Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
THURSDAY 2 MARCH 2000
MR LESLIE
HILL, MS
KATE STROSS,
AND MR
MALCOLM WALL
Chairman: Good morning, Mr Hill. We welcome
your colleagues and yourself to this meeting and this inquiry.
I should perhaps explain that the reason we have some empty seats
on the Committee side of the table is because we are meeting simultaneously
with a number of Standing Committees and I am afraid that the
Whips on both sides are being tough about people attending Standing
Committees. No discourtesy is intended.
Mr Fearn
1. You argue that your peak-time audience has
increased since the abolition of News at Ten. You define
the peak-time as the period from 7-10.30pm. For how long have
ITV and the advertisers used this definition of peak-time?
(Mr Wall) This was introduced in 1998. It was introduced
because the Network Centre decided quite rightly to try and give
the advertisers some comfort in terms of their ambition regarding
audience share. They used 7.00-10.30 which is at odds with the
normal peak-time definition because that is the time that the
network is charged with scheduling. Before that, there is a mixed
responsibility of both network scheduling and regional scheduling.
From 10.30, there were a good deal of regional slots at 10.30,
so they took a time period which they felt they could confidently
control. It is also the time in which advertisers are particularly
interested because of the size of the audiences available and
their ability to build advertising campaigns in that period.
2. How does the value of advertising revenue
in the period 6.30-7 compare with the period 9-11?
(Mr Wall) For the advertising period 9-11 I do not
have those figures to hand but it will be higher than the earlier
period.
(Mr Hill) What is quite interesting about the situation
is that the advertising revenue has increased by over £100
million in the last year. It is impossible to identify exactly
how much comes from that increase in audience share which you
refer to between 7 and 10.30, but we estimate it to be between
£50 million and £70 million. The point about that is
that that increase in audience share in those hours has increased
advertising revenue quite substantially.
3. You are saying really and truly that audiences
still maintain watching the ITV network when News at Ten
would have been on?
(Mr Hill) Yes.
4. What are the figures now?
(Mr Hill) Since September when the new programmes
came on stream, the average number of people watching at ten o'clock
has increased by 721,000 individuals. We have explained before
that 27 per cent of the audience were turning off at ten o'clock,
something like 2.2 million viewers, but there has been a major
change. That is one of the reasons why the audience share between
7 and 10.30 has increased to the extent that it has. Given the
competition from the growth of Channel 5, the growth of cable
and satellite, it is almost unheard of that a major terrestrial
channel in any country with such a high market share should actually
increase it against the trend of increasing competition. In that
sense, what we have done has been successful.
5. Does this show that people who generally
watch your programmes, and News at Ten was a particularly
good one, have switched to an earlier news programme or a later
news programme?
(Mr Hill) What appears to have happened is that a
number of people who used to watch both the 5.40 and the 10 o'clock
news programmes—there are fewer people watching both. The
figures for January 1999 against January 1998 show that in January
1998 there were 1.5 million people watching both news programmes.
Now there are only 900,000 watching both news programmes. It appears
that not so many people are watching both. There is also a slight
skew in the kinds of audiences that are watching. There is a slightly
different kind of audience watching at 6.30 and, in the terminology
that has to be used, there is a high proportion of ABC1s and young
people watching the news at 11 o'clock.
6. Does that worry you at all or would you rather
have the revenue?
(Mr Hill) It does not worry us at all because when
we look at the 6.30 news we have a high proportion of the 55-plus
audience; we have a high proportion of the female audience. We
think we may be getting a better spread of viewers in total, bearing
in mind that there are not so many people watching both news programmes.
It is early days to tell but it looks as if we are getting a good
spread of the population watching the two news programmes.
7. Finally, would you accept that the ITC could
be or would be entitled to require you to reinstate News at
Ten?
(Mr Hill) If you look at the stipulations that were
laid down by the ITC—and you will obviously be asking them
this question; bear in mind that we have to make our own submission
about what we have done to the ITC by 10 March—we certainly
believe that it will be found that we have done what we said we
would do. There is a whole range of things like no diminution
in quality, no less expenditure on news, much more diversity in
the schedule and we can demonstrate very clearly that between
9 and 11 o'clock there is a lot more diversity in the schedule.
