Examination of Witnesses
(Questions 40 - 59)
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER 1998
MR LESLIE
HILL, MR
RICHARD EYRE
AND MS
KATE STROSS
40. I will change the subject very quickly,
if I may. How many responses have you received so far of the consultation
process that is currently under way?
(Mr Eyre) About 30, although I think that the majority
of responses have gone directly to the ITC and I understand they
have received in excess of a thousand.
41. Is that, in your opinion good, given that
I believe the deadline is 29 October? Is that a good response?
(Mr Eyre) It is a high response yes. Although two
million people a night turn off ITN, the fact that a thousand
people put pen to paper is quite significant.
42. What is the percentage of those people who
have written in—private people, individuals writing in—compared
with advertisers who have a vested interest?
(Mr Eyre) To ITV?
43. Yes, or any that you know of beyond your
organisation.
(Mr Eyre) I do not know the composition of letters
to ITC. To ITV I suppose it has been about half and half—advertisers
who want to say on behalf of British business that a robust ITV
is good for them and the marketing of their products. I have had
a number of letters, both from MPs and the members of the public,
which I would say on balance prefer the news to stay where it
is.
44. And your decision at the end of the day
was based on consultation process, or can you explore any other
factors that may have come into it?
(Mr Eyre) Our decision is principally driven by the
behavioural factor as evidenced by the BARB research (which is
the gold standard of television research and we trust its numbers
and I have described the evidence from those numbers), and attitudinal
research which we do, from time to time, to supplement those numbers.
45. Given the fact that you have said round
this table today that your concept is that the news programme
should become some sort of flagship to be copied, I assume, by
others to show influence on world events and comment on them,
how many decision makers, wealth creators and other influential
individuals do you suspect are going to be around at 6.30 in the
evening (given they have other things to do) or staying up later
to just catch it from you at 11 (given the fact that there are
so many other news programmes around)?
(Mr Eyre) Well, it is rather anecdotal but the evidence
appears to be that decision makers and wealth creators may well
be prepared to stay up for a strong 11 o'clock bulletin. They
are a sub-set of the audience. It is the total viewership that
we have to serve and satisfy here—not just London or wealth
creators but the whole of the UK—and the evidence is that,
for the vast majority of that broad audience, 6.30 is a good time
for viewers.
46. And what impact will this have on local
news broadcasts that follow your current bulletins?
(Mr Eyre) The main effect will be in the early evening
where the local news will now precede the national news which
will be something of a benefit for it. Up till now, local news
managers have had to deal with the fact that their best stories
have appeared as part of the national news and they have had to
follow on and deal with the local aspects of that as best they
can. At 6 o'clock now our proposals would have a half-hour regional
broadcast in advance of the national news at 6.30 so that the
regional issues can be fully developed and discussed. In the later
evening we have a less satisfactory answer to your question, to
be frank: our local news is currently at 1030 and it will be moved
to 1120.
47. Finally, you talk about this great youth
audience, upmarket audience and all the rest. Are you seriously
willing to sacrifice your traditional audience that follows the
10 o'clock news for this new audience?
(Mr Eyre) We are commercial. There is a danger of
caricaturing commercial television as being just interested in
loads of audiences and that we do not care who they maybe. That
is absolutely not the case. At the end of the day, we are selling
a product on to advertisers and these things all work together
to produce public service broadcasting which is genuinely great
but advertisers do not want an audience composition from ITV which
is very skewed towards older people or very skewed towards more
downmarket people. The advertising community lays great store
on those people who do not spend so much time watching television
so it befits us to try and offer a diversity of range of programmes
to seduce those people to stop whatever else they are doing and
watch ITV.
(Mr Hill) I just want to add that we are not just
looking for a youth audience. The important point is that we have
an imbalance in our audience. We like to feel we have an appropriate
proportion in relation to who is watching of both the more upmarket
audiences and the youth audiences. Sometimes we do not do too
well in those areas and what we want to do, over time, is rectify
that and make sure we have our fair share of the youth audience
and our fair share of the so-called ABC1 audiences. That is what
this is about. I would not want you to think we are going hell
for leather for the youth audience. That is not what this is about.
