October 2009 Archives
Today sees publication of the latest RAJAR figures and there are a few things that are food for thought.
FIrst of all, it wasn't the greatest RAJAR for commercial radio which slipped back a little against a strong BBC which saw increases in share for all its national analogue networks with the exception of Radio 1.
Source: RAJAR Q3 2009
Commercial radio really does need this to return to parity.
Nationally, as well as the BBC channels mentioned, Talksport has done well with some gains quarter on quarter.
In London there's a very interesting story with Capital FM becoming the biggest station in London and this is despite losing share quarter on quarter. What's happened is that Magic has lost even more (and Heart has missed out too), leaving Capital as "London's number one" as the jingles will no doubt be informing listeners at some point today.
My own employer, Absolute Radio, has done well in London, picking up 7.6% in hours against an overall declining backdrop (the BBC is gaining in London too, where the traditional commercial lead is being whittled away).
All of this means it's going to be interesting to see what happens in Q1 next year once Chris Evans has started up on Radio 2. But that's six months away yet.
One very important measure is the percentage of listening that's being done via a digital platform - be it DAB, the internet or DTV. For all radio, it's remained at 21.1%. With commercial radio overall dipping a little at 20.2%, the BBC has helped keep the level up as it has achieved 21.6% digital overall.
Source: RAJAR Q3 2009
Does this mean that "Digital Upgrade" is not going to happen, and we're going to remain on analogue forever? Er, no. It'd be good to see those figures continue to rise, and I know that the DRDB is working hard to ensure that they do continue increasing.
We've also heard that the radio industry is working on a new way for every station to be able to be heard online. Hopefully, that will drag up the relatively lowly 2.2% listening share that the internet currently achieves.
Source: RAJAR Q3 2009
Again, my own employer, Absolute Radio, has managed to better this. Excluding our FM listening in London, 51.5% of all listening is done via a digital platform now - exceding the 50% target set by Lord Carter in his Digital Britain report four years ahead of the 2013 date suggested.
Even if we include FM listening in London, Absolute Radio is at 30.5% - well ahead of the commercial average.
DAB ownership is also up 14% year on year now with 16.6m adults living in a home with at least one DAB radio.
This next quarter is a very important one for sales of DAB radios - and now more than ever WiFi connected radios. As well as the Pure Sensia, Pure has just announced the Sensia Flow while Revo has just announced the Heritage. And Logitech has its interesting looking Squeezebox The common factor for all of is that they have internet radio. As more homes get wireless networks, these devices will become more common place.
All of this leads me to Radio at the Edge where amongst other things, Richard Bacon will be interviewing Tony Blackburn and Lisa Kerr will be telling us why Radio Must Go Digital. It's well worth the asking price, so persuade the people you need to, to let you go!
And if you're very lucky, you might see some very interesting short videos from, ahem, me...
(Note: Although I work for Absolute Radio, this piece does not necessarily represent the views of my employer. That said, it's only because my employer is happy to publish our digital platform listening figures that I can quote them here. I am unable to publish other stations' platform listening figures.)
[Updated to include DAB ownership - 8.20am]
Associated Newspapers has just announced that the London Lite will shortly be closing. This has surely been inevitable since the Evening Standard went free a week or so ago.
Clearly as well the journalists mentioned in the The Guardian's report, there are also an awful lot of part-time distributors losing their jobs, as well associated roles.
I have mixed feelings on this, as I think the paper was absolutely dreadful and an utter waste of space. Culturally, we won't be missing anything that a dozen entertainment websites (or "proper" tabloids) can't do much better. Indeed, let's face it: these papers only need to exist in physical form while we don't have mobile internet on the underground.
But nobody wants to see people losing their jobs - they won't all be able to get jobs at Best Buy.
So what are Londoners left with? The Evening Standard, which is apparently giving out 600,000 copies every evening. Except that I don't think it's got its distribution at the refined point that The London Paper and London Lite had achieved.
In W1 where I work, I usually can't get a copy at Oxford Circus by 6pm with all the distributors having closed their stands and left for the evening. Such is the footfall there, the papers have all been snapped up. Note that I can easily pick up a London Lite at that time, and indeed I can carry on getting one until at least 7pm and often later.
My route home gives me no further opportunity to collect a copy, and so more often than not I simply no longer see the paper. Even the mainline rail stations aren't that well served. At 8pm this evening there wasn't a Standard to be had in Kings Cross. Yet the recent Standard marketing technique was to sell the paper through until about 11pm at a discounted price. I've always previously been able to get a copy at the station at that time, and potential new readers drawn in by the cut-price deal who work late, are now left in the lurch. And beyond mainline stations, there are numerous stations at junctions where overground and underground meet without commuters leaving the ticketed platform areas.
Of course, once I reach my suburban destination, I have no opportunity. The local newsagent doesn't carry it - only a very distant supermarket - the kind of place you tend to visit once a week at most.
Now it's still early days, and perhaps the West End will be better served, but the biggest issue facing the Standard right now is that some of those people who loyally paid their 50p daily can no longer buy a copy. Yes - it's available online - but actually they need a mobile friendly downloadable version that lets me read it offline on my phone, netbook or laptop. The current version requires an internet connection. Even a simple PDF would be fine.
FInally - that photo at the top is curious. WH Smith - at least at Kings Cross - lets you pick up a free copy as long as you buy something else in store!
The Informant! (I guess the exclamation mark is important) is the latest film from director Stephen Soderburgh, and if I said that it was about one man taking on liars and corporate greed, you might wonder if Soderburgh was revisiting the territory he first examined with Erin Brokovich.
But this is a very different film - even though recognising that took me (and the audience I was with) a while. The film is sort of based on a true story, we're told, although details have been changed, "So there." Based on a book by Kurt Eichenwald, it tells the story of Mark Whitacre, an executive at a company called ADM.
He begins to get uneasy about the fact that ADM is price-fixing of lysine, with its competitors on a global scale - setting the prices at which they'd sell their products. Matt Damon plays the naiive Whitacre who's wife persuades him to tell the FBI that there is corporate price-fixing taking place, and that he's a part of it.
The key FBI agents are played by an endearing Scott Bakula and Joel McHale (currently to be seen in the not-at-all-bad NBC comedy Community, as well as E! network's The Soap). They listen to his story, and persuade a reluctant Whiteacre to begin recording his dealings with colleagues and competitors at the secret meetings that take place all over the world.
