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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.