48. The impression you have given me is "Tough
luck all you oldies; move over for the youth audiences".
(Mr Hill) No. The point about this is that we do extremely
well with the older audiences and the downmarket audience. We
want to try and get the balance between all the available viewers
right. This is particularly important because we do have to raise
advertising revenue to put money into programmes and we therefore
do need the audiences that the advertiser wants to sell to.
49. Just for when we deliberate after this meeting,
can you clarify those four points—that you have made, not
me? What is an "older" audience? What is a "downmarket"
audience? What is an "upmarket" audience and what is
a "youth" audience? Please clarify that in one sentence
because I am not very clear what you are talking about.
Mr Maxton
50. What an optimist!
(Mr Eyre) We do tend to deal with this in rather swathing
terms.
Mr Fraser
51. What is an older audience?
(Mr Eyre) Over 55 would be considered an older portion
of the audience as an advertiser would define it.
52. What is a down market audience?
(Mr Eyre) C2DEs as social classes. I know that is
a categorisation, but that is—
53. And what is an up market audience?
(Mr Eyre) ABC1s.
54. And what is a youth audience?
(Mr Eyre) Usually under 35s or under 45s.
55. So young 50-year olds are counted out?
(Mr Eyre) The statistics do take that sweep, I am
afraid.
Chairman
56. A couple of things are emerging from Mr
Fraser's questions and your responses to them, first of all the
role of politicians and members of the Government. As far as we
are concerned, we invited the Secretary of State, Mr Smith, to
give evidence if he wished to do so and he stated that he preferred
to send a letter. He sent us that letter and it is that letter
that he sent us which was sent to me and which I certainly did
not make public because I was indeed abroad when it arrived, and
in which his views were made. With regard to the views of politicians
last time, both the then Prime Minister, Mr Major, and the then
Leader of the Opposition, Mr Smith, stated a view opposing moving
News at Ten and we shall be able to hear later this morning
from Sir George Russell as to whether if at all he paid any attention
to that in carrying out his responsibilities as Chairman of the
ITC. Both of you have said, and it is what the Prime Minister
says, it is what the Secretary of State says, it is what we say
because it is incontrovertible, that it is the role of the ITC
and the ITC alone to make a decision on this, and the reason that
they have the power to make a decision (which we accept), which
in a sense they did not in 1993, is because of the fact that eight
ITV companies made a 10 o'clock news bulletin an offer as part
of their franchise application and the ITC then turned that into
a licence condition. That is the locus of the ITC. The
ITC sent members of this Committee a memorandum on Tuesday in
which they very carefully and entirely properly stated no view
whatsoever, and they are giving no evidence today and are not
coming before us in order to maintain their entire independence,
and that is entirely proper, but they have sent us a factual memorandum
of their locus and I quote two parts of it. One of these
is in paragraph 3 where they say: "... the Broadcasting Act
1990 requires there to be a networked bulletin of national and
international news on ITV in peak time, and at intervals throughout
the day." Then they say: "The ITC defined peak-time
as 1800 to 2230 hours and specified in the invitation to apply
for regional Channel 3 licences that there should be an early
evening news and a 30 minute news programme in peak." That
was their invitation: an early evening news and a 30-minute news
programme in peak. What you are proposing is a 30-minute news
programme in peak, which is 6.30, but that is also the early evening
news, so you are controverting the condition laid down by the
ITC in your proposal. Let me repeat: the ITC said, early evening
news plus 30-minute news programme in peak. That is utterly clear
and they lay that down. But you are offering a 30-minute news
programme in peak which is also the early evening news, so you
are combining them in one whereas the ITC say there have to be
two. I would like you to explain to me how you are fulfilling
the ITC's rule, the ITC's specification, that there should be
two when you are only offering one.
