Author: TVPaulD
Sky Diving: Digging into Sky Sports F1’s Launch
It’s upon us, Sky Sports F1 (HD) has launched. Sky Sports is now the Primary broadcaster of Formula 1 in the United Kingdom, a position of considerable prestige and an enormous responsibility and legacy for Britain’s biggest Broadcaster to live up to. Sky is a controversial company, notably owing to its ownership by unpopular media giant News Corp, so their coverage will sink or swim on its quality. Sentimentality will not help them. So how are they doing so far? Well…
The Channel kicked things off with a grandiose two-hour Season Preview. This was hosted by the Sky Sports F1 anchorman, Simon Lazenby. He was joined by the assembled poached BBC Talent of Martin Brundle, Ted Kravitz & Anthony Davidson. Along with them were Sky Sports’s own Georgie Thompson and newbie Damon Hill, the 1996 Formula One World Champion. Further poached BBC Talent in the forms of David Croft, the new Lead TV Commentator (Formerly of BBC Radio 5 Live, where he has been replaced by James Allen), and Natalie Pinkham were featured in inserts. As was the resident “lighter side” of Sky Sports, Fenners. More on his “pivotal” role later.
Podium Worthy Performances
The standout feature of the new channel is the in-depth technical coverage provided by the two men who started their F1 Careers as the few beacons of good on F1’s buttmonkey broadcaster, ITV. Martin Brundle and Ted Kravitz both presented some decent packages looking more in-depth at technical features of the cars and the act of going racing (Or rather, testing).
Their performances were of the high standard F1 fans have come to expect of them, and both were and are clearly huge gets for Sky. Both men were at-ease on camera, they were clearly engaged and knowledgable and their features on the show were definitely the best segments.
Ted gave a fascinating look at some of the changes made to the cars aerodynamically using a 3D model which was superimposed in front of him on the set in an area known as the “Skypad” (More on the set and Skypad in particular later). He also anchored a decent Winter Testing Highlights package, which doubled as kind of a tease – fans are left to salivate at the prospect of Ted hosting all-day live coverage of the winter testing next season. Sky hasn’t promised this, but considering their resources, they’d be shortchanging fans enormously if it’s not at least being considered.
Martin, meanwhile, joined British Number 3 & 2011 Rookie of the Year, Paul di Resta, for the initial shakedown of the new Sahara Force India car, and was able to talk to di Resta over the Pit-to-Car radio as the new Flying Scot put the new challenger through its first minutes. It was a very cool bit of television and something a bit special – its rare for a broadcaster to get such privileged access to a car right as it debuts.
Anthony Davidson also impressed on his switch from radio commentator to expert TV pundit. He was totally at ease on camera, and he was clear and evidently well-informed. There was no talking-down to the audience from him, but he still managed to present things in an accessible manner and maintained a throughly pleasant demeanour throughout his time onscreen. He was also, along with Ted, one of the most natural feeling voices on the show – more on that shortly.
Scoring a Handful of Points
Damon Hill, always a thoroughly personable sort, did well enough on his debut as a pundit that his prospects look good. He was clear, his knowledge was evident and he was extremely friendly. There were a few slightly stilted interactions (Notably with Lazenby) but for the most part, Damon himself was impressive for a first-timer. With a few races under his belt, he will undoubtedly be right at home.
Natalie Pinkham didn’t get a massive amount of time to do her thing, but what she did do she did relatively well. She was called upon to conduct an interview with Mark Webber, which Sky took the questionable decision to conduct at a football match. This nakedly shallow attempt to connect with Sky’s pre-existing customer base almost ruined the segment, since it was hard for die hard F1 fans to take it seriously when the first half of the segment spent more time talking about Chelsea and Manchester United than it did Red Bull Racing and McLaren.
Pinkham managed, just about, to claw it back to relevance in the second half though. And her performance was decent enough, her genuine enthusiasm coming across well in the interview. Natalie isn’t the blockbuster hire that Kravitz and Brundle were, but she’s probably about as worthy of inclusion as Croft and Davidson. Certainly, she did a much better job justifying her pay check on launch night than Sky’s existing talent.
