Two years ago I wrote an article for Fusion under the heading ‘How many programmes?’ I ended that article by saying that it is most important that on a short-term basis everybody in the United Kingdom, wherever he may live, should be able to see the two main television programmes as soon as possible, and that, at all costs, we should avoid creating a badly planned chaos similar to that which exists in medium wave sound broadcasting.

I still believe we should aim at these two objectives. Further, I believe that if we are to succeed in avoiding technical chaos in television broadcasting, we cannot have additional programmes for another 10 years.

By international agreement the following wavebands are at present available for television broadcasting in Europe, including the United Kingdom:

(Band II – 87.5-100 mc/s – is used for VHF sound broadcasting and provides about 100 channels if used with frequency modulation).

All five channels in Band I are used to distribute one BBC television programme which is available to about 98 per cent of the population. Four of the eight available Band III channels are used to distribute the ITA programme which is available to about 95 per cent of the population. The remaining four Band III channels allocated to television are used at the moment for various communication services but are being vacated and should soon become available for television.

There has been some talk about the possible extension of Band III to give facilities for additional television channels at the expense of other communication services. Such an extension of Band III would need International agreement, the likelihood of which appears remote at present.

Band IV and Band V channels – the UHF or ultra high frequency bands – are not yet used operationally in the United Kingdom but more than 100 transmitters in Europe and the U.S.A. use channels in these bands for television broadcasting. Receivers for UHF require somewhat more expensive valves and components than VHF – Bands I and III – receivers. The additional cost is likely to be about £5-£8 [£120-£190 now, allowing for inflation] for mass-produced UHF sets. An extra UHF aerial is also required costing between £2-£6 [£48-£143]. Most manufacturers in the United Kingdom would need a year or more to get into production of UHF receivers.

The desirable improvements which prompt us to reexamine the whole of the technique of television in the United Kingdom may be summarised under the following four headings:

Better definition of picture
Greater flexibility in world television exchanges
Colour television
More channels for more programmes

The first two are inter-related. At present the United Kingdom operates on a 405-line system. If we adopted the 625-line system, programme exchanges would be possible with nearly the whole world, the main exceptions being North America and Japan (525 lines) and part of France (819 lines). Theoretically the 625-line system should give a picture with almost twice the definition of that received today in the United Kingdom. However, it must be remembered that in practice the 625-line system does not necessarily give the same improvement in quality in the home as one can get in the laboratory. This is because the higher definition system requires more careful maintenance of the transmitting and receiving equipment.

It should also be remembered when considering whether or not to adopt the 625-line system, that for the same cost in band width and at a lower capital expenditure, one could go to a 405-line colour system. Further, the adoption of 405-line colour would give a higher performance (inasmuch as colour adds to performance) while continuing to give compatible monochrome pictures at the present standard.

The addition of colour is an obvious development and would be welcome if the initial cost and the expense of maintenance can be brought down to reasonable levels.

The last point – more channels for more programmes – is an obvious requirement for a wider range and greater choice of programmes.

As things are at present it might be possible to squeeze one additional programme into Band III but this third programme would only be available to about 80 per cent of the population, mainly in thickly built-up areas, and would also limit the existing ITA programme to about 98 percent of the population, leaving about a million people with BBC programmes only.

Any additional programmes beyond the third would have to be transmitted in Band IV and V and unless these programmes are very attractive, the 80 per cent of the population who already have Band I and III receivers will not buy new sets to obtain Band IV and V facilities.

If it is thought that the required improvements in television services in the United Kingdom can be covered under the three headings of better definition, colour and more programmes, it seems quite clear that all these three are almost impossible to meet by utilising only Band I and III for television, a total of 13 channels for which sets in this country are equipped.

There are then three alternatives for future technical development:

1. That by international agreement Band III and possibly Band I can be extended to give more channels. This, however, would be a very long international operation, the success of which is doubtful. Only a relatively small addition to existing sets would be needed for reception of the extra programmes, provided the 405-line system were maintained.
2. If the extra channels under point 1 cannot be obtained, it would be necessary to use channels in Band IV and probably Band V if the three headings of better definition, colour and more programmes are to be achieved. This would necessitate new transmitters, receivers and aerials. But whether we adopt points 1 or 2 the technical effort involved in the change-over and an overlapping duplication – to enable programmes to be received on present receivers and which, therefore, would have to last for probably 10 years until they are replaced – would be so great that additional programmes would be out of the question until after the 10 years needed for this project to be completed.
3. The alternative is to develop a system where more programmes can be squeezed into the present channel space and to introduce additional programmes, colour and higher definition at the same time as such a new system is brought into use.

I think that the desirable line of development is that outlined in point 3. The way in which this development could take place is for the four vacant television channels in Band III to be used to duplicate the BBC and ITA programmes through a new system to be developed which would include colour and higher definition. The next stage would be for preparations to be made for the introduction of additional programmes to be opened in 10 years time.

If the new system to be developed allows for twice as many channels as at present, then eventually we could either have a total of six programmes with the present coverage, or four or five programmes with really 100 per cent coverage of the country.

One cannot help but observe that as our various sound and television broadcast systems have been rushed into service without sufficient planning, we have technical systems which do not result in the best utilisation of the available resources.

It is thought that rather than rush in once again with higher definition and colour developments, it would be better to start out quite deliberately for the type of development that is mentioned above.

Only after such a system is successfully developed will it be possible to provide additional programmes, higher definition and colour within the limits set by the present international channel allocations.

The Times reported on March 17 Mr Hugh Carleton Greene, Director-General of the BBC, as saying that instead of the unallocated television channels in Band III being used for a third service, they would be better employed filing the gaps in both the BBC’s and ITV’s national coverage.

He is stated to have said that this would provide television to the one per cent of the population of the United Kingdom still outside the range of any transmitter. Thus there would be no need for Parliament to make a choice between the BBC and ITV and national coverage would be completed.