As the film unfolds, it seems to be told straight, with humour deriving from the characters rather than necessarily their actions. The light soundtrack and on-screen captions would make you feel that this was taking place during the swinging sixties or perhaps seventies. Yet in fact it takes place throughout the nineties - Whiteacre's ties being a particular point of interest. And his wife, Ginger (Melanie Lynskey) seems to be mostly wearing a beehive from the sixties.
The story then begins to unravel further and further. Having somehow accumulated enough evidence to instigate an FBI raid, without being suspected or caught, things that we've seen earlier begin to come into play, and Whiteacre is revealed to not be entirely as we've hitherto had him presented to us.
Is he really as naiive as all that? Is he, in fact, utterly stupid?
Things that we've seen on-screen - that seem unlinked an unimportant suddenly jump out at us, as we realise what we'd seen, but not seen, earlier in the film. While this isn't quite a cinematic equivalent of the reveal in The Sixth Sense, it's handled very deftly.
The gaped mouths of the protagonists of the various legal jurisdictions that are involved leaves you laughing out loud, and although there's a serious subject at heart - corporate price fixing on a major scale - the disbelief of some of Whiteacre's behaviour leaves the viewer stunned.
This really is a curio then, and well worth seeing if you like some of Soderburgh's quirkier and more interesting pieces. I suspect that this will be a hard sell at the box-office, being neither a thriller nor a comedy, but sharing elements of both. But it's good that someone as smart as Soderburgh is able to gather a quality cast and make a film like this.
Dear Lemon Lima is one of those many films that you have see completely blind at a film festival. According to IMDB it's only had a screening at one other film festival and I can't see details of a release date which is a terrible shame.
Vanessa Lemor (Savanah Wiltfong) is a young teenage girl living in Fairbanks, Alaska who's completely infatuated with Philip (Shayne Topp) who works with her for a summer job selling ice cream at a stand. But Philip has well to do parents who've taken him away to Paris for part of the summer, so by the time they both start school again, he's no longer a geek - the glasses have gone - and he's rather thoughtlessly ditched Lemor who certainly hasn't got over him.
Can she retain his affections? Can she fit into the school that she's won a scholarship for?
She's not very good at physical education, so the super-keen PE teacher banishes her with the others who have problems or notes from home in the "weights room." There she finds some kindred spirits.
Lemor is half-Eskimo (Yup'ik) - that's how she attained her scholarship - and is therefore expected to know things that frankly her distant Eskimo-father never taught her and her mother certainly didn't.
The film is laced with finely tuned humour, never coarse, and the characters are very believable. There are the uptight neighbours who are concerned that Lemor may be a bad influence on Hercule, their son who seems more interested in living nature than joining the rifle club and killing deer (there's a wonderful family photo of a happy father and mother standing over a dead animal while their child looks on disgusted). The weights room misfits slowly bond together and then there's the Snowstorm Survivor competition which this year takes place in broad sunshine rather than snow. The games played are supposed to reminiscent of the Eskimo heritage of the people of Alaska.
Fine performances by most of the cast, including once again the much underrated Melissa Leo as Mrs Howard, the uptight mother next door who's turn is more than simply comic.
In the end, the plot is perfunctory, but that shouldn't detract from the overall feeling of the film which is less cutesy in the way that some of its would-be peers might be treading the same ground.
My only real disappointment came as I read the credits and it was obvious that like so many Alaska-set films and TV shows before it, this one was also shot in Washington State. I suppose I don't complain that most series and film are shot in California regardless of their setting, but it'd be nice if a few more films set far afield were actually filmed there. Many of the actors, as well as director Suzi Yoonessi are Eskimo however.
I only managed to get my ticket for the Surprise Film the day before the screening. I'd managed to miss out by the time booking was open for Times readers (I'm not a BFI member, and I'm not really an enormous Times reader, but I was glad of their sponsorship nonetheless). Then last week, the BFI Twitter feed announced that more tickets had gone on sale - while I was stuck in a two hour meeting. Then on Saturday, a load of seats were released which I managed to see in time and book.
The London Film Festival tells you that most screenings have returns and that however sold out they appear, it's always worth coming along early to see if you can get one. The surprise film might be one too many though because the returns queue was simply enormous yesterday. While some got in, people definitely turned up more than 20-30 minutes early to get them.
In the cinema itself, there was discussion about what the film was. Clearly some knew - perhaps from the relevant distribution company. I was also in the 20:45 screening and there was a 20:30 screening who were almost certainly texting people in our audience. Anyway, I managed to still be in the dark before the credits started to roll and it became clear that it was indeed Capitalism: A Love Story - the new Michael Moore film.
When the title came up, one person actually left the cinema. Well more fool him, as this was a passionately made film and quite easily the best film Moore's made since Bowling For Columbine, and indeed perhaps his best film ever. Indeed although Moore was on screen for some of the film, it really wasn't about him. It was about the American - indeed world - system of capitalism and what it means and how it's changed the way we work.
The film opens with families being foreclosed and evicted from their homes where they may have lived for dozens of years. There's nothing that can be done, and in the US, the local police force is employed to throw these families out.
Moore makes fantastic use of archive material, not always relevant archive, but he uses it in a way similar to Adam Curtis uses it in his documentaries like The Power of Nightmares(Incidentally - what happened to the proposed feature version of his documentaries? His current work can be watched on his fascinating blog.).
Slowly we turn to the bank bailouts. This is a section of the film that's passionately related by a handful of politicians who tried their best to reject the bailouts asked of them. At first, as we know, the package was rejected. But once the coterie of Goldman Sachs and other politicians had put the pressure on, and greased the palms that needed greasing, the package was passed.
What happened to that money? Well look around you today. The bonuses are back. Moore tries a couple of stunts, which really only provide some much needed humour amidst the otherwise gloom and despair we see around us. And despite the evident happiness of so many when Obama was elected, even Moore doesn't try to persuade us that anything's really changed.
This is a film which obviously only finished being edited very soon before its recent screenings in Venice and US opening. It needs to be seen by lots of people - now. Moore basically implores his audience at the end as he relates a couple of good stories of people who've refused to leave their foreclosed homes, a sheriff who's refused to help administrate them and a factory taken over by its workers. Go and see it (although you may have to wait for February frustratingly).
I was in Sweden recently, presenting at Radio Days 2009, and letting a Swedish audience know what we'd been doing in the last 12 months as we morphed from Virgin Radio to Absolute Radio.
One of the things I noted was that Absolute Radio publishes its playlist online, and includes the number of plays the tracks got on both Absolute Radio and competitor stations.