The show’s set is mostly functional, but it’d be a lie to say certain aspects of it aren’t a bit…Rubbish. The animated backdrop is fairly decent, generally showing a selection of old F1 cars rotating slowly but also able to show other things if need be (It notably changed at the close). The sofa and desk area though could probably use work. Thanks to Sky’s (baffling) insistence that on air talent wear suits, Lazenby, Hill & Brundle all looked slightly uncomfortable perched awkwardly on the edge of their seats. Ditching the ties did not do enough to make suits suitable attire for sitting somewhere other than at a desk.

The “Skypad” section of the studio is also a mixed bag in terms of quality. The name, to begin with, is utterly and completely stupid. Every time on-air talent mentions “The Skypad” without a hint of irony, you can just about feel the entire viewing audience roll their eyes. The name is a (bafflingly moronic) reference to the giant touchscreen that powers the (In isolation, much more impressive) superimposed 3D car models and the highlights footage and statistics graphics the talent reference and analyse. It’s basically a giant iPad which lets the presenters and pundits call up statistics, video footage and so one by pressing onscreen icons.
This is, to be blunt, completely stupid. It’s pseudo-hip technological redundancy. There is nothing the Skypad touchscreen can do that someone in the Gallery could not do more efficiently without part of the screen having to be taken up by navigation controls or parts of the footage being covered by various parts of Anthony Davidson’s (Or whoever else has been stuck with the unenviable task of trying to make using the Skypad not seem preposterous on any given occasion) anatomy. The BBC sensibly did this the old-fashioned way. But Sky apparently want to convince us they have more whizzy cool technology. It’s twee and it’s stupid, but it’s a minor thing.
Toiling in the Mid-Field
The ad breaks are what will concern a great many of Sky Sports F1’s prospective customers. The broadcaster has promised uninterrupted coverage of the races along with the practice & qualifying sessions but commercials during the buildup and other content are a newfound nuisance. In this respect, it’s a little hard to judge based on the launch show. The first ad break came surprisingly late in the show, around 20-25 minutes after the start. Later on though, it seemed as if the breaks were longer than the parts of the show they were bookending.
So far then, no huge problems have emerged with the ad breaks in the launch show or the channel’s filler content, but judgment should be reserved until we see how much they hurt the build up etc. Particularly, how much of the 90 Minute Race Buildup is ads. 90 Minutes is the new record, but if more than half an hour is ads, the BBC still provided/provides more buildup than Sky.
The channel’s filler content so far has been pretty good. There seems to be a heavy rotation of Marmite-esque interview programme Legends of F1 (It’s well-liked by some, if considered too short, but I refuse to have anything to do with it because it’s anchored by Steve “The Lettuce” Rider, a man who actually managed to give the terribly produced Commentary of James Allen on ITV a run for its money as the most hateful part of their pitiful final years on air as the F1 broadcaster).
Also on offer is plenty of archival stuff for diehards to relive the glory days. Some of this is presented in a packaged documentary style, some is simply highlights – of note, the channel is playing the Official Formula One 2011 Season Review (And, presumably, will play others) which was previously only available on DVD and Blu-Ray. The prospect of being able to watch (And, on Sky+HD, record) these previously optical media-exclusive Season Review packages on TV is certainly a pleasant one. From watching the 2011 Review, it does seem like the ad breaks are well distributed in these. The review has been split up into four programming segments. I watched the first two, covering the first half of the season, in a back-to-back block. It works well.
As I said, so far the filler content seems good. If it continues to be this enticing, it will undoubtedly be worthy of positioning higher up the rankings than I’ve placed it here. I have kept it in the mid-field section primarily because it remains to be seen if Sky can keep the channel fresh and exciting for a whole year.
