ITV needs to make its sports coverage distinctive.

Originally posted as part of LinkedIn Pulse, as I am now an author there as well.  Keep up with my postings there by clicking or tapping here.

In these days it's very rare for competing channels to both show the same thing, but Sunday night, 13th July in the UK, that's exactly what happened, as both BBC1 and ITV went head to head with competing coverage of the FIFA World Cup final. How is this possible you ask? BBC and ITV are both members of the EBU, the European Broadcasting Union, who actualy have the rights to show the World Cup across Europe, which they do via their various member stations.

Now, there is a history when it comes to BBC1 and ITV both showing the same event at the same time. Usually ITV loses, and it was the same here, although the margin in terms of viewing figures is huge.

According to a report on the BBC News website, the overnight figures showed that BBC1 had an average of 12.1 million viewers for the World Cup final, against 2.9 million viewers for ITV. The peaks for both channels were 16.7 million for BBC1 and 3.9 million for ITV.

This is becoming so routine for ITV, that you'd think they'd either give up, or try something else, but no, they seem happy to take the hit generally. However, this is a mere symptom of a much bigger problem at ITV Sport, and it is this. ITV Sport generally underperforms against similar BBC Sport coverage. If you were to look at the averages of live football coverage on BBC against similar live coverage on ITV, BBC is more watched, more often. But why?

It's a weird thing really, but in general terms, ITV Sport has a major image problem. It's too often seen to be style over substance, where BBC Sport is often felt to be more substantive. Is that a fair criticism? Not really. At one time, back in ITV's heyday, their coverage of sports was often just as substantive as BBC's, even though sometimes they'd have to settle for lower profile sports and events. But ITV's image took a general hit overall from about 1993 onwards. The hit was mainly in News and Sports coverage and Comedy, which had been areas that various ITV companies had excelled in. It was painful at times to watch what had been a great broadcaster slowly decay.

But in 2000, the rights for Premiership highlights went from BBC to ITV, and ITV announced what they hoped would be their saving grace for Sports coverage. "The Premiership" was to be the first time that Premier League football highlights were to air in PrimeTime, indeed, airing at 7pm from the start of the 2001/2002 season. ITV hoped that this would make them the new goto company for sports coverage. At around the same time, ITV launched the ITV Sport Channel on their digital terrestrial subscription service, ITV Digital, previously known as On Digital. ITV Digital had acquired the Football League rights at around the same time, and were showing these games on the new ITV Sport Channel. For some baffling reason, ITV, in the form of Carlton and Granada, decided that the ITV Sport Channel should not air on Sky, to try to give ITV Digital a competitive advantage.

It was a mistake. One of many that ITV did around that time. I should know. I was covering the whole ITV Digital debacle at the time for Transdiffusion. It was one of the lowest periods in ITV's history. A news service that was pretty universally derided as being style over substance; a failed platform in ITV digital, and a failed sports channel. 2002 was a low point for ITV, and their Premiership highlights were not helping matters. Instead of being at 7pm, the highlights had gotten relegated to a 10.30pm slot, due to low ratings, and would remain there until the end of the rights package in 2004, where upon the rights for Premiership highlights returned to the BBC, and have stayed there ever since.

But why did the Premiership highlights programme do so badly? That truly was style over substance. A typical 75 minute programme contained just under 30 minutes of highlights, far less than BBC had given to highlights previously, usually almost an hour out of an 80 minute show.

Since then, ITV has learned their lesson about substance, although some high profile automation problems that interrupted live football coverage at key times, have not helped their reputation. But now, ITV need to do something rather more radical if they are to undo all the years of damage and neglect that they have done to their Sports department. They need to be as radical as Sky Sports was when they first appeared on the scene back in 1991. But again, they mustn't over-emphasise style over substance, as substance is what wins ratings, something Sky Sports knew about in 1991, although they had their own style, they backed it up with substance.