We can demonstrate, for example, that there are far more factual
and documentary programmes, which is what we committed to. There
is more sport. All those things that we committed to doing we
have done. I do not know whether you read John Dugdale's article
in The Guardian on Monday but he compares ITV with the
BBC extremely favourably in this whole area. Even the Church Synod
has recently praised us for doing more religious programmes than
the BBC, 49 hours against 42 in the first six months of this year.
They have praised several recent programmes that we have done.
I believe that on the diversity point we can demonstrate very
clearly that we have done exactly what we said we would do and
we have given the viewer a better schedule of quality programmes,
a better variety of programmes. The viewing figures suggest that
that is the case.
Chairman
8. Following up Mr Fearn's questions and your
answers, could we look at statistics that have been provided to
this Committee by the ITC? If one looks at channel shares, UK
homes, 6pm to 10.30pm weekdays, March to December 1998 and March
to December 1999, we find that ITV's share has fallen from 36.8
per cent to 36.2 per cent, which is almost exactly in line with
the fall in BBC1. You have actually lost audience share on that
basis, according to the ITC. If you look at channel shares in
all United Kingdom homes 7pm to 11 pm weekdays, the complete period
between the evening news and the nightly news, the ITC figure
again shows that ITV is up by 0.1 per cent, 36.9 per cent to 37.0
per cent. That is scarcely a dramatic increase. If one looks at
other figures that the ITC have provided for us as recently as
yesterday, one sees that the total audience for the two bulletins,
the teatime bulletin and News at Ten in 1999, the most
recent four weeks, was 11.4 million and the total audience for
your 6.30pm bulletin and your 11pm bulletin for the most recent
four weeks of this year was 9.4 million. You have lost two million
viewers for news in a year, on year on year figures; whereas again
according to the ITC figures supplied to us yesterday your audience
between 10 and 10.30 in the old News at Ten slot, although
it has fluctuated up and down, for the most recent period is 6.4
million compared with 6.1 million a year ago. You have lost two
million viewers for news for the gain of 300,000 viewers in the
old News at Ten slot. I would like to remind you, Mr Hill,
that you told this Committee on 22 October 1998: "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." You have lost two million. Perhaps you could comment
on those figures which are figures supplied to us this week by
the ITC.
(Mr Hill) There is a whole number of points in there.
I do not recognise the two million loss; I do recognise a loss.
If you look at the 6.30 versus the News at Ten figures,
I believe it is true to say that over the whole period that we
are talking about the evening news has taken 5.4 million viewers
against the News at Ten figure of 5.7 million viewers over
the full period. However, in the last couple of months, the figures
have been almost identical at around 6.1 million. There has been
an improving trend. Where the loss primarily lies is the 11 o'clock
compared with the 5.40. The 11 o'clock has averaged 3.3 against
around four million for the 5.40. The reason for that is that
we have not been terribly successful and, on the figures that
you quoted about the audience share between 7 and 11 that the
ITC quoted, we have not done very well at 10.30. It is fairly
obvious that news figures are very much affected by inheritance.
If you put on something that is very popular and watched by a
lot of people before 11 o'clock, you are much more likely to get
a higher news figure at 11 o'clock than you would otherwise. We
have a real conundrum here. We have five occasions when we have
had over five million viewers for the 11 o'clock news. That is
when we have played a show like The Blonde Bombshell about
Diana Dors or a James Bond film. There are other examples which
do not readily come to mind. It is possible to get five million
for news at 11 o'clock. The problem we have had is that we have
not been sufficiently successful with the new programmes that
we put on between 10 and 11. We are working on that. We have experimented
but there is a conundrum here. We have to provide a diverse schedule.
Nobody wants, and we should not be trying, to put on nothing but
very popular movies that will always give the nightly news a very
big inheritance. We have a conundrum. We want to experiment. We
have said before in our submission that we wanted to try out different
kinds of sitcoms, different kinds of programmes. Some have been
successful; some have not been. We have not been successful enough
in providing a big enough audience coming up to 11 to get a similar
audience for the nightly news that we used to get at 5.40. It
is the 11 o'clock news which has been the problem. When we have
had something which has been well watched before it, we have got
five million viewers. You raised a number of different points,
Chairman. I have tried to deal with some of them. I am not sure
I have dealt with all of them.