The consistency of his views and those expressed in the above article is interesting. — Editor.

The post Fourth floor says… Why we cannot have more TV programmes at present appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

In December, 1954, Central Rediffusion Services Limited, the service and supply company of the Rediffusion Group, was appointed technical consultant to Associated-Rediffusion Limited and has been responsible for the planning and equipping of all Associated-Rediffusion studios and technical areas. With the completion of Studio 5 these services will cease.

No one would pretend that Wembley Studios are ideal, because the site is not large enough to contain all the service areas which modern television studios require. But one of the greatest problems facing Associated-Rediffusion when it was appointed the first programme contractor to the ITA late in 1954, was the speed necessary to equip and build studios and to train and rehearse personnel and artists.

In buying Wembley Film Studios, Central Rediffusion was at least able to make a quick start. Studio 5 is, therefore, an operational unit only – much of its scenery and services must be brought from elsewhere.

The building of Studio 5 started in December, 1958, and though the building contractors had the advantage of extremely good weather during the spring and summer of 1959, the national shortage of bricks caused a serious delay and necessitated continuous alteration to the planned progress. The final stages of testing of the studio and control apparatus have started and it is hoped that Studio 5 will be handed to Associated-Rediffusion during May so that training and rehearsals can commence.

Studio 5 is certainly the largest television studio in Europe and probably the largest ever built as a television studio. It has a floor area of 14,000 square ft [1,300m²] and a clear height to the inside of the roof structure of 40 ft [12m] with a clear height in the centre section, which houses the dividing partition, of 30 ft [9m]. Walkways are provided at the 12 ft [3.6m], 30 ft and 40 ft levels.

The whole of the building foundations and floors are divided into two sections and when the centre partition doors are lowered the studio can be used simultaneously as two studios of 6,700 square feet [622m²] each.

One of the most important features of the studio is the dual partition which is of lattice girder construction with external wind bracing on the cavity side. The acoustic slabs consist of two mild steel sheets 4 inches [10cm] apart with 3-inch [7.6cm] rock wool filling, one sheet is suspended free and connected to the main frame at the edges only. The two partitions, when lowered, are designed to provide an acoustic separation of 60 Db over the range of 50 cycles to 4.5 kilocycles.

The lifting and lowering of the doors, which weigh 25 tons each, is done by four specially designed units consisting of an electric motor coupled through a reduction gear to a wire rope drum from which the door is suspended. The doors, which are provided with several safety stops, will take about half-an-hour to raise or lower.

One of the great difficulties in television studios is providing sufficient ventilation to give cool air on the studio floor. There are separate ventilation plants for each half-studio to give seven air changes an hour, the ventilation ducts in the roof being large enough for a man to walk through. Adjustable nozzles allow the flow of fresh air to be directed. Another ventilation plant is provided for the control rooms and technical areas, and each equipment bay has its own supply, extract and filter.

Everyone knows of the problem of studio floors. In Studio 5 we have an added problem due to its giant size. The floor must be level to plus or minus ⅛ inch [3mm] At no point must it have a slope of more than 1 in 1,000. The length of the floor will change by ¾ inch [19mm] with normal temperature variation and yet no crack must appear between the two halves when the floor moves. Two special comb joints are, therefore, being fitted to the centre partition which will cause only very minor camera wobble as cameras track across these joints.

Each studio will have 340 lighting circuits fed from the lighting patch panels. These panels are next to the lighting control consoles which are arranged to be operated from a sitting position in the form of an organ console. Each studio will have 70 lighting hoist units driven by electric motors. The raising and lowering of each unit is controlled from a panel next to the lighting control rooms on the 12-foot gantry or from the studio floor by means of a wandering lead. Fifteen units can be selected and operated simultaneously and four such groups are available for selection and operation.

The control rooms, which are big enough to carry any extra apparatus required for colour transmission, are built along the northern side of the studio with the vision, sound and lighting control rooms at 12-foot level, and the camera control rooms, make-up rooms and service rooms at ground floor level.

The entire studio is being equipped with eight new E.M.I. 4½-inch [11.4cm] image Orthicon cameras and the vision system can be operated on 405, 525 and 625 line frequency. Each vision control room will have 14 21-inch [53cm] picture monitors to allow the monitoring of 10 sources in addition to transmission, off air and two previews. It will thus be possible to record programmes on film or tape which can be used overseas without further alteration. The sound equipment has been specially designed and has 26 low level channels and nine high level, divided into four groups. All controls and faders are mounted on a sloping panel of a sound console to facilitate operation.

One of the most important requirements is good communications in order to co-ordinate the team of people whose combined efforts make a television programme. The director’s talk-back system carries the director’s instructions to headphones worn by operators in the studios, and to loudspeakers in the control rooms. In rehearsal the director can speak to the studio through a public address system.

Programme sound is also distributed so that all may follow the programme and respond to sound cues when required. A separate sound balancer’s talk-back system connects the sound balancer with microphone boom operators. The director can talk to the floor manager by a radio talk-back system, thus avoiding trailing leads. The intercommunication facilities in Studio 5 are provided by a ‘Transicon’ equipment consisting of small transistorised amplifiers plugged in to rack frames, an arrangement which will ensure the rapid detection and righting of faults and contribute to the efficient working of the new studio.

During 1955 and in a space of less than 10 months all the original studios and equipment were planned and provided. It was not until 24 hours before the official opening that the first complete rehearsal was possible, and even then no commercial film inserts were available.

Studio 5 is the outcome of 12 months careful thought and 18 months building and equipping. The artists and personnel who use it will have at their hands the latest and the best. It therefore only remains for me to wish them all success.

The post Fourth floor (Carlton House) says… ‘Success to Studio 5’ appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

On being asked for a contribution to Fusion my first reaction was pride. What a splended [sic] choice had been made in asking me. Obviously I was destined to go far in Fleet Street. Peter Black would have a rival at last. Pendennis would have to look to his laurels. Lesser fry might as well fold their blotters and steal silently away. This mood did not last long.