After the presentation, I had a conversation with someone who expressed great surprise that we were giving out information about not only what we were playing, but how often we were playing it, as well as our competitors' plays. You see, for a long time, this has been regarded as one of the dark secrets of radio programming. Although you might think that a certain track is getting a lot of airplay, it's never been very easy for a listener to determine quite how much, and how that compares with other stations.
Radio professionals have always had access to this information though. You obviously know how much your own station plays a song, but you can also find out what your competitors are doing. At a very basic level, this might just be employing a work experience person to sit down with a pen and paper (or spreadsheet) and just jot them down as they hear them over the air. Once a song has aired on the radio, it's no longer a secret.
But companies are out there have long provided this kind of service, for a fee to radio groups. As such, it's remained out of the range of curious listeners.
Now the clever guys downstairs at work in our digital media team have launched a new product as part of the One Golden Square Labs initiative: CompareMyRadio.com allows you to see which stations are playing your favourite artists, how different stations compare, the frequency that they play tracks, the uniqueness (or similarity) between stations and so on.
Stations like Radio 2 have begun to make this kind of information very public anyway, with full tracklistings of all their programmes on their website. But others have been a little more "secretive" about it. The precise music mix of their station, they might consider to be akin to Coca-Cola's secret recipe.
It'll be interesting to see how the site develops. It's obviously very much a beta product at the moment, and there are plenty of possibilities for developing it more - not least of which include getting more services on-board. But comparing stations during different timebands would be interesting: most stations play it much safer during daytime than in their evening programming when more specialist fare is allowed.
[Disclaimer: This is clearly a product created by my employer, but these views are my own]
In 2004, there was The Permanent Way, a National Theatre/Out of Joint co-production that carried out a similar dramatised investigation into the state of British railways following privatisation and through a spate of accidents that seemed to occur partly as a bi-product of that.
Obviously, you can't just watch plays "on-demand" unless they're one of the few that make it to DVD release. For the most part, you can only hope that the script has been published - and all of David Hare's have been by Faber and Faber, including The Permanent Way.
But I knew it was also broadcast on Radio 3, so I hunted through my old recordings (I record far more than I can hear), and what do you know - I had an mp3 copy of it!
What a fabulous play it was. I listened to it yesterday - mostly on a train as it happens as I returned from Oxford. It's another devastating indictment of mistakes both avoidable and unavoidable. And John Prescott really doesn't come out of it very well at all.
What a shame that plays like this aren't available to download at sites like iTunes? Despite being dramatised for radio by an independent production company, Catherine Bailey Limited. Searches of Amazon, iTunes and Audible don't find it. While the play may have limited life expectancy as a CD, digitising audio and then selling it on iTunes should be straightforward shouldn't it? Surely it'd unlock loads of additional revenue for the independent producers concerned?
In the meantime, my Psion Wavefinder recording dutifully kept from its 2004 broadcast will have to do me...
The Oxford Museum of Science is currently home to a great little exhibition on the subject of Steampunk - seemingly the first collection of such artworks ever collected like this in the world.
I've always found steampunk to be an interesting area with the wonderfully creative machines that they built. I suppose my introduction would have been through something like The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, but there is more and more fiction about now.
It's a really great collection, and since the it's there until February 2010, you really should visit if you get the chance.
The London Film Festival opened on Wednesday, and this week I caught a few films: Fantastic Mr Fox, which was the opening film of the festival (I wasn’t at the premiere sadly), a UCLA restored version of Topper, and a Columbia restoration of Dirigible.
Fantastic Mr Fox is a terrific stop-animation version of the Roald Dahl tale which you may remember, although I personally didn’t (perhaps my free audio CD from Saturday’s Guardian of Dahl reading the tale himself will remind me). The film has an almost naturalistic acting style employed – with George Clooney leading the voice talent. Director Wes Anderson has adopted a different style to something like Wallace and Gromit where the voice acting is a little more larger than life.
Despite the cast all speaking in American accents and using Americanisms, the scenery still feels British. It’s an odd combination. And the evil farmer Bean played by Michael Gambon does speak in an English accent with a slight cockney twang.
Is the film too scary for kids? No. It’s a PG, but kids should be fine. The only slight issue I have is the use of the word “cuss” to replace swearwords all the way through the film. It’s used the same way that “frack” is used in Battlestar Galactica. But while that latter is aimed at adults, this isn’t and the nascent parent in me found it a bit uncomfortable. “Cluster-cuss” anyone?
Topper is a Cary Grant film from 1937 and a film that I’d never seen before – but 30s screwball comedies are always favourites of mine. As Anthony Slide told us before the film, Topper was a very popular film at the time and was later followed by a couple of sequels neither of which featured Cary Grant, but it has fallen out of favour in recent years and I certainly don’t recall it ever showing up on TV.
Early on, we’re introduced to Cary Grant and Constance Bennett who play Mr and Mrs Kerby – a rich and wild young couple. Mr Kerby is a director of a bank but really that’s just a means to his wealth’s end. They couple have a wonderful car (or “contraption” as it’s later dismissed as) – a Buick Roadmaster roadster that’s utterly gorgeous. But that’s their problem. Returning to their home somewhere in upstate New York, although clearly somewhere in Southern California, they have a fatal crash. Not a good start for a comedy, but they have ghosts!
The ghostly couple decide that before they hear the trumpets and get to enter a better celestial place they probably have to do good. They decide that their benefactor should be Cosmo Topper (Roland Young – the film’s real co-star along with Bennett, although Slide told us that Grant was paid much more than Young) the bank’s manager. He’s a put upon fellow with a wife and butler who organises his every moment of the day, and determines his diet at every turn.
This is a great comedy, and the print has been lovingly restored by UCLA. As it was explained to us, the image all the way through the film was slightly diffused and not as sharp as might be expected. That was a deliberate choice made by Norbert Brodine, the cinematographer, who used that diffusion to hide wires and other things used to create the ghostly special effects. The Kerbys are able to appear and disappear at will although they only have a limited amount of “ectoplasm” to keep them visible.
The film is more risqué than you might think – but I’d guess that this film pre-dates the Hayes Code. A pair of knickers are a small plot point, but they’re the type worn by less savoury types. And Mrs Kerby takes a most definite shine to Topper and spends a lot of time alone in his company which was surely “not the done thing.” Given that the Hays Code at the time was pretty strict, it’s amazing that some of the jokes and allusions were allowed through.
The biggest scene stealer of the film was Alan Mowbray who played the Kirby’s uptight butler. You might believe that plenty of portrayals of Jeeves have been based on his superciliousness. He even gets the final laugh of the film with the closing line.
With any luck, this restored version of the film will be get a release on DVD so that more people can rediscover this classic comedy.