Getting Lapped Three Times
Just like in anything though, there are always aspects of any given broadcaster’s F1 coverage which leave a lot to be desired. The BBC’s post-ITV era spoilt fans by having fewer of these major niggles than ever – primarily, they were limited to Jonathan Legard’s grating commentary style and a distinct systemic Red Bull bias. There were other minor flaws with the BBC’s coverage (Eddie Jordan is a love or loathe prospect as a pundit – not because some people love him and some people loathe him but because sometimes he is contemptibly awful, while others he is extremely good) but for the most part it was lacking in deal breakers (Whether this continues to be the case in the new era remains to be seen, but is unlikely – the lack of 100% live coverage is already a huge minus point).
Sky, considering the act it has to follow and the fact it is the first primary F1 Broadcaster in the UK to demand payment from fans, had few excuses for weaknesses in their lineup. Unfortunately, they have two whacking great problems already, and we haven’t even seen their race coverage yet. However, it does not bode well that one of these flaws is the anchorman himself, Simon Lazenby.
Indeed, it is perhaps indicative of just why the BBC were so good at Formula One that Lazenby and Thompson, the only two human parts of Sky Sports F1 which are bespoke Sky components, are its weakest. Indeed, extrapolating that further, everything about Sky Sports F1 which is more Sky Sports than it is F1, is thoroughly in need of retooling. The set and baffling suits-only dress code – both Sky Sports mainstays – are equally dragging the show down. Formula One in suits, and Formula One on a set, just do not feel natural. ITV used a set for a number of years, but discarded it because it was isolating the buildup and analysis from the action – one of the few changes made later in their coverage which was an improvement.
Luckily, the set in question seems to be intended to be used primarily for The F1 Show, the weekly magazine show, and will not be involved in the race coverage.
UPDATE 11/3/2012: Alas, it seems Sky is planning to use a Studio for the race coverage, with their Insider Twitter account Tweeting a picture of its container being unpacked today. Whether or not it is a duplicate remains to be seen, but I will certainly be giving my thoughts on its role in the race coverage after Melbourne.
Lazenby and Thompson (Alongside, presumably, those damned suits) on the other hand, willbe involved in the coverage of Grand Prix weekends. And if that’s the case, they need to step up their game enormously from what they demonstrated on launch night. Lazenby was awkward, false and grating. His enthusiasm seemed fake, his questions for Brundle & Hill were frequently asinine, he was clearly lacking in knowledge about F1 and he even managed to cut off Brundle a couple of times. Cutting off the jewel in the coverage’s crown? Not a good move.
Yes, it seemed Lazenby had been plucked directly out of the rugby coverage and dumped onto the F1 set without a moment’s preparation. And considering we know he had plenty of preparation, that’s appalling. Lazenby’s performance is particularly atrocious compared to Jake Humphrey on the BBC. Humphrey is a BBC Lifer, he is Mr BBC, they have been grooming him to be their most significant talent for years. And yet, his presence in the F1 coverage always felt earned, right from the start. You never feel like Jake is just there because he’s the BBC’s golden boy. His enthusiasm is clearly genuine. Lazenby…Not so much.
Lazenby’s biggest crime though is probably his ill-informed nature. He provoked widespread face palming when he referred to drivers & team personnel changing teams and positions over the winter as the “transfer window”. This was also an example of another problem with bespoke Sky aspects of the show.
They’re dumbing the coverage down hard if the launch show is anything to go by. Yes, they’re offering some cool in-depth technical stuff with Martin & Ted, but the general presented segments are being approached the way Sky approaches football. Sky needs to learn – fast – that F1 fans are generally significantly better informed & engaged with their sport than football fans, who tend to be more casual simply by sheer force of numbers.
The worst part is that two different people are competing to be the poster child of Sky’s dumbed down coverage. One the one hand, we have Georgie Thompson nodding moronically as Antony Davidson speaks and asking Jenson Button preposterously vague and pointless questions along the lines of “so are you a good driver?”. It’s not lost on me that Thompson is an attractive lady. I like good-looking women as much as the next straight guy, but I also like women who are intelligent and I like on-air talent to come across as well-informed. Thompson seems to be setting about to single-handedly undo all the good work done by Suzi Perry or Lee McKenzie (And to a lesser extent, Natalie Pinkham) in raising the profile of women in motorsport broadcasting. Thompson’s presence smacks of being part of a Sky Sports “viewers are morons” policy which requires eye candy to keep the LADS interested.