Pride was succeeded by doubt. Perhaps I was miscast. Should I not be transferred to the Script Services Section? My doubts were resolved by the dragon ‘establishment’. It reared its ugly head and whispered in my car (just like the centre section of Floor 4). ‘By all means. Good idea, Ben. IF we have a vacancy.’ I knew we hadn’t. Another brilliant idea ruined by common sense. I felt almost as frustrated as a person whose application to be put on the authorised car users list had been refused.

It was only at this stage that the full import of the request struck me. All previous reactions were swept aside by the onset of horror. I was being asked to write ‘Fourth Floor Says’.

I cannot refute that I work on the Fourth Floor. I have a room on it – albeit in the fringe area. I have a carpet on the floor. It’s a little too big for the floor but I don’t complain of that. It makes it easier to climb up the wall in comfort. I have curtains in it. When new, they graced a Principal Officer’s room. Coming events, I say to myself in moments of depression, cast their shadows etc.

But I am not ‘of’ the Fourth Floor. Not for me the Olympian calm with which the Fourth Floor treat all questions, big or small, submitted to them. Not for me the measured and unhurried tread with which they pace from office to office along our stately corridors to arrange a ‘business lunch’.

I scurry about like a hunted rabbit trying not to be noticed too much and grateful even for the abuse that is often flung at me about the more flagrant of my errors. Definitely, I am on the Fourth Floor but not of it. Why, then, am I there at all? It’s really very simple. My staff, who are deeply shocked to learn that some people prefer Receptionists (Fusion 7), are too glamorous not to occupy a place in the company’s ‘Shop Window’. Where they are, I must be too. To such a strange chance of fortune is my Fourth Floor position due.

First I must say how grateful I am. Grateful to those who have given me an opportunity to broaden, in a nice way, my vocabulary. Let me give you a couple of examples. When I was young ‘gamma’ was the third letter of the Greek alphabet, which I mastered after great trouble and much pain. It may be still for all I know. Ancient Greek was not much talked in the Navy! Now I find that ‘gamma’ is a ratio (on a logarithmic scale of course) which technicians discuss extensively in Crew Rooms and inevitably in my room, also, on selection board days.

Grateful though I am for this particular piece of increased knowledge, ‘gamma’ has been a trifle overworked. I wish my selection board colleagues would ask what ‘lambda’ is for a change. I suppose they won’t. They’d say it wouldn’t be fair. The candidates might get muddled with Lambretta. (P.S. I have now come across a ‘lambert’. This only makes things more muddled.)

I find that no film cameraman or film camera (I can never remember which) is complete without a chap called a Grips. Previously I had only associated grips with bulldogs. The ‘double entendre’ of the last remark will only be fully appreciated by those with a naval background. Sorry! It will be appreciated by all. I forgot we commissioned H.M.S. Rediffusion on 22 September 1955. So its never too late to learn and I am grateful for having the opportunity to acquire these useful/useless pieces of information.

I must confess, however, to holding one very heretical view. I shall probably be banished to ‘The Third Floor Back’ for mentioning it. The fact that the company is an Independent Television Contractor is only of academic interest to me. I and my section would do much the same work if the company were manufacturers of tooth-paste or razor blades.

You must all have holidays, paid or unpaid. Some fall sick and want sickness benefits. You insist on buying Premium Bonds. You like to be reassured that you haven’t got tuberculosis and won’t get poliomyelitis. You give gallons of blood away free every year. Some of you enjoy (though you shouldn’t, they’re provided for your guests) smoking cigarettes provided by the company.

Others of you enjoy watching programmes at home on TV sets provided by the company. A few of you drive about in your own cars on company business provided you comply with a few simple rules devised by supermen like Vosper and myself to confound you.

The law of the land requires the company to employ a certain percentage of disabled persons. The General Manager requires me not to employ more than a certain number of people, able or disabled. Prospective employers of ex-members of the staff require references.

Building societies want to know, with your permission, a lot about some of you. Banks and estate agents want to know even more. Management want to know most. Foreign students come and go. Younger members of the staff go to Outward Bound Schools at the company’s expense. Twenty people a day want to join the company. ‘I know I’ve got something that television wants.’ I can rarely find it, but they must have the courtesy of a reply.

Some of you need recompense for disastrous accidents to your best clothes. These accidents, of course, are never your own fault. Annual salary reviews and bi-annual wages reviews cause much burning of midnight oil. Changes in union rates of pay increase my consumption of Disprin alarmingly. Theatre Ticket Lists require constant revision.

Somebody is always doing someone else’s job. Temporary Responsibility Allowance must be authorised. Every month many people complete two years’ continuous service and expect an increment to their pay without asking for it. Selection boards require to be presided over. Contracts need scrutiny. I could go on like this for hours.

These sort of things don’t just run themselves. They require a great deal of detailed work and the keeping of very accurate personal records. This is the main work of my small staff to whom I am delighted to have the opportunity of expressing, on paper, my thanks for all they do.

Glamorous as some of them are, they are very much backroom boys and girls. Publicity ignores them. They are not news. They don’t often get thanks for what they do. More often the reverse. ‘I can’t have had all that leave this year. You’ve got the records wrong. Can I see Captain Fisher?’

Of course you can. If the door’s open and nobody else has got in before you, you’re always welcome. The answer you get may not always be the answer you want but I hope it will be a fair one. If you have any problems, unconnected with Television, come and talk to me anytime.

