We have a fine group of world-wide businesses and in the specialised fields in which we work we are in the forefront of technological development. We have made a notable contribution to the improvement of living standards and a significant reduction in the cost of civilised amenities. We have benefited our own country by a sustained export effort and other countries by providing the capital investment and technical expertise to give them benefits they could not otherwise have. Given freedom and encouragement, we have further markets to explore, both at home and abroad.

But how can Britain attack new markets if saving and productive effort are penalised and tax-gathering becomes virtually a major industry? The Government’s use of taxation as an instrument of social policy cannot be counted a success if groups like ours suffer from a tax burden which penalises effort and stultifies initiative. The tax structure must be simplified, for its understanding engages far more of the time of the best brains in British industry than the country can afford.

Recognition that the distribution of broadcast programmes by wire is a social necessity and an economy is increasing.

The areas where reception of BBC 2 is poor or nil are much more extensive than had been expected. This could lead to hitherto unexpected limits on the number of future television programmes that can be broadcast over the air. The use of wire, instead of aerial transmitters, to bring programmes to towns would not only solve the technical problem, but could produce immense savings if Rediffusion’s highly economical techniques were used.

The Rediffusion community service which makes the benefits of wired reception available to whole communities, on a bulk basis and on bulk terms, has made great strides. We have contracts with the Development Corporations of seven of the new towns, and with numerous local authorities, and many more projects are under negotiation.

In the present service areas of the BBC 2 television programme, which uses the new 625-line standard, the proportion of Rediffusion wired television subscribers who can receive it is many times the national average. This is partly due to the more reliable reception we give, and also the fact that most Rediffusion single-standard receivers for reception by wire (unlike the majority of aerial sets) can be converted at small cost for dual standard reception.

Our wired networks are ready for the expected transmission of colour television programmes.

It is a pity that wired systems, with their inherent advantages, are not allowed to compete freely in the open market. The Government cannot prevent the private listener from illegally receiving the ‘pirate’ radio stations, but they can and do enforce the prohibition against relay companies. If we were not subject to this discrimination, our service would be even more popular than it is.

The previous Government decided that when our present licences became terminable at the end of 1967, we would be given new licences for a period of 12 years. We did not think 12 years for the new licence, or even the 15-year term of the present licence, was good enough. We have been ready for a long time to discuss with the Post Office the details of the renewed licence, but the Post Office are not yet ready to discuss them with us. Meanwhile, our entire relay business is theoretically liable to be closed down on two years’ notice – a highly unrealistic situation.

In television set rental and sales we continue to make excellent progress. The increase in the number of our hirers last year was most satisfactory, and considerably higher than the previous year. Considering the number of competitors and the difficulties some expanding rental firms have experienced, and considering too that our policy is to connect any make of set to our wired service, this progress speaks well for the quality of our product and our service.

The installation and maintenance of closed circuit television installations for local education and other purposes is a growing business in which Rediffusion’s experience is exceptionally useful, particularly where an extensive network is required. The development of this side of the business is undertaken by a central company, Rediffusion Industrial Services Limited, jointly with our regional operating companies throughout the country.

Reditune Limited, our background music service company, is improving its results and further progress has been made in operations overseas, which now cover 41 territories.

Redifon Limited has received the Queen’s Award to Industry for the export achievement of its Flight Simulator Division. Sixty-six per cent of the output of the division, and 54 per cent of Redifon’s total output, were exported.

Redifon’s share of the work on the first stage of the research simulator for the Anglo-French Concord [span class=”ed”>[sic] supersonic aircraft has been completed and the simulator is now installed at Sud Aviation at Toulouse. This simulator is being used for early prototype flight testing and for finalising the design of the cockpit layout.

The communications division of Redifon has supplied marine equipment, oil rig installations and land communication equipment to 60 overseas countries, as well as to United Kingdom customers. It has had a major success with its military transmitter-receiver pack-sets.

Redifon-Astrodata Limited, which is 70 per cent owned by Redifon Limited and 30 per cent by Astrodata Incorporated of California, has started to manufacture a new line of analogue-hybrid computers that are used in solving technical problems involving dynamic solution of differential equations, and for on-line process control functions in industry. Redifon-Astrodata now has a contract for a major computer installation for the Shell company at Amsterdam.

Redifon’s two subsidiaries in the plastics field, Rediweld Limited and Glass Fibre Developments Limited, have been operationally combined and have had a better year. Bigorders have been received for equipment for the Laney system of effluent treatment, which is made under licence.

Redifon (Canada) 1964 Limited has acquired the assets of a small Canadian manufacturing unit, Benco Television Associates, near Toronto and this should assist Redifon’s export activities to Canada and the United States.

Most of the television receivers sold and rented by the group are produced in our own factories. Demand has kept our factories fully employed and we have extended our productive capacity. Eight thousand receivers manufactured by us were exported to Hong Kong during the year, a considerable increase upon the previous year. Sets designed for use on Rediffusion wired networks are considerably simpler and much cheaper than comparable sets designed for aerial reception. This is the reason why the Rediffusion community service, already referred to, can provide the benefits of perfect reception of television and sound programmes by wire, where every house in the district is connected to the service, at less cost than direct reception of television only over the air. Our latest 19-inch ‘Dover’ television set was selected by the Council of Industrial Design for display in the Design Centres in London and Glasgow.

Rediffusion International Limited, the London-based company which has launched many of our now autonomous overseas enterprises, is contributing to the British export drive by representing overseas broadcasting stations, within and outside the group, to United Kingdom exporters. The company is the London agent for the sale of advertising air-time on those stations, which it provides with some of their technical services and programmes, and with marketing and sales promotion facilities which have been found very useful indeed by the newer stations. Once again, the most successful of our operations in the Far East has been our unique television service in Hong Kong. This provides two programmes, one in Chinese and one in English to the 57,000 subscribers (estimated audience over 400,000) to our vast wired network. All our wired network operations in Malaysia, except the small new network in Opoh, had a difficult year with the competition from state-owned commercial radio and television continuing, and with high operating costs.

Our company in Ceylon has added modestly to its number of subscribers and to its profitability, which in difficult circumstances is very satisfactory.

The Malta Television Service continues to attract attention as a model of what a small television service should be. It is in competition with the apparently unlimited resources of the Italian Television Service, whose transmissions are quite well received in the islands. Our wired sound broadcasting network in Malta and Gozo continues to hold its own, notwithstanding the competition from our own television service.

Our broadcasting companies in the West Indies and Guyana continue to prosper and to be well regarded, not merely for the good entertainment but also for the large amount of public service broadcasting they provide.

In Barbados, where we originate a sound programme which is broadcast by wire to approximately half the homes in the island, our service continues to hold its subscribers.

Our sound radio broadcasting company in Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad Broadcasting Company Limited) does well in competition with the television service in which we are one of the two major partners. Our associated television company, the Trinidad and Tobago Television Company Limited with an impressive percentage of programmes produced or filmed locally, has competition from the Government-owned commercial radio and television services, yet it enjoys 75 per cent of the radio audience.

In newly independent Guyana, our broadcasting company, now named Guyana Broadcasting Company Limited, has recovered from the slump caused by the political uncertainty of the past. Guyana has immense potential wealth which is only now being developed, and has a great future.

The Leeward Islands Television Service in Antigua, in which we are partners with the Government, the Bermuda Broadcasting Company, Columbia Broadcasting System of America and local shareholders, is one of the smallest television operations in the world.

Radio Caribbean Limited, our sound radio broadcasting subsidiary in the Windward Islands, in which we are majority shareholders, at present broadcasts mainly in French to the French West Indies, but we are strengthening the station’s English programme.

We have a minority interest in the Bermuda Broadcasting Company Limited. In spite of competition from rival radio and television stations, that company continues to produce satisfactory results in a market limited to a resident population of 50,000 plus a large number of tourists and visitors.

The quality of the sound and television broadcasting services established by Rediffusion in Liberia, on behalf of the Liberian Government has been widely praised. It is recognised as the outstanding small-station broadcasting service in Africa.

Rediffusion Liberia Limited, which provides the management services for the Broadcasting Corporation and also operates a television set rental sale and maintenance service, is now making – in only its third year – a modest profit.

Our company in Nigeria, which relays the sound programmes of the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation in the Western Region and in the Federal District of Lagos, has suffered from the violent political disturbances affecting these areas. Between mid-October, 1965, and mid-January, 1966, when the Army seized power, there was a total breakdown of law and order. This resulted in widespread disconnections and loss of revenue. We are confident, however, that given a reasonable degree of political stability, future prospects in Nigeria are good.

The Government of South Africa, having completed its FM radio network which provides programmes in several dialects for the Bantu population, has decided not to renew the licence for our wired relay operation in Orlando, near Johannesburg, which expired on June 4 this year, but by arrangement, we are carrying on the operation for another eight months from that date.

In the United States and Canada community antenna television (‘CATV’) has grown immensely in popularity because it has been able to relay distant stations as well as those that are receivable locally. However, new legislation in the United States is likely to restrict the CATV operator’s earning power considerably and Rediffusion’s very economical system of wired distribution deserves attention by those Americans who are still eagerly entering the expanding CATV field.

In Canada we have profitable CATV networks, at Sherbrooke, Quebec and at Jamestown, Ontario, and a profitable music-by-wire franchise for the province of Quebec.

In many countries where we operate we rent and sell (for cash and on hire purchase) television sets, if there is a local television service. This side of our overseas business is increasingly adding to profits.

Our planning in Rediffusion is always for the long term, as I have already said in relation to our need for a long-term licence. We could materially improve our immediate financial results, at the expense of our future, by standing still. The more important role that wired distribution of broadcasting may have to play in the future, and the greater interest in television that may come with the advent of programmes in colour, encourage us to look to the future. Already, however, some of our ideas are ahead of our time. We aim to provide better service at lower cost, but the competition we face is immense. We therefore encourage our research teams to prepare for the future, and our managers and engineers to keep their feet on the ground, by confining expenditure to projects which should have relatively early commercial success. Even this is an act of faith, expensive in capital, and it is hard to bear the further discouragement of really grievous taxation.

So much for the problems and developments associated with Rediffusion Limited. Quite a different set are involved when John Spencer Wills puts on his other hat as chairman of the British Electric Traction Company Limited. Within the group there are transport undertakings, laundries, bowling centres and a plant hire subsidiary. The transport undertakings in this country include such bus companies as Southdown, Aidershot and District, Midland Red, East Kent, Devon General, South Wales, and East Trent. About them he said:

No less than 14 per cent has been added to operating costs recently to implement the recommendations on wages and conditions made by the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson. Attempts to make more use of one-man buses and to effect other economics have met with union unwillingness. In addition, operating costs, and consequently fares, have been artificially inflated by the heavy duty on fuel oil. Further, the industry’s burden of taxation has been increased by the withdrawal of the 30 per cent investment allowance for new buses and coaches.

Manufacturing industries, including the producers of relatively inessential goods, and the extractive industries will in future receive cash investment grants. But no service industries, not even those providing services which are basic necessities, as, for example, transport, will receive these grants. Such blind discrimination which favours all manufacturers and penalises service industries, regardless of the value of their respective contributions to our economy, is astonishing.

We should doubtless be grateful that the bus industry has been spared from the full effect of the forthcoming selective employment tax. Operators will still have to pay the tax, but it will be refunded to them quarterly, so we shall be obliged to ‘lend’ money to the Government free of interest. That does not trouble me as much, however, as the dangers that the subsidy of 7s. 6d. a man to be handed to manufacturers out of the proceeds of this new tax, may prove a disincentive to some of them to install labour-saving plant and machinery and so to release manpower for essential service industries, such as the bus industry, which are suffering from an acute shortage of labour.

Turning to our overseas transport interests, Canadian Motorways has suffered from a prolonged strike of haulage workers in the Province of Ontario, following the union’s refusal to accept a labour arbitration award. The strike, which began in January this year, closed down all the major trucking companies in Ontario, including one of Canadian Motorways’ chief subsidiaries, and lasted for 15 weeks.

Last year was a good year for Jamaica Omnibus Services. The mileage run and the number of passengers carried by the fleet of more than 300 vehicles showed substantial increases.

The road transport undertaking in Africa managed by our partners, United Transport Company of Chepstow, continues to prosper. Through our subsidiary company, B.E.T. Omnibus Services, we have a 41 per cent equity interest in United Transport Overseas, the holding company for these passenger road transport and freight undertakings.

It will be in the interests of all concerned when present antagonisms between Rhodesia and Zambia are moderated, and certainly there are problems, both economic and political, calling for solution in other African countries. It would, however, be incorrect to assume from reports in the press of happenings in widely-spread territories that there exists a state of general turmoil throughout the countries in which we operate. The excellent progress made in recent years by the African companies could hardly have been achieved had this been so.

The arrangements under which the Malawi Government has a financial interest in our transport operations there, and the municipality of Dar-es-Salaam a stake in our Tanzanian operations, are working well. More recently, the municipality of Nairobi has taken a substantial minority interest in our operations in and around Nairobi.

A new development during the year has been an extension of the African group’s touring activities into Ethiopia by the formation of a company there in partnership with a world airline.

An entry has also been made into road transport in Australia, where the growing economy should offer prospects for the carriage of freight by road.