Further evidence that Sky just doesn’t seem to get F1.
And if you want some more proof, it comes in the form of the other person trying to be the poster child of Sky dumbing down the coverage, Fenners. Fenners is, apparently, some dickhead who used to be slightly popular on Soccer AM and has since enjoyed a minor resurgence as a “lighter side” personality on Sky Sports’s Football coverage. I’m not a football fan, so I had no idea who he was or why I should care. I found out later – they didn’t bother explaining what he was doing there.
Evidently Sky felt the need to provide a touchstone for the dullards they (Apparently) take football fans to be in case they decided to check out the Sky Sports F1 channel (Terrifyingly, we were promised he will be back throughout the year). His whole schtick was wandering around during testing being uninformed. Not becoming more informed I hasten to add. His taped segment focused entirely on him being an uninformed twat and making an idiot of himself. If this is how Sky sees sports fans they need help. It was particularly grating having to put up with this nonsense in the launch show.
Who, aside from F1 fans, was really going to watch the launch show? You’d have to be at least a little engaged with F1 already to care about watching the launch show. So what was he for?
Anyway, there you have it. Those are my thoughts on Sky Sports F1 (HD) so far. I’ll be checking in with more thoughts on the F1 coverage throughout the year – including taking a look at the new BBC packages on TV & radio and comparing them to Sky’s offerings – so keep an eye out for more.
Lego Mini-Fig Me
Jenson Button Brawn GP BGP-001
Jenson Button McLaren MP4-27
Tyrannosaurus Rex
Christmas Letter 2011
Season’s Greetings Friends, Family & assorted hangers-on!
It’s that time of year once again where many people choose to send each other nice simple Christmas Cards – short, sweet indications that they’re thinking of you at this, the most wonderful time of the year. And, as has become tradition, I am instead wasting your time with this, my annual Christmas Letter, in which I reflect at unnecessary length on the year that was and, of course, the festive season.
So here I am, sitting in the glow of the unnecessarily large Christmas tree in my bedroom with my (infamous, and only partially accurately named) Xmas in Pompey 2 Spotify playlist filling the room with the sounds of Christmas cheer. Which sounds incredibly cheesy, but I’ve always said* it’s not cheesy if you can think of something either as cheesy, or more cheesy, which is also less appropriate for the given situation. And I have:
A Margherita.
Now, with that out of the way, on to the reflecting on the year. And frankly I think nothing this year says more about our modern era than the way that godawful “Friday” song by Rebecca Black infected every facet of our lives over the course of about a month earlier in the year – and it already feels like it’s ancient history.
Either the years are getting longer or we’re finding more ways to do stuff in them. Luckily, Mark Zuckerberg has come up with a way to find out in Facebook Timeline, whilst Twitter continues to give us an avenue to voice our every trivial thought (And say bitchy things about the way candidates on The Apprentice choose to dress). And I for one welcome our new Social Media overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted (Ahem) TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Speaking of TV, the has been a great year for TV and I can prove it in just ten words:
The Simpsons has been renewed through its twenty-fifth season.
There have of course been some downsides though. The X Factor has unfortunately not been canceled yet, Big Brother was (Unfathomably) brought back and the BBC decided to hand over half their F1 (More on that in a moment) coverage to Sky Sports, which was probably not the best idea considering that they did so right at the same time as the entire country was furious with Rupert Murdoch, News Corp & Sky over the flagrant corruption & use of phone hacking. As own goals go, the BBC pulled off a belter there.
Oh and while I’ve got you, I still say Germany should have won Eurovision again. Yeah, I’m still bitter about that. And what?