The post Fourth floor says… ‘Come and Talk’ appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

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

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

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

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

Scripts

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

Artists

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

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

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

Production Facilities

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

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

Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘I wonder if you would be good enough to write the next article in the “Fourth floor says” series for Fusion. I should require approximately 1,250 words and the deadline is…”

So began an internal memo from the editor, recently discovered (the memo, not the editor) among one of the enormous piles of paper which find their way on to my desk with such monotonous regularity. (Who was the sage who referred to the invention of the printing press – which for this purpose may be taken to include typewriters – as one of the greatest-ever booms to mankind?) While, in fairness to the editor, I am bound to say that there was a gap of some eighteen days between the date of receipt of his memo and the specified deadline, I cursed him roundly nevertheless for having imposed this chore upon me at the season of the year when all my leisure time – pause for a moment here for a burst of ironical laughter – is reserved for much-needed activity in the jungle which surrounds my country seat, situated in what – except for the jungle referred to – is generally known as the Garden of England.

(Any time readers of Fusion are in the neighbourhood, I shall be delighted to show them my wonderful display of Taraxacum Officinale, Ranunculus Bulbosus, Beilis Perennis, Rumex Obtusifolius, and the many other exotic botanical specimens which flourish in such prodigal profusion as evidence of my horticultural propensities.)

While I have written many reams of agendas, minutes, memoranda, reports and suchlike for Board Meetings, Annual General Meetings, Extraordinary General Meetings, Council Meetings, Committee Meetings and what-have-you, I have no pretensions to literary ability in the general sense. But I must confess that my fancy was somewhat tickled by the suggestion, implicit in the editor’s invitation, that there might be someone who would, of his or her own volition, be prepared to read something which I had written.

So I decided to take the plunge, accept the editor’s invitation in principle and proceed to the obvious next step, namely, the settlement of a fee for the job. I was distressed when the editor explained that he had paid all the previous contributors to the series a fee of nil, but after much skilful bargaining on my part (I ought to be in contracts section) he eventually agreed to double the fee in my case.

Honour being thus satisfied, I considered what should be my next move. One thousand, two hundred and fifty words being quite a lot for a literary tyro, I suggested that since two pages had to be filled, it would be a good idea to have a full page portrait of the contributor on one side so that only six hundred and twenty-five words approximately need be provided by me for the other. But on this he resolutely refused to co-operate. Apparently he took the view that the advantage to his readers of having to suffer only one page of my literary outpourings – substantial though that would be – would not provide anything like adequate compensation for inflicting a full-page picture of me upon them. In an aside on the subject of the proposed picture, I distinctly heard him mutter that even a Jack Emerald couldn’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s car.

Quite clearly I was rapidly getting nowhere on this, so I concluded that there was nothing else for it – one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts it obviously had to be. But after all, I thought, one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts should present no problem to one who in his Third Form days regularly got one hundred lines each Thursday morning for declining to decline ‘mensa’ in the manner specified in his Latin Primer.

So I braced myself for the task. The editor shall have his one thousand, two hundred and fifty words or thereabouts -I’m more than half-way there already. The probable results are (a) that he’ll get the sack and (b) that I shall never again be asked to write for Fusion. As to (a), I offer him whichever he prefers of my sympathy or my congratulations; as to (b), I am sure this will be better for all concerned.

Following these few brief words of introduction, it is necessary to decide what this article shall be about. (I apologize for straying from the path of grammatical rectitude by ending a sentence with a preposition – but my brain is tired; writing the introduction must have exhausted me somewhat.) And since, according to my reckoning, I have only some five hundred words to go, I think a decision on this matter had better be made without more ado.

Surely I cannot do better than take a leaf out of the chief accountant’s book – what a wonderful write-up he gave the accountant’s department in Fusion 5 – and say a few words about the secretary’s department, the principal function of which is to deal with all those matters arising in the course of carrying on the business of an independent television programme company which all other departments, by reason of their ignorance, incompetence or inertia, are unable or unwilling to handle. But, on reflection, the comparatively few words that remain to me (can’t be many more than three hundred now) will certainly not enable me to do justice to the invaluable services rendered by the select few who are my departmental colleagues, let alone to the priceless part played by yours truly.

But maybe there is sufficient space left to correct one very widespread misconception as to the usefulness of a Company Secretary. I am told that the view is widely held that the Secretary performs his most useful function by writing letters in the following terms:

Dear Sir (or Madam)

I write to inform you that your salary is increased to £________ per annum with effect from 19__.

Yours faithfully, _____________ Secretary

but that his usefulness would be considerably increased if he would only ‘let himself go’ a bit more when inserting the figures following the £ sign.

This, I contend, takes too narrow a view of the functions of the secretary, though I suppose I mustn’t complain since it does suggest – albeit with motives which may be questioned as to their disinterestedness – that there may be some justification for his existence. But I certainly prefer that view to the one expressed by Lord Esher in 1807, when he said –

‘The Secretary is a mere servant. He has to do what he is told, and no person can assume that he has any authority to represent anything at all.’

With respect to the learned Lord quoted, I prefer the view of Gladstone who spoke of the company secretary as –

‘Very frequently one of the original concocters of the Company. Usually in substance the Managing Director,’ after which he added —

‘The Secretary has in fact put the directors into their office, and they have a feeling of delicacy towards him in consequence.’

(Note for Printer – Please underline this last bit.)
(Note for Fusion despatch office – Please send copies of this issue of Fusion to Associated-Rediffusion directors by registered post.)

And that, dear Editor, is that. I told you I had no pretensions to literary ability in the general sense, and I can already hear you saying ‘You’re telling me!’

The post Forth flaw sez… 1,250 words? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

I suppose the words ‘Third Programme’ make most of us think about the BBC’s sound programme of that name. And as with sound, so in television, there is a strong chance that the third programme will be designed for the special interest of minorities, following the argument that two programmes of popular appeal are enough and the third should be used for a different purpose. This argument has more than sentiment and highbrows behind it, as most of us who are engaged in television know only too well how difficult it is to keep up the standard and supply of peak time programmes for general audiences. But, practical difficulties aside, I believe the general public are well content with two alternative programmes of general appeal, and even though they never looked at it, would tolerate the existence of a third programme appealing to special interests.