A further expansion of business has been achieved by our subsidiary, Advance Laundries. Practically the whole of the increase came from the commercial services – Towelmaster, linen and garment hire, office cleaning and hotel laundering, which together account for the major part of the Advance Group’s work. On the domestic laundry and dry cleaning side, a major reorganisation of service is in progress in the Greater London area, following the acquisition of the Tip-Top group of dry cleaning companies.

Advance Laundries invests large sums in new plant to increase efficiency. To give an example, research into automation by a research company in which the group has a half interest, will shortly result in the installation by Advance Laundries of one of the first production models of a continuous washing machine which will process cabinet towels at the rate of 1,200 feet a minute.

One of the principal aims of the new selective employment tax is to encourage a more effective distribution of the nation’s labour force. But to impose a heavy pay roll tax on an industry that relies largely on part-time female labour – which would not be likely to interest, or be available to, the ‘favoured’ manufacturing industries – is totally illogical. In addition to the Magnet Bowling centres at Barnsley, Cambridge and Bristol, three further centres have been opened this year at Peterborough, Poole and Darlington. Two more are under construction.

In common with the rest of the contractors’ plant hire industry, the subsidiary, Eddison Plant, was affected by the Government’s policy of reducing grants for road maintenance, and of deferring, as from July, 1965, major building and road construction.

The company now operates over 1,000 road rollers of different types as well as a wide range of other kinds of contractors’ plant. The materials handling division has a fleet of over 500 fork lift trucks with a wide range of lifting capacities. The scaffolding division successfully completed its first full year at Nottingham and these operations have been extended to a depot at Leicester.

The company now has 21 depots covering England, Scotland and Wales, and further depots are being considered to give even better local and national coverage.

All of which shows the wide range of activities covered by the Rediffusion and B.E.T. groups. Whether the individual companies are concerned with producing television programmes or providing the means to receive them, whether they are bus companies or laundries, there are two key words which sum up practically the entire operation – public service.

The post Public service round the world appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

There was an almost universal belief around at a point in time that will seem to historians of the future like some Stones-in-the-head Age, say ten years ago from now, that selling time on television was a simple, impossible job. The simplicity belief sprang from the popular conviction that selling in this context was all a matter of being a rather nice chap and a rather nice sort of chap, a bit polished around the elbows from leaning on bar counters but none the worse for that generally, a decent set of golf clubs and a thick skin. Impossible because the cost of television advertising was quite clearly (we all agreed, buyer and seller alike) just a tiny bit expensive considering that there were really no viewers, not even many sets to view on, from or at.

All quite clean and tidy, a normal British sort of situation bound to come out all right in the end because eventually the real truths begin to become clear to more than a very few. Take the sales executive first whom we all hope is still, under our revised and increasingly enlightened attitude, a rather nice chap because that is someone we would prefer to have around anyway and so presumably would the people with whom we do business. But if he has no brain, cannot think fast on his feet, understand the fundamentals of at least 10 major consumer industries and a lot more besides, he is not for us.

For the fact is that the obvious success of television as an advertising medium in the intervening years has paradoxically created more problems for the selling of it than have been solved. Alongside this, and springing in my view from the existence and growth of television, has been the essential requirement from industry to make more efficient their selling communication with the customer. Success, then, has created its own critical searchlight under which justifications in minutest areas of communication science are required to be as polished and susceptible to keen examination as no other medium. (Indeed I sometimes wonder if other media are thought to be in the same business.)

‘Efficiency’ appears in everyone’s speech/article/election address these days and is the one word over which no one is going to argue. The advent of television suddenly made the importance of this whole cost of communication the subject of detailed rethink. Television was communicating, it was costed at a certain figure, but how much was it worth?

So time selling became more than having a rate card and the last rating trends in your pocket. Industry and their advertising agencies required a lot more information and were prepared in many cases to go out and get it. We had to know that too and a bit more as well about our own medium that would give us an edge if we could find one. Now of course it is a buyers’ market as well, which most people accept as being a healthier situation for both sides.

The first essential to sell any television time is to have the audience watching your channel. Size by itself is not all that important in the final analysis and it is certainly true for example that in London, that most fickle (or discriminating, depending on how you look at it) audience is more difficult to please than in some other areas where regularly high ITV ratings are obtained. The attractiveness of our programme schedule in all its different facets is, therefore, fundamental to our business. At this point most of those who are not concerned with the sales operation would limit their awareness of what else happens to the existence of commercials on the screen.

We transmit approximately 25,000 commercials a year which come from 160 clients and they cover the whole range of consumer industries. Each of these industries is within itself a highly competitive assortment of marketing companies manufacturing products which are sold under retail conditions which are themselves increasing in efficiency and competitiveness year by year. It is absolutely clear that advertising by itself, even television advertising, will not sell a product that is not going to fulfil a need for the buyer and is not presented in a bright and attractive way and at a competitive price. If you can date in your mind the beginning of the revolution in retailing, packaging and product development that has taken place over the past few years you will find that it coincides pretty clearly with the first real impact of Independent Television 10 years ago. So the manufacturer must be improving his sales efficiency all the time and under that heading come the three vital ingredients of product, price and packaging, followed by good distribution, then comes television. If the first three ingredients are right television can help immensely with distribution. When distribution is achieved television’s impact with the audience will create that awareness of the product which is the final link. All very simple, but what are the qualities then needed for a time salesman? In the first instance he is fighting against other media, selling at what are thought to be fairly high rates and working in a system of audience measurement that measures the audience minute by minute throughout transmission hours whereas newspapers and magazines, if they bother at all, take a six month audit of their sales of copies (not people reading, not people actually seeing the advertisements on the pages, just copies sold). The television man must also know what the manufacturer is trying to achieve, to whom he is hoping to sell his product, e g. housewives, men, young mothers, everyone, etc. because our audience changes in character hour by hour. He must have an awareness of how a manufacturer’s particular product stands in the total market, whether he is the brand leader or number five in the market and whether the market itself is changing month by month, because this in itself can generate revenue for the programme company because the keener the competition the more chance there is for advertising activity to follow. He must have arguments to advance in favour of media advertising to the public rather than expenditure on premium offers, competitions, all those activities generally called below-the-line expenditure. They have a part to play in marketing but too much emphasis on these will detract from revenue to media as a whole and therefore us in particular.

He must in short be a marketing man and be in a position to talk to the manufacturer and to his agency in terms which they use and have the same ambition for their advertising as they have to make it more effective all the time.

A lot of television time will sell itself; that is in the nature of anything which is inherently the best. The importance to this company and to all others is to make sure that we obtain the top 30 per cent or 40 per cent of our business because this has to be fought for and makes all the difference to the company in terms of profitability. It is the sales department’s job to get it. Crikey!

The post A great problem, this success business appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

June 11

Lord Hill announced the details of the new contracts offered by the ITA. The announcement included the proposed merger of Rediffusion Television and ABC Television. ‘Mergers’, he said, ‘are always difficult to arrange…’

September 28

It was announced: ‘Agreement has today been reached, subject to contract, to lease Wembley Studios to London Weekend Television Ltd. for at least three years from May 6, 1968.

‘London Weekend Television has indicated that it expects to use three studios and that its union-graded staff will be recruited in the main from Rediffusion staff.

‘The arrangements made in respect of the studios will materially assist and accelerate the conclusion of the negotiations relating to the formation of the new ABC/Rediffusion company.’

October 19

Following talks with the unions, two statements were made. The first, which concerned A.C.T.T. members, said :

‘The following agreement was reached between the Independent Television Companies and the A.C.T.T. as a result of recent meetings:

1. The companies fully accept that every A.C.T.T. member in Independent Television subject to re-deployment will be employed in the network under the new contract allocation.
2. The companies guarantee to employ in London, with the minimum of disturbance, all A.C.T.T. staff presently employed by Rediffusion Television, and A.B.C. Television, in London in at least their present grades.
3. Yorkshire Television, will employ all A.C.T.T. staff presently employed at A.B.C. Television’s Didsbury Studios.
4. There will be early discussions to deal with problems arising particularly in relation to 2nd and 3rd schedules grades.
5. While this situation maintains, there will be no recruitment from outside the Independent Television Companies and no one employed by one company shall undertake work in television for other organisations.

‘It was also agreed that discussions should take place between the union and each of the new companies, London Weekend Television, A.B.C./Rediffusion joint company and Yorkshire Television, as soon as possible on the question of their general terms and conditions of employment and staffing.’

The second statement was agreed between the Independent Television companies and the E.T.U. and N.A.T.K.E. It said: ‘In connection with the re-allocation of I.T.V. contracts the companies recognize that they must use their best endeavours to re-employ E.T.U. and N.A.T.K.E. members affected by the re-allocation.

‘With this in mind they undertake that in the first instance recruitment will be made from within the industry, with first preference being given to staff directly affected by the reallocation and with the minimum of disturbance.

‘The new companies are sympathetic to the problems involved in the re-deployment of staff and undertake to commence discussions individually with the unions as soon as possible on the general terms and conditions of employment to be applied within their respective companies.’

Also on October 19 a company advertisement stated: ‘Rediffusion Television’s contract ends on July 29, 1968. Until that time it is the company’s policy and firm intent to continue to improve its programme content and to give its advertisers still better service during the next nine months.

‘Already it has been stated that our programme budget has been increased by over 10 per cent. Both the programme and sales departments have been reorganised to adapt to the changing situation.

‘The sales department is geared to give the maximum service to our clients, both directly and through their advertising agencies.

‘Between now and July 29, 1968, the demand for time on Rediffusion Television exceeds anything we have previously known. With the aid of our computer our sales service has been further improved and the whole operation speeded up. We shall continue to be very much in the forefront of the television advertising scene until the completion of our operation.’

October 27

Notice boards were put up at Television House and Wembley for staff to read. They said:

‘ABC Television Limited and Rediffusion Television Limited have reached agreement with the Independent Television Authority on the formation of a new company to operate the London Weekday contract from July 30, 1968.

‘The company will be called Thames Television Limited, and will be based at ABC’s Studios at Teddington-on-Thames with central London studios and offices at Rediffusion’s Television House. The capital of Thames Television Limited will be approximately £6,000,000 divided equally between ABC Television Limited and Rediffusion Television Limited.

‘The board of the new company will be as follows:

• Sir Phillip Warter, chairman (chairman of the Associated British Picture Corporation, and of ABC Television.)
• Robert Clark, M.A., LL.B., deputy chairman (deputy chairman and chief executive of the Associated British Picture Corporation, and deputy chairman of ABC Television.)
• Howard Thomas, C.B.E., managing director (managing director of ABC Television and director of the Associated British Picture Corporation.)
• Brian Tesler, M.A., programme controller (director of ABC Television.)
• A. W. Groocock, F.C.LS., director (director and secretary of Rediffusion Television.)
• George A. Cooper, sales director (director of ABC Television.)
• B. R. Greenhead, controller of studios and engineering (director of ABC Television.)
• J. T. Davey, F.C.A., director (chief accountant of Rediffusion Television.)
• D. R. W. Dicks, director (controller of production of Rediffusion Television.)
• Group Capt. H. S. L. Dundas, D.S.O., D.F.C., director (director of Rediffusion.)

The following senior staff appointments were announced: Jeremy Isaacs, current affairs and children’s programmes (Rediffusion); Lloyd Shirley, drama (ABC); Guthrie Moir, education and religion (Rediffusion); Phillip Jones, light entertainment (ABC); Grahame Turner, outside broadcasts (Rediffusion); Stuart Sansom, engineering department (ABC); James F. Shaw, advertisement department (ABC); M. Lawson, accounts department (ABC).

The message continued: ‘Recruitment of staff from ABC Television and from Rediffusion Television will commence shortly. ‘The redeployment of unionised staff now engaged by Rediffusion will be conducted in exact accordance with the letter and the spirit of the agreements reached at the following National Labour Relations meetings:

a. Meeting with the A.C.T.T. – October 18

b. Meeting with ETU/NATKE – October 19

‘The company will use it’s best endeavours to find satisfying and equally remunerative work for all non-unionised members of the staff.

November 8

A company press statement said:

‘The Rediffusion ACTT shop concluded a meeting with the management at 5.30 p.m. today by registering failure to agree with the company on the amount of ex-gratia payments which the company has offered in addition to the payments required in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act of 1965.

‘These ex-gratia payments were offered as a result of the termination of the company’s ITA contract on July 29 next year.

‘All the ACTT staff concerned have already been guaranteed further employment in ITV in London after Rediffusion’s contract ends.

‘The commercial break before the ITN News at 5.55 p.m. was blacked out by the ACTT staff.

‘The company had no warning of the action from the ACTT shop. It is considering the position.’

Later there was this joint press announcement:

‘Meetings between Rediffusion and ACTT began again tonight at 9 p.m. They will continue tomorrow in the hope, shared by both parties, that a satisfactory conclusion will be quickly reached. In the meantime normal transmission will continue.’

The post The Facts appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The heading on the last leader in the summer edition of Fusion was ‘Fused’. Unfortunately there can be no other heading than the one now printed here.

Few editors of house magazines can have had quite the task which now faces this editor. In the last edition at the end of July the leader started: ‘Next month the clouds of obscurity which mushroomed around our future following the ITA announcement about the changes in ITV should begin to clear’.