Anyway, I said I’d say something about Formula 1. Ignoring the fact Vettel made the whole season rather dull with his overpowered Red Bull car (I really don’t think it’s fair that he gets a car which gives you wings), this was still a cracking year with some all-time classic races, including the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix, the longest race in F1 history (A record it will hold forever as the rules have now been changed to prevent races running as long as that one did).
Also, over the two-year period since Jenson Button joined McLaren, he’s outscored Lewis Hamilton. At the risk of saying I told you so, I TOTALLY FRIGGING TOLD YOU SO.
Ahem…Anywho, I suppose I should say something about some other sports for the sake of balance, but they’re going to have to be eternally true platitudes because I barely pay attention to most of them so er…Manchester United are evil, cricket is dull & tedious, Rugby is vaguely homoerotic etc. etc.
Also if I don’t mention video games, the citizens of Giant Bomb (dot) Com will probably shoot me in the knee with an arrow. I don’t fully get that joke because I never played Skyrim (Too busy playing The Legend of Zelda IN THREE DEE on my 3DS), but they make references to it all the time on Reddit so I guess it must be pretty funny. The biggest thing in games this year for me was probably the return of Pokémon. Oh god how I played a lot of Pokémon.
So then, with that all out of the way, I leave you with this topical reference to both 2011 & 2012 in the form of a brain teaser:
If you ask Siri to schedule “the end of the world” for December 21, 2012, does that make you God if the world does end then**?
Have a
Merry Christmas,
Happy Holidays,
Helluva Hanukkah
Perfect Pancha Ganapti***,
Delectable Dies Natalis Solis Invicti***,
Dignified Quaid-e-Azam’s Day***,
Marvellous Malkh-Festival,
Kwazy Kwanzaa,
And a Happy New Year,
Your Pal,
Paul Douglas.
* Not true. I’ve never said that.
** No, no it doesn’t. That would be stupid.
*** Look it up.
Drinks to Beverages: Lucozade Cola
Paul Douglas, the intrepid video reviewer of soft drinks, is back with another exciting episode of Paul Douglas Drinks to Beverages. This time, it’s a suggested drink: The Limited Edition Lucozade Cola. Want to know if it’s worth rushing to try it out? Watch and find out.
Reach for the Sky: Dissecting the Sky Sports/BBC Sport F1 Partnership
On Friday, the Formula 1 world was rocked by news that UK Television Broadcasts of the sport would be fundamentally changing starting from 2012. The state-supported and industry-leading BBC had originally been expected to hold exclusive rights to Formula 1 through the end of the 2012 season, after securing the rights from rivals ITV, who ditched them as a result of their almost perpetual cash-strapped nature.
More incredible was the new primary rights holder: technically, Sky Sports. This despite the fact it was generally accepted the rights had to be in the hands of a free-to-air broadcaster. How did FOM get around this? The rights actually went to a Sky Sports/BBC Sport Co-Operative deal. A deal which will give the BBC 10 races, or 50% of the season (Though in the event of 21 races, the extra race would be Sky exclusive). The two broadcasters will share commentary and some other resources, but use different presentation packages.
For the 10+ races the BBC is not showing live, they are showing…Well, what exactly? Bernie Ecclestone has apparently led the members of FOTA (Formula One Teams’ Association) to believe that they will be showing the full race on a time delay. The BBC, however, has seemed to play down these reports – they indicate an extended highlights show, clocking in at around 75 minutes. Either way, the show or taped race would air in prime time on Sunday – AKA the least valuable kind of prime time.
Still, the BBC package will air the day of the race, whatever the minutiae are.
This bizarre setup with the BBC acting as some kind of “Sky Sports Preview” is unique. No other sport, Motorsport or otherwise, operates this way, and the BBC agreeing to play second fiddle to Sky has made some observers distinctly uneasy.
Setting aside the practical and TV industry implications for a moment, let’s consider the financial impact of the deal. The Sky Sports/BBC Sport Partnership is paying out a combined £55 Million, up on the £40 Million the BBC had been paying out for the exclusive rights. The teams have been told this will factor out to about £1 Million per season extra paid from FOM to each team.