What sort of programme should it be? I think educational in its widest sense, including the Arts, but with emphasis on direct education, where it seems to me that television could be used as a powerful supplement to evening classes at schools, particularly for technical subjects which lend themselves to pictorial demonstration.

So far so good, but now we come to more difficult matters. Who would be responsible for the third programme and who would pay for it?

If the choice were to fall on the BBC. it would be said that the Corporation already has in existence or in course of construction sufficient studios to produce a third programme as well as its present one, that it could build on its experience in broadcasting for schools, and that it was appropriate for a public service such as the third programme to be provided by a public body financed by public funds.

But the public funds would have to be found, either by an increase in the fee for television licences or by some appropriation from other funds. The BBC is already expensive, its expenditure having jumped from £12½ million [£438m now, allowing for inflation] in 1951-2 to £26½ million [£655m] in 1957-8, and any further calls by the Corporation on public funds, particularly if they required an increase in licence fees would hardly be popular. Add to this the argument that the BBC is already powerful enough in controlling the whole of sound broadcasting and half of television and the balance tips against any further extension of the Corporation’s responsibility.

If not the BBC, perhaps the ITA. The Authority has no programme production facilities of its own, but that could be overcome; nor has it a production staff, but it could get one. The objections are not really the practical ones. They are matters of principle. The Authority’s function is to control independent television and it ought not to be diverted into other activities. Besides, there is the old matter of finance. If it came from public funds there would be the same objection as in the case of the BBC; alternatively any suggestion that the Authority might try to finance the programme from advertisements would be incompatible with its function as controller of television advertising practice. So I conclude that the ITA are not likely to run the third programme.

The position is slightly different if a completely new television authority were set up for the purpose, as its advertising practice could be made subject to the approval of the ITA. It is, however, most doubtful whether advertising revenue would be anything like sufficient, firstly because the audience would be extremely small compared with that for other television programmes, and secondly because it would contain a small proportion of housewives, who control purchasing power. So again there would have to be a subsidy from public funds.

Finally for consideration are the present programme contractors. Our chairman has already said that Associated-Rediffusion would be willing to participate in an educational programme (using the word ‘educational’ in its broadest sense), even if that programme required a subsidy from the company’s other activities. If other programme contractors were willing to take part on the same basis, the financial hurdle would be cleared. The programme could be produced economically, as it could share facilities and staff with the commercial programme, and we in Associated-Rediffusion have already shown in our programmes for schools that we can do the job well.

The main arguments against this would be that the service should be under public control and not dependent on commercial companies whose finances have been subject to extreme variation in the past and may be again. But it should be possible to overcome the financial drawback by sufficient guarantees being given on both sides. And there are abundant instances to show that commercial companies can and do act with just as much a sense of public responsibility as do public bodies. My personal opinion is that if a third programme is authorized, and if it takes the form I have discussed, the most logical course would be to make it the responsibility of programme contractors.

There is a saying well known in the company that the enemy, thought to be faced with three alternatives, chooses a fourth. Perhaps both Independent Television and the BBC will be given an extra channel to be used for educational purposes. But let me put forward my guess at an extra choice that has only an outside chance of being accepted. Is public opinion ready yet to follow through the success of independent television and have the BBC accept advertisements on its television programme, drop one sound programme and share with Associated-Rediffusion and other programme contractors the responsibility of providing a non-commercial educational television service?

The post Fourth floor says… Thoughts on a third programme appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The services required from the accounts department of a television programme contractor are as varied as the problems affecting all the other departments which go to make up A-R, its staff management and direction. Everyone’s actions have a financial implication and it is the job of the accounts department to express the results of these actions and their effect to the credit of the company-or otherwise – in terms of £ s. d.

The set-up required to cope with this problem had to be unique as the whole operation is a strange combination of Wardour Street, Theatreland, Fleet Street and the City of London. U.S. commercial methods could not necessarily be followed. Their system enables them to get back their operating costs from advertisers sponsoring programmes but to us sponsorship is a naughty word.

As the organization had to be built from scratch, the staff, as with staff throughout the company, had not only to be found but their training adapted to commercial television and, in our case, the adapting had to be of the ‘makey-learn’ variety: that is, it had to be done while actually carrying out the job.

The reason why we could not carry out pre-transmission training was, in the main, the tremendous concentration of everyone’s energy on the task of getting on the air. Therefore, certain services had to take a back seat. The article ‘Those Early Days’ in fusion 2 shows the extreme difficulties which resulted from this. Another form of necessary training was to convince certain artistic elements that we were not just being unnecessarily sordid in having regard to matters of money.

Nevertheless the foundations on which the department was developed have, I think, proved sound. Their design was (and there is nothing unique about this) to provide the board of directors with the necessary information about current operating losses (as they then were) which, taken in conjunction with the vast and seemingly everlasting expenditure on buildings and equipment at Kingsway and Wembley, would enable it to plan the supply of the necessary cash and to direct the operations of the company both when it stood alone and after the introduction of a networking system.

At the same time the management required as much weekly and daily information as was possible about both programme costs and other expenditure, so that these could be kept as low as was consistent with high standards and efficiency. It was known that they must exceed revenue from sales of air-time to advertisers for quite some time – which turned out to be October, 1956.

It was also obviously essential that staff, artists and other contracts should be promptly paid. The size of the problem, to cope with seventy programmes a week, was not fully gauged to begin with, as was evidenced by the delight of the artists’ and contract payments’ section when sixteen dancing girls decided to delay their appearance on the screen and to camp out in the accounts office until their contracts had been received and payment made.

Advertisement and other sales accounts had to be rendered and collected as rapidly as possible, and bills similarly settled, including the heavy commitments for the purchase of filmed and packaged programmes. With regard to sales accounts a recent quote (page 27, fusion 4) says that ‘At present the advertisement department is selling … some 120 spots a day, 600 a week, 30,000 a year. Each is a single entity … Each is also a single entity for accounting purposes which involves checking, issue of a transmission certificate, invoicing, rendering statements and collection of the cash.