Finally, there’s Dirigible, a very early talkie, dating from 1931, and directed by Frank Capra. It’s an adventure film involving airships and planes attempting to reach the South Pole. While some of the acting seems quite stiff to our modern sensibilities – resulting in unintentional laughs in the audience I saw it with – it’s incredibly well made. The “dirigibles” of the title were US Navy airships and Capra obviously had access to real ones to film. But there is also plentiful use of models for some of the special effects scenes. The scenes at the pole itself are remarkably well rendered, despite having actually been shot in the desert – it all looks the same in black and white. Clearly, the screenwriters were well aware of the likes of Scott, Amundsen and Shackleton, because some of the scenes feel like they’re simply reworkings of those true stories. The central love triangle features a torn Fay (King Kong) Wray who’s at the centre of a love triangle. But it’s always clear what the “right” thing to do is and despite talk of going to Paris to get a divorce, the marriage survives.
It’s lovely to see films like this on the big screen, although I’m now looking forward to seeing a few newer films.
There's a lot of rubbish on televison. Most of it in fact.
But once in a while there's something good. And even more rarely, something exceptional gets aired. Last night on Channel 4 we got the latter. The Force is a new three part documentary from Patrick Forbes. He's made some excellent observational documentaries in the last couple of years including National Trust (which I haven't seen but was widely praised) and English Heritage (which I have seen and is excellent).
In these films he follows the Hampshire Police as they solve crimes. That could be very dull - the networks are full of cheap observational police documentaries. ITV airs Nightwatch every night after all. But this was something more than drunken youths in a city-centre somewhere being locked in the cells overnight.
We followed a case where a body of a young woman was found burnt in a suitcase. A nasty murder. The police had to piece the whole case together. The body was unidentifiable initially, and they had no witnesses. A car had been seen and had an accident. They had some of its paint. Slowly the story came together. But forensics in real life aren't as slick as those of CSI or other dramas. DNA evidence doesn't always come up trumps.
The film was edited in such a manner that it felt like a well-told crime drama. Yet it was real, and the death of the young Polish woman was not just some Sunday evening fun. There was tension and reality - the cameras couldn't always be everywhere at exactly the right time. But we saw enough to realise that here were a group of people diligently carrying out their job even when somebody at Vauxhall was being unhelpful about getting a German contact to talk about paint to.
Curiously the film's credits listed Mark Strong as narrator, yet one of the film's strengths was that it had no narrator. Maybe I've forgotten about something at the start, but all the information that we needed to know was conveyed in brief on-screen captions. Indeed my biggest complaints about contemporary documentaries - that they feel the need to recap after every ad-break - was nicely side-stepped by a brief summary caption for latecomers or the slow of thinking.
Overall this was a little gem, and I'll be looking forward to the rest of the series.
Do yourself a favour and watch the first episode. It's repeated on Channel 4 this Thursday at 1am (ie. Very early on Friday morning), so set your PVR for then. Or watch it again on demand. You'll thank me later!
Short answer: No.
I alluded a little the other day to this, but I think it's a discussion worthy of its own topic anyway.
Every couple of years or so, Sky One gets a new controller - most recently Stuart Murphy who was appointed at the start of this year. Every new channel controller wants to make his or her mark, and that's always been the case with Sky One - or indeed any other channel. More than once we've heard that a channel controller of Sky One wants to make it a bit more like HBO in the US.
The problem is that HBO is sold as a specific add-on in the US, whereas Sky One is usually sold in a basic entertainment pack in the UK. In the US they'd talk about the former being "premium cable" while the latter is "basic cable." That means that the amount the channel receives per subscriber is much less than what HBO gets.
Let's take a bit of a look at HBO. It's certainly not like any UK channel. First of all, it's actually a pacakge of channels with HBO being the main brand. Most of the secondary channels show repeats of the main channel's fare, but as well as original dramas and comedy, HBO largely shows first run films (a la Sky Movies), plenty of boxing (sometimes on a pay-per-view basis), and sex "documentaries". How much subscribers pay can vary by cable or satellite dish operator, and other packages subscribed to, but it's clear that HBO is getting around $35 a month per subscriber for its offerings.
The key thing for HBO then, is to ensure that it has a package that's attractive enough for people to keep subscribing to it on top of their "basic" cable bill.
When we think of HBO in the UK, we think of The Wire, The Sopranos, Entourage, Sex and the City, Generation Kill, True Blood and Curb Your Enthusiasm amongst others. But the reality is that those are (or were) all Sunday night shows. And they're then repeated - a lot - during the week.
So last Sunday there was an airing of the film Marley and Me, followed by new epsiodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Bored To Death (coming sooner or later to a UK broadcaster I've no doubt). These are then repeated before another movie - the most recent Mummy film.
The rest of the week is just a succession of films with the only other new programme being an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday evening at 10pm. Otherwise, there are a few repeats of these shows scattered about.
Daytime and late night is the same. The only other HBO produced show that week is an episode of Taxicab Confessions and a "First Look" at a new film.
In effect, then, HBO is actually Sky Movies Premiere with a few original productions scattered within.
That's quite interesting because next year HBO launches its next mega-production: The Pacific. From the producers of Band of Brothers, it's a sort of sequel set in the Pacific rather than Europe. In the UK, Sky has bought the rights to it - no doubt at great cost - with the result that it's going to be shown on Sky Movies and not Sky One. If Sky One was really the UK's HBO, then surely it'd be there.
Now I'm not trying to knock Sky One too much. It picks up a good selection of US dramas - although they're nearly all free-to-air shows in the US. And it makes the odd drama. While series like Dream Team and Mile High are long gone, it produces a Terry Pratchett two-parter each year, and made the well-regarded Skellig last year.
It's also worth noting that HBO makes a series of well-regarded one-off dramas, often being co-productions with the BBC such as the forthcoming Emmy-winning Into The Storm about Churchill, a sequel of sorts to The Gathering Storm.
But Sky One has struggled with home-grown comedy. And it actually seems to be making more gameshows and talk shows than anything else right now. Last week we heard about a commission for a gameshow called Sell Me The Answer to run alongside the previously announced Angela and Friends (which sounds a bit like Loose Women and is probably hoping to be like ABC's The View in the US).
Aside from the aforementioned big dramas, there was also The Take recently and the forthcoming Strike Back based on some Chris Ryan novels. These are obviously costly, but perhaps a little more ITV than HBO? However it's unfair to judge the latter until we see it. They've also got a They Think It's All Over -type comedy panel show, and to be fair, their Twelve Days of Christmas short films initiative sounds very interesting.
