Examination of Witnesses
(Questions 60 - 79)
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER 1998
MR LESLIE
HILL, MR
RICHARD EYRE
AND MS
KATE STROSS
60. But that is not what the Secretary of State
says. What the Secretary of State said in his letter was this:
"The ITC will have to consider whether the proposals put
forward by ITV to replace News at Ten with bulletins at
6.30 and 11pm are consistent with these principles and meet the
requirements for competitive high quality news at peak viewing
times. My own view"—that is, the Secretary of State's—"is
that they do not. By moving the main Channel 3 bulletins outside
the heart of peak there is a risk of diminishing their availability
to viewers and their capacity to compete effectively with the
BBC ...", and the ITC say in their conditions that the ability
of news services on ITV to compete effectively with those of other
national news bulletins will be one of their criteria.
(Mr Hill) If I may say, that is the judgement which
the ITC must make.
61. Of course.
(Mr Hill) But let me just say that first of all we
believe that we will be, as I said in my opening statement, better
able to compete against the BBC with a half an hour of news at
6.30 and the gap between our two news bulletins as they currently
are and the gap between the news bulletins as we would like them
to be would be the same: there would be a four-hour difference.
We actually believe that we will be better able to compete effectively
against the BBC. Of course this is the matter on which the ITC
has to make a judgement. On the former point again, I have read
out the words and there is a process whereby the ITC is perfectly
entitled to vary the licence arrangements within the Broadcasting
Act. We only saw this document that you were referring to yesterday.
We have at no time heard from the ITC that we are out of order
in attempting to go through this procedure.
62. Oh, you are not out of order in attempting
it.
(Mr Hill) There is nothing wrong with the process.
I am sure they would have told us if there was.
Chairman: I am sure there is nothing
wrong with the process.
Mr Maxton
63. Several times, Mr Eyre, you have suggested
that if you moved the main news to 11 o'clock you will attract
a more up market, young, cosmopolitan audience. Is not the problem
that you have, and I would argue the underlying reason why you
are doing this at all, is that that particular market no longer
depends upon terrestrial news bulletins at all for the news that
they get? They get it from computer news services, they get it
from either Ceefax or Teletext, they have availability of 24-hour
news services from Sky or from BBC 24-hour and they are not going
to switch that habit off and suddenly watch an 11 o'clock bulletin
rather than at 10 o'clock. They do not watch at 10 o'clock and
they are not going to watch at 11 o'clock. They do not need to.
(Mr Eyre) I disagree with that to this extent. I think
that the users of more high tech methods of receiving the news
are mainly that group, but to say that these people have dispensed
with television as part of their leisure habits is going too far.
That is actually not the case.
64. But would you not have been more honest—and
I have some sympathy with what you are doing—if in fact
you came before us and presented it as saying, "Look; terrestrial
news is already irrelevant to a sizeable part of the market and
is going to become increasingly irrelevant to a growing audience
because with digital television coming on stream"—and
in my view it will be taken up much faster than anybody at present
is projecting—"there will be all sorts of news services
in depth available to people who want to watch news. Would you
not have been better coming before us and making that argument
and saying it is a changing world; the world has changed since
the licences went out dramatically, and making that argument rather
than trying to say, "Well, we actually will provide a better
service at 11 o'clock or half past six"?
(Mr Hill) I do not think we could do that given our
responsibilities and our licence agreements. What we are trying
fairly hard to do is to improve our ability to serve the public
with news. That is something that, as we have just been discussing,
is laid down in the legislation. We do not want to try and avoid
doing what we are supposed to do under the legislation or indeed
under our licence agreements without actually having a change
agreed by the ITC. We have a duty and a responsibility, we are
proud of ITN, we want to go on providing a top class news service.
65. But surely you could have argued that in
the five years since you got your licence there has been a dramatic
change in the way television and other media now can present news?
That has changed the whole world in terms of broadcasting. You
could perfectly validly argue that case as a reason for changing
your news services rather than trying to argue it on some other
grounds.
(Mr Eyre) I think we can argue that that is the way
that things are moving. At the current time though there is a
very large number of people in the UK who do not have access to
the kinds of services that you are referring to and for whom television
news remains right now a very important part of the good working
of a democracy.