(Mr Eyre) We have clarified with the ITC that the
proposals that we have put before them do meet their statutory
obligations that we have to them, and that the particular wording
here should not be taken to suggest that an 1830 and a 2300 bulletin,
two bulletins at those times, would be a problem for them. We
have clarified with them specifically that this is not a concern.
57. But that is what they said to me two days
ago. That is what they said on Tuesday. I cannot understand how
any private discussions that you have had with the ITC can controvert
and change what the ITC said to this Committee on Tuesday about
what their specification was: early evening news plus a 30-minute
news programme in the peak and that is not what you are offering.
(Mr Hill) The important point here is that what we
are doing is within the 1990 Broadcasting Act, within the legislation,
and the reason that we are going to the ITC to ask them to allow
us to do it is, and I read the words before about the procedures
for doing this, that we are doing something other than that which
we have in our licence agreements: we have to go to them and ask
them to verify it. This happens a great deal. It has not happened
on such a large issue but it happens all the time. Some of the
regional companies are constantly varying their licence terms,
often to improve their public service broadcasting responsibilities.
I think the important point, just to re-emphasise that, is that
we are not doing anything which is not within the Broadcasting
Act of 1990, and we are going through the right process in going
to them and saying, "Look; we want to make this change. We
know it means changing the licences. Can we please do it?"
58. Except that that is not what the ITC say
to us, and the ITC have gone to the trouble of preparing a memorandum
which I am sure they have done with the utmost care, recognising
their responsibilities, and this is what they say. I read the
three relevant sentences and this is the one that I have already
read to you: "In their application to become Channel 3 licence
holders eight of the 15 relevant ITV licensees indicated—in
varying and sometimes heavily caveated terms—that they intended
their peak time bulletin to be News at Ten. This commitment
was translated—as with others of each licensee's `core proposals'—into
a licence condition. The ITC is entitled to hold licensees to
any such `core proposal'." That is the responsibility of
the ITC under the law.
(Mr Eyre) Could I just draw your attention, Chairman,
to the words a few sentences earlier where it says that "the
Broadcasting Act 1990 requires there to be a networked bulletin
of national and international news on ITV in peak time, and at
intervals throughout the day." I think that is the governing
legislation and that is what we are working within.
59. Oh yes, I understand all that. I have read
this whole document, naturally enough. It would be entirely irresponsible
of any of us to come to this Committee without having read this
document. But, you see, they then went on to say that they defined
"peak time" as 1800 to 2230 hours and specified that
there should be an early evening news and a 30-minute news programme
in peak and they turned that into a licence condition, and they
say they are entitled to hold licensees to any such core proposal.
Those are very carefully devised words. They would not have sent
them out without great care. Let me turn to the other point that
they made: "In coming to its decision, the Commission will
consider the full implications of ITV's proposals in the light
of its statutory duties. This will include their effect on: (i)
The ability of news services on ITV to compete effectively with
those of other national news broadcasters." The point that
the Secretary of State makes in his letter, and he again you can
bet will have had this gone through with a toothcomb by his Department's
lawyers, is that you are not competing effectively because the
BBC will have a bulletin at nine and you will have a bulletin
between 6.30 and 11.00 and that is a point which the Secretary
of State makes in his letter, and the reason why the Secretary
of State takes the view that you are not conforming with the law
in trying to change the timing of these bulletins.
(Mr Eyre) I think we agree that it is speculative
for all of us try and decide whether there are more views to the
news in our proposals than at the current time. The Secretary
of State's letter makes it clear that this is his own view, that
he has taken a judgement that there will be fewer viewers at 6.30
and 11.00 than there are currently at 5.40 and 10.00. As you have
yourself pointed out, the 5.40 bulletin is losing audience, we
have talked about the level of switch-off at 10 o'clock, so I
think it does befit us to think about something new. The Secretary
of State's guess may be better than ours but it is still as speculative
as ours.
|
