the board also look to the general manager to see that the money they provide is not wasted, either by bad organisation, excessive salaries or artists’ payments, or by the purchase of dud or unwanted equipment.

You will observe that there is a very fine dividing line between the object of satisfying the viewers with better programmes which might be achieved by extra expenditure, and the object of preventing the shareholders’ money being wasted. The general manager never has an easy life and very rarely does he have easy decisions to make. (‘Problems only reach the general manager when they are insoluble elsewhere’.) An example much talked about at the moment is the decision whether or not to edit tape. Editing tape might lead to improved programmes, though the improvement in my opinion will only be appreciated by a minority of professional viewers, and not by 90 per cent of our public. It would, however, be expensive and might lead, as in the U.S.A., to taped programmes being produced by film techniques which would be very expensive. This, in turn, might lead, as in the U.S.A., to 90 per cent of the programmes being made in film studios which, to my mind, would kill ITV as it now exists and substitute a home cinema. This general manager has not found it an easy decision, but he leaves the company firmly convinced that the editing of tape is not in the interests of the viewers, the staff or the shareholders.

As planned long ago, I am retiring from my job as general manager before the start of the new Licence period; firstly, because I think that after 45 years of full-time work I am entitled to take life a bit easier and, secondly, because I believe that television is a young man’s job: new ideas should be bubbling up and new techniques tried (always provided they are not to the detriment of the viewers). When you are over 60 there is a danger of thinking that old and tried ideas are necessarily the best. I shall, however, be on the board of some of our subsidiary companies, and will not, therefore, be completely out of touch.

I am delighted that John McMillan, who has so often stood in for me when I have been away, is now relieving me. The board of Associated-Rediffusion is remaining the same and they are, in my opinion, the best board in Independent Television. I am sure that Associated-Rediffusion’s second licence period will be one of continuing success. I hope to see most of the staff over the Christmas period in order to say a personal good-bye, but I would like now to thank you all for your loyal support through the years, and for never allowing your jobs to get you down. I hope, when the station clock is redesigned, it will contain the company’s motto ‘Never Baffled’.

The post The General Manager’s farewell appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The company, in fact Independent Television as a whole, has recently been going through a bad patch with the critics in the newspapers. I think the main reason for these attacks on us is that we are successful: the BBC arc now the underdogs and therefore get the full support of the fair-minded British press, whereas when we first started in 1955 we were the ‘David’ challenging the BBC ‘Goliath’.

Recently there has been further criticism following upon the misreporting of our chairman’s remarks after the Rediffusion annual general meeting: I have already circulated to members of the staff a memorandum dated 5 August, which correctly reports the chairman’s remarks, and I wish to pick out from that memorandum the following sentence: ‘The chairman did not say that Associated-Rediffusion would reduce standards of programming rather than reduce profits.’

In fact, the management, urged by the board, is doing all it can to improve the quality of our programmes. It is only by producing high-quality programmes accepted as such by our public, that we shall achieve the ratings and the reputation necessary to persuade the advertisers to pay the comparatively high rates we are charging for their commercials.

As all of us in television know, one cannot buy quality; doubling the budget for any particular show would not make that show twice as good. Quality is a combination of many factors skilfully welded together. I would like, therefore, to run through these various factors and tell the staff what the management is doing to increase standards.

Scripts

Nearly every programme is dependent on a good idea and a good script. Many people have ideas and many of the ideas are good, but not many people can develop them into a good script. The company has been making investigations into the best method of attracting the best scripts for our use. We have placed under contract four or five good scriptwriters and pay them an annual retainer plus a fee for each accepted play. We have engaged from the film world one of the most successful scriptwriters who is under contract to produce us eight plays over two years. We have obtained from America one of the most experienced American drama writers who is engaged in teaching our British writers how to prepare the scripts which are the envy of us all. We have also reorganized our script services and increased the staff. I think there is no doubt that this policy is beginning to bear fruit.

Artists

When we commenced it was natural to assume that the best artists would be those who were most successful in the theatre, music-hall or on the screen. This is, to a certain extent, still true, but undoubtedly television is bringing out the best in many artists who are not West End or film stars.

You will have noticed that we are now regularly casting first-class actors and actresses whose plays get critical acclaim – and who are accepted with loyalty by our public. Our plays are on average seven to eight points higher in the ratings than those of other companies.

We are supporting Drama Schools and giving scholarships to students in the hopes of bringing forward new television artists. We are supporting the Wimbledon Repertory Theatre with a view to trying out new actors and actresses as well as some of our scripts.

