Was Michael Grade right?

On a certain other Forum that discusses Broadcasting, there has been talk of a crisis at ITV (though I personally think a few years ago was the REAL crisis), I think we're just seeing the inevitable reduction in some ratings post DSO though ITV's 'digital' channels continue to do well.

However there is still a crisis when it comes to commercial Public Service Broadcasting in this country (an alternative voice to the BBC's service). At the time of the ITV crisis a few years back, Michael Grade spoke about merging ITV with Channels 4 and 5. At the time I wasn't sure what to think but now feel with hindsight, he may have had a point in stating that ITV cannot compete strongly with the BBC and Sky. Therefore I feel it could be asked 'Was Michael Grade right?'.

A merged company for example could more easily provide (with stronger regulation to make sure it happens, unlike the ITV plc mergers)...I'm also wondering if ITN could also become part of a merger?

* More National News bulletins on ITV and Channel 4. Channel 4 would continue to provide the alternative service to ITV's more lightweight service as present.
* An improved version of the current Regional News service
on ITV, with at least 'new' bulletins for the East Midlands, South West (with the old West bulletin re-split) and Southern Midlands/Thames Valley. *For me the Border region in England would be merged with Tyne Tees with the Scottish side going to STV. ITV could also provide a limited weekly amount of non-News Regional TV programming for Regional Current Affairs etc as part of a merger.
* An increase in quality contribution to Children's Television via the CITV channel (with maybe Channel 5's Milkshake becoming a strand on the channel).
* More quality Current Affairs programming on ITV.
* More varied programming for different ethnic, religious and sexual groups on Channel 4.

If a merger was to occur, I feel a few channels should be sold to other companies (not BSkyB though) for niche channels. In my proposal this would include the new merged group giving up the current Channel 5 to help the fledging Local TV stations*. I'm aware that this merged group would control much more of the advertising group, but in this modern world I feel we have to look at the competition the group would be against...BBC, BSkyB, Google etc.

Maybe the same should happen in commercial Radio circles too with the major Commercial Radio providers allowed to merge (as they still will have major competition in the BBC's services, Commercial TV, Sky, the Internet etc) but with extra conditions added. These conditions could simply include a weekly show such to encourage new musical talent on National/Local Radio, more comprehensive National and/or Local News and a weekly Current Affairs/General Phone In show on Local Radio. Maybe with the merged company being made to release some of it's frequencies to help some of the so-called Community Radio stations.

* With the new merged group maybe providing a limited amount of funding towards the Local TV services.

Nothing there would require a merger. There is no demand for more national news bulletins, though restoring the lunchtime bulletins on C4 and C5 would be nice. Regional news is down to ITV and ITV alone, and similarly CITV.

All Michael Grade was trying to do was shift some of ITV's responsibilities to C4 and C5 - I suspect he never wanted a merger but thought bringing it up might open the way for OFCOM (or whoever) to say "no to merging, but we'll give all your responsibilities to someone else instead".

There are too many channels. Plain and simple. More channels competing for an ever smaller audience (thanks to the internet) means less advertising revenue which means less money for new quality programmes.

Here's an interesting point: " There to many channels, trying to compete with the Internet"

That's making me think, with the ever increasing numbers of Internet tv and on demand service could there become even bigger? Is it not possible within the next few years a lot of these channels will simply disappear with only the Main 5 still broadcasting?

With most content from the Non Big 5 channels being placed into pigeon hole channels or on demand? it could also lead to reduced of Main 5 other channels like more 4 being closed and 5* etc?

I get the feeling that Main 5 could continual happy and can still attract big numbers....

Does anyone get what I'm trying to say?

I can see the logic but cannot see that happening. Whilst there may be fewer channels in the future (or at least a high turnover) we will never go back to just five channels. I would classify Channel 5 in the digital category now, considering its content and I can see that having the biggest hit from the DSO.

We could always go down the Regional Tax route.

This is why I can actually see some sense in Grade's 'solution' (though admit I didn't think that in the past), to protect the unique PSB qualities of these channels. I must say I also agree with several in that the commercial PSB's should be keeping their obligations (I'm looking at you ITV) .

Could we not go the other way? make it law that all TV stations must provide X% of PBS on its channel? in return of having the pivillage of directly broadcasting to people homes ?

I can imagine some channels choosing to broadcast from outside the UK to get around this law...not the worst idea in theory though.

We could ask the EU to help us out.....

Indeed, though some of these Stations would probably broadcast from the Moon to get out of providing PSB.

I still wonder what Michael Grade is on sometime, I found a copy of the many faces of Stanley baxter, he still goes on about how he would love another Stanley baxter show ( saying that he did put one out in 2008) He know those show cost a hell of a lot of money, but he still wishes there could get put on?

Yes a lot of people hated him coming back in to ITV in 2005? But look at ITV now, it growing, its in much better shape than it every been since the formation of a single English company. He does seem to know what he was doing. I get the feeling he can only play with what he was dealt with,