At the time of going to press in the first week of December they are still as murky as ever. The decision was taken not to publish an autumn edition of Fusion as scheduled unless some facts could be printed about the future of the staff. It was felt that it was better not to bring out Fusion at all rather than to ignore the situation.

There were no facts so Fusion did not appear. There are still few facts as this is written but now the editor feels it is right to bring out a bumper Christmas edition in which he hopes his readers might find some cheer. In the tradition of Fusion there are some features in which we laugh at ourselves. We hope they will provide a few smiles and that nobody will be provoked to take offence.

We hope, too, that by the time this reaches you the murk will have cleared a little; that, for example, the situation of redundancy payments and the winding up of the pension fund will be clarified.

We hope, also, that a few more will have been reassured about their future careers, inside or out of television.

Indeed, we have all been hoping since June and after six months that hope has begun to wear pretty thin. There are many whose patience has been tried to the limit.

We have lived through a miserable period with bouts of industrial action, threats of more and rumours galore. When 1,400 people have their jobs taken away from them there must be upheaval, distress, anxiety and downright dismay.

But need there have been so much? Could not a lot of it have been avoided?

This much must be said: if anybody had sat down deliberately to devise a situation so complicated that it was almost beyond the bounds of reason for anybody to solve promptly, then that person could hardly have done better had he been the architect of the present muddled position.

Any reasonable person must understand the position with which management has had to cope … winding up Rediffusion Television, agreeing with ABC on the formation of a new board for Thames Television, settling on the disposition of the assets of this company, negotiating with Weekend Television on the lease of Wembley, negotiating with the unions on re-employment and ‘terminal payments’. Enough headaches there to last for quite a few months, and indeed they have.

Also any reasonable person must understand the fears and insecurity with which the unions have had to cope. There has been the whole vast question of what was to happen to their members: some to Weekend, some to Thames, some to Yorkshire, none looking at any of it with much enthusiasm.

There have been problems over the seniority acquired with this company, compensation for the loss of security and the tragedy of reduced pension rights which is particularly severe for those over 50.

Any reasonable person must also understand the problems with which the new company, Thames Television, has still to cope. Who are to be the section heads in the various departments? Who are to join from Rediffusion and who shall come from ABC? Will ABC’s 11-6 domination of the first batch of appointments be reflected in the final figures? Many of these question marks still hang over us.

We are all reasonable persons. We can all see that there are many points of view to be considered. Why then has the situation been so unreasonable?

The editor of this magazine can, perhaps, take a neutral line, supporting neither the management nor the unions. Certainly this editorial has been vetted by neither.

If a neutral line is taken what does one see? Fundamentally there has been a terrible lack of communication. But, again, any reasonable person can appreciate the reasons for this.

You cannot make announcements when valuable acquisitions are under negotiation. You cannot communicate when in the middle of delicate negotiations. This applies as much to the unions as the management.

Or can you? Is not this inability to communicate a disease of this country and, indeed, of the world? How many of the current disputes in British industry could be resolved before the strike, go-slow or work-to-rule occurs if there were better communication? How many international disputes and grievances could be settled with better communication?

To come back to home, the irony of all this is that Fusion is supposed to be a method of communication. As a house magazine it has won more awards than most for its contents, for its design and, presumably, for its ability to communicate. Yet, in a situation which demands clear and prompt communication, it has failed utterly to do so. We can take comfort from the fact that many house magazines really limit their communication to pompous statements by the chairman or managing director. Fusion has never had those, nor been asked to publish them.

So when it does come to a crisis how do you communicate? Some industries have a complex system in which house magazines, newspapers, news letters, bulletins and all types of meetings are integrated. It would have been interesting to know how much more all this would have achieved in our situation. Fusion is inclined to think that it is not so much the method as the ability and willingness to do so which matters. And of these two, ability is the key. As the structure of society becomes more and more complex, the need for unequivocal, expert communication grows.

In our present situation, the word ‘communication’ not only covers the obvious statement of facts to others but also – and this is possibly more important – the exchange of views and opinions by those taking part in negotiations.

Everybody knows how a word-of-mouth message can be distorted after passing round a circle at a party game. This, too, is happening far too frequently in everyday life. Put those words into the mouths of people who have an interest in seeing them distorted and confusion piles on confusion.

Too often in this country, negotiations break down or are misinterpreted because of the inability of those concerned – both unions and management – to communicate clearly and without allowing their viewpoints to distort the situation.

It is possibly this endemic disease which has prolonged the negotiations in the present situation.

Every reasonable person will agree that it has all gone on too long. Unfortunately those who have probably suffered most frustration by the silence are those who have had nobody to put forward their views – the non-union members of the staff.

We might send men to the moon and know how to transplant hearts, but we have still to learn how to communicate with each other. And that is the lesson from our sorry situation.

As can be seen from the following two pages there have been quite a few decisions but for the majority of the staff none have yet answered the key questions: ‘What shall I be doing at the end of July?’ ‘How much will I be earning?’ ‘What is going to happen to my pension?’ ‘What compensation do I get for my loss of seniority and security?’

To pile on the agony the death has also occurred of Capt. Brownrigg, our former general manager. That event is dealt with on pages 6-9 of this issue. However, it has a deeper significance which anybody who attended the memorial service must have felt.

The congregation consisted of all sorts of people. There were executives of the company, past and present. There were rank-and-filers. There were leaders in ITV. They all came to mourn his death and remember his achievements.

Tragically, though, the service also marked the end of an era; the end of the first chapter in the history of ITV; the end of Rediffusion Television.

Capt. Brownrigg and the staff of this company played their part in setting up Independent Television in this country and carrying it through its early years.

It has been an exciting time and we can only hope that, when the present murk lifts, the future will be just as stimulating and exciting as the past. And that lessons will be learnt from all we have recently been through.

The editor

The post Confusion appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

Next month the clouds of obscurity which mushroomed around our future following the ITA announcement about the changes in ITV should begin to clear. The end of a period most people will only want to go through once in their career is near.

It has not been a happy time and it must be stated clearly that for some the future will still bring only worry and indecision. The quart of staff at present working for this company and ABC Television will not go into the pint pot of a new joint company.

Nevertheless there has been a categoric assurance from John McMillan, our general manager, that the first consideration in all the many problems to be thrashed out will go to the staff. One cannot ask for more than that.

As soon as possible next month personal interviews will be held with everybody and those who have been selected to join the new company will be informed. The union shops will be told simultaneously. Then the ITV companies and the unions are to organise a Register upon which the names of those not offered jobs will be placed. A similar Register is to be set up at the same time for nonunion staff.

The aim with both these registers is to ensure that everyone is given the chance of re-employment in the industry at the same basic rate of pay as at present. The unions have their own weapons to see that this is done. The non-union staff must depend on the goodwill of others which surely must be forthcoming.

Both must also rely on Lord Hill’s public statement at the press conference on Sunday, June 11 at which he announced the proposition that ABC Television and Rediffusion Television should form a new company.

In reference to the appointment of the Harlech Consortium in place of TWW he said:

‘It will also be a requirement that, when appointing staff, the new company will give prior consideration to the employment of those now working in Independent Television in Wales and the West. I may say at this point that the Authority will make the observance of this principle a requirement in all cases of change (Fusion‘s italics). The sum of the changes we are making will lead to an increase in overall employment in Independent Television; and there should be no reason to fear general redundancy, though there will be individual cases where goodwill and care will be needed and these will be exercised.’

The demise of TWW made the main press headlines. The merger of Rediffusion Television and ABC Television was a secondary story. Yet, in terms of human predicament, the merger presents far more complex problems than those arising from what will probably be a straight takeover of staff and equipment by the Harlech Consortium from TWW.

There will be ‘an increase in overall employment’ (more jobs) but, the formation of a new company in Leeds is not of much value to those whose homes and lives are centred around London.

So that leaves London Weekend Television, the new London weekend group, as a source of jobs. How far they will wish, or be forced by the unions and, possibly, the ITA, to take on Rediffusion staff not re-employed remains to be seen. John McMillan has told Fusion that in his opinion all unionised ITV workers, except those soon to retire, will get jobs starting July 30, 1968 or before with either the new ABC/Rediffusion company or London Weekend Television. One good thing which will, in Fusion’s opinion, probably arise from all this is a transferable pension scheme between all ITV companies and possibly with the BBC as well.

This is vital in view of the fact that a similar situation involving others, if not ourselves, could arise in another six years’ time – or eight – when new contracts are again handed out.

For the present, however, the immediate concern of everybody must obviously be to see that Rediffusion Television continues to operate at the highest possible standard right up to the time it comes off the air on July 29, 1968. We must do this for the sake of our own personal professional reputations quite apart from loyalty to the company and to the public we have chosen to serve by working in television.

This will not be easy but anyone who has decided to make television a career must have a basic desire to serve the public and this service must not be allowed to deteriorate.

As this edition went to press, detailed discussions were being held to form a new direction and management structure and to agree with ABC Television on the disposition of offices, equipment, transport and all the many other factors involved in the merger. One of the most important, of course, will be a decision on the future use to be made of Studio 9, Television House, Hanover Square, Wembley studios and Teddington studios.

By the time this edition is printed decisions may have been reached and announced. If this has not been done rumours will, no doubt, start to circulate. Again management has stated categorically that, as soon as there is anything to say, the staff will be the first to know. So, if rumours are flying, they can be summarily shot down.

It is obvious that there will be many delicate negotiations to be handled with ABC Television and it would be wrong to expect a day-by-day account of them. Indeed, they would be likely to attract press publicity which could prejudice further negotiations.

So the only reasonable attitude must be to wait patiently knowing that we have been promised information as soon as it can be given. There is one happy side to all this which must not be overlooked. Few people have the opportunity in the middle of their careers to review just what they are doing with their lives and what they wish to do in the future and to be given virtually a whole year to think about it.

Obviously this does not apply to those nearing retirement age and one hopes that some system will be devised to ensure that they do not suffer because of the high level decisions which have been made and over which they had no control.

But for those with some years still to work – and the average age of the ITV industry is low – the situation does present an opportunity to make a reassessment of their careers and the pattern of their lives.

As for the pattern of the industry, this would need a really magical crystal ball to unravel. One thing is clear: we have not seen the last television upheaval. Here, verbatim, are the words spoken by the Postmaster General in the House of Commons last month:

‘There remains … the question of the longer-term organisation of broadcasting in Britain. The recently awarded contracts will run from next July to 1974. Two years later, in 1976, the franchise of the ITA and the BBC’s charter, Licence and Agreement will end together. Recently, I have taken steps to ensure that licences of the relay companies, which make up a very important element in our broadcasting system, will end at the same time. So, nine years from now, an opportunity will arise for a fundamental review of the whole system, because ITA, the BBC and the relay companies will all terminate at the same time.

‘As I have said on a number of occasions since I became involved in the subject, I cannot see the present kind of organisation lasting for very much more than the decade which we have ahead of us before those changes take place. In 1969 the Post Office becomes a public corporation. The residual Minister will then have under his wing the two broadcasting authorities, the Post Office Corporation and a number of other residual activities, but he will be freed of all the day-to-day administrative work of the Post Office – that great mass of administrative work which weighs down the Postmaster General. From that time the residual Minister will be able to devote more of his time to broadcasting, and I hope that, in the spring of 1969, a long, cool look will begin at the whole system of broadcasting in this country.’

What other group of people in the country has to work under these terms? Are long, cool looks and the upheaval of individual lives going to be a continuous reward of working in ITV?

Possibly. And possibly it is right that such an important industry should be the subject of long, cool looks – as long as they are not positively frigid. It is not Fusion‘s job to comment on this.

But what Fusion must do is to point out that such events as the breaking up of companies, the holding of ‘fundamental reviews’ (remember Pilkington?) are not likely to create the most conducive atmosphere in which either companies or individuals can flourish. We have the compensation of working in what we all obviously regard as the most exciting, challenging and interesting industry there is. Perhaps we must expect to forfeit the security which comes from working in a bank or insurance.

But, whatever the reasons for ending Rediffusion Television may have been, it must not be forgotten that very talented and dedicated teams of technicians and programme people, and accounts, advertising, publicity, administrative and secretarial staff are also being broken up.

There is no doubt that those who are picked will recreate similar teamwork in the new company but it will take time.

Further, although Fusion does not want to be accused of chauvinism, we do believe that the spirit of the ‘workers’ in Rediffusion Television is and was second to none. The co-operation between individuals, the help one section gives another, the happy working relationships between people from post-room to management, are all indefinable. But they added up to something pretty considerable. Furthermore in the last three years and more there has never been the faintest whisper of a possible stoppage.

The new company will have a flying start if it inherits only this happy spirit.

Meanwhile there is plenty of work to do until July, 1968 and on the remaining 34 pages of this edition Fusion, too, gets back to normal …

The editor

The post Fused appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

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.

THE SIXTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
of Associated-Rediffusion Limited was
held on September 19th 1961 in London, Mr.
John Spencer Wills, the Chairman, presiding.

Moving the adoption of the Report and Accounts for the year ended 30th April, 1961 the Chairman said:—

“You will have seen from the Accounts that the profit was just about the same as it was last year. It only appears to be more because we did not consider it necessary to repeat the £500,000 [£12m in today’s money, allowing for inflation] provision for obsolescence which we made last year and the year before that.

ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE

A gratifying feature of the year is the continued growth in advertisement revenue, which shows an increase of some 16% over that for the previous year. This must be accepted as a striking indication of the value of television advertising in the London area, which now has a potential audience of over nine million viewers. We have been glad to welcome many new advertisers.

In this year’s Budget, television advertising was singled out for special taxation in the form of Television Advertisement Duly. This was at the rate of 10% as from 1st May but was increased to 11% as from 26th July.

Any comment by me about this new impost would probably be regarded as wholly selfish, so I will content myself with quoting the well-known economist, Mr. Graham Hutton:—

The oddest net tax is that (ostensibly) on advertising by television. It is almost a classic offence against all of Adam Smith’s famous canons of taxation. Purporting to hit at the profits of the programme-contracting companies, it was admittedly expected to be passed on to advertisers. Since these people and their advertising agents work to budgets of their own, and TV has the biggest impact on their markets, its effect will be completely to bypass TV advertising, and come to rest on all other forms of advertising. It would have been far better (as Lord Hinchingbrooke and many others in all three parties in the Commons pointed out) to come out into the open with a straight tax on all advertising.

We took special steps to assist those advertisers whose budgets could not immediately be adjusted to meet the Duty. In the case of bookings which, under our General Terms and Conditions of Contract, were subject to eight weeks’ notice of cancellation, we reduced the cancellation period to one week for bookings within the eight-week period following the imposition of the Duty. In cases where advertisers had entered into non-cancellable contracts for guaranteed expenditure before the imposition of the Duty, we agreed that the advertisers concerned could, if they so desired, include the appropriate Duty in their guaranteed expenditure, the rate of discount remaining unchanged and continuing to be payable on guaranteed expenditure excluding Duty.

In 1960, over £134 million [£3.5bn] was spent on advertising in the United Kingdom Press. This is 17½% more than the £114 million [£2.8bn] spent in 1959 and is the highest annual expenditure ever recorded by The Statistical Review of Press Advertising. Expenditure on TV advertising also reached a record figure, the total for 1960 being just under £77 million [£2bn].

Television still has a considerable distance to go to catch up. Any tax upon advertising is a burden upon the export trade. But this new tax burden is more a matter for complaint by the advertisers than by the advertising medium.

OPERATING COSTS

Our operating costs have continued to rise and show an increase of some 14% over the previous year’s figure. There will be a further substantial increase in the current year. The production of television programmes is indeed an expensive business.

Our new million pound [£25m] Studio 5 at Wembley, now in continuous use, has proved its worth: the additional space and improved facilities which it provides have, I think, been reflected in improvement in the range and in the artistic and technical quality of our programmes.

It is not wholly surprising that an industry which earns large profits should be a target for the Trades Unions concerned. Very large increases in pay have been negotiated and it is inevitable that our friendly rivals, the B.B.C., should also have been affected. There is one application, however, which shocks even me, who has been closely concerned in wage negotiations in different industries, for a large number of years. And that has been lodged by The British Actors Equity Association, commonly called ‘Equity’.

When Independent Television started, the minimum fee payable to an actor in a B.B.C production was 6 guineas [£180]: this sum was ‘earned’ by an actor who walked on and said, ‘My Lord, the carriage awaits’. By negotiation, this minimum for a national appearance on Independent-Television was, from the start in 1955, increased to 7 guineas [£210] and, in 1958, was raised again to 10 guineas [£260]. Equity have now demanded, for a comparable actor, a minimum fee of 36 guineas [£900], an increase of 260%. They have also demanded, for the national appearance on Independent Television of an actor speaking more than ten words a minimum payment of 44 guineas [£1,100], an increase of 340%.

It is not normally considered good practice to discuss Trade Union negotiations whilst they are in progress but, in this case, Equity have publicly announced the calling of a strike. They have issued an instruction to their members not to accept any engagement in any ITV programme (except commercials) which involves any work on or after the 1st November.

The demands in support of which the strike has been called are so fantastic that negotiations are at an end. We, in television, need actors; we, in television, have given them very considerable support in many directions. We are not, however, prepared to accede to ridiculous demands.

It is not surprising that, in their latest instruction to their members, the Council of Equity said, ‘Our original proposals were made with full knowledge that we might well not achieve a new deal in Independent Television as a result of discussions over the negotiating table…’

PROGRAMMES

It has always been the Board’s policy to give the maximum possible responsibility and freedom of action to our programme planning and production staff and I think the staff are again to be congratulated upon the results of their work.

Although size of audience is not the sole criterion of success, it is pleasing to note that Associated-Rediffusion productions continue to figure prominently in the weekly lists of top-rating programmes. It seems to me that the test of success for any public service — particularly where an alternative is available — must, in large measure, be the extent to which the public use that service.

An outstanding event during the year was the production last March of ‘Laudes Evangelii’, a presentation of episodes in the life of Christ told in music, mime and ballet. This programme, which was transmitted at peak viewing time on Good Friday and seen by some four and a quarter million viewers, received unqualified praise from leaders of the main branches of the Christian religion in this country. This was, in every way, a most challenging production and, apart from the public and press response to it, the spirit in which the challenge was accepted by the very large number of staff concerned made the occasion memorable. The critic who accuses Independent Television of programme parsimony may be interested to learn that the cost of ‘Laudes Evangelii’ was £28,000 [£670,000].

I mentioned last year the recent establishment of an International Division. Measured in terms of revenue, it cannot yet be described as a major activity but you will be interested to know that Associated-Rediffusion programmes, including plays and drama series, documentary feature programmes and schools programmes, have been sold in thirty-three different countries. Some of our schools programmes have been sold in such remote and differing places as Ethiopia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Southern Rhodesia and Australia, and America and a number of European countries may shortly be added to the list. Whilst these developments are not yet of great financial significance, you will, I am sure, be glad to know that an international reputation is gradually being established; the sort of reputation that could be of great value if, during the next few years, the international exchange of programmes by satellites were to become practicable.

Increasing use is being made of television programmes for schools, which Associated-Rediffusion pioneered four years ago. The number of schools taking the programmes has risen from eighty to fifteen hundred and may well exceed two thousand during the fifth year just commenced. We are grateful to Sir Ifor Evans, Provost of University College, for having taken over the Chairmanship of our Educational Advisory Council in succession to Sir Sydney Caine, whose resignation, on his appointment as a member of the Independent Television Authority, I mentioned last year.

At our meeting four years ago, I suggested that if you had not seen our schools programmes, you should take an opportunity of doing so. They are well worth viewing by adults and I repeat the suggestion now our French language series, ‘Chez les Dupré’, has, in fact, been transmitted in evening programmes and seen by audiences of over two million in the London area. The fact that close on 45,000 explanatory booklets were sold to viewers indicates the interest which was taken in this experiment in adult education. Another of our schools’ programmes, ’London, Capital City’ is now being transmitted in evening programme time.

THE FUTURE

To the Pilkington Committee of Inquiry which was appointed last year to consider and make recommendations on the future of broadcasting services in this country, we have submitted our views and evidence. The Committee’s Report is expected some time next year.

The facts that the Independent Television Authority is to cease to exist in 1964; that the contracts of programme contractors terminate in the same year; that there has been a great deal of publicity given to an enormous number of irreconcilable recommendations made to the Pilkington Committee — all these facts have caused, and are bound to have caused, some unrest and uneasiness among our staff. Are their jobs safe? Are they reasonably certain of continued employment? Is there any risk that they may have wasted their time? In my opinion there is no cause for alarm, no justification even for misgiving

The main shareholders in Associated-Rediffusion have been engaged in the provision and management of public services for two-thirds of a century — ever since 1896. I myself have been so engaged for forty years. Railways, tramways, trackless trolleys, radio stations, television stations, the generation and distribution of electricity, the manufacture and distribution of coal-gas, airlines, wired radio, wired television, motor omnibus services, road goods transport — all these activities, not only in the United Kingdom, but in countries all over the world, have been our life. The bus interests alone embrace 13,000 public service vehicles. Is it surprising that are should have been entrusted with the task of furnishing television programmes to the largest city in the western hemisphere? Sixty-six years of public service and, let it be said, of successful public service, on a large scale, cannot lightly be disregarded.

Railways, tramways, electricity undertakings and gas undertakings were mostly operated under individual Statutes. The air services were operated under short term licences granted by a Statutory Authority. The wired radio and television undertakings are currently operated under long term licences from the Post Office but, for many years, could have been stopped at short notice. The omnibus services have, for the last thirty years, been operated under short term licences. But always it has been the practice, provided that the operators properly discharged their responsibilities to the public they served, for the licences to be renewed without question.

My personal belief is that our staff have no reason to fear any departure from the licensing practice established over so many decades.

Our shares are widely held. The British Electric Traction Co. Ltd. have 37,500 shareholders, Rediffusion Ltd. have 12,000 shareholders and they, between them, are the virtual owners of Associated-Rediffusion Ltd.: that is to say, we are owned by nearly 50,000 individuals.

Why should any Government wish to shatter the existing scheme of things?

The main criticism hurled against us is that the State does not take a sufficient share of our profits. Let us examine the figures during the year under review. The Associated-Rediffusion Group’s gross revenue was in excess of £21,000,000 [£500m]. From this the State takes (including a substantial part of our payment to the Independent Television Authority) £5,000,000 [£12.5m] and our 50,000 shareholders will, if you accept your Board’s recommendation, receive £2,250,000 [£55m]. Had the Television Advertisement Duty been in operation during the year, the State would have taken another £1,470,000 [£36m].

Our shareholders took the risk of losing all their investment. At one stage, in 1956, they had, in fact lost the enormous sum of £3,250,000 [£90m]. The State took no risk at all. If the Company had gone into liquidation, the State would not have lost one penny.

As it is, out of the profits which have succeeded the losses, the State will receive nearly three times as much as the shareholders.

It seems to me that, if there is cause for complaint, the shareholders have more right to complain than anyone else!

The main criticism of the Independent Television Authority is that a large part of their work is done behind the scenes, that they do not publicly admonish their programme contractors if anything goes wrong. Those of us in the business know that the Authority keeps an eagle eye and a firm hand upon all that goes on. In my submission it is in the interest of all concerned — the public, the Government, the advertisers, the employees — that control should continue to be exercised quietly and tactfully. To me, personally involved in the settlement of an enormous number of problems during the formative years and since, it has been a matter of surprise and of considerable admiration that there has not been more friction between the Authority on the one hand and the Contractors on the other. No Government can possibly afford to throw over a body which has so happily and successfully carried out its difficult task.

My conviction is that whatever the Pilkington Committee may recommend about alternative or competitive programmes or any other of the many subjects to which they are devoting so much lime and attention, two steps are certain:—

1. The Independent Television Authority will be given a new lease of life.
2. The existing programme contractors will continue to provide television programmes.

SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

The subsidiary companies this year have made a considerably increased contribution to the group profit and we are confident that this trend will continue.

The TV Times, owned by our subsidiary TV Publications Ltd., now publishes a Border Edition containing the programmes of Border Television Ltd., the new Independent Television programme company which commenced transmissions at the beginning of this month. Arrangements have also been made for the publication of a Grampian Edition to cover the programmes of Grampian Television Ltd., which is to commence transmissions very shortly.

We now hold all the ordinary capital, and all but an insignificant amount of the preference capital, of Wembley Stadium Ltd. The Board of that company has, during the past year, given very considerable thought to future development with a view to enhancing the world-wide reputation of the Stadium and Pool as first-class sporting and entertainment centres.

Plans for a 48-lane bowling alley, with the most modern restaurant and other necessary amenities, are now far advanced, and the project will be proceeded with as soon as possible.

Another interesting development is the recent acquisition by Wembley Stadium Ltd. of a 25% interest in Wembley Trust, Ltd., similar interests having been acquired by Allnatt (London) Ltd., Central and District Properties Ltd. and Warnford Investments Ltd. The Wembley Trust Company owns valuable properties on some 15 acres of land adjoining the Stadium grounds. It is too early for me at this stage to do more than report the acquisition.

MANAGEMENT AND STAFF

I have already paid tribute to our programme planning and production staff. You will, I know, wish me to express grateful thanks to all those who work for you, for their enormous contribution to the success of Associated-Rediffusion.”

The Report and Accounts were unanimously adopted.

The post What is the future of ASSOCIATED-REDIFFUSION? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

“A result of the developments in Independent Television since we last met is that this will be our last Annual General Meeting as an independent television programme company. In February of this year the Independent Television Authority invited applications for new programme contracts to take effect after the expiry of the existing contracts on 29th July, 1968. The Authority had decided to make certain changes in the general pattern of the contracts for the three major independent television areas known as the London, Midland and Northern areas, each of which has since the beginning been served by two contractors, one on the five weekdays and one at the weekends. Under the new pattern, only the London area will be served by two contractors, with the weekday contractor’s responsibility ending at 7 p.m. on Fridays, when the weekend contractor will take over.

The London weekday contract has been held by your company and its predecessor, Associated-Rediffusion, since the inception of independent television and we confidently applied for renewal. The Authority decided against us, however, and offered the new contract conditionally to a new programme company to be formed jointly by your company and ABC Television Limited, currently the weekend contractor for the Midland and Northern areas. The Authority’s decision not to renew our contract was a great shock and wholly unexpected. It affected not only you as shareholders but some 1,350 of your employees, whose lives and careers were sadly and cruelly upset.