In F1 terms, £1 Million a season is…Not a huge deal. Even the back markers reportedly blow throw more than £30 Million to just show up and not completely embarrass themselves. For frontrunners McLaren, this is chump change. So one could reasonably wonder why they are going along with this so readily?
Consider also, McLaren (In particular) are majority funded by sponsorship revenue. This means they in particular should be concerned about any potential decrease in viewership. It seems like hubris to claim (As FOM, amongst others, have) that this deal might grow the F1 audience in the UK. The idea seems to be that being in BBC1 Prime TIme will inherently draw more people to the sport.
That…Sounds like a huge assumption. The argument seems to be casual fans will be more interested in a prime time highlights reel than in watching the race at midday (or odd hours for fly-aways). There is some merit to that idea, but it still seems like there is room to question it. We’re talking about a delay of six to, potentially, 12+ hours. It seems…Unlikely – to say the least – casual fans will go out of their way to avoid spoilers, but counterintuitively one could also reasonably question whether they’d bother watching the highlights reel once they knew the result?
Smaller teams also look set to get screwed – hard – by this. They get their best exposure for sponsors during qualifying and the exact kinds of “boring” bits the BBC’s editors are likely to cut for the highlights reel (For example, the leaders putting a lap on them). These losses will not in any way be mitigated by Sky Sports viewerships. Consider…
Sky Sports 1 enjoys a whopping 0.9% Audience share. This is HALF the audience share of BBC Three. It’s barely 0.2 more than the anaemic share held by BBC Four, which this deal is widely believed to have been orchestrated to save. Sky Sports 2, which will share Sky Sports 1’s duties as F1 broadcaster, has an eye-watering-ly small 0.4% share.
For comparison, the BBC’s F1 audience has averaged 4-5 million viewers, with peaks in excess of 6 Million – which is 10% of the UK Population, never mind UK TV Audience. And there is very little demographic overlap between existing F1 fans and Sky Sports subscribers – who are typically more interested in ball games like Association Football and Cricket.
So then, there is a strong argument that this deal will massively reduce the audience for Formula 1 in the UK. And it raises big questions about the financial impact of the deal on teams. There is one other area this deal could potentially have a massive impact, as suggested by Ewan Marshall at GP Focus: the prestige of the Championships.
By making only ten races live on free-to-air television, this deal implicitly adds prestige to the already prestigious Monaco and British Grands Prix. It will possibly have a similar effect on other events (Potentially including, regrettably, poor Grands Prix like the Singapore Night Race if they are included amongst the ten). What can’t be known at this stage is what impact this shift in emphasis to fewer, “marquee” races will have on the public’s perception of the Championships.
In American Motorsport, there are several Championships in various categories. What’s interesting, though, is that unlike in Europe (Where even casual fans tend to idolise championship winners like Jenson Button or Fernando Alonso), a lot of casual fans are more interested in which drivers win certain marquee events – like the Indy 500. Is it possible that, at least amongst casual British fans, this deal will decrease the importance of championships?
Are we looking at a future where casual viewership for most of the Grands Prix (Even most of the free-to-air Grands Prix) decreases because winning the big-name events like Monaco and Silverstone are seen as more important than winning the championship? Such a shift would take us back to the pre-fifties era of rand Prix racing, before the inception of the World Drivers’ Championship.
It’s a big if, but do we really want to go back there?
So there’s just a few points of interest from the Sky Sports/BBC Sport Joint F1 Broadcast deal. The crazy thing is, this is such uncharted territory, we have little to no way of knowing what the potential ramifications are. It could affect things we’ve not even considered.
Video Industry & Television Studies Academic Essay June 2011 – A vision of the future for British broadcasting
The following is an Essay written for the Video Industry and Television Studies Module of my Degree Programme at the University of Portsmouth. It received a 2.1 Passing Grade, my First Year overall was passed at First Class Standard. The title for this Essay was “Using an historical perspective, outline a vision of the future for British broadcasting” and it was printed for submission on June 10 2011 – note that certain details may have become outdated since then owing to rapid developments in the UK Media.