To assist in controlling all payments, it was decided to classify the expenditure of the company into three types-direct, indirect, and overhead. A rough definition of these terms is that:

1. Direct expenditure, of which there are 23 main items, sub-divided into a further 130, means any expense which can be directly attributed to making a programme, such as the script, artists, wardrobe, scenery, sets, music, etc., or the cost of a film.
2. Indirect expenditure means the cost of providing the facilities to transmit the programme, ranging from studio personnel of all grades and types to the maintenance of studios and their equipment. A method has been devised for the allocation of these costs to specific programmes if required.
3. Overhead expenditure means costs incurred in the general administration of the business (other than programme department), such as the general manager’s department, that part of the business department not concerned w ith studio services (for example the running of TV House), advertisement, secretarial and accounts departments.

The first division within this department, therefore, is into cost and finance sections, direct costs being the responsibility of the former and indirect and overheads of the latter.

The basic control of direct costs is by the estimation of a programme quarter’s costs to an overall plan, the plan and the length of the ‘quarter’ being decided by the networking committee. As an adaptation of a U.S. system a cost assistant, who belongs to this department, is attached to the main programme sections, light entertainment, drama, schools and children, etc. The function of a cost assistant is to be in on all programme arrangements from the planning stage so that the cost implications of all actions can be brought to the attention of the manager of a section and, from thereon if necessary, up to the controller of programmes. Thus appropriate action can be taken at the earliest possible moment.

The constant endeavour is to produce information before an event happens so that any necessary action can be taken. To that end, the maximum use is made of estimation, without reference to any books of account. A maximum of speed tends to introduce a sacrifice of accuracy, but the estimated programme cost sheets which are available within seventy-two hours after transmission are now much less than 1 per cent out overall compared with the actual costs subsequently recorded.

Indirect and overhead expenses are controlled by means of an annual budget based on the staff and facilities estimated to be required to produce the expected hours of transmission. In common with most businesses certain items, for example the ITA fee, cannot be controlled by management so attention is concentrated upon those items which are within its control.

The annual budget is prepared by departments, and sections of departments, in association with their respective heads, who will be responsible for controlling the expenditure during day-to-day working. The actual expenditure incurred in each month is then compared with the budget for each month, split up into department and section by type of expense, so that the reasons for differences can be investigated.

Apart from this monthly comparison of actual expenditure with budget, management and the board are provided with a fortnightly operating statement. As this statement deducts from our advertisement and other revenue not only indirect and overhead expenditure but also the estimated direct costs, it is effectively a profit and loss account. It compares the estimated profit or loss for the current fortnight with the corresponding period for the previous year and the cumulative profit or loss to date for the current financial year is similarly compared with the preceding year.

All these statements ultimately build up into the company’s annual profit and loss account (which includes the operations of the TV Times) and balance sheet. Subsequently comes the agreement of the Inland Revenue’s ‘take’, as the senior partner in this, as in all businesses, with all the voluminous and complicated information and calculations required by H.M. Inspector of Taxes.

To sum up, our aim is to contribute to the prosperity, present and future, of A-R and, therefore, of all of us by the speediest possible service of all types to its staff, management and directors.

The post Fourth floor says… Off-screen credits appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

How do we stand now, those of us engaged in making programmes, at the start of the fourth year of the company’s operation as a programme contractor?

Have we lost our originality, our fire? Has complacency taken the place of ingenuity? Are we, as one journalist put it, “playing safe” with our programme pattern?

If one is to believe what some of our Press-men are writing, then in fact ITV is just coasting along picking up its millions of profit with effortless ease.

Let us examine this suggestion, and take a glance at some of the shows we have been “coasting” along with in the past few months.

Take drama for instance.

This company’s contribution to the ITV network in 1958 was forty-one plays – far in excess of any other contractor. Two-thirds of these plays were British in every sense of the word, eighteen of them being adaptations of British stage successes, and eleven of them specially commissioned TV plays by British authors. This is quite apart from the tremendously successful half-hour British series, “Murder Bag”, which has consistently appeared in the top ten ratings. “Television Playhouse” and the “Play of the Week” series have become firmly established and represent a most important and successful contribution to the ITV programme pattern.

We intend to increase our number of British TV plays in the future and encourage more writers to work exclusively for us.

And then light entertainment can claim to have made its contribution towards originality in 1958.

“The Jubilee Show” succeeded in combining music, comedy and nostalgia in a blend of the old and new, regularly rating in the top-ten, and bringing many letters of appreciation from all kinds of people.

“Rush Hour”, “East Side, West Side”, “Free and Easy” and “Hotel Imperial” all stepped out of line and gave us new ways of presentation. “Cool for Cats”, still on the air and gaining in popularity, will continue with us into the New Year. And the two original ITV quiz shows, “Take Your Pick” and “Double Your Money”, are surely the most successful of them all, and remain the most consistently highest rated quizzes. I only mention these few shows because they are company originations, which is all we are concerned with.

How about features?

Dan Farson’s “People in Trouble” scries has brought him to the front rank as a personality interviewer. “This Week”, coming up to its fourth year, is the only programme of its kind on the ITV network and remains the most informative of all programmes with a behind-the-news format. “New Horizon”, “Conquest of Space”, “Undercurrent” – which brought Gerard Fay to the fore as a new TV personality -“Out of Step” and “Keeping in Step”, “Only Yesterday”, “USSR Now” and “America Now” make an impressive line-up of programme effort and achievement. Difficult to detect any lack of fire in this section.

How about the children?

Are we relying on cowboys and Indians for our high ratings? The facts show just the opposite. Currently the most successful live children’s British serial, “The Red Dragon”, written and produced by John Rhodes, recently passed the viewing figures of “Pop-Eye”, “Fury” and “Rin Tin Tin”. Three of our recent serials were specially written by members of A-R children’s team, and in no programme section is there more zeal and dedication to their work. It is in this section that an important new method of animation “Visimotion” has been developed and is proving of great value, as seen recently in the “Alexander the Mouse” and “The Enchanted House” programmes.