We had assumed that a statement by the Postmaster General, made when the Television Bill, now embodied in the Television Act, 1964, was being debated in the House of Commons, meant what it said. The Postmaster General’s precise words as recorded in Hansard were as follows: —

‘Meanwhile, I hope that the House will remember that the risk of non-renewal of a contract is very slight unless the company has completely failed to make the grade.’

Your Board took the view that we had not ‘completely failed’ and would not ‘completely fail to make the grade’ and I must add that we had not at any time been given any indication that the Authority took a different view; accordingly we proceeded to prepare for the future by increasing the staff and undertaking large scale capital expenditure commitments to convert our operation for colour and the new 625 line standard. As shareholders, however, you will naturally ask the question ‘have we completely failed to make the grade?’ This question is, I think, best answered, not by an expression of my own opinion, but by facts and by tributes from outside the Company.

The facts may be briefly summarised as follows. Rediffusion, in company with Associated Television and with the valued support of Sir Kenneth Clark, the first Chairman of the I.T.A., and Sir Robert Fraser, the I.T.A. Director-General, was responsible for building up independent television from nothing, through serious initial trials and tribulations, into a first class public service. Rediffusion, in the difficult pioneering days, introduced the first regular television service for schools in this country and has since been the leader in that field. Rediffusion took the initiative in forming the International Television Federation, an association of major television organisations in the English speaking world for the production, exchange and distribution throughout the world of high class documentary programmes on world problems. Rediffusion has always played a leading part in the independent television network, providing the central production services and key staff for state occasions and other national events and its general programme contribution to the network has not been surpassed by any other company. Rediffusion has won over 40 awards in international and national competitions for its programmes and publications in every field of broadcasting activity. The list of ITV Awards in the I.T.A. 1968 Year Book, covering the years 1956 to 1967, records that Rediffusion has won more awards than any other programme company. This surely cannot be a company which has ‘completely failed to make the grade.’

But let me now offer you a selection of tributes from outside on the Company generally and on its programmes, including some from the I.T.A. itself.

From ‘The Observer’ –

‘Rediffusion is the most BBC-like of the companies, full of people who really know and care about TV.’

From the ‘Television Mail’ –

‘But – though perhaps it’s a bit early for tributes and similar goo – it does seem appropriate at this time just to say how much, in our opinion, A-R, together with the other pioneers, has contributed to this vast industry. It took some courage, in those days, to hang on and keep a brave face while watching all those millions of pounds pouring out of the window; A-R at one stage not only lost nearly £4 million, as well as its original partner. Associated Newspapers. But the original management’s faith in commercial television eventually paid off, and many of the later entrants into ITV were able to take advantage of the spadework -and the risks – undertaken by A-R in the very early days.

And since that time the company’s record has been pretty impressive. It has been associated with Intertel, ‘This Week’, Studio 5 at Wembley, E-Cam, and many other advances in the technical and creative fields. Sure, it’s had its failures, too; but at least it’s been man enough to admit them; last year’s balance sheet includes some thousands of pounds written off in untransmitted programmes (some people would have transmitted them).

On the sales side, too, A-R has done a great deal for the advertising world. At the time of the announcement of the new contracts, it was installing a computer timebooking system; and many initiatives in the time sales field have been taken by the company.’

On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of Rediffusion’s ‘This Week’, the then Chairman of the I.T.A., Lord Hill of Luton, wrote –

‘For a decade ‘This Week’ has been a regular illustration of Independent Television’s determination to provide a well-balanced service. ‘This Week’ has faithfully provided information, educational and not seldom entertaining material about the contemporary world with unfailing skill and imagination. Its ingenious methods of presentation have consistently made sense of complex current issues without distortion, over-simplification or playing down to the audience.’

On the same occasion, the Prime Minister wrote –

‘A pioneer in this field has been ‘This Week’. Its integrity is undoubted, its professionalism obvious. I congratulate its producers and all who play a part in its presentation.’

The Leader of the Opposition wrote –

‘Television has been largely responsible for stimulating the public appetite in this respect. During the past 10 years, ‘This Week’ has played a notable part in providing commentary news headlines.’

I have already referred to our initiative in the formation of The International Television Federation and I think our standing in the principal English-speaking countries overseas is well illustrated by the following extract from a citation recently presented to us by our fellow-members of the Federation. It is as follows:—

‘Intertel, at the eighth annual meeting, accepts with profound regret the resignation of Rediffusion Television Limited and gratefully acknowledges its wise leadership and generous contributions to the common effort.

(Signed) T. S. Duckmanton, The Australian Broadcasting Commission
Eugene S. Hallman, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
John F. White, National Educational Television (USA)
MALTA, September 30th, 1967.’

May I now give you a few extracts from the I.T.A’s own Year Books about Rediffusion programmes?

1963 ‘If this gradual and intelligible introduction to television on behalf of children could be achieved, no better start could be made than with ‘Small Time’, a short programme appearing from Monday to Friday between 4.45 p.m. and 5 p.m. on most stations of Independent Television.’

‘In the winter of 1960-61, Associated-Rediffusion transmitted a French language series ‘Chez les Dupre’ in the early evening and found an immediate and substantial response among viewers in the London area.’

‘The play should speak to the condition of a television service. In so far as it does so, in the case of Independent Television, it reveals it to be in good heart. Each of the four largest companies (A-R, ATV, Granada and ABC) has made and continues to make, serious contributions to television drama . . .’

1964 ‘Nevertheless, the serials have been very good in recent months . .. ‘Sierra Nine’ and ‘Smuggler’s Cove’ from Associated-Rediffusion, all accurately described as adventure serials, with children taking the major parts.’

‘Melodrama, which may cover all other kinds of fictional series, is entertaining enough to deserve its considerable place in television. Lively who-done-its such as ‘No Hiding Place’ … are the essence of quick-moving, intelligently planned entertainment.’

1965 ‘To take one example alone, the much acclaimed production by Rediffusion of Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in June, 1964 was seen by almost 4,000,000 viewers.’

‘Rediffusion has launched ‘Towards 2000’ a major series on the development of technology . . .’ ‘These are essentially action stories rather than plays of ideas, and they include some very popular programmes such as ‘No Hiding Place’ and ‘Crane’ (Rediffusion) . . .’

“‘Double Your Money’ and ‘Take Your Pick’ (Rediffusion) have been running as long as Independent Television itself and continue to be enjoyed by vast audiences.’

1966 ‘A notable programme seen throughout the country was ‘The Music Man’ (Rediffusion) . . .’

1967 ‘Although it was first felt that television’s chief contribution would be to the work of the secondary school, its potential value to primary schools was recognised as early as 1959 when Rediffusion produced ‘The World Around Us’.’

Finally, a selection of press comments on individual programmes:—

‘Laudes Evangelii’ (two quotes from the American press)

‘A magnificent harbinger of the many productions on religious themes that this season of the year will be bringing to our television screens. Some may be as good as this one but I hardly see how any could be better.’

‘Leonide Massine’s Laudes Evangelii surely will stand as one of television’s lasting accomplishments, a work of breathtaking reverence and beauty that has enriched the home screen as much as any single programme in recent years.’

‘Design for Living’

‘. . . beautifully simple, it revives one’s faith in the use of television.’

‘This Week’

‘. . . report on South Vietnam and the round-up of the modern Israeli Army were both prize-winning pieces of TV journalism.’

‘Children of Revolution’

‘. . . television at its best.’

‘No Hiding Place’ – ‘A Bottle Full of Sixpences’

‘Lord Hill of ITA must be plaintively asking himself why the rest of the boys can’t make programmes as wholesome and morally sound as the sentimental homily we got last night in London.’

‘One In Every Hundred’

‘A compulsive and socially valuable use of the television screen.’

‘Dare I Weep, Dare I Mourn’

‘It is clearly obvious that ITV is capable of producing such first-class material as Rediffusion’s James Mason Film ‘Dare I Weep, Dare I Mourn.’

‘Seven Deadly Virtues’ – ‘The Good and Faithful Servant’

‘This was a play that put some life back into my loss of faith in ITV drama.’

‘This Week’ – ‘The World of Nigel Hunt’

‘This kind of television, lightening superstitious corners of human prejudice, is high among TV’s most worthwhile achievements.’

It is common knowledge that not all comments about the Company and its programmes have been in the same vein as those I have quoted to you. But whatever adverse comment there may have been, such comments as I have quoted surely could not apply to a company which had ‘completely failed to make the grade.’

Small wonder is it, therefore, that your directors, management and staff are at a loss to understand the Authority’s decision. Even that decision cannot destroy our pride in our achievements over the past 12 years.

The Authority did, however, offer us an opportunity, on the conditions that we completely sacrifice our identity and any control over the development of independent television, to acquire a 50 per cent financial stake, but no effective say, in a new company, to be formed in partnership with ABC Television, to serve the population of the London area for a little over four days a week instead of the five days for which we shall alone have been responsible for the 13 years up to 29th July, 1968.

You will have seen from the Directors’ Report that arrangements for the formation of a new company have been agreed between the Company and ABC Television and approved by the Authority. The establishment of a joint company in such circumstances is a very complex matter; when all the necessary matters of detail have been settled, you will be informed of the overall position.

We shall in future have a 50 per cent stake (but a minority of the voting shares) in an operation covering four days plus part of a day in place of our present exclusive five day operation. In effect, we shall have been reduced from five day operation to marginally more than two day operation. Nevertheless, we have always had the most friendly relations with ABC Television and we shall certainly do everything we can, as I am sure will ABC Television also, to make the new company an outstanding success.

Whatever reasons Lord Hill of Luton (whose appointment to the Chairmanship of our competitors, the B.B.C., had, according to press reports, been decided months earlier) and his part-time colleagues of the I.T.A. may have had for crossing our name off the list of effective contributors to independent television, I and my colleagues on the Board will remain forever grateful to the men and women who built up Rediffusion Television with so much devoted skill, energy and enthusiasm. We believe they have done a magnificent job of work. Although the Company is under sentence of death, every valiant effort is being made, in spite of the obvious difficulties, to keep our flag flying right up to the end.”

The post Sentenced to death appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

THAT was a decade that was. That was a decade that was…

Oh, put the emphasis where you like. The fact remains that all of us who were there on the night when Rediffusion and ITV first flickered on to the screen are now 10 – no, 11 – years older.

I’ve changed. How about you?

Rediffusion has certainly altered. For a start it is no longer ‘Associated’.

Incidentally, dear editor, it would be interesting to find out just how many people at present on the pay-roll were with the company on Night One (still known to some as the night they invented champagne).

The answer is 252 – Editor.

From my own memory book I recall Sally Sutherland, Red Lyle, Dennis Atherton, Richard Hawkins, and the late Hugh Finlay – all part of the Press Office over the years.

Where the nostalgia really hit me was at the ITA’s white-tie Guildhall banquet when 10 glorious years and all that were celebrated.

It might have been the wine and brandy but sitting there under the stony stare of Gog and Magog I suddenly realised that 10 years (and part of a hair line) had vanished since I was in almost the same seat for ITV’s curtain-up.

The instant reaction was to check for ‘old familiar faces’ along the tables around me. Of 40 or so TV ‘professionals’ within range only four, perhaps five, had been there back in ’55.

Now I know how Greybeard felt. If my memory is right was Lord Hill, now ITA chairman, at that September 22, 1955, dinner as Postmaster-General?

And at that time didn’t ABC TV consist of just Howard Thomas and a secretary?

Before quitting that particular celebration I wonder if the champagne would have flowed so freely had it been known that within one year Rediffusion would be over £3 million down?

By the way, hasn’t that been perhaps the most important change of all – turning those colossal losses of the early years into a profit?

As a privileged spectator seeing much of the game from close quarters it seems to me that Rediffusion’s development has been in three stages.

The first, naturally, was that somewhat daffy unreal period when the newly recruited army worked excitedly to get the company on the air and keep it there.

Forgive me if there is an overlap for so many shows have been crammed into the decade, but those were the days of Gordon Harker and ‘Sixpenny Corner’. Of Ralph Reader’s ‘Chance Of A Lifetime’.

The weekly sports magazine. The Granville Melodramas. And of Sgt ‘I Only Want The Facts, Mam’ Webb and ‘Dragnet’.

Wasn’t there a freakish series called ‘You’ve Never Seen This’? Book reviews in the morning. Sheila Matthews as Friday’s Girl. Wasn’t this, too, the Jack Hylton variety era… the names which occur being Arthur Askey, Tony Hancock (he once did a one-man show in an emergency), Rosalina Neri, Bryan Michie, Ivor Emmanuel, the Crazy Gang and the Water Rats?

Roland Gillett was the programme controller, Lloyd Williams was on the production staff, and the whole period was like the froth on top of a pint.

The second stage was marked by the appointment of Paul Adorian as managing director and John McMillan as programme controller.

Now the workaday face and output of the company was being established. On went the old originals in ‘Take Your Pick’ and ‘Double Your Money’.

But morning TV disappeared. Much of the early pioneering excitement went with it. And the staff settled down to a more orderly existence.

Schools programmes started – remember Enid Love? Was it in this spell or even earlier that we had those Michael Ingrams’ series? How about those Goonish shows like ‘A Show Called Fred’, ‘Son of Fred’, and ‘Idiots’ Weekly’? Not only Sellers, but Milligan, too.