9. Mr Hill, when you spoke to us on 22 October
1998, you did not say anything about conundrums whatsoever. What
you said is—and I quote your words from the official record:
"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." You will forgive me if I take the
ITC figures rather than your own. With respect, they are more
likely to be objective. The figures supplied to us by the ITC
are categorical. In the beginning of 1999, four weeks in 1999,
when you had News at Ten, your teatime bulletin had 5.3
million viewers. Now, 6.30 pm, in peak-time, which the other one
was not, it is 6.2 million so that is up 900,000. The old News
at Ten had 6.1 million viewers. Your 11 o'clock news now has
3.2 million viewers. The total has gone down from 11.4 million
to 9.4 million. That is a reduction of two million. There is no
conundrum about that. It is two million fewer viewers. Again,
I repeat to you that the ITC figure tells us that for the most
recent four weeks for which figures are available your old News
at Ten slot had 6.4 million viewers compared with 6.1 million
viewers before you abolished News at Ten. What we are facing
is the loss of two million viewers to your news compared with,
again for this most recent period, 300,000 in the old News
at Ten slot. There is no conundrum about that. For the gain
of advertising of £100 million, which obviously means a great
deal to you, you have thrown away two million viewers for your
news bulletin.
(Mr Hill) First of all, I think you are quoting the
last four weeks' figures. We are quoting figures over a longer
period of time.
10. You will no doubt have noted that I have
been putting down tracking questions on this for the Department
over quite a long period. These are not isolated figures. Indeed,
this figure of 6.4 million for this latest period for the old
News at Ten figure is more favourable than the last period.
The last figure I got showed that the slot for there had fallen
by I think 900,000, so we can all be selective about figures but
these are the ITC figures.
(Mr Hill) While I answer one of the points, could
I ask Kate to have a look at what we think are the reductions
in the news figures since we made this change? You have quoted
me quite correctly from what was said here before. We believed
that what we were saying was right. What we also never, ever said
was how long this would take. We made it very clear that this
would be over a period of time. We never specified a period. When
you make a change of the kind that we have made, it is a huge
change to the schedule. No one ever said that we would necessarily
succeed in achieving that kind of position in a year. We had no
idea when we made those comments to you that we would even be
reviewed at this particular point. This is an exercise which may
well take up to three years. We still believe that if we get the
programming right between 10 and 11, if we can provide a bigger
audience for the 11 o'clock news, we will get a bigger inheritance
for the 11 o'clocknews.
11. You never said that to us. You did not say
any of that at all. You did not say "over time" whatsoever.
Mr Eyre, who is no longer with us, was asked, "So the scheduling
will be right at 11 o'clock when nine million people have gone
to bed since ten o'clock?" "We believe, taken as a package,
it would be better than now, yes." There is nothing about
"over time"; nothing about conundrums. He just said
that categorically, as you said what you said categorically.
(Mr Hill) We did not use the word "conundrum"
but we did say "over a period of time".
12. Not in the sentence from you that I have
quoted.
(Mr Hill) We did in that report because
I have been back over it and read it. We did talk about this happening
over a period. It would happen over a period of time. We never
specified that period of time because we were not asked. A year
is too soon to make that judgment because it will take time for
people to change their habits. It will take time for us to get
the programming right between 10 and 11. We may not have said
it was a conundrum at the time, but it is a conundrum for us because
we are required to produce different kinds of programmes. We have
produced more documentary programmes, more factual programmes,
in that peak period. We have not provided the 11 o'clock news
yet with a big enough inheritance from the previous programmes.
We are trying very hard to get that right. We hope that we will
improve the inheritance so that we do get a better audience for
what I think is a very fine news programme. Anybody watching it
this week, watching the scenes from Mozambique, I think it is
a very good programme that is very watchable and, as I said before,
when we can provide it with a good inheritance, we have five million
viewers.
Derek Wyatt
13. I want to put on record that I am the new,
non-executive chairman of the Einstein Channel, which is a science
and technology channel launching in Berlin in April. When we talked
to the BBC about Radio 4 and the coverage of Parliament, they
told us we were barking mad but a year and a half later they are
about to change back to putting Parliament on Radio 4 properly.