Introduction
British broadcasting has, throughout its history, been an highly changeable medium. It has evolved constantly to keep up with advances in technology, changes in taste and an evolving political situation. This pace of change, always considerable, has been accelerating at an ever increasing rate. Today, the industry faces its largest upheaval ever as trends in multiple areas are shifting concurrently.
As a result, British broadcasting in the future will be virtually unrecognisable…
A Brief History of British Broadcasting
In the early days of broadcasting in Britain, Television, the dominant form of broadcasting today, was mostly a dream. The broadcasting age was kicked off by the advent of the radio in 1922. That year, a number of independent stations began broadcasting and the BBC was formed, initially broadcasting in London.
Right from the start, the BBC was funded by a License Fee. Initially, the Broadcasting Receiving License. The industry as a whole was protected from collapse by forming a syndicate, with royalties being earned on all wireless sets sold. By 1925, though, change was already in the air as the wireless manufacturers wanted out of the deal. Meanwhile, the BBC’s leader (Lord Reith) successfully convinced the Government’s Crawford Commission to continue Public Service broadcasting.
As a result, the British Broadcasting Commission, which largely survives to this day, was established to oversee the nascent British Broadcasting Corporation under the authority of the Crown.
That set the scene for much of the remainder of the post-war period, until around 1935 when the BBC began experiments with television broadcasts, initially using Baird’s 30-line system. By 1936, “High Definition” had already arrived – 405 lines versus the 240 of the Baird system used at that point.
The service wasn’t available for long, however, as service was interrupted by the breakout of World War II.
Once the War ended and stability returned, efforts to resume television service began. In July 1946, the TV License was introduced and TV Service resumed, with the BBC showing a Mickey Mouse cartoon (Mickey’s Gala Premiere) which had been the last programme aired prior to the shutdown of the service seven years earlier.
Three years later, the BBC Television service began to expand outside of London. This expansion continued, with the BBC maintaining its monopoly, for a number of years. Then, in 1955, Independent Television – commercial broadcasting – arrived. And the shape of British broadcasting was altered once more.
This was just the first of a rapidly accelerating number of paradigm shifts in British broadcasting over the coming decades. In the 60s, BBC2 and colour television arrived. In the 70s, Ceefax launches – a nascent foray into information services for the broadcast industry.
But things really changed in the 1980s. Channel 4 launched, bringing commercial broadcasting to the state-owned broadcasting slate, with a focus on exploring new ground with programming aimed at niches not catered to by the existing BBC/ITV Duopoly – most notably the rising “youth” movement of teens and young adults, an increasingly distinct set of demographics.
On top of this, satellite broadcasting went online, beginning an industry in premium TV which would eventually become one of the most important sectors of British broadcasting. Amazingly, it was only in this same decade that British networks began 24-hour broadcasting, which just serves to demonstrate the rapid pace of acceleration in British broadcasting’s evolution.
By the end of the 90s, Channel 5; Six TV and a plethora of premium channels like Sky 1 and the Disney Channel had become available to British audiences. Whilst some were unsuccessful (Six TV went defunct in 2009 after a troubled and highly limited run in its ten year lifetime) others, like Sky 1, remain dominant forces.
Into the 21st Century, analogue broadcasts – satellite, cable and over the air – began to cease. Freeview, Freesat, Sky and Virgin Media Television have battled for eyeballs, and all four have launched new HD services in 1080i. But a growing competitor in the form of the world wide web, born in the 90s, has begun eating into television’s market – both with original content on sites like YouTube and blip.tv and through on demand distribution of television programming through services like BBC iPlayer.
This is the scene as we look ahead to the future of British broadcasting.
The Future of British Broadcasting: A Vision
As it stands, British broadcasting is engaged in a massive-scale “war for eyeballs”, caused by the plethora of services demanding the attention of the public.