The work of putting in the foundations went on continuously.

‘Cool For Cats’ caught popular fancy and brought Joan Kemp-Welch’s name to the forefront. ‘This Week’ was going strong. Somewhere around this point Cyril Bennett and Elkan Allan began contributing to the company’s fortunes.

Peter Cotes is one more name I associate with this sector of Rediffusion’s fortune. And was I alone in liking America’s ‘Johnny Staccato’ jazz-thriller series?

I went down the Thames on one Rediffusion birthday party – and across to Paris for another. That was the day that George Sanders, then working on a special programme called ‘Women In Love’, helped to play host. Although only a voyage down the Seine, Captain Tom Brownrigg was also on hand.

So we had ‘No Hiding Place’ and ‘Intertel’, ‘Wagon Train’ and ‘Rawhide’. But where was Tig Roe? Whither Alan Morris? Goodbye Kingsway Corner.

Out went advertising magazines. Out went ‘Jim’s Inn’ – after setting the standard for all shows of this type. But in came the many successful Pinter plays.

The most successful, of course, being ‘The Lover’, with Alan Badel and Vivien Merchant. It must have won almost every award possible… actor, actress, author and director. Surely Rediffusion’s most successful production in all those 11 years?

Just as the TV scene was growing contentedly sedate on came ‘Ready, Steady, Go!’ to give half the nation convulsions and the other half blood pressure.

Visiting the ‘RSG’ studio at TV House brought back all the din of 1955 and that drilling year when Adastral House was being converted.

By now Rediffusion was part of life. Dan Farson, always prominent in company affairs on the screen (his ‘Time Gentlemen, Please’ show was not only entered at Montreux but must have been responsible for the introduction of ‘Stars and Garters’), was a notable departure.

But phase two was drawing to a close too. On went John McMillan to general manager and in came Cyril Bennett as the new programme controller.

This is now part of the latest story… come in David Frost, Stella Richman, Benny Green, ‘Three After Six’, ‘The Rat Catchers’, and David Jacobs.

Pausing only to nod a farewell to Buddy Bregman and a friendly greeting to Europe’s favourite TV ‘uncle’ Eric Maschwitz, it scarcely seems credible that Monica Rose was hardly walking when ‘Double Your Money’ was first televised.

Yes, you’ve changed all right. Some more memory jogs… Stuart Hood, that ‘Arabian Nights’ opening for Wembley Studios, ‘Hippodrome’ in colour, the American deal with David Susskind, ‘Dial M For Music’, ‘Alfred Marks Time’, Keith Fordyce, Groucho Marx, Dickie Henderson, and on, and on.

It’s been a long time. Perhaps after all it should be that was a decade that was? What’s more Gog and Magog are still waiting.

The post That was the decade that was appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

There’s been a lot of talk about computers over the past year. And now the monster’s actually crept in. Been here some months in fact, purring quietly to itself in a remote corner of the second floor. It’s contained in a clinical and rather colourless cage: all impressively sinister and workmanlike. Students may observe the operation behind a glass-walled recess in the entrance corridor. In their air-conditioned, de-humidified atmosphere, the chaps on the other side look very much like us. In fact, some of them were ‘us’ but a short time ago.

So far there is nothing much different about this, nothing startlingly new, compared with the small to medium units (‘configurations’ as the boys call them) in a hundred and one other companies.

Having got your computer, the secret lies in what you want to tell it to do and the sorts of ‘reflexes’ you give it to do the work. Here, we are unique. Some of the reflexes – in the form of ‘programs’ – have now been installed and a mass of nerves tremble up to the third floor back, their ends waiting to be excited by the sensitive fingers of the teleprinter operators in the sales department. Then the system leaps into action, and we have the first ‘real time’ television time-booking facility in the U.K.

That is to say, we have a system which can give an immediate answer to inquiries for booking commercials into our broadcast programmes (note the subtlety of the spelling here – the computer ‘program’ is Americanised and shorn of ‘me’).

Why this should be an asset is something that our management debated at great length when the whole concept was investigated a year or more ago. Unless one has had experience of a complex booking system, it is difficult to appreciate why an expensive piece of electronic equipment is required to do the sort of job we are all used to seeing done fairly efficiently by a number of people.

Our booking system has to cope with up to 60,000-odd different items at any one time. These would cover two years’ worth of bookings. Most often we are concerned with ‘the next three months’ involving around 8,000 items. Each of these items may itself involve a great deal of attention, perhaps amounting to five or six booking amendments before it settles in one place for actual transmission. On average each booking involves five changes or ‘transactions’ – in computer terms. This means that our 8,000 items involve 40,000 transactions before each booking is comfortably settled for transmission.

The clerical effort involved in this is tremendous and, frequently, time consuming. Since the work has to be done by staff with a considerable understanding of advertising, with imagination and initiative, it can cause frustration and fatigue and, possibly, errors. Delays and mistakes, are not a good foundation for successful selling.

This is where the computer is helping initially. All the difficulties in making a booking and all the reasons for moving a booking around are built into the computer through programs. When one of these programs is activated by working a teleprinter then the computer does all the hard work and, on demand, prints back the result through the medium of the same teleprinter.

There are a prodigious number of reasons for making a change in a booking and not all these can immediately be written up in computer program terms. Initially, we worked the computer system alongside the more laborious old method, in parallel running. This is what we are doing now and in this period we expect to find certain refinements lacking in the computer system. Some of these shortcomings can be dealt with immediately, others may take a week or several weeks while another ‘program’ is written.

We (the computer section, as well as the sales department) have discovered plenty of snags. Wits have been strained and imaginations stretched to overcome the problems. Right now we are all doing rather well.

By the new year, we hope to have dropped our arduous ways and be operating wholly through the computer. The immediacy of the computer system will enable complicated bookings to be quickly resolved and, most importantly, a quick confirmation or an acceptable answer given to the advertising agents and clients to whom we sell our time.

This is only the beginning. There are still many refinements required to the system to perfect the concept of service to the buyer. Beyond that there are a multitude of internal problems which the computer must assimilate if it is going to earn its keep – the payroll is one significant item.

The future for the computer’s use in the sales department is almost boundless. Clearly, we shall have an opportunity to analyse our time and our time sales as never before. This related to research information from many sources, will provide us with a very strong aid to sales and help ensure the company’s future success.

The post Computer suite – no admittance appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

At the time, Rediffusion had got into the habit of inviting all the companies in turn to lunch and, in spite of the row going on, it came round to Southern’s turn. When Rediffusion asked how many of our board would be turning up, they were rather horrified to find the number of members we’d be bringing, because it meant they’d have to elongate their reproduction Regency dining-room table. However, they got their scenery department to make an extra leaf to go in and managed to accommodate us all.

The table was superbly laid when we arrived, with beautiful candelabra and heavy glasses, heavy everything, but the lunch was not a happy occasion – lots of acrimony developing and sparks flying. Over coffee, our Graham Dowson and a member of the Rediffusion board were having one hell of an argument on their own. Both of them were big heavy men and they were sitting opposite each other, leaning hard on the table.

By chance it happened to be at the place where the new leaf had been inserted and suddenly there was a tremendous crash. The new leaf split right the way across and a large candelabra went through the gaping hole onto the floor. Whereupon, the rest of the tablecloth from both sides was pulled in by the weight, and everybody’s glasses, coffee-cups and plates disappeared down it, leaving an empty table.

There was a stunned silence. Then, purple with rage, their Chairman, John Spencer Wills, looked across at our Chairman, John Davis, and said, “You not only won’t pay for our programmes, but you come here and smash up our furniture!”

At which, I leapt to my feet in defence and said, “This example of Rediffusion workmanship is why we won’t pay for your programmes.”

The post Turning under a new leaf appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

When broadcasting first began in earnest in the UK in 1922, BET soon realised that they had a complete wired network of cables that passed a significant number of homes in the larger industrial towns. Those home that they didn’t pass by were very close and easy to reach. And radio reception – thanks to very low-power broadcasts and crystal-based, home-made ‘cat’s whisker’ radio sets – was a touch and go business.

If a company were to pick up, off-air but with large, well-tuned and expertly directed aerials, the signals from the then British Broadcasting Company, and provide them directly to a loudspeaker in the front room of a well-off household, they could easily replace the headphones-and-drifting-tuning that bedevilled early radio.

If that company already had a complete electricity distribution system to hand, they could run additional ‘cable radio’ wires between the same poles in the street as the overhead wires for the trams used, and even, ultimately, carry the radio signals via AC (Alternating Current) through the same cables as the DC (Direct Current) power to the trams was supplied. They could access a ready-made market of potential listeners-in who wanted radio entertainment – if only it were affordable and non-technical. That company could then charge a few shillings a month (or less), and, with little capital expenditure, make a fortune from the public’s interest in the new medium.

BET was the company to do it, and while they initially called their offspring, formed in March 1928, Broadcast Relay Service Ltd, it soon became known as ‘Rediffusion’ – literally meaning ‘broadcasting again’.

Rediffusion was almost immediately profitable. The company soon branched out from simply ‘re-diffusing’ radio, into the manufacture of radio sets. From there, the sale and hire of sets in the High Street followed.

As broadcasting opened up in the Dominions, Rediffusion was hot on its heels, using the tram wires, or bespoke ‘pipe radio’ systems, to provide the new Dominion broadcasting stations to the cities, as well as the new BBC Empire Service (now BBC World Service Radio).

When the BBC began the first regularly scheduled high-definition television service in the world in the mid-1930s, Rediffusion was again well-placed to provide television sets for sale and rent, plus a ‘pipe-TV’ service to those not well-placed for broadcasts from Alexandra Palace, or reluctant to have such a gauche symbol as a VHF TV aerial on their roofs.

World War II interrupted television, the growth of wired distribution, and much of the peacetime activities of both BET and Rediffusion. For the duration, the whole of the Empire was put ‘on hold’ and all energy devoted to the war effort. For Rediffusion, this meant their expertise in reception and rebroadcasting suddenly became, not a diversion for the middle classes, but of essential national importance.

Rediffusion had a wealth of knowledge that the Allies – and especially the UK, ‘standing alone’ – needed. From broadcasting (for radar) to cathode ray tubes (for radar). From cables (for troop communications and radar) to reception sets (for monitoring communications of friend and foe, and radar). To this day, several elements of what Rediffusion did during the war are held under the Hundred Years Rule (that means it will be late 2045 before we know exactly what they were). So even today, we don’t know exactly what Rediffusion did in the war against Fascism – though we can probably guess.

Immediately post-War, the world changed dramatically. BET was included, with some justification, in the list of companies the new Labour government planned to nationalise. The tram systems started to disappear too, partially because the necessary nationalisation of the electricity companies meant that the old local generators became part of the new Central Electricity Board. The councils who ran the trams had to pay for the electricity, and coupled with war-delayed refurbishment of the systems, it was cheaper and easier to shut them down and replace them with bus services.

Within a decade of the end of the war, nearly all of the trams – and all of the services in the industrialised areas – had gone.

BET, however, survived without being nationalised, due largely to Labour losing power at the end of 1951, despite getting more votes than it achieved in 1945, because of the UK’s antiquated electoral system.

BET and Rediffusion, in an effort to avoid nationalisation, had started to diversify even further than before, especially overseas. With the Dominions gone, they repeated previous successes by starting Overseas Rediffusion, offering wired television and radio, and later over-the-air broadcasting stations in the remaining colonies. Soon, places as diverse as Barbados and Hong Kong had, respectively, Rediffusion Radio and Rediffusion TV in operation – one broadcast, the other wired. So when a commercial television service to rival the existing non-commercial BBC Television Service was first mooted by the incoming Conservative administration, BET and Rediffusion were immediately on the scene. They sought to run the entire operation – or, failing that, they would be happy with having the franchise for London.

When the first contracts were awarded in 1954, they were given London weekdays, sharing a frequency with a rival company who were given Saturday and Sunday. To a degree, a modified version of this system still exists in London to this day.

BET and Rediffusion were reluctant to take on the full risks of this venture – just in case – so they split 50% of the company equally between them and took on partners for the other half, in the form of Associated Newspapers, publishers of the British arch-right-wing Daily Mail newspaper to this day.

On Thursday 22 September 1955, Associated-Rediffusion (A-R) took to the air in London.

It was an immediate disaster. Both Associated-Rediffusion and weekend rivals ATV (though they started life calling themselves ABC until an injunction from the cinema chain and putative commercial television contractor of the same name put paid to the initials) lost money on Day One.

By the end of the first week of broadcasting, the loss of money had turned into a haemorrhage.

By the end of the first month, the loss of money was such that a man shovelling fifty-pound notes on to a fire could scarcely have kept up.

By the start of 1956, ATV was going under and Associated-Rediffusion, fearful that it would be asked to provide programmes on the weekend as well, started to prop themselves up in various ways.

By early 1956, ATV had spread to the Midlands and the next contractor, ABC (owners of the cinema chain of the same name) was providing the weekends from the Birmingham transmitter whilst the London weekend company provided the weekdays. New entrant ABC immediately began to lose money.