Do you not think there is still a groundswell of huge annoyance
and anger that News at Ten is not there and that if you
had a MORI poll tomorrow it would be 90 per cent in favour of
a return to News at Ten?
(Mr Hill) The best poll that we have is the number
of viewers who watch. We have an increasing number of viewers
at ten. The important point is that since September, when we brought
the new programmes on stream to go alongside the rest of the schedule,
we have an average of over 700,000 more people watching at ten
o'clock. That is the key point for us. That is why our audience
share has gone up during this key period of 7-10.30. That is why
our advertising revenue has gone up. Do not forget that we have
been able to spend more money on programmes during that period
in order to provide better quality programmes. If we have to go
backwards and see the audience decline—it did decline by
six or seven per cent in the five years between 1993 and 1998—if
that is what happens, we will have less money to spend on programmes.
We would get less advertising revenue. Instead of getting a virtuous
circle where we have more revenue and we can therefore spend more
on programmes, we get the very opposite where we get a decline,
less revenue, less spent on programmes, less quality programmes,
less home grown programmes. Is that good for the British audience?
14. In a multimedia environment, there are very
few institutions if that is the right word, that you can remember.
One of them still, for most families, is that, at ten o'clock,
they turn on expecting to find News at Ten. There are so
few. A lot of people remember what 7.30 is because of the soaps.
This is one of those things that is very deeply ingrained in the
British psyche, News at Ten.
(Mr Hill) That is exactly why I say it will take time
to change. This is why one year is not a long period on which
to judge this major change. It will take longer. We have a very
high proportion of viewers, so-called ABC1 viewers, watching at
11 o'clock. I repeat that we did not say this could be done within
a year. We are trying to improve the numbers.
15. Towards the end of this year there will
be a White Paper from the DTI and the DCMS on perhaps the need
for a single regulator with more teeth than the ITC. What would
be your reaction if it did say that it carried out its own polls
that said and proved that there was a demand by the public for
News at Ten to come back and told you that, awfully sorry,
but under the new licences, that is what you have to do?
(Mr Hill) As I recall it—the ITC will obviously
speak for themselves—the ITC did some work on this and said
that there was a certain amount of people saying, "We do
not want our films interrupted at ten o'clock by news but we also
want News at Ten". It is very hard in a poll type
situation to produce an answer that is reasonable. The ITC took
the view on balance that it was a reasonable change for us to
make. The viewing figures demonstrate that on balance, whilst
there is a substantial part of the audience that does want News
at Ten, there is an even bigger part of the audience that
does not.
16. Can you tell us on what proportion of weekday
nights since March 1999 the 11 o'clock nightly news has not gone
out at 11 o'clock?
(Mr Hill) I cannot tell you what proportion but we
did have a significant problem before September because of the
timing of the old programmes. We did occasionally put it out before
11 o'clock which is a pretty crazy thing to do. That was not right
and we put it right. The nightly news never now goes out before
11 o'clock. It goes out after 11 o'clock because of the advertising
break.
(Mr Wall) It is a combination of the advertising break
and the running times. This year, the 11 o'clock news has not
gone out any later than 11.04. This is not uncommon with any of
the running times. The important thing is that you do not disappoint
viewers by going out before a stated time. We have always had
flexibility on starting fractionally after that time.
17. You do have on digital ITV2. Do you ever
see a chance that News at Ten could be on ITV1 and the
films on ITV2 as we become more digitally aware?
(Mr Hill) I know that we have considered News at
Ten on ITV2 but we have not done that. I cannot answer that
question. That is something that we have to consider in the future.
18. Does that depend on the reach of ITV2?
(Ms Stross) The practical problem is that ITV2's reach
today is very limited. It is available in digital terrestrial
homes and there are about 600,000 or so of those. It is available
in some cable franchises, but its reach is nowhere near as universal
as the reach of ITV.
19. That is because you are resisting going
on the Sky satellite package?
(Mr Wall) No. It is a mixture of carriage and penetration.
Even if we were on all platforms, the reach would still not be
nation wide. By our forecasts, digital platforms will only reach
50 per cent of the country by 2004/5. Putting news on ITV2 is
not in itself a solution. It is our ambition to have ITV2 on all
platforms at the appropriate time.
|