66. That is a bit of a myth actually. If I look
round some of the poorer parts of my own constituency there are
large numbers of satellite dishes available to people. They may
not watch the 24 hour news service, I do not know if any of them
do, but it is available to them.
(Mr Eyre) Yes, it is available to them.
67. Lastly can I come back to the regional point
because it is important. You said, Mr Eyre, that the regional
news is done at half past 10. Some of them are not doing that.
STB have already basically done what you are suggesting. They
do a news headlines possibly as three headlines at half past 10.
They then do a major regional news item late in the evening after
the programme which follows the 10 o'clock news. Have you any
idea how that has affected their figures in terms of viewing?
Do more people watch it late on at night than at half past 10
or fewer? That was their argument.
(Mr Eyre) I do not know the answer to the question
and I will provide it for you. I do know that the Scottish television
companies are taking specific steps to deal with the changing
constitutional issues in their part of the world but I can provide
those figures for you.
Ms Ward
68. I want to pick up on a few of the points
you have made in the documents you have submitted to us. You suggested
in this document that the popularity of the BBC 6.00 pm bulletin
supports your choice to move the news to 6.30. What we have actually
heard this morning is that viewing figures for news at that time
at 6.00 pm are falling. How can you suggest that it is supporting
your choice of 6.30?
(Mr Eyre) Yes, it is rather tedious really. It supported
it rather well when we put the document in on the figures to the
end of May. As I suggested earlier on, the summer can be a slightly
quirky time and I fully accept that the argument is a little weaker
now than it was when we wrote the document. However, I do not
think that the argument has lost any moment at all because of
the fact that there are still between 10 and 11 million news viewers
between a quarter to six and seven o'clock. There are a lot of
people who are voting with their remote controls to watch the
news on terrestrial television at that time. That and our attitudinal
research, which I agree has less weight than what people are actually
doing, does suggest that it remains a good time to watch the news.
69. But you suggested earlier that you can change
attitudes and you can change habits by moving the news programmes
from 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock. Why has the BBC and why have you
not been able to change attitudes by holding news programmes early
in the evening? The reality is that you cannot change people's
viewing habits because people have work commitments, they have
family commitments, that take them through into the early evening
these days when perhaps in the past they may have been sitting
down as a family to watch News at Ten or BBC news. Now
they actually want to see a good news programme much later in
the evening but at a time when they are still able to watch it
without falling asleep, at 10 o'clock, which is the reason why
it is popular for people, even though it is falling.
(Mr Eyre) Let me be clear: I do not think we are saying
that we can change people's habits. I think what I am saying is
that the timing of television programmes do affect the way people
spend their evenings. The fact is that if we were to sit on our
hands in dealing with the defection from ITV at 10 o'clock, you
could rightly accuse us of turning a blind eye or fiddling while
Rome burns or something. We do have not to sit arrogantly by and
let that number of people go and do something else. We have got
to try and arrest that. It is a problem and it is affecting our
ability to produce public service broadcasting to the very highest
calibre. With regard to the 10 o'clock bulletin, I think the suggestion
there is that that is not working so well. We have said a number
of times what will happen is speculative and that it is for us
to try and weigh the variety of information sources that are available
to us, come up with a conclusion, and for the ITC in the end to
sit in judgement on whether they believe that is a proper balance
of our commercial imperative and our public service imperative.
70. I am afraid, Mr Eyre, you cannot have it
both ways. You can either be in a position where you can change
habits or you cannot. You have suggested at one moment that you
can change habits and that is why you want to be able to put it
at 11 o'clock, because you think you will bring viewer figures
along with you, when what we have in the statistics here is almost
half the number of people still viewing at 11 o'clock than there
are at 10 o'clock falling off as we go through to the night. Then
you are also suggesting that you cannot change those figures and
that people will still watch at whatever times they are watching.
You cannot have it both ways.
(Mr Eyre) No-one is saying that the News at Ten
is not a good programme.
71. I am not saying that at all. It is a very
good quality programme. That is why I just do not understand why
you want to change viewing times to take it to a period where
there are likely to be fewer people watching it than are already.