Production Facilities

One of the surest ways of producing better quality programmes is to have the best possible production facilities. In this we have always led the other companies. We are now building Studio 5 in which we hope is incorporated every proved modern improvement. We are installing six videotape recorders and a high definition telerecording system. We are spending a great deal of money to improve the general engineering facilities, and in particular those of master control.

We are also building additional rehearsal rooms in Television House, so that rehearsals can take place in greater comfort and with greater efficiency than in the hired halls. I have no doubt that when Studio 5 is completed and the engineering facilities finalized, we shall have all the production facilities necessary for the best quality productions.

Staff

The real key, however, to a high-quality production is the staff. A bad director can ruin the best scripted play, cast with leading West End actors: a vision mixer or a maintenance engineer can by a very small error wreck the programme. The production quality of the programme is recognized, albeit subconsciously, by the public, from the standard of the camera work, the lighting, the scenery and the sound. It may take an expert to know what is wrong, but the public know there is something wrong and say ‘not a very good production’.

It has always been my aim, and that of the other principal executives, to choose the best people for every job: this is not a very easy task, since people who are sometimes the best technically are by personality often less suitable. A man who cannot work as a member of a team does not help good-quality productions even though he is technically highly competent. You will know that it has always been this company’s policy that, having selected the staff, they should stay with the Company unless they are proved incompetent, or make themselves a damned nuisance.

At times it is suggested that a more ruthless policy might lead to better quality: by this it is meant that one should have the majority of the staff on short-term contracts, and continually replace them by new blood who have proved successful elsewhere.

We, in this company, do not believe in this policy because it is firstly unfair to the staff, and secondly leads to undesirable internal competition to catch the superior’s eyes or to claim credit. However, we do, in certain sections of the company, employ men on contract, in particular every now and again we have outside directors for our plays, and some sections have researchers and scriptwriters on contract.

I am convinced that we have a better staff than any other Television Company or Corporation in the British Isles, and that with our new facilities the staff can and will produce programmes of quality which are unchallengeable.

Many of the readers of Fusion will now say ‘but what about the money’. There is a somewhat widespread feeling that an increase of budget will necessarily increase the quality of the programme. This is sometimes true, in particular in some of the light entertainment programmes and in the programmes which require film inserts, but it is by no means necessarily true. Too many people get in each other’s way and reduce the clarity of a production, too many gimmicks or too much scenery confuse the small screen and the viewers who look at it: some of our most successful productions have been produced on a very small budget.

However, the staff can rest assured that the management is not planning to cut budgets at the expense of quality. Actually, the programme budgets for the forthcoming autumn schedules are very considerably higher than the last autumn schedules, and this is not by any means entirely the result of the increased salaries or wages now paid to the staff. More is being paid for the cast, more for the scripts and more, in an indirect way, for the provision of facilities.

I confidently believe that when I write a sequel to this article in August next year, I shall be able to draw the staff’s attention to the great improvement in the quality of our programmes, and to the fact that this has now been recognized by the critics.

The post Fourth floor says… We want better quality programmes appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

When I was a boy, balance was a quality required in a gymnasium; when I was a young man it was required on the dance floor; since then I have been warned to take a balanced view in politics and even in war. But now Balance has taken on a new meaning and become a very important consideration in my work, for the Television Act 1954 lays down in Section 3(1) (b)

‘the programmes (broadcast by the ITA) should maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter.’

There are nearly as many interpretations of this section as there are readers. There is one school of thought which seems to think that a proper balance is necessarily achieved by including serious programmes dealing with social problems or politics – something akin to the public service programmes included in American television. Another school of thought considers that the term ‘proper balance’ is a way of defining the sort of programmes which are broadcast by the BBC on sound on the Third: these people include ballet, opera, art, literature and the more high-brow drama and music within their definition. There is a further body of opinion that considers that a ‘proper balance’ is only another way of saying that the programmes should instruct and inform as well as entertain: this view springs from the BBC’s objective which is to ‘entertain, inform and instruct’. People who hold this view think that some 70 to 80 per cent of our programmes should aim to entertain, whilst the remainder should aim to instruct and inform: the latter being spread evenly throughout transmission.

Personally I have formed a different view after reading and re-reading the whole of the Act many times. In my opinion the Act is intended to ensure that the programmes are not solely directed and planned to attract majority audiences to the exclusion of the sort of programmes which attract and are interesting to minority audiences. My definition of a balanced programme is therefore ‘a programme entertaining and interesting to a minority as opposed to a majority audience’.

