Technology and legislation

1.9 Technology and legislation

Two events in the early 1980s changed this structure. The first was technological, in the introduction of the lightweight video

camera and the videocassette format recording medium. Until this time, colour video cameras were huge, heavy, studio-based units. The camera body alone needed a four-strong team to lift it on and off a dolly (the camera mount). Up to five technicians were required in the image chain; the camera operator, the cable basher (who kept the heavy cable out of the way of the camera as it traversed the studio floor), the vision control engineer (who controlled the aperture and colour quality), the rack engineer (who lined up the camera at the beginning and end of the day) and the maintenance engineer (who had intimate knowledge of the camera and its particular idiosyncrasies). This was before the picture was mixed with other cameras and then recorded by a videotape (VT) engineer. Both Philips and Sony introduced a camera that could be shoulder-carried by a camera operator and mounted on a lightweight tripod. It was portable, and the

Managing in the Media

industry now had immediate access to video pictures from locations. The skill of the camera operator was no longer paramount. The director could look at the monitor and review the recorded ‘takes’ instantly, or even view them as they were shot. This was much to the anger and frustration of the film cameramen who had taken up the new technology. Until this time the director had relied heavily on the judgement of the camera operator, and there was a high degree of trust, as the pictures would not be seen until they came back from the labs. The implications now were that anyone could record images and use a camera.

The independent sector and its support facility houses have always been at the forefront of the adoption of technical innovations. They have helped to change working practices, develop multi-skilling in order to keep production costs down, shorten the production timetable and so maximise their turnover and profit. Sadly, it is the obsession with new technologies that have since caused many production companies and facility houses to go into liquidation. The potential client calls, discovers that the supplier does not hold the latest piece of technology, and thus moves on to the next company. Supply companies become trapped on the technological treadmill, trying to keep up. Offering ‘new’ services therefore has more to do with commercial fear than with good business practice.

The second event to change the structure of the audiovisual industry was political, and was embodied in the 1981 Broadcasting Act. Through it the government established Channel 4, the first designated publisher-broad- caster, whose first transmission was on 2 November 1982. By 1985, emboldened by their Channel 4 experience, the independent producers formed a lobbying group to submit to the Peacock Committee the proposal that they should have the opportunity to make programmes for the BBC and ITV as well as for Channel 4. The Peacock Report (1986) , in line with Government thinking, wanted the British television industry to function within the demands and disciplines of market forces, to break up the ‘cosy duopoly’ of the BBC and the ITV companies:

One way of introducing competition even when the duopoly remains, is by enlarging the scope of independent programme makers to sell to existing authorities, as already occurs in the case of Channel 4.

The government agreed, and in 1987 announced that, by 1992, 25 per cent of newly originated programming transmitted on BBC and ITV should be supplied by independents. The existing broadcasters’ rhetoric of ‘new voices’ and ‘innovation’ and the sense of ‘team spirit’ were no longer felt to provide sufficient drivers for change. It wasn’t enough that programmes should be

The media industry – into the millennium

made by the independent sector; programme making throughout the industry must be made more accountable. Cost-effectiveness was the core issue, and the term ‘Birtism’ (derived from (Sir) John Birt, Director General of the BBC 1989–2000) was coined to describe an obsession with the financial efficiency, usually to the detriment of programme quality.

At the start of the 1990s, it was anticipated that this would improve competitiveness and open up the television sector to market forces. However, at the time there were only a limited number of transmission outlets for an independent producer. Although that situation has apparently changed with the onset of satellite, cable and digital channels, the amount of airtime to fill has driven budgets down even further, and the means of distribution – the broadcasting – is still in the hands of a small number of big players. This means that it was, and still is, a buyer’s market – the broadcaster or the publisher–broadcaster imposes the financial terms on the supplier, who must either like it or leave the business.

The range of programmes that is transmitted by the franchised independ- ent broadcasters is determined by the 1990 and 1996 Broadcast Acts. They are regulated by the Independent Television Commission (ITC), who also license the channels. As the 2000 Media Guide puts it: ‘the ITC’s job is to limit the independence of the independent broadcasters’. So, independence for the producer is most definitely not the same as independence for the broadcaster.

It is therefore hard to believe that independent production companies have produced such a wealth of programme diversity; the Government determines what is transmitted and transmittable, and the commissioning company determines the cash flow and the profit. In addition, the programmes are in many cases being made by ex-BBC or ITV employees. In the 1980s, and then again in the mid- to late 1990s, the independent sector was flooded with freelance workers made redundant by the broadcast companies who originally employed them.

A major change in the industry brought about by independent production is the method by which programmes are produced. The independent production sector relies on bought-in facilities and crews to make the programmes. Budgets are tight and closely monitored. According to several suppliers to the BBC, BBC programme makers of the 1950s to the 1980s did not have a true indication of how much a programme really cost to make. BBC staff spoke glibly of ‘above the line’ and ‘below the line costs’, without really knowing or even caring what the true financial implications were for the Corporation. It was not considered relevant or

Managing in the Media

useful to know. If a studio was available, then it could be used. Meanwhile, the independent production sector had to work to accurate cost accounting for production, project planning and cash flowing the budgets imposed on them by the constraints of a tender process, an implicit requirement of project management. This was virtually absent for the

producer and director in the BBC 17 .