By mid-1956, Granada in the nominal north of England had arrived on weekdays, with ABC again on weekends. And whilst ABC’s parent company, the Associated British Picture Corporation (ABPC), had pretty deep pockets, Granada did not. Granada had 35 cinemas in the south east and no film-making production base to rely on (ABPC also had a large investment from Warner Brothers to help). So Granada signed a deal with Associated-Rediffusion that was against both the wording and the spirit of the 1954 Television Act.

But the deal allowed Granada to feel secure and gave Associated-Rediffusion an important source of networked programming. The deal meant that A-R guaranteed that Granada wouldn’t make a loss – but that Granada’s profits were, effectively, to be Associated-Rediffusion’s property.

At this point, no one was making a profit. But BET had very deep pockets, and was more than willing to gamble them away on British commercial television.

By the end of 1956, Associated Newspapers were desperate to leave and paid BET and Rediffusion to buy the majority of the shares back, leaving only a 10% holding.

The corner was turned in 1957-58. From that point, A-R, ATV and ABC all began to make greater and greater profits every year – more money than they knew what to do with, in fact. Poor Granada was left breaking just over even until the 1960s, thanks to their justified timidity and Associated-Rediffusion’s unjustified boldness.

But Associated-Rediffusion’s success would be its ultimate downfall.

The licences to broadcast in the UK were not permanent. Every few years they were put up for review. In 1963, A-R swaggered into their interview and swaggered out again – justifiably feeling themselves to be the king of ITV.

But they offended the man in charge of the review, Lord (Charles) Hill of Luton, the man who, as Postmaster-General in 1955, had given birth to ITV in the first place and was now the head of the independent regulator, the Independent Television Authority. He was unable to act under a Conservative government (despite being a Tory himself). But by 1967, he was acting under the auspices of Labour, returned to power in 1964 for the first time since 1951. Labour wanted ITV controlled and disciplined; Hill wanted ITV to obey the Authority.

So when Rediffusion London – the name that Associated-Rediffusion had taken in 1964, finally recognising that Associated (Newspapers) were no longer significant shareholders – swaggered into the interview again and swaggered out again, Hill took action. In December 1967 he announced that, from July 1968, Rediffusion London would be merged with ABC in the north and midlands. Rediffusion London’s contract would be given to the new company, of which ABC would hold 51% – despite being far smaller, both on the network and in terms of profits and parent size, than Rediffusion.

In July 1968, Thames Television – essentially ABC plus the bits of Rediffusion that ABC wanted – was born.

On weekends, a new company calling itself London Weekend was born, with LWT being made up largely of former Rediffusion staff with a sprinkling of ex-ABC. In Yorkshire, former ABC staff helped create Yorkshire Television (YTV) with a sprinkling of ex-Rediffusion personnel.

Rediffusion Television Limited continued to exist as a separate entity (as did the Rediffusion rental chain, Rediffusion Cable systems and Overseas Rediffusion). Their last real production for British television was The Life and Times of Lord Louis Mountbatten, shown in the UK as a Thames presentation, and as a Rediffusion Television production.

Thames itself was removed from ITV at the end of 1992 on the orders of the then-government, though it retains its programme production capability and is now part of what was Radio Luxembourg (later RTL, then CLT, now Fremantle Media).

Having lost the creative side of their business, Rediffusion and BET were left with a 49% investment in the major ITV franchise, plus the other areas into which they had diversified.

These included air conditioning, office management, waste disposal (Biffa), background music (Reditune, the second largest company of its type in the world), telecommunications (Redifon), burglar alarms (Shorrock), aircraft flight simulators , bespoke CCTV systems, Rediffusion International Music, and of course the television rental arm, and local wired systems; and a whole host of things that – by a great stretch of the imagination – could be considered part of ‘broadcasting’ as an industry. Their 1975 slogan was “we know TV inside out”.

But the world was about to change – again.

Whilst companies with a lot of minority interests in many industries had been fashionable in the 1970s – walking Unit Trusts, really – by the 1980s, the financial markets wanted companies to specialise. Any company with a lot of fingers in a lot of pies was seen to be ripe for takeover by a venture capitalist who would sell off everything other than the ‘core business’, then sell off the asset-stripped remainder of the business for a profit.

Ironically, the pendulum has swung back now, and companies are encouraged to diversify into anything related – unless they are ‘underperforming’, in which case they should do the opposite. But in the 1980s, cash was king, and BET and Rediffusion owned a lot of cash, but controlled comparatively little.

The venture capitalists – like vultures – started to circle.

BET began immediately to sell off the ‘non-core activities’. Rediffusion Hong Kong and Rediffusion Singapore were sold to the local governments or their agents. Rediffusion Rentals disappeared from all but the High Streets of the Channel Islands (and soon not even there), and Rediffusion Television’s stake in Thames Television was floated. Soon, everything had gone except for what BET perceived as their new core market: Facilities Management. They were poised to ride the boom of commerce that transformed the UK in the late 1980s.

And then the Tories managed to burst their own false boom, bringing rapid recession to the entire economy. The new market that BET had hoped to tap burst at the same time as companies retrenched and the trend for ‘outsourcing’ rapidly disintegrated (it would return a decade later with renewed force). BET was left cash rich from the sell-offs, but without a market to appeal to – it was ripe for a takeover.

The company tried mergers and takeovers of its own, coupled with rebrands and refocusing. But the share price remained in the doldrums – the company, put simply, was unfashionable. It wound up as nothing really more than a contract facilities company – cleaners for offices, in other words – under the name ‘Initial’.

Under that name, the smaller but more fashionable Rentokil, best known for the extermination of rats and insects in homes and offices, made a bid – and Initial succumbed. The new company was called InitialRentokil and continued to use the Rediffusion Adastral. Eventually, it became Rentokil Initial with a new logo, and is set to become simply Rentokil shortly.

And there, perhaps, would end the story… but not quite.

Because the tram, the maker of BET’s fortune and so long unfashionable in the UK, is now on its way back. Already south London, Manchester and Sheffield have well-developed tram systems. Birmingham’s is now open. Newcastle/Gateshead is growing along disused and ceded British Railways lines. Leeds is next to put trams back on the old BET routes. Birkenhead and then Liverpool will follow, with European Union money already allocated.

Rediffusion Television, so long forgotten – or at least dismissed because of the hour a day of (remembered) popular shows they transmitted to fund more, now forgotten, hours of quality programming – is now the darling of the British Film Institute, with the BFI actively seeking lost Rediffusion and Associated-Rediffusion programming. The name of the 40-year-old organisation behind this web site “Transdiffusion” is at least in part a tribute to that television company. And most recently, television producer and critic Victor Lewis-Smith has secured the use of the name Associated-Rediffusion Television Productions for his production company, along with the signature adastral, so the familiar A-R endcaps are visible once again at the close of fine and varied television programming, as they were almost fifty years ago.

British Electric Traction, Rediffusion and their associated companies over a century deserved to be remembered and the facts known. Rediffusion and its employees were part of an organisation that helped make domestic transport easy for working people; helped pioneer popular mass entertainment; helped win World War II; helped bring information, entertainment and enlightenment to the UK, the Dominions, the Colonies and the Commonwealth for over 50 years; and produced some of the best television programmes and popularised some of the best music the world has ever known.

For that, former employees can be proud of Rediffusion and its familiar star.

The post A short history appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The first to go was Wales (West and North) Television, falling into bankruptcy and being taken over by its neighbour TWW. They were next to go, famously losing their contract in 1967 and flouncing out of ITV in March 1968. They had many investments – from theatres to opticians – and were offered a 40% slice of their successor, but declined both the Harlech investment and continuing in business, selling themselves off and ceasing to exist before the decade was out.

Next out were Westward and Southern. The Independent Broadcasting Authority saw to it that they exited quickly and quietly by requiring their successors, Television South West and Television South respectively, to buy the remains of the companies.

Television South West was next to go, and it committed corporate suicide via a reverse takeover – a company in an unrelated business lent TSW the money to buy them, then took over their stock market listing and renamed TSW to their own name. Even this didn’t last, the company falling into administration some years later.

Television South had famously over-extended itself by buying the American MTM Enterprises and was bought for a song by televangelist Pat Robertson; from there the company was sold to Fox and later Disney.

Thames Television’s afterlife is well known. Its “Plan B” for the almost certain loss of its franchise was to convert to being an independent production company. After much shifting ownership, the name still survives as producer of The X-Factor, although the constituent parts of the original Thames, the studios at Teddington and Euston Road and so forth, have long been sold off separately.

For ABC and Rediffusion, things are slightly different. While they were notionally “merged” to form Thames in 1968, in reality both companies did have something of an afterlife. ABC’s main afterlife was Thames itself – the company was clearly ABC under a new name. ABC’s parent, the Associated British Picture Corporation, would later be bought by EMI and turned into EMI Films.

Rediffusion was a joint venture between British Electric Traction (BET) and BET’s subsidiary Broadcast Relay Services. The BET conglomerate was huge, with interests in laundries, construction companies, plant hire, printing, flight simulators, record publishing, waste disposal and washroom facilities. They saw no need to get out of the television business. With interests in wired broadcasting relay (early cable) and international broadcasting from Barbados to Hong Kong, they could continue to operate even without their UK outlet.

One of the assets they held was a giant collection of film and early video programming. There was, at the time of this advert in 1976, thought to be no market for such black-and-white repeats. Nevertheless, Rediffusion Television Limited held on, ready and waiting for the chance to become a UK broadcaster again.

It never happened.

The post Afterlife appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The Authority’s station on South Norwood Hill near Croydon serves 13.5 million people in the London area, nearly a quarter of the population of the United Kingdom.

The London area is relatively flat except for the North Downs some twenty-five miles to the south and the ridge of the Chiltern Hills some thirty miles to the west and north.

Topographically it presents no serious transmission problems; indeed, the difficulty is to find high ground close enough to the centre of London on which to construct a station. The choice rests between the 400ft ridges of Muswell Hill (Alexandra Palace) in North London and Crystal Palace in South-East London. In 1935 the BBC had chosen Alexandra Palace as the site for its original London television station, but twenty years later they moved to a new station at Crystal Palace. In the interests of good planning the Authority decided to locate its first station near this site.

A suitable open space for the construction of a small compact station which could be brought into operation with the least delay was found just a mile away on South Norwood Hill. The single 10kW transmitter, the first Band III set constructed in this country, was a laboratory prototype. The aerial was an experimental 8-stack omni-directional vertically polarized array, supported on a 200ft tower of virtually ‘stock’ design.

The first Independent Television programmes were transmitted from this station on 22nd September 1955. With an effective radiated power (e.r.p.) of 60kW (peak white vision) and 15kW (carrier sound), the potential population coverage was about 11 million. After some months a second fully-engineered production 10kW transmitter was installed as a standby, and a little later further equipment was installed to enable both sets of transmitters to be operated in parallel in order to double the station’s power.

In due course the Croydon station would have to be given a higher tower and a new aerial system with directional characteristics tailored to give the optimum performance. Meanwhile engineering effort was devoted to expanding the ITA network of stations to meet the fast-growing public demand for Independent Television programmes in other parts of the country.

The completion of the BBC’s 640ft high tower at Crystal Palace allayed any fears that the mutual reflection of signals radiated from the two towers just a mile apart might be harmful to reception, and in February 1959 the ITA obtained Government approval to erect a higher tower and directional aerial at the Croydon site.

By the end of 1962 Croydon was transmitting from its slim new 500ft tower and radiating an effective power of about 400kW directed to the north-west, with 50 to 250kW e.r.p. in other directions, the strength of signal being determined by the requirements of topography and the avoidance of co-channel interference with other ITA stations and television services of other countries.

The improved performance of the Croydon station in 1962 extended the ITA’s London area coverage to include a population of 13.5 million (see coverage map).

The Authority is a present considering plans for a new station building and the replacement of the transmitters at Croydon.

About Effective Radiated Power (ERP)

How can a transmitter producing a maximum of 10kW boast an “effective radiated power” of 400kW? Is this ITA’s engineers boasting? No: when a transmitter has a special directional antenna as was the case here, or any antenna which has more gain than a basic half-wave ‘dipole’ aerial, a smaller transmitter can behave like a much more powerful one. So within the service area, the Croydon 10kW vision transmitter gave the same signal strength to a given viewer’s receiver as a 400kW one would have done if it had a basic, non-directional transmitting aerial. A more technical definition: 1. The power supplied to an antenna multiplied by the antenna gain in a given direction. The type of reference antenna must be specified. 2. The product of the power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-wave dipole in a given direction. Note: If the direction is not specified, the direction of maximum gain is assumed.

The post Croydon Transmitter, Channel 9 appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

One thing must be said immediately. In 365 days’ time, Independent Television – if all goes well – will have been with us for a year. So far, it has been with us for a bare hand-count of hours, and although the conclusions are crying to be jumped to, the temptation to jump must be resisted. The broader judgment must wait until the end of the year – or, say, until the middle of next week.

Speaking empirically, then, what wonders did we see last night? The first was a black cross on a white ground which, accompanied by a high-pitched scream, persisted for some minutes. This vanished and was followed by a card bearing the legend. “Opening Night Independent Television Service Channel 9.” Then the familiar tones of Mr. Leslie Mitchell, who nineteen years ago spoke the very same words at the inauguration of the B.B.C. Television Service, declared: “This is London.”