A-R and other programme companies have naturally carried out a lot of research to find out the tastes of our viewers. We have found out that there is a fair size minority audience for the following subjects among others:

Racing and Show Jumping – Jazz – Ballroom Dancing – Pop Music (Disc and Rock-’n-roll) – Classical Drama – Film and Stage Gossip – Exhibitions and Displays (Air Display, Royal Tournament, Chelsea Flower Show, etc.) – Athletics and Swimming – Classical Music – Science – Art – Minority Sports (Tennis, Billiards, Bowls, Darts) – Motor Racing – Social Problems – Politics, particularly foreign politics

And there are, of course, smaller minority audiences for nearly every subject under the sun.

You will note that I have left out of my list three most important subjects: Religion, News, and Education. Religion – thinking about things of the spirit – is clearly essential to a balanced life and therefore also to a balanced programme. The News is traditionally an important facet of broadcasting and one which viewers expect to have as of right. School Broadcasts, on the other hand, are a new feature in television but one which A-R thinks will be a great influence for good in education.

These three types of programmes do not fit my definition of commanding enthusiastic minority audiences: they are of interest and use to all of us, but the term enthusiastic is inappropriate for their audiences.

People with whom I discuss this subject – or more accurately, who discuss it with me – frequently say, ‘Yes, it’s true that your programmes as a whole are properly balanced, but you banish your good programmes – by which they mean the serious programmes they like – to off-peak periods’. This line of thought springs from the false assumption that our objective is to educate the public – the BBC’s ‘instruct and inform’ formula. There is no mention in the Act of educating the public. We are required to maintain ‘a proper balance in subject-matter’ and a ‘high general standard of quality’. In my opinion that means that we should provide entertaining and interesting programmes of good quality for minority as well as majority audiences. A majority has its rights however, and one of them, I feel, is that a majority programme should be transmitted when the majority are viewing. Enthusiastic minorities must give way to the majority and adjust their viewing hours accordingly.

I represent the Company on the Weekday Programme Network Committee and on the Standing Consultative Committee – the joint committee on which the ITA and all contractors are represented. I take the following general line in the discussions in these committees:

Between 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. the programmes should in the main be designed to entertain the majority of our viewers, since this is the time when the majority are ready and willing to view. Supper finished and not yet time for bed.

After 10.30 p.m. programmes of interest to minority audiences should be included. Note that a programme of special interest to a minority is not an automatic switch-off to the majority who may find their interest caught.

Before 7.30 p.m. at least one hour and possibly more should be aimed specifically at a children’s audience.

The remainder of the afternoon and early evening should have programmes aimed at minority audiences (‘Racing at Lingfield,’ ‘Roving Report’, ‘Answers Please’, are examples).

There is another Section of the Act which is not easily interpreted: though not normally considered as affecting the balance of the programmes, I think it is very relevant.

I refer to Section 3 (i)(d) which says:

‘Proper proportions of recorded and other matter included in the programmes should be of British origin and British performance.’

I believe that the object of this section is also to obtain balance. Clearly it would be wrong if our programmes expounded nothing but a foreign philosophy and showed nothing but a foreign way of life. It would equally be wrong if it was too exclusively British – too insular: no one would suggest excluding Mozart, Dumas, Danny Kaye or the Milan football team because they are of foreign origin. In Art, Music and the Theatre, giving them their capital letters, we are international and try to obtain the best that the world has to offer. Similarly in Television we should try to obtain the best that the world can give us: if it is a good programme we should try to get it, irrespective of origin.

Many people comment on the number of American half-hour programmes which we broadcast. The fact is that there are many excellent American programmes greatly liked by majority audiences, whilst similar British programmes are nearly unobtainable. A-R has been trying to find a good British series for months but with the exception of‘Robin Hood’, the British film series have not been very successful.

It may be of interest that I make the amount of programme of foreign origin and performance which we have shown since 1955 as less than 7 per cent of our transmission time: statisticians on the staff may like to check that figure. Again the critic will say, ‘True enough, but you show all the American stuff in peak hours’. To which I will reply ‘Majorities have their rights and the majority like “Gun Law”, “San Francisco Beat” and “Wagon Train” very much.’ Where the majority do not like a programme, for example, “Inner Sanctum” or “Patti Page”, then it is moved either to off-peak or off-the-schedules’ (the latter costs money as programmes are paid for even if not shown).

Summing up my view: The Company’s object is to entertain and interest their audience. The programmes which the majority like should be shown at the times when the majority view. Minorities are entitled to be given programmes on which they are enthusiastic but must accept the disadvantage of less convenient viewing times. Religion, News and School Broadcasts must be included in our programme schedules as essential to a sane, balanced life. British Television, whilst being international in searching for the best from all over the world, should not propagate a foreign philosophy or outlook.

The post Floor Four says… Balance appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.