Otherwise it's mostly studio gameshows. We've had Don't Forget the Lyrics, Smarter than a Ten Year Old (with its bewildering array of presenters), and there's the forthcoming Just Dance.
There are the odd documentaries including Ross Kemp's surprisingly good series, Justin Lee Collins' "In At The Deep End" style series recently (although he's been snapped up by Five now), the curiously funded UK Border Force, and a forthcoming Bird Watching programme with Bill Bailey.
Yet when all's said and done, Sky One is its own beast. It's not HBO. It's not BBC1 or ITV1. It needs to follow its own path.
And if proof be needed, today comes news that Sky has commissioned a couple of shows based around renowned "psychic" Derek Acorah performing a "Live Séance" with the recently deceased Michael Jackson. I'm not making this up. Sky One isn't HBO. It's Living TV.
Here's something that links the last two entries on this blog. Following The Power of Yes yesterday, and the radio I was mentioning, I caught up with something else from the BBC World Service that I'd not previously listened to.
The Day That Lehman Died details events in the US over the weekend when the future of Lehman Brothers was decided, just ahead of the major start of the bailouts. It's well worth a listen, and happily is still available to hear.
Apologies in advance - just about everything I'm going to mention here is now beyond the iPlayer's Listen Again window.
The BBC World Service has just finished another Worldplay series, this time based on the subject of science. The last piece was called Moving Bodies by Arthur Giron and starred Alfred Molina. It was actually an edited version of a production from LA Theatreworks.
The play is all about the life of Richard Feynman, the physicist. It covers most of his life, from his time as a child with his domineering father right up until the subject which bookends the play - his work on the commission that investigated the Challenger disaster.
Feynman's story is a remarkable one, and if you ever get the chance to watch the full version of his 1981 Horizon interview you should jump at the opportunity.
I first heard of Gerard Hoffnung when I was in Edinburgh on a university placement. A friend of mine there expressed surprise that I'd never heard Hoffnung's rambling story of the bricklayer (Listen to it - it's very funny. I've just ordered the full CD on the basis of that re-listening.). He lent me a cassette and that was how I learnt about the man.
If you listen to that clip of Hoffnung, you might surmise that he was a gentleman in his late fifties or early sixties. But he gave that address in 1958 when he was only 33. And he died a year later, making this year the fiftieth anniversary of his death.
Those nice people over at Speechification recently posted a link to a Twenty Minutes on Hoffnung that was broadcast during the Proms which is well worth a listen.
Then last week Radio 4 broadcast a play by Alan Stannard called Hoffnung - Drawn To Music, starring Matt Lucas and Gina McKee which was nicely observed and explored the way that Hoffnung was able to cajole respected composers into helping him put together the Hoffnung Music Festival at the Royal Festival Hall.
Elsewhere, I'm pleased that The News Quiz is back in the Radio 4 Friday Night Comedy slot and that rather awful I Guess That's Why They Call It The News has finished. Obviously Radio 4 has to experiment with new comedies, but I can fairly easily say that this was certainly a failed experiement.
And Dave Gorman has started his new Sunday morning show on Absolute Radio (Disclaimer: Clearly I work there).
As for TV? You are watching Spiral aren't you? If you're not, then it's available on catch-up on the iPlayer. So there's four hours of your life accounted for (or five if you read this after 10pm tonight). The Fixer just finished its second series, and given the way ITV treats drama these days - cancelling a popular programme like Kingdom for example - I'm not going to hold my breath for a third. Finally, you are watching the BBC Four Electric Revolutions season I trust. In particular, I loved Micro Men and Gameswipe.
David Hare is an angry playwright, and rightly so.
The Power of Yes is his attempt to make sense of the financial crisis, and rather than a conventional piece, we see the "author" (Anthony Calf) attempt to make sense of everything by conducting a series of interviews with relevant people. Many of them are named, but others are anonymous. It's fun watching recognisable characters being dramatised - most famously George Soros (Bruce Myers).
Most usefully to our guiding author is Masa Serdarevic (Jemima Roper), now an FT journalist but previously at Lehman Brothers. And of course, as she guides Hare through proceedings, she helps us along too.
The nature of the piece means that it's largely expository and there's little room for characterisation. That's even more the case since there are dozens of characters here who come in and out so often, we have to literally be introduced and then reintroduced to them.
But this simply isn't a straightforward story. Hare's doing his best to get to the bottom of it, and to a large extent he does. I'd guess that the chap in the row in front of me works or worked at one of the US banks in question because he was nodding furiously at one point, and roared with laughter at the revelation that Lehman Brothers workers weren't carrying their cleared desks in boxes as they left after the company had gone under. Instead it turned out that the cafeteria worked on a credit system, and they were clearing out their credit in confectionery.
The staging was minimalist but made clever use of screens and projections. Even a blackboard was wheeled out on a few occasions: we really were back in school at times.
Overall, I thought that this was a terrific and incredibly timely piece. Although the BBC recently dramatised The Last Days of the Lehman Brothers, this was somehow more accessible, but not simplified for the hard of thinking. Hare persuasively argues anyway that managing a hospital is actually a lot harder than some of the jobs that these bankers were - and are - doing.
I've got to say that I'm not sure that the rest of the audience quite shared my enjoyment of this piece. Whether or not it was because most of them will have probably bought these tickets a long time before they found out what exactly they were letting themselves in for, I don't know. Perhaps they were restless at having to sit through two hours without an interval. I think that was a correct decision since you really didn't want to have to break up the story.
Anyway, ignore them and either see this, or read the script which Faber already has on sale. Although I didn't pick up a copy after the performance, such is the level of information imparted by the script, it may well be worth reading.
And I hope that as some point this gets an outing on TV or gets a DVD release. It's the sort of thing that will benefit from re-watching.
A new Oxford Street Waterstone's opening soon.
I love a good bookshop. I'm addicted to them. Yes - I certainly use Amazon a great deal, but browsing is something that simply can't be replicated online. If you go to Amazon - despite the store's best efforts, it's hard to replicate the browsing feeling you get in a good bookshop. There's no easy way for a cover to catch your eye, for a display or table to tempt you over. You go to an online store. You look up the book and then you buy or you don't. You discover that people who bought the book you're looking at also bought Dan Brown and the Ant and Dec book. It doesn't help you.
So I like to support local bookshops. Where I live that means Waterstones. But curiously they've just started using some of that valuable front of store space in my local branch to display DVDs. They aren't "literary" DVDs - just the top twenty. And the prices are pretty poor.