There is little chance that all these services can continue to co-exist. As a result, going forward, it is inconceivable that we will not begin to see ever-increasing instances of convergence amongst these services. Already, we have seen television broadcasters like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, BSkyB and more make their programming available online.
Some, like the BBC and BSkyB even allow viewers to watch television live as it is broadcast over the web – and even on mobile phones.
The future of British broadcasting will be crafted in this image. Video content is platform-neutral at its most basic level. As a result, video services from one platform can be delivered on another platform with minimal additional effort. We are beginning to see this coming to fruition in the form of Internet-Enabled TV sets and devices powered by software like GoogleTV.
These products, which will become increasingly prevalent in the coming years, invert the move of television to the web by bringing the web to television sets. As a result, audiences are able to watch live transmissions or on demand content from the comfort of their living room, on their big screen, without additional effort on their part.
The secondary result of this will be the resurgence of independent and even semi-professional video producers. With internet video services – which offer a far more accessible platform for smaller producers – with equivalent prominence to conventional broadcasters on TVs, independents and semi-professional individuals will be able to reach a far wider audience than at present, radically increasing the viability of small producers.
One possible side-effect of this will be the collapse of the Government’s efforts to launch a new sixth terrestrial broadcaster. The new sixth channel is being pitched has having a localised remit, patterned after the US Networks system, where a national Network produces prime time, late-night, (in some cases) daytime and news programming and local stations broadcast it to small areas (Eg. Cities) along with locally produced content like the local news and weather. Note, ITV used to be organised in this way prior to a mass of station mergers which has rendered the ITV Regions system a nominal one only.
This focus on localised programming will likely have its audience consumed by independent efforts making use of the web. Already, services lie Portsmouthlive.tv are serving the same basic purpose – at very low cost – without the government’s backing.
Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the proliferation of channels (Hundreds broadcast in the UK at present) will continue. Indeed, it seems likely that the number of channels available to UK audiences will plummet over the next ten to twenty years as the niche markets catered to by satellite and cable begin to be eaten up by web services. These niche channels are by far the most vulnerable to being subsumed by the web, as their inherently smaller audiences mean it will be viable for users to stream video live far sooner because less bandwidth will be needed.
As bandwidth concerns are overcome, channels with ever-wider audiences will be able to move online. Theoretically, if enough bandwidth can be added to the UK’s internet infrastructure, every channel currently on the air could be broadcast via the web. But that is a long way in the future.
One other thing seems likely: 3DTV will not achieve truly widespread adoption. Whilst their is a market for 3D content, the inconveniences of the technology make it ill-suited to broadcasting as it is generally consumed. Studies in the UK (The Guardian Online, 2010) and the US (NTDaily, 2010) have shown that an increasing proportion of the audience – particularly amongst younger viewers – prefer to multitask whilst watching television. This means their attention is divided between a TV, perhaps a laptop computer and even a mobile phone. They are social networking and reading the news whilst they watch.
3D doesn’t fit in this lifestyle, as it requires concentration to work. So whilst it has a market in event programming like live sport and movies, particularly movie premieres, conventional programming is unlikely to move to 3D in a meaningful way.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it seems possible that in the future, there will be no Freeview, no Satellite and no cable – as we know it. Instead, broadcasting will be consumed via an online portal with access to all the channels and on demand content in one place and an interface which scales from small screens (mobile phones) through laptop screens all the way up to big screen TVs.
Additionally, this portal could integrate with social networking services, to tap into broadcasting’s role as a creator of shared experiences and converge it with the advent of modern day social media.
Bibliography
Wearden, G. (2010) The Guardian Online: Multi-tasking media consumption on rise among Britons, says Ofcom study. Retrieved 9 May 2011 fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/19/multi-tasking-media-ofcom-study
Landry, N. (2010) NTDaily: Study shows increase in technology multitasking. Retrieved 9 May 2011 from http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=7975