(Mr Eyre) Because last week an average of 2.1 million
people a night switched off at 10 o'clock. On Tuesday night it
was 3.6 million viewers turned off at 10 o'clock, after whatever
it was they were watching in the half hour before. I think we
have got to take account of that. I think you could beat us up
much more effectively if we just sat there and said, "Too
bad".
(Mr Hill) We are not suggesting that more people will
watch at 11 than 10 o'clock. Our modelling, our research, suggests
that with the combination of 6.30 and 11 o'clock the likelihood
is that we will get more viewers for the news and we will be able
to produce a much improved schedule with more viewers between
nine and 11 o'clock, something which we have not even touched
upon. That is what it is about.
72. I am not talking about the quality of the
news programme. You have mentioned the quality and I have to say
personally I think it is a very good quality news programme. I
am concerned that ITV's, and indeed many of our public service
broadcasters' commitments to news, is declining slightly. I think
they believe that public viewing figures are the most important
above presenting and providing news programmes. Do you think that
news programmes are different from anything else that you should
provide and therefore should be treated differently when viewing
the statistics for public viewing?
(Mr Eyre) Yes, I do. Notwithstanding Mr Maxton's view
about the changing use of news media, we are committed to strong
news programmes. The changes that we are proposing, although we
are focusing very much on news, are about a whole review of our
schedule. We have not dealt much with what viewers are going to
get at 10 o'clock if we get permission to move the news. On two
nights of the week they will be getting a substantial news, current
affairs or documentary programme. We have commissioned a new 60-minute
programme which will attempt to build on what the Prime Minister
described as ITN's enormous success in taking difficult news stories
and making them accessible, but doing that with news analysis,
political interview, over a 60-minute period, something new in
British television and something which we have already commissioned
and which is the largest current affairs commission ever in the
history of British television. I think that signifies a reasonable
level of commitment to news and current affairs. On one of the
other evenings we will be running a series of documentaries called
Real Life, which are a documentary record of life in Britain
at the turn of the century. These are high quality, high calibre
programmes that I hope underline a commitment to news, current
affairs and serious documentary as part of ITV's output.
73. You state in your document that there will
be a substantial new late evening programme with national, international
and regional news, better coverage of Parliament and US stories.
(Mr Eyre) Yes.
74. What we have actually heard is that it is
going to be 20 minutes of national and international news, 10
minutes of regional news. How can you make that substantial within
that 20 minutes? Of course there is going to be a commercial break
of three, four minutes, significantly less than what people are
getting at the moment at 10 o'clock.
(Mr Eyre) Yes, that is right, but the same as people
are getting at 5.40. This is a replacement for the 5.40 programme,
whereas the 6.30 is moving house for News at Ten. At 6.30
people will get everything that they currently get from News
at Ten including the bongs and And Finally and all of those
other bits of furniture that they like so much.
Chairman
75. Could you remind the Committee what the
viewing audience for News at Ten is now on BARB figures?
(Mr Eyre) Yes, I have. Somewhere in these sheaves
of information designed to cope with any question which you may
throw at me, Chairman, I have the current figures. No, I am sorry,
I do not have the actual figure. I have got the figures for the
period October 1997 to September 1998, the full year figures,
and the answer to that is 6.1 million.
76. Let us just look at what you are telling
us. The audience for your 5.40 bulletin in the quarter just completed
was 3.861.9 million. If you are telling us that that is an unrepresentative
figure, the audience for your 5.40 bulletin last year overall
was 4.690.7 million. The audience for BBC Six O'Clock News
in the quarter just completed was 5.199 million and for last year
as a whole was 6.392 million. That is not because the viewing
audience at either of those hours is low. There is a very big
viewing audience at both of those hours. It is just that the people
prefer to watch something else than news. Three-quarters of the
viewers who are watching TV when you are transmitting the 5.40
news are watching some other channel, and three-quarters of the
viewers when the BBC is transmitting the Six O'Clock News
are watching something else, ie only a quarter roughly of the
people who are watching want to watch either of those bulletins.