Here's the thing: if I want a top twenty DVD on the high street, I can also visit any supermarket, WH Smiths or an HMV. My local Waterstones is two shops away from the nearest WH Smiths which has a significantly better DVD section. It's also directly opposite a branch of HMV. Waterstones is owned by HMV - they're sister companies. HMV has a vastly better range of DVDs, and they sell them at far more attractive prices.
In other words, you'd be a complete fool to buy a DVD in Waterstones.
We're entering the fourth quarter of the year, and since most people only buy a minimal number of books a year - mostly as Christmas gifts - an incredible 40% of annual trade is done between now and December.
Waterstone's has by far the biggest high street book presence, so why get into DVDs? Every inch of space surely has to pay for itself. So turn over that valuable shelf space to books and scrap the DVDs. They're irrelevant!
An interesting aside: book trade magazine The Bookseller recently reported on major problems that Waterstone's is experiencing with it's new central distribution "Hub". This has brought hundreds of comments. Waterstone's head office is so annoyed that they've ridiculously blocked access to The Bookseller's site from all branches of Waterstone's. Perhaps Waterstone's is trying to replicate one of it's books - 1984?
...but people seem to do all the time just now.
Please don't do any of these things. You just look a bit sad.
10. Mention on Twitter how many followers you now have. I don't really care.
9. Produce an iPhone version of your site, but not bother with a generic mobile version.
8. Get overly excited about any new product that Apple launches.
7. Get overly excited about any new product that Google launches.
6. Use URL shortening services on websites. There's no need.
5. Spout trite inanities about social networking and call it useful information.
4. Tweet about a TV show without using the appropriate hashtag so I can exclude your musings from my screen should I desire (e.g. #xfactor).
3. Compare whatever you're currently watching with The Wire (e.g. The Cube with Philip Schofield)
2. Tweet a link without so much as a hint as to what it might be about - especially if you've used a URL shortening service.
1. Publicly beg for a Google Wave invitation.
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, and have read a few other lists like this in the last couple of days.
And so it has come to pass - this weekend's dead rubber between the Ukraine and England, will only be available online or at your local Odeon cinema.
The prices seem to range from £4.99 if you book now to £11.99 if you book on the day of the game. Odeon cinemas seem to be charging the higher of the two prices.
There's been a combination of teeth gnashing and apathy today. The game is pretty much meaningless since England has qualified (although it might subtly affect our "co-efficient" for determining things like group stages draws in future tournaments).
That said, I certainly can't be bothered.
The reason given for the match not finding a television home with the BBC, ITV, Five, Sky or ESPN is that "broadcasters were willing to pay the asking price to screen the game." In other words, if none of those guys - even someone like ESPN which is surely trying to create a new business, isn't willing to pay to screen it, then clearly too much is being charged.
What's actually happened is that when the draw for this round of group stages was made by FIFA a couple of years ago, a few sports agencies dash around and purchase the rights to games from individual nations' football associations. They move quickly since if a footballing "minnows" have games against larger football-mad nations. Rather than selling group stages to one rights holder, individual nations can sell their own home games separately. So whatever the English FA would like it to do, it's the Ukranian FA that gets to sell its home rights.
So it was that back in November 2007 a company named Kentaro snapped up the rights to a number of England games. Setanta came along and bought them. There was probably a hope that if it came down to the wire, this could be a critical game for England to qualify for South Africa. A high fee was probably demanded and paid. In the event, England strolled the group, and the match is meaningless, as is the final fixture against Belarus. Meanwhile Setanta went bust and rights reverted to Kentaro who were then left with a problem selling them in a down market at a time when England were strolling to qualification.
Kentaro has taken a gamble and it hasn't paid off*. So now, rather than cutting their losses and accepting the highest offer from a "traditional" football broadcaster, they're trying the direct-to-consumer route. They claim that they'll limit the number of streams they sell to a million which represents a minimum of £5m revenue if they get to that number.
In the future, we'll perhaps see more of this kind of selling, although there are plenty of regular pay-per-view platforms available like Sky Box Office, Virgin Media and BT Vision. None of these seems to be being employed. So unless you're able to hook up your PC to your TV, you're reduced to watching the game on a smaller screen - quite possibly a laptop sized screen. Not your 42" plasma. A pay-per-view option would also have enabled some pubs to show the game.
Will the feed be stable? Who knows. The BBC has struggled at times during key Wimbledon fixtures that take place during office hours. Sky's Player also struggled at certain points during The Ashes. These are large broadcasters with big IT teams who are used to serving significant numbers of simultaneous streams. Sport will always show up a poor digital picture - I'd always want to watch some sport on any prospective flatscreen TV I was buying for example.
How strong is Kentaro's backbone? It's possible that we won't find out, because I'd be amazed if all that many pay up.
The Odeon idea is interesting, and I assume that it'll be an HD stream - certainly not an internet stream. In the past Odeon cinemas have simulcast live football in big tournaments, as well as HD Formula 1 coverage. They also regularly show live opera from places like the Met and Glynebourne.
But let's see what happens at the weekend. I doubt we'll ever learn how many streams are sold. However, it will be interesting to see what happens when the draw for the group stages of Euro 2012 are made in February 2010. Will we see some higher profile away games going online?
*Clearly, I have no real insight into Kentaro's business plans, but I think that's a safe assumption to make.
Warning. You are about to read a bit of a rant: if you haven't already stopped reading already that is. It's been a long time in coming, but I feel I have to say something about it.
I loathe content.
The word "content" that is.
I really, really loathe it.
It's a hideous and yet all encompassing word.
At first it was just the by now omnipresent "User Generated Content". But now websites are filled with "content". TV schedules are now packed with "content". Radio stations use "content" to fill the airtime. Newspapers and magazine are stuffed with "content". It's everywhere.
Like many words, it started out as an industry specific word. Marketing types would talk about the content they were producing for their new project. That was frustrating, but marketing is full of nonsense (apologies for causing offence to any marketing professionals reading this - but you know I'm speaking the truth). Yet slowly it's become one of those words that's seeped out of the confines of the marketing universe and has begun to permeate society. "Premium" is a word that has similarly escaped the clutches of the marketing world and broken free into our world. We all now know that a "premium lager" is somehow better than a regular one. The ads are glossier; the image more refined; and the product more expensive. But it's brewed in the same facility in South Wales or wherever. Nobody can actually really explain what's so "premium" about it. They might say that they like it more, but advertising has largely conditioned them to do so. And there are plenty of other examples.
Thus you'll now see consumer-facing websites talking about "content" quite openly - especially if you're invited to upload pictures, audio or video. But you'll also hear the word spoken and used in this sense on television and radio.