ITV needs to create their own style, and back it up with substance, something ITV News has had to relearn to do since their 1999-2004 low point. Now ITV Sport needs to do the same. At the moment, they don't really do a lot to distinguish themselves, and sacrificing substance for style just isn't an option, not with the state of the sports broadcasting industry today. EuroSport, BT Sport and Sky Sports are all big players these days in the world of sports rights, along with the BBC. ITV do have some major events, such as The Tour De France, The French Open Tennis, and some Darts and Snooker tournaments, but most sport now is relegated to ITV4, rather than on the main channel. If ITV want to make themselves a sports powerhouse, then they need to have coverage with a lot of substance, in a strong authoritative style, that defines ITV, the way ITV News is now defined by the greater emphasis on human interest news. Maybe ITV Sport should emphasise the match coverage, rather than analysis. It would differentiate them from BBC and just about everybody else in sports broadcasting. Such a strategy would be a radical departure from ITV's long time emphasis on celebrities and personalities in sports coverage, but it would be enough of a departure that might get them noticed again in the sports broadcasting world.

ITV have been stuck in a rut for too long. They say a change is as good as a rest. ITV certainly need to make some major changes.

James Murdoch resigns as Chairman of BSkyB

When this broke in the 1pm BST hour today, I was stunned.  I was not expecting this to have happened today.  In fact, I wasn't expecting it at all.  James wil stay on as a member of the board, but he's no longer Chairman.

Ofcom is investigating whether NewsCorp is a fit and proper company to hold a broadcasting licence.  There are many investigations in the UK, the USA and Australia right now.  But I cannot honestly see how NewsCorp can continue to own assets like British Sky Broadcasting, Foxtel and Fox Broadcasting Company.

I also think the FCC should take this as an opportunity to finally regulate the cable broadcasting market in the US. 

Of course, James's resignation is another line of firewall, designed to protect Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp's investments across the world. Just last week, Panorama on BBC1 reported how NewsCorp subsidiary company NDS had been invloved in breaking the Canal Plus encryption system that On/ITV Digital was using.  Then the Australian Financial Review released emails detailing NDS's involvement in breaking other encryption systems of competitors.  Currently, Cisco Systems is seeking to acquire NDS Group.

No matter how many levels of firewalls Rupert Murdoch puts in, everything goes back to him, one way or another.  Murdoch is well known for handling things himself and being very hands on.  Because of that reputation, he will not be able to wash his hands of all the controversies that now dog him.

Dead And Buried?

I am nothing if not a realist. In the many years that I have been following the media, I've seen the them do a lot of silly things. But the way industry insiders such as Ralph Bernard have recently talked down DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) digital radio is almost nothing short of deliberate sabotage. Thankfully few others have gotten in on the act, though DAB does have its problems. But then, so does GCap, the company Ralph Bernard worked for. So maybe, it was telling that Mr Bernard did everything he could to hide GCap's problems behind the façade of a DAB crisis. After all, almost all of GCap's radio stations broadcast simultaneously on analogue AM or FM and on DAB Digital Radio.

But now, a group of analysts have bought into this façade and are trying to suggest that there is a real crisis in DAB, a crisis that - by the way - doesn't actually exist except in the minds of bean counters who are looking for profit all the time. The name of this group of analysts: Enders Analysis. Now, this analytical organisation has tried to claim that in fact DAB is about to become the next Betamax!

First of all, the analogy is way off the mark. DAB is not in competition with FM, or AM, or even DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) which is fairly new on the scene. If that were the case, then LW would probably have been closed off years ago. Secondly, to look at how long it takes for something to bed in to the public consciousness, you only need to look at VHF/FM. The band was opened up in the 1950s, but it didn't become popular to listen on FM until the 1980s. Even when Radio 1 had to hand over 1053 and 1089 AM to commercial radio in the 1990s, there were still plenty of people to convert over to listening to Radio 1 on FM.

The report's writer then goes onto suggest that DAB's financial health is looking grim by saying:..

"With three of the largest radio groups having reduced their commitment to the DAB platform in recent months, their stations having been replaced by a mix of ethnic, religious and non-commercial broadcasters, the future health of the DAB platform must be under question."

I really think this guy needs to wake up and actually do a little research. There are other issues at work here than just DAB. First, Yes, GCrap GCap is closing stations, not because DAB is a failure, but because of their own lack of confidence in both finances and in broadcasting itself. Remember they tried to sell off 9 stations as a bundle, that they felt were "non-core stations". They failed, miserably. GCap's Gold Network is in danger of collapsing. The whole network of 40 stations gets less than 1.5 million listeners, with some stations doing incredibly pathetic numbers. Gold's Plymouth station gets a mere 7,000 listeners. It's because the product being offered, whether by DAB, FM, AM or online, is one that people think is not up to scratch. It doesn't mean the platform will fail.