It was indeed. Historic scene succeeded historic scene as Mr. Mitchell, [A mistake here: it was actually Cecil Lewis, A-R’s deputy controller – Ed.] with scarcely a tremor in his voice, intoned a commentary which appeared at times to be in verse (“A new city would have been built, had Wren but had his way”). With a last quick word about the history so far and future of the Independent Television Service, Mr. Mitchell passed us over to Guildhall, where Mr. John Connell was waiting to introduce the guests at the inaugural banquet.

The first guest was Pitt the Younger, looking down from his niche in unmixed astonishment. Pitt was followed by Gog and Magog, and these by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, Lord and Lady Kilmuir, Dr. Charles Hill (Mr. Connell’s voice sank to a reverent whisper), the Bishop of London, Sir Kenneth Clark, and Mr. Norman Collins, looking as if London did indeed, this night, belong to him.

When the guests were met it was the turn of Sir John Barbirolli and the Hallé Orchestra. Sir John, who looked so composed that he could hardly have heard of Sir Thomas Beecham’s exclusive agreement with the Manchester programme contractor, led the Hallé through Elgar’s “Cockaigne” Overture.

Then came the speeches. The Lord Mayor, in admirably clear close-up, looked nervous, spoke up, and sat down within four minutes. Dr. Hill followed him, looking and sounding, as one would expect, pugnacious. “An immensely powerful and ever-growing medium” was what he called television, and insisted that it was here to stay. Adding that man was many-sided, he wished the I.T.A. well and came to an end.

Then it was the turn of Sir Kenneth Clark (his were the first eyes of the evening to look directly into the camera). For Sir Kenneth, too, the picture was wonderfully clear, as he told us that television had a terrifying power for good and evil, paid tribute to Lord De La Warr, and came to a graceful close exactly at the advertised time.

Over now to “Channel 9” for variety, opening with a huge smile from Mr. Jack Jackson, who proceeded to shut Mr. Hughie Green into a soundproof box. On the whole, the variety show which followed was well up (or some would say down) to B.B.C. standards. But the producers clearly believed in stimulating appetites rather than satisfying them. “A smile, a song, and a cigar” was about all some of the artists had time for.

At ten minutes past eight came – and it came as a surprise – the first advertisement of the new service. A charming young lady brushed her teeth, while a charming young gentleman told us of the benefits of the toothpaste with which she was doing it.

Variety came to an end, and it was drama’s turn. Mr. Robert Morley, his startled-goldfish expression well to the fore and his magnificent eyebrows semaphoring vigorously, told us in a few homely words how surprised he was that Independent Television had ever appeared at all. But now it was here he was clearly going to make the best of it. And the best, for this evening at any rate, was to be the proposal and interrogation scenes from The Importance of Being Earnest. (This of course had already been recorded on film, and one watched with interest to see how it compared with the “live” broadcasts we had already watched. It compared very well.)

Sir John Gielgud proposed very charmingly to his Gwendoline (Miss Margaret Leighton), but it was Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell that he was clearly waiting for – and so, indeed, were we. Nor were we disappointed. It is many years since Dame Edith played Lady Bracknell (that film hardly counts), and she was clearly determined to make up for loss of time. She roared her battle-cry – “A handbag?” – like an indignant foghorn telling its mate that it had just been insulted, and the rest of her magnificent performance was pitched in the same key. The film around her, in so far as one was conscious of it, was admirably, indeed beautifully, composed.

It was the boxing that showed us for the first time in the evening the I.T.A. avoiding a major B.B.C. fault. How often we have been infuriated by a description of something we could perfectly well see for ourselves. There is no need to mention names here, except that of Mr. Richard Dimbleby, but anybody who has ever watched, say, a sporting programme on B.B.C. television will be able to add half a dozen. But Mr. Len Harvey and Mr. Tony Van den Bergh confined themselves almost entirely to inter-round summaries – Mr. Harvey sounding infinitely wistful at finding himself outside a boxing ring – and let the cameramen tell the story for us.

With the hair-trigger timing that characterised all the programmes of the evening, the boxing finished (not, alas, for those who must have drama in everything, with a knock-out), and it was time, after some more advertisements, for the news. I surely cannot be the first to have made a joke about Mr. Christopher Chataway and a running commentary? But for Mr. Chataway it was clearly no joke. Sitting in a dark lounge suit, and obviously too worried to smile, he followed Mr. Aidan Crawley’s introduction with four and a half minutes of news.

After the labouring in the field, came the feast. The cameras, to end the evening, looked in at the party in the May Fair Hotel, where appropriately enough our compere was Mr. Leslie Mitchell, whose voice had ushered in the new era all those hours ago. (Only three? Impossible!) Everybody looked happy, calm, and carefree. And on the whole, and with reservations, and other things being equal, well they might be.

So far, then, what we have seen of Independent Television has certainly not confirmed the worst fears (or hopes?) of its enemies. Television, Sir Kenneth Clark reminded us earlier in the evening, has a terrifying power for good or evil; speaking subjectively, I feel neither uplifted nor depraved by what I have seen. But perhaps the deeper moral effects will make themselves felt only over a period of years.

The post ITV Makes Its Bow appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

Elida Gibbs had paid 50% above the rate card for having the first commercial shown on British television, but thought that the entire premium would be going to charity. Instead, the accountants had a shock for management.

The night had made a loss. A large loss. Something was terribly wrong.

The costs of television – especially live television, the only real economic choice before telecine and video became a reality – were far higher than expected. And AC Nielsen revealed that the number of viewers was far less than expected. Even those with adapted sets were not guaranteed to tune in for opening night. Perhaps, it was suggested, they had been lured away by the death of Grace Archer on the BBC Light Programme, just a few minutes before the Independent Television opened for the first time.

The Lord Mayor of London, having been promised a large amount for his nominated charities, had named a grand total of twelve beneficiaries. With no money in the pot, A-R and ATV sent each charity a token amount of 100 guineas.

Was this simply the costs of the first night’s spectacle? A-R management certainly hoped so. But the next day’s expenditure was also more than income. For ATV (or “ABC” as it was known initially) over the weekend, the situation was worse – their big-name stars took a programme’s profits away before the costs of the programme itself was even considered.

A-R was in the most exposed position. Despite having a set of parents with deep pockets (although Associated Newspapers got cold feet and began to look for ways to escape very quickly) the threat of bankruptcy was clear. ITV simply was not profitable, and after capital expenditure had been taken into account, it was downright suicidal to be involved. And AR had to carry five days of programming on its own without help from any other producer.

ITV was evidently a mistake, and A-R could pay a high price for getting involved.

The post Disaster appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

Viewers saw a tuning signal in the form of a cross, accompanied by tone. This was followed by a card bearing the legend. “Opening Night Independent Television Service Channel 9,” over which viewers heard a piece of music consisting of variations on the traditional tune ‘British Grenadiers’, building slowly to a climax.

Leslie Mitchell, the former voice of the BBC Television Service, announced for the first time, ‘This is London.’ A fanfare by Charles Williams was heard as Associated-Rediffusion’s Adastral logo, with the company name and channel number beneath, formed up for the first time.

Mitchell went on, ‘This is Channel Nine, on Band III, which brings you programmes by Associated-Rediffusion, every week, from Monday to Friday.’ He was followed by an excerpt from Sir Edward Elgar’s ‘Cockaigne Overture – In London Town’. The station clock reached 7:15 pm – and Independent Television was on the air.

Then followed a short film, with voiceover by Associated-Rediffusion’s Deputy Controller, Cecil Lewis, telling the history of London – and of broadcasting itself, the pictures showing images of London, brief shots of Marconi and Alexandra Palace, Television House under reconstruction, and ultimately the face of the Guildhall with its Latin inscription, “Domine, dirige nos!”.

Lewis, on film, called the A-R outside broadcast staff to readiness, and ‘handed over’ to the live coverage, which focused initially on the guests filling their seats in the Guildhall.

The Hallé orchestra, conducted by Sir John Barbirolli, played Elgar’s overture live, in its entirety, followed by the National Anthem. And at 7.45pm, the speeches began, regarded by some commentators (notably the Daily Mirror the next morning) as the low point of the evening.

The Lord Mayor of London, the Postmaster-General Sir Charles Hill and Sir Kenneth of the ITA all said their pieces, and finally things livened up as control was handed over to the then-ABC at the Wood Green Empire for a variety show, “Channel Nine”, produced by Bill Ward, formerly of the BBC and later to become a major executive producer of ITV sports programmes.

There were drama sketches. A boxing match. Four-minute-miler Chris Chataway read the first news from ITN in record time, which included coverage of the trial of Jack Spot at the Old Bailey – another first in British broadcasting history. Live coverage of the opening night party, “Gala Night at the May Fair” featured Leslie Mitchell and Shirley Butler talking to attendees including Pat Weaver, head of NBC, who called the opening “fantastic”. At 11.05,Independent Television closed down with a solemn prayer.

A-R management – and in particular Roland Gillett, the company’s first Controller of Programmes – breathed a sigh of relief. All had gone to plan. The country’s first television advert – for Gibbs SR toothpaste – aired (complete with countdown – oops), and the night was a success. Previously A-R and ATV had agreed to give the proceeds from the evening’s commercials to charity. All that remained was to tot up the figures for this successful night.

The post On air appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The Captain chose as the location the Guildhall, recently rebuilt and refurbished after having been gutted by the Luftwaffe over a decade before, and even helped choose, with connoisseur Sir Kenneth Clark, what would be offered on the menu for the accompanying banquet.

Invited guests included the Postmaster-General, Dr Charles Hill, as responsible minister, plus many in his department; other ministers in the Conservative government; the local mayors from the London boroughs; and important agents, advertisers and stars; as well as journalists and potential investors. Brownrigg also invited – in the name of the ITA – the board of governors, management and senior staff of the BBC who, to their shame declined to attend.

The BBC’s chairman, Sir Alexander Cadogan, was pressed in writing by his friend Sir Kenneth to attend, but apparently never replied. Nevertheless, Cadogan and his Director-General both attended on the night after all – Sir K’s legendary powers of persuasion having worked again. They worked so well, in fact, that the BBC almost joined the Television Contractors Association, chairing its meeting of 30 September.

At 7pm on 22 September, as the guests enjoyed pre-dinner drinks and ambled to their seats, the final countdown was underway. The transmitter, broadcasting a test card for most of the day, gave way to a tuning signal and then, at 7.14, faded to black.

The post Curtain up appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The former office of the Air Ministry in Holborn, Adastral House on Kingsway, was purchased and renamed ‘Television House’ – though the Rediffusion symbol, a starburst, was almost immediately dubbed the ‘Adastral’ by staff members, thus continuing the name.

The first move was to gut the ornate office block internally and create offices for the company, two studios, film processing laboratories, editing suites, dubbing studios, a local newsroom, an office and studio space for Independent Television’s news company ITN, and, late in the day, provide office and production space for the temporarily homeless weekend contractor ATV.

Bovis Limited began work early in 1955, working vast amounts of overtime whilst staff attempted to create a whole company around them. A fascinating – if probably apocryphal – story involves a departmental secretary finding herself bricked up in her office and spending some time shouting for help before Bovis workers demolished the wall, rescued the secretary and rebuilt the wall, all in a matter of minutes.

To supplement the two studios at Television House, Associated-Rediffusion purchased a plot in Wembley to house four more studios, and took options on space at the Granville Theatre in Walham Green and a sound stage at Viking Film Studios.

In less then six months, A-R recruited 1000 staff members – from secretaries to Roland Gillett, the programme controller of the new company.

Despite the hurried nature of the build-up of the service, A-R were ready for launch in good time, and set their minds to the gala opening of the service on a date in late September to be set by the ITA. The transmitter began test broadcasts on 13 September, and A-R were given the final go-ahead by the Authority.

Launch date would be 22 September 1955.

The post London Calling appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The speed at which the ITA moved to create a whole new system was breathtaking. Within a month, the first chairman, Sir Kenneth Clark, and his newly-appointed officers had chosen from the myriad of different options available under the Act and decided upon the exact split between different contractors.

With the decision made, on 25 August they advertised two contracts in London, two in the Midlands and two in the North, based on a 5-day/2-day split of the week. Leaving little more than a month for applications, they began interviewing the 25 potential contractors on 28 September, completing the process just under a month later, on 20 October.

Their decisions on who would become contractors out of the many groups to apply was announced on 26 October – a truly amazing date given the Authority’s creation less than three months before.

It appears that Broadcast Relay Services (BRS) – a division of British Electric Traction and the supplier of ‘piped radio’ services in areas without a good signal – originally sought the London weekends contract. To back their considerable experience in colonial television and domestic relay services, they brought the newspaper group Associated, publishers of the Daily Mail, who had the financial and political muscle that a new television company would need.

The consortium was named ‘Associated-Rediffusion Limited’, combining the name of the newspaper group with that of BRS subsidiary ‘Rediffusion’, and the ITA offered them the 5-day weekday contact in London. They accepted without hesitation, and thus took on the bulk of the responsibility for the look and feel of the new independent television service. The ITA announced that construction of a new transmitter on Beulah Hill in Upper Norwood, Croydon, would begin as soon as possible with a view to starting programme service in September 1955.

Associated-Rediffusion had less than a year to turn itself from an idea into the UK’s first domestic commercial broadcaster.

The post First to the top appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.