Schools programmes, in their second year, have widened their horizons and with the introduction of “The Dordogne River” programme, specially filmed on location, they stepped out of the classroom to bring the reality of the lesson to the individual. The new programmes planned for the spring term are designed to further this conception of TV education. And then, of course, there are the programmes that do not fall into any particular category — the outside broadcasts, 105 of them, in addition to the Wimbledon Tennis coverage; the “Close-Up” and “Spotlight” scries; the rapidly produced tributes to personalities, such as Mike Todd, Robert Donat and Jack Buchanan, usually mounted in a few’ hours.

So perhaps this suggestion of “coasting” is merely Press talk. Why should we expect anything other than severe criticism from a medium which is more and more finding itself in conflict with Independent Television?

We are sure of our brief. Let us keep our sights high and make quite sure that the things we do are done as well as they can be.

Let us surround ourselves with the best possible talent; let us treat every programme we do as a means of finding out how to do it better next time. Good luck to all of you who contribute to the making of our programmes. Look out, 1959, here we come!

The post Floor Four says… Keep our sights high appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

A few months ago a group of distinguished speakers, taking part in the BBC Brains Trust, were asked by a viewer: ‘If the members of the team could envisage looking back a hundred years hence to life in 1958, which aspect of it would they find the most deplorable?’ The panel which was drawn, as usual, from a number of highly intelligent people from different walks of life agreed unanimously that, in their view, advertising was the most regrettable characteristic of the twentieth century. After two World Wars this seems a pretty sweeping condemnation but it is, in a sense an indication of the dislike and cynical distrust of advertising and all that it stands for that exists among the intelligentsia and those the researchers call ‘the opinion-forming groups’. The reasons for this undeserved reputation are too complex to be discussed in the scope of a short article but perhaps they are to be found in the traditional attitude of the nineteenth-century professional classes to whom trade and commerce were vaguely disreputable. There is ample evidence that this attitude still persists in a less vehement form today and there is still an immensely influential body of opinion made up, in the main, of the teaching profession, the clergy and certain of the older Trade Unionists to whom ‘advertising’ is very nearly anathema. The advertising industry itself must take a great deal of the blame for its own inadequate public relations system, for many of the largest advertisers, in exploring increasingly successful means of selling their own products, have almost entirely overlooked the side-effects of this advertising on the more thoughtful – but often misinformed – members of the public. Whether we like it or not we are, in independent television, not only entirely supported by advertising but we are also inextricably involved in the most exposed and controversial of all its manifestations. The strength and impact of television advertising, so important and effective to the advertiser, are at once the means whereby everything that happens on the screen, whether it be in a programme or a commercial, is discussed, criticized and applauded by viewers and non-viewers alike. This subjective emotional quality of television shows itself in curious ways. Nearly all advertisers, and particularly the small ones, even though their campaign may be limited to a short series of 5-second flashes, tend to talk grandiloquently of their ‘programme’. Similarly, a great many viewers associate a particularly irritating commercial not primarily with the advertiser and his product but with the contractor and his programmes.

These then, are some of the reasons for the far stricter control over advertising material exercised by the independent television programme companies than those ever enforced in the Press and other media. These safeguards, the need for which was so wisely foreseen by the originators of the Television Act, have proved on the whole entirely acceptable to advertisers, most of whom recognize the importance of controls which the intimacy and impact of television make necessary.

Since 1 May of this year, the Independent Television Companies Association has operated a centralized script and copy acceptance department through its secretariat at Television House. Before making any filmed commercial, the advertiser, through his agency, is required to send ten copies of the script – sufficient for all contractors and for record purposes – to the Secretary of the ITCA. These are routed to all companies whether the commercial concerned is destined to be shown on all stations or not. The script itself is stamped by the ITCA with a coloured label, black if it appears to be acceptable and red if doubtful, so that each company can, through its own acceptance department, make its own decisions. These are usually passed by telephone back to the ITCA who then communicate, on behalf of all their members, direct with the advertising agency. In the great majority of cases a unanimous decision is reached speedily but from time to time matters arise on which members disagree. The procedure in such cases is that the question is referred to the ITCA Copy Sub-Committee at whose meetings I represent this Company. Decisions made at this committee are reported to the Main Advertisement Committee of the programme contractors, so that we have now built up a formidable list of precedents and ‘case law’. The policy of the television companies in all these matters is based on the application of the Television Act of 1954 as published in the ITA papers of the Standing Consultative Committee and in the Principles for Television Advertising. These rules are, for the reasons I have already explained, more diverse and far-reaching than those to which other media are subject, for television is, after all, the only advertising medium to have control exercised upon it by a statutorily appointed body. Topics on which particular care has to be exercised are as varied as appeals to children which, in the opinion of the Authority, exploit ‘their natural loyalty and credulity’, ‘advertising which is inserted by a body, the objects whereof are wholly, or mainly, political’ or advertising which is directed, however remotely, ‘towards a political end’. It has not always been easy to discern the scope of these limitations from a glance at a script though a good general rule propounded by the ITA is that any advertising which is intended to promote the sale of goods and services is normally acceptable. ‘Opinion advertising’, for which the television medium would be peculiarly effective, is entirely ruled out by the Act as it stands at present.

Filmed commercials are normally required fourteen days before transmission and it is, of course, only at this stage that final clearance of the advertisement can safely be given. For example, the medical profession is rightly concerned about the use of actors in TV commercials who give the impression, from their speech, delivery and setting, of professional medical advice and it is easy to see the level to which much advertising, particularly of patent medicines, would sink were a close control not exercised on presentation. It is for this reason that when we return passed scripts to the advertising agencies we add the words ‘Script story-board accepted subject to approval of film’. This safeguard is also used to allow us if necessary, to reject a film whose nuances and emphasis are not apparent in the original treatment.