Virgin Radio may have closed one digital only station and put the brakes on launching another, but that again has little to do with DAB. SMG, who own STV and Grampian as well as Virgin Radio, are trying to sell Virgin Radio, but again, there are few interested parties. It's an attempt to make the Virgin Radio company more attractive to possible investors. It's got nothing to do with any possible failure of the DAB platform.

People were saying similar things about Digital Terrestrial Television when On/ITV Digital collapsed in 2002. I remember it well, I was reporting on it at Transdiffusion. Now, with Freeview as the base of the platform, the platform is thriving. Commercial Radio went into the platform without looking at how long it takes to establish one. They were looking for a quick 5-year or so turnaround to profits, rather than the 15-20 years it takes to properly establish a new radio platform.

DTT went from being a commercial platform to being a public service platform and has thrived. DAB needs to go down the same route and it won't as long as GCap are in charge of national and local multiplexes. GCap's Digital One and Now Digital are the DAB equivalent of ITV Digital. The daft thing is, this moronic writer of this report, whose name is Grant Goddard, also referenced the ITV Digital debacle!

"Ofcom faces a public outcry if the DAB platform were to fail, with owners of the 6.45 million DAB receivers sold to date demanding a refund of their purchases (remember ITV Digital?)."

Yes, I do. As I mentioned earlier, I reported on it, first hand, you can find the articles over in Bitstream on EMC, along with those of some of my colleagues who also reported on it at the time. And in all honesty, I do not see how over 6 million people would demand refunds for something that they HAVEN'T subscribed to, but just bought a piece of equipment for. Believe it or not, there are still ITV Digital digiboxes out there working, albeit not brilliantly, but they are working, just. But the most moronic statement of them all has to be the one that follows:

"Channel 4 is faced with the task of imminently launching a brand new DAB multiplex in the middle of a snowstorm around the future of the whole platform,"

A 'snowstorm' that has been created predominantly by two people. GCap's Ralph Bernard and Enders Analysis's Grant Goddard. Channel 4 got a taste of running a digital radio station in the recently demised Oneword, and it obviously didn't put them off because they chose to bid for a new national multiplex. And they won. 4 Digital group's stations represent the freshest ideas for DAB ever. All Digital One seems to have done is trotted out the same old tired sound, time and time again, and Joe Public is bored with it. With the growth in online listening, listeners can tune in to stations the world over, and find the cream of the crop.

Sadly for commercial radio, the UK's best stations are run by the BBC. British commercial radio barely flickers across the online 'dials' at all. But stations in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe are all providing a far superior product to almost anything we have here in the UK. The reason is simple. Whilst our commercial radio stations have cut back content to the bare bones of music, commercials and news, other stations across the world have upped their content levels and because of this, are able to take advantage of the Podcast medium, which out of necessity, has to be speech based.

DAB as a platform is not at fault. It's the stations themselves that have shot themselves in the proverbial foot. Yes, we've lost a number of radio stations on DAB, but they've closed because their business plans were not realistic, in much the same way that a multitude of stations have closed on digital television, not because of the platform, but because their business plans were not realistic, not designed for the new digital broadcast environment that exists these days. And because they aren't making money as quickly as they want to, they want to abandon a broadcast platform. And you, Grant Goddard of Enders Analysis, are actively encouraging them with this piece of anti-DAB propaganda!

The report reads like the kind of hit job that I would expect from Fox News covering a Democrat, rather than an analysis of DAB. It has so many inaccuracies, that I have detailed and more, and come to so many erroneous conclusions, that I have to consign this report to the only file where it seems to fit in. The waste paper bin!

ITV in crisis

ITV has been facing up to some major problems recently, and arguably, it has not been coping very well with them. In what has been a tough time for the commercial broadcaster, the ITV companies have faced major problems with ITV Digital, falling revenues from advertising, falling audience figures with BBC1 and Multi-channel TV benefiting the most and a greater than average number of new programme failures, including some very high profile ones such as Shafted. The question is, what happened to ITV to allow it to fall so far?

There are a number of potential reasons why ITV’s fall has been so bad. One potential reason can be traced all the way back to the creation of Independent Television back in 1954. Originally, the Independent Television Authority was supposed to have created 2 commercial networks, each with additional licenced programme providers. But it ended up being only one commercial network, and no additional programme providers, which made things difficult for Associated Rediffusion and ATV London in the initial months of Independent Television. These days, such an arrangement with additional programme providers licenced for ITV would undoubtedly have seen more of the old franchisees become production companies, and also some good companies that never quite made it to being franchise holders, providing programming. It would also make for a more competitive ITV in terms of programming.