Content, I'm reliably informed, is from the Latin, contentum, the neuter past particple of continere meaning "to contain". Google cites something like 1.4bn mentions of the word.
Dictionary.com's definition is probably as good as any:
4. substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation: publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy Web site, but without much content.
(I'd use the OED's defintion, but it's all behind a paywall).
So why do I hate the word? It's a word that's not easily replaceable in the context in which it's currently used, because it can mean so many things: video, audio, written pieces, or combinations thereof. As a catchall, then, does it not serve a purpose?
Yet that's precisely what really annoys me about the word.
It takes that art out of those things. If I'm writing an essay on a subject, is this a carefully crafted literary piece or is it a piece of "content"? If I'm composing a new song, am I just making some "content"? If I'm making a film with a crew, and some actors, have I really just put together "content"?
In the context of the word's definition, then yes I have. But the word is somehow dismissive. It doesn't consider the thought, time, or creativity (or lack of) that went into producing the work or works. Aqua by Barbie Girl and A Day In The Life by The Beatles are somehow equal because they're both just "content". Saw VI and Lawrence of Arabia are the same. A throw away piece of tittle-tattle from The Sun's Bizarre column is the same as a 1500 word essay in the Times Literary Supplement. It's all "content".
It probably doesn't help that the word sounds a little like "cement", because when I hear someone talk about content - perhaps on a website - then I think about someone trying to shovel oozing piles of something into the website so that it'll quickly set and there's something there for people to read, watch or listen to. It's not a stunning piece of hand crafted masonry. It's a breeze block. There's no real thought about the quality of what's being uploaded or written; just the knowledge that some of it's needed to attract readers, viewers or listeners. There is space or airtime to fill, and on the internet, that space is effectively infinite, while in the broadcasting world you can always start a new channel or stream.
It's simple economics. And of course that's what the media industry is all about. With the exception (perhaps!) of the BBC, all that filler material is just there to turn a buck for the company who has to fill it. That's fine. We live in a capitalist world. But surely we care about how we fill those empty spaces? And that to me is the problem with the word "content." It suggests an attitude that just requires taking the most cost effective way to fill in the gaps.
Am I an idealist? I'm well aware that commissioning editors for daytime TV are just trying to fill the gaps in their schedule as cost effectively as possible. They need a decent audience share to maintain their positions, and reap the maximum value of the associated advertising.
To take an easy example, nobody really hand-crafts an episode of the Jeremy Kyle Show. They don't care. They just know that the network wants x hours of shows a year, and they just churn them out as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Think of that cement mixer again, pulling up at a studio in Manchester and just dumping its load.
Similarly, the producers of Big Brother and Channel 4 know that they have to produce hours of footage to fill out much of Quarter Two and Three's primetime schedule. Yes, they want to maximise the audience - but that's not really the same as caring about the programmes they make. Perhaps in these instances "content" is, then, an accurate word.
Closer to home, commercial radio has to achieve maximum revenues for minimal costs. It does this largely by playing music; in many cases, the same music. The listener is left with soundalike stations across the country. Indeed they're now quite likely to be 100% identical.
But does that mean that we shouldn't at least aspire to greater things?
The reality is that some standards have to be maintained if you want to stand out and make an impact. However dire some of ITV's comedy and drama series might be, I don't believe the makers didn't really care at least a little bit about them (OK - the producers of The Palace last year probably didn't).
That's not to say that slick machines can't operate, producing television programmes by the mile, but maintaining a certain quality threshold. The CSI franchise springs to mind with some excellent production values maintained, even if a few scripts do seem to have jumped the shark. House is now in its sixth series, having made well over 100 episodes, yet the quality of scripts remains impressive. It can be done.
I suppose I get upset when I hear people throwing the word "content" around as though people will come flocking to read, listen or view it, irrespective of what it is. Pile it high and they will come!
And so, every website in the known universe has rushed to include "User Generated Content" in their sites! Sometimes it's very appropriate - Flickr obviously wouldn't exist without its users photos, although YouTube could probably do with a little more user generated "content", and less broadcaster created "content". But mostly it's just another bandwagon that most have failed to climb on.
What I do agree with is that we need a word to use to talk about all this material; preferably a word that doesn't conjour up an image of a builder shoveling cement from a wheelbarrow into a hole to fill it up. Because that's what I picture in my mind's eye when I hear someone discussing how they need content to fill a hole in their schedule/pages/site. Cement is readily available in vast quantities from your local builders' yard.
Please give me an alternative; a word that conveys some care and consideration has gone into what has been created. And in the meantime, feel free to tell me off if I ever use the word.
The usual disclaimer - these are my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer. And yes, I have, in extremis, used "content" before, quite probably on this very blog. But I try not to. I really do.
Or perhaps they're not so smart.
This week, Channel 4 starts showing a couple of hot(tish) new(ish) shows from HBO. On Wednesday at 10.00pm it starts showing True Blood, a great vampire show based on novels by Charlaine Harris set in the Deep South. It's a bit soapy, not a little sexy and but great well-made fun. And it comes from Alan "Six Feet Under" Ball giving it a quality imprimatur.
It's taken a while to reach free-to-air screens because it's just completed a first run on pay-TV channel, FX UK. But even they took a while to get their hands on it as the first season began in September last year on HBO in the States, and they didn't mess about with the second season which has already concluded.
Following True Blood on Four, is Generation Kill - David "The Wire" Simon's most recent piece of work. This has also taken a while to reach free-to-air shores. Again FX got in there first showing it at the start of this year. It actually aired on HBO in the summer of 2008, and UK DVDs have been available since March of this year.
Now clearly it's a quality piece of work that deserves the wider audience that Channel 4 can afford it, but their scheduling is clearly questionable. Running it at 11.20pm in the evening so that it doesn't end until 12.45am on a weeknight is bizarre - if not downright extraordinary. Unless Channel Four thinks their entire audience will be PVRing it rather than watching live, I'm not sure I can really think of a reason why it's being shown so late.
The BBC two has recently stripped The Wire in a post Newsnight slot, burning through all five series in a matter of months, but that's a series that first aired in the US in 2002, and has been repeated a large number of times on FX, and been available on DVD for nearly as long. It's not quite the same.
(What you might notice from all this is that FX picks up a lot of decent shows that only later emerge fully. FX is underservedly buried in the EPG, and I'm sure, if it ever went free-to-air, could easily be as successful as Dave. That won't happen as it's part of the Murdoch empire. Let's face it: while Stuart Murphy might want to make Sky One like HBO, the programming doesn't entirely back that up. Actually FX is the most HBO-like channel in the UK).