Lest it should be thought, however, that constant vigilance has to be maintained to prevent wily advertisers from deceiving the public I should, in all fairness, add that the vast majority of companies who use the television medium are acutely sensitive to the viewers’ reactions and are, indeed, as conscious as we of the damage that a major breach of the rules would cause, not only to their own reputations, but also to the value of the medium.

The growth of the field of advertising covered by television has astounded even its most fervent supporters. This year we, at Associated-Rediffusion, have been carrying up to seven hundred separate commercials a week. We have seen the revenue of independent television as a whole go from £9,500,000 [£267m now, allowing for inflation] in its first year and £25,500,000 [£685m] in its second to a present rate of expenditure of around £1,000,000 [£25m] a week. It has become the most talked-of, provocative and powerful medium ever placed in the hands of the advertiser. It is a measure of the success of the safeguards which the ITA and the programme companies have together set up and the understanding and good-will shown by advertisers and agencies in their operation that the system, with all its complex checks and balances, has remained flexible and imaginative.

The post Floor Four says… Safeguards for the viewer appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many television programmes should we have? The question is often asked but very rarely answered in a logical and considered way.

It is, indeed, a difficult question to answer. The artists and technicians employed in television obviously want as many programmes as possible because the greater the number of programmes, the greater the demand for artists and technicians, and it is thought that as a consequence their remuneration might be greater.

Those responsible for the operation of television systems do not necessarily agree. They realise how difficult it is to operate even the limited number of services which now exist because of limitations of available skill both in the artistic and technical worlds.

Again, it can be argued by those who would like to see lots of programmes that if many programmes were available the demand for personnel would increase and this would result in more people going in for television careers and the general level of skill would be likely to be raised.

Whether this is true or not, it happens to be a basic fact that all television programmes have to be paid for whether by licences, advertising or subscription systems as now proposed.

The total funds available for these purposes are limited and relate to the economy of the country as a whole. If more than one Station depending on advertising revenue operates in the same area, the available advertising funds in that area have to be shared between them. This may result in reduction of standards if ends are to be met unless, of course, numbers of programmes are kept sufficiently small so that sufficient funds are available for each programme. The same would apply if the BBC were to operate a second programme: their licence revenue would have to be shared between the two operations. In the opinion of this writer the total profits of the independent programme companies throughout the United Kingdom would not be sufficient to run a good extra programme. It is assumed that all companies are run reasonably efficiently and, therefore, the very most that would be available for any additional programme supported by advertising would be the profits of the existing companies.

People who talk light-heartedly about additional programmes should first consider the economic facts and the technical problems involved.

Plans have been prepared to fit a third television programme into Band III and, indeed, it has even been suggested that in the thickly populated areas like London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc., a total of four programmes might be provided, but this would have to be done at the expense of other areas which might be left with no programme or only one programme from Band I and Band III.

It seems basically right that before third, fourth or subsequent programmes are dealt with the existing two programmes, i.c., BBC and ITA, should be made available to 100 per cent., or nearly 100 per cent., of the population. It is not good enough to say that 98 per cent, coverage should be satisfactory, as the remaining 2 per cent. represents a million people. These people mostly live in outlying areas with difficult access to the benefits of civilisation as regards information, entertainment and education. They are the people who deserve television more than anybody else and for whom television can do the most.

Because of technical limitations of channels on which television can be transmitted only thirteen channels are available in Bands I and III, which are the two Bands allocated by international regulation for television transmission. Although there are international arguments going on between broadcasting and other communication interests for two more channels to be added to the thirteen, it is unlikely that this will happen for some years to come.

We, therefore, have to plan on the basis of what is at present available and while wishful thinking has indicated that an additional programme might be squeezed into Band III, this would have to be done at the expense of no programme or only one programme being available to a million people to whom television should be of the greatest benefit.

This docs not mean that additional programmes are not possible. Indeed, several additional programmes could be introduced by making use of Band IV or even Band V. Incidentally, transmission in these Bands in this country have shown, and practical operation of some one hundred such stations in America have clearly indicated that these Bands are quite suitable for television broadcasting. Admittedly, additional receiving cost is involved as Bands IV and V, being in the ultra high frequency bands, require additional receiving equipment and, of course, a further aerial. However, if people want three, four or more programmes in the thickly populated areas then it is right that they should pay for the receiving facilities to get such programmes rather than that people in outlying areas should have to be put to extra cost. There are further benefits in using Bands IV and V for additional programmes. Relatively inexpensive low-powered transmitters could be used and, for example, in the London area there might be three or four additional low-powered transmitters covering different parts of London with a common programme but with separate advertising for each area, and in this manner it would be possible to attract additional revenue for low-priced advertising from sources for which the present large coverage commercial television stations are too expensive.

This type of operation on Bands IV and V also opens up further possibilities. For example, many more localised urban or rural programmes relating to local social and sporting happenings and special local educational programmes could be provided.

There is a long-term development which may make it possible for additional channels on Bands I and III to become available. It is well-known that the mosaic of a television picture is completely reconstructed from scratch every twenty-fifth of a second. This is in spite of the fact that probably 90 per cent, of the information in each picture was already there in the previous picture. If, therefore, basic information from one picture to another could be “stored’’ and “repeated”, and only the new information transmitted, considerable saving in band width might be possible. If such saving should be only half of each channel, obviously the present number of channels could be doubled. There would be technical difficulties on quick fades in and fades out; however, the work in hand gives considerable promise of success. Whatever long-term improvements may come along it is most important that on a short-term basis everybody in the United Kingdom wherever he may live should be able to see the two main television programmes as soon as possible, and that at all costs we should avoid creating a badly planned chaos similar to that which exists in medium wave sound broadcasting.

The post Floor Four says… How many programmes? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.