The figure that you have given for the 10 o'clock news, even including
the falling away of 27 per cent which so concerns you, is substantially
larger than the figures for BBC Six O'Clock News or the
figures for the ITV 5.40 news. ITN's News at Ten is the
best watched news bulletin there is, even with the fall in figures
that concerns you. Mr Hill has just told Ms Ward that you do not
expect the audience for the 11 o'clock bulletin to be as big as
the 10 o'clock bulletin and indeed it is impossible that it should
be, taking into account the precipitate fall in viewers between
10 and 11 o'clock. There is absolutely no evidence other than
your hope or your hunch that if you had a 6.30 bulletin you are
going to do better than getting a quarter of the viewers at that
time since you actually get at 5.40 or the BBC get at six. What
you are deliberately catering for is a fall in the number of people
watching your peak hour bulletin. The statistics say that. I am
drawing the conclusion from the statistics. I am not inventing
them. What you are telling us is that in order to reach your schedule
and maximise your commercial income, although so far as I can
tell your commercial income is pretty healthy, you are deliberately
planning to reduce the audience for your peak news bulletin which
at present is the best watched bulletin in British television.
(Mr Eyre) Yes. I would just say, Chairman, that this
is not a hope and a hunch. We really have spent an enormous amount
of time on this and employed as best as one can models and experts
and statisticians in order to arrive at the conclusions we have
arrived at. This is not a swing in the dark or something that
is masquerading as something else. We genuinely believe that over
the course of a period of time we can restore the audiences to
news. All those figures that you quoted are correct. You did not
mention that 75 per cent of people are also doing something else
when News at Ten is on. It is a fact that trying to preserve
the news to British television audiences now is not simply a question
of putting something on. They have many other choices and it is
our objective not to do the news because we have to but to do
it in the best possible way, to invest very significant resources
in it and produce a bulletin at 6.30 and at 11.00 which will seriously
attract very large numbers of people. I do believe, not on a hope
and a hunch but on looking at the numbers and looking at what
we have to deliver in terms of increased audience on what is currently
happening at 6.30 and 11.00, that we can over time deliver enhanced
audiences to news and actually increase the total number of people
who are watching news on ITV. It is not going to happen tomorrow
but then it will happen over time.
Chairman: People will draw their own
conclusions from what you say, but every piece of statistical
evidence made available to the Committee would indicate that what
you are seeking to persuade people you can achieve is going against
every trend that there is.
Mr Wyatt
77. Could you tell me whether the profits of
the major shareholders, Carlton, Granada, Scottish Media and United
News Media, have declined at all over the last three or four years
in their television shareholding in ITN?
(Mr Hill) The figures, which I think are produced
by the ITC, show that profits between 1996 and 1997 were level.
We of course do not know what they would produce for 1998. What
we do know is that if revenue stays the same there will be a substantial
reduction for 1999 because first of all it is the first year of
losing the Channel Four monies that came from the funding formula,
£60 million, plus investments in digital, up towards £40
million, so if ITV were to continue to lose audience share, and
its revenue were to remain on a level plain, and obviously inflation
at even a small level continued, then you are talking about a
reduction in 1998 of possibly £100 million plus. Clearly
I cannot speak on behalf of the individual companies. I can only
speak on behalf of ITV. These matters are private to the individual
company but I can refer to what the ITC produces and I have tried
to give you some indication of the way the numbers look. Clearly
all sorts of things will be done to try and offset the loss of
the Channel Four funding money, and obviously things can be done
to try to ensure that profits increase and do not decline. This
is a crucial point because our audience share ultimately will
have a major impact on what our advertising revenue is. That is
why I said at the beginning we have to make sure we maintain and
increase our advertising revenue as the cost of programmes goes
up in order that we continue to invest in high quality programmes.
78. It is a fact though that in the western
world television audiences are going down and television shareholding
profits are going up. Let me just ask you about news.
(Mr Hill) May I just say on that point that of course
the companies for years have been finding all sorts of ways of
reducing their costs. The business is much more efficient than
it was five or 10 years ago.
79. On news would you accept that it is not
that we have dumbed down there. It is just that the news is dumbed
down but the audience watching it has dumbed up. It is not a matter
of actually moving it; it is a matter of improving the quality
and the presentation of news. The reason why you are losing viewers
is that the quality of the presentation is stuck in a 1980s format.
(Mr Eyre) You think that News at Ten is not
a good programme?
|