Channel 4 has recently been a bit miffed that the BBC has been buying some of the big new US series. They bent the ear of a few Shadow Cabinet members, and I heard Jeremy Hunt at the Radio Festival explicitly mention The Wire as an example. A poor analogy as it happens. The Wire has surely been available to all broadcasters since 2002. FX was the only channel to pick it up until recently. At the point the BBC started showing it, vast numbers of its potential audience had already seen it on either FX or via DVD box sets. I'm pretty sure that had Channel 4 wanted to buy The Wire in the meantime, they'd had something like seven years to make a move.
In actual fact I think Channel 4 was more annoyed about Harper's Island which BBC Three is showing. I'm not sure why because it was cancelled.
Indeed More 4 "poached" Curb Your Enthusiasm from BBC Four, and most major US shows - with perhaps the exception of Heroes - are on either Four, Five or Sky One. Flash Forward being perhaps the biggest new hit - although I think we'd better wait a few more episodes before being certain.
At least Five and Sky One have better understandings of sensible scheduling as we head towards the end of the first decade of a new century. In May 1977, Star Wars got a US release. In the UK, we didn't see it until the end of that year, with most screenings only beginning in 1978, seven months after it had premiered. That's how things worked in those days. Publicity machinary could move on to Europe, and the same prints - by now pretty beaten up - could be shipped across and reused, certainly in English language markets.
These days of course, blockbusters open globally as close to simultaneously as possible. This means PR has to be coordinated very carefully, and since we're still largely in an age when cinemas still use prints, there's a high cost in getting all those screens filled - especially when one multiplex may be using five prints itself.
Film companies will probably claim that this is mostly due to minimising piracy - and that's true. But piracy is driven because we all know when new blockbusters are coming out. Digital PR starts the second production starts, and possibly earlier. That builds demand. And nobody is prepared to wait until Christmas for a film that opened in the US in May. At least that's the case for most blockbusters. The one notable exception seems to be Pixar's films which always seem to wait for the autumn half-time in the UK to open, two or three months after the US release.
What's this got to do with TV scheduling? Well, like it or not, the same is true of TV. Especially genre fiction. Fans of Fringe, Flash Forward, House, Lost et al know exactly their favourite shows air in the US and want to see them. Not only that, but they can see them if they download them illegally. Indeed, with a credit card registered in the US, you can also download them legally via places such as iTunes.
Last year the BBC finally realised that its audience for Heroes was being damaged by downloads and it started broadcasting soon after its US broadcast. That's changed this year, and it seems that we'll have to wait until January. Viewing figures will undoubtedly be hit.
Five, as I mentioned, is taking as little chance as it can with Flash Forward, and just about everything on Sky One is airing within days of its US broadcast.
Police dramas seem to suffer less and CSI ends up being broadcast up to a year after its US broadcast, but there are lot of miffed Mad Men fans annoyed that BBC Four is making them wait until next year.
The long explained reason for these delays in that US networks stretch 22 weeks of programmes from September until May - a period of more than 22 weeks. In other words they take weeks off for sport, Christmas, non-ratings periods and so on. They run repeats from just a few weeks earlier and so on. But that's not the case with cable shows, and it's become less the case with any kind of continuing dramas. Series like 24 and Lost don't work well if the story doesn't run continuously. So US networks have learnt and schedule accordingly.
But whatever the scheduling habits of US networks, if a UK channel purchases a US TV series, they'd be wise to look at the scheduling pattern that the series' original broadcaster is following.
That's even more the case if you're the co-producer of a TV series - as ITV is with the forthcoming remake of The Prisoner. It's producing it in conjunction with US cable channel AMC. This is the channel that makes Mad Men and Breaking Bad.
Due to the curious nature of how US TV ratings are calculated, they still have "sweeps" periods three times a year. During most of the year, ratings are calculated nightly in only a number of major markets. But during four months a year, old-school diaries are employed and since these are the most researched periods, it's the overall numbers generated at these times of years that set the numbers for large amounts of TV advertising traded.
What this means is that during the key "sweeps" month of November, no channel worth its salt wants to be doing anything apart from putting out the best programming it can possibly muster. You know when your favourite sitcom suddenly has a big-name guest star? It almost certainly aired during a sweeps period.
AMC is, perhaps unsurprisingly then, beginning the epiosde run of The Prisoner on 15 November.
ITV is planning to show it during Spring 2010.
Now I'm sure that ITV's Autumn schedule is already jammed full of great programmes (unless you live in Scotland, obviously), but why on earth are they letting this programme slip into next year?
It's clear that if there's one genre of programming that suffers from downloading more than any other it's SF. Tens of thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of people will have already seen The Prisoner by the time it airs in the UK next Spring. This month's SFX magazine features The Prisoner on its cover. It's a hot property, and like it or lump it, whether legal or not, nobody wants to wait.
Kudos to ITV for getting involved in making The Prisoner - and with Ian MacKellen leading the cast they have a fantastic coup. But since they co-made this programme, from the outset, they should have agreed a simultaneous airing with AMC that met both broadcasters' needs. If you don't do this, then you're just saying goodbye to a percentage of your audience.
Although you could perhaps say that ITV doesn't realise this because it's not got into this game before. Episodes of Marple aired months ago in the US and won't have hampered ITV's ratings for the same episodes. But it's also realised that it's smart to show HBO's Entourage on ITV2 in the same week as its US airing. The reverse is true with BBC America and SyFy getting much closer to the UK with airings of Doctor Who and Torchwood.
Perhaps it's too late now for ITV this time around. All those extra long episodes of X-Factor and I'm A Celebrity can't be moved now! But maybe it's something to consider next time?
Allow me, if you will, a work related post.
A few minutes ago saw the launch of dabbl, a new radio station from Absolute Radio. It's an exciting new station that lets listeners choose the music. And for the record, because these things are important to know, the first track played was Bon Jovi and Livin' On A Prayer.
And it's also the first project to emerge from the brand new Onegoldensquare Labs.
If you're in the UK, you can listen online, and if you live in London it's on DAB. The station runs from 7pm to 6am daily, so it's something to listen to of an evening - perhaps when you're online! Vote early and vote often. Go on. Go vote for some songs.
At the moment the choice is strictly live music with most of the tracks being exclusively available on dabbl or its sister stations. But in future it may move beyond simply offering live music.
[Disclaimer: I'm very nicely mentioned in the station's credits but had little to nothing to do with it's inception or creation]