Another potential reason why ITV is in possible crisis goes back to the 1990 Broadcasting Act. In the act, it allowed the ITV companies to merge with each other, and potentially be bought by other companies too. Why was this a bad thing? Well, ironically for the same reason that lack of additional licenced programme providers was a bad thing. Instead of having a competitive ITV with 15 companies and the threat of losing their franchise if they didn’t perform up to scratch, you now have just 5 companies, who know their licences are pretty safe, and therefore less competitive, less challenging and less satisfying in terms of programming.

Another potential reason lies in what has been recently a major situation in broadcasting terms, and that is the situation between ITV and Sky. In 1998, ITV decided not to launch on Sky Digital, despite the fact that BBC1, BBC2, Channel 4 and Channel 5 were all launching on both Sky Digital and On Digital. On Digital, nowadays know as ITV Digital, is owned by Carlton and Granada, the two biggest ITV companies. Granada have some history with Sky as Granada was involved in the British Satellite Broadcasting venture of 1990, which ended with BSB merging with Sky. Carlton had channels of its own that it didn’t want on Sky, and had previously restricted them to just Cable. Carlton and Granada felt that On Digital needed an advantage over Sky Digital, and they felt that ITV would give them that advantage. So ITV refused to launch on Sky Digital, and also refused to launch ITV2 on Sky Digital. This move was to prove costly in financial terms with many millions of pounds of advertising revenue missed because of this one move. ITV1 and ITV2 were to launch in 2001 on Sky Digital, but the damage had been done. The move had cost them advertising revenue, and it had cost them viewers too, and the longer they stayed off Sky Digital, the more it was going to cost them in terms of viewers and advertising revenue. So, they finally put up and launched on Sky Digital.

Another potential reason lies in the fact that On/ITV Digital always looked to compete with Sky Digital. Alongside the fact that ITV had been having something of a tiff with Sky for many years, going back to the lack of agreement between Sky News and ITN, over ITN acting as programme producer for Sky News, in 1988, and continuing through Sky’s failed attempts to replace ITN as ITV’s news provider, when you put all that together, you see ITV trying to compete with Sky, one by not providing ITV and ITV2 on Sky Digital, also by trying to use ITV’s advantage as a terrestrial broadcaster to persuade people to go to On Digital, owned of course by two of the biggest ITV companies. Put that very complicated mix together, and what do you have? You have a channel provider on Digital Terrestrial, trying to compete with a channel provider on Digital Satellite, where really they shouldn’t be competing at all. On Digital was the only licenced digital pay-TV provider for Digital Terrestrial, and Sky Digital was the only digital satellite pay-TV provider. In theory, they shouldn’t have been competing with each other as they were two different markets. However, in practice, people were comparing the Sky/On situation to the Sky/BSB situation of 1990, long before either side were actually transmitting digital programmes, and this wasn’t helped by On Digital themselves, whose advertising was at least initially quite blatantly stating their competitive agenda.

Whichever reason it was, and whichever way you look at it, it comes down to competition. Sky had had no real competition in the Multi-channel arena after their merger with BSB, and ITV in itself was less competitive because the number of ITV companies had dropped from 15 to 5, and because the franchises were no longer being seen as under threat every whit and while, so there was no pressure on ITV to perform. Now ITV is in this situation. To this writer, it looks like a crisis, a crisis of ITV’s own making. They wanted the ability to merge stations, to eventually become 1 giant national ITV. They wanted the franchises to be easier to renew, therefore creating less pressure, and supposedly more time for increased investment. They wanted the greener, less regulated grass on the other side of the fence. Now they’re there, they are finding it’s leaving a foul taste in their mouths, but instead of backtracking, ITV seek to blame the BBC and Sky for their own problems. There’s an old saying. It says, “You reap what you sow”.

So, how can ITV get themselves out of this predicament? Well, the only way they can do it is to go back to being more regulated, and back to being a commercially funded, not commercially driven, public service broadcaster. They must waste less money on unnecessarily extravagant set designs, cut down the amount that is just given away to shareholders, and start re-investing in the people who really count, the viewers.