Quality Of TV 1988 vs 2016

In the late 1980s Jimmy Greaves was campaigning about the number of repeats on British Television in peak time. Here he is on TV-AM in 1988 in response to an IBA survey at the time that put the number one viewer bugbear as the number of repeats over everything else.



This segment effectively foreshadows the rise of what Greaves describes as "half a dozen channels of things I'd like to see again" - what we now have as ITV3 and Gold/Watch/Challenge/whatever else.

Bearing in mind the above video is from 1988, it's of its time and we're 28 years older, hundreds of channels later, 90% of which is stuff that's been through the BBC and ITV mills copiously before and most of it on-demand as well as broadcast, one can say Greaves got what he wanted.

Has anything changed in 28 years? Or simply a case of too many channels and not enough (usable) content?

It was infinitely better on account of TVS and Thames holding their respective ITV franchises.

Not really, no. It's not a case of too many channels, just not enough (usable) content. BBC Two Daytime airs repeats (mainly from BBC One) on weekdays. BBC Three has closed down on last Tuesday, so BBC One and Two are showing programmes from BBC Three. So a bit has changed, but some online concepts are a bit ahead of their time from 2016.

The original question in the discussion "Did the loss of Thames result in a decline of standards?" is a subset of this question. It has not been properly answered yet.

This problem with such a question is that most people will only make comparisons between different eras using the types of programmes they watch which is likely to complicate things. An enthusiast of gameshows or sitcoms will comment about these programmes but if they don't watch children's programmes or history documentaries then they won't comment about them - and vice versa.



It's difficult to deny that TVS and Thames contributed to British television in a positive way but even had they won in 1991 then there is still the potential scenario that both would have deteriorated in quality of production or shrunk down to a fraction of their former sizes after being absorbed into the monolith of a single unified ITV.



Is there a lack of (usable) content or a lack of content that is profitable? This gets back to the point I raised about the profitability of programmes and how (lack of) profitability impacts on the types of programmes offered.

http://www.tvforum.co.uk/tvhome/are-there-too-many-channels-41237/page-3

I didn't really intend for this to go off down the TVS/Thames argument again as we'd just had all that, and the point I was trying to get across was: The linked VT in the OP is one person's viewpoint (mostly) of the state of TV at that point in time. If one considers there were too many repeats in 1988 when most people had only four channels (BSB had its licence but didn't start broadcasting until the following year), is it fair to apply the same argument to 4 million channels in 2016?

Can you please go off and start a forum where you discuss this issue with yourself as it's pretty clear that however many people discuss the topic you will never be satisified with the fact that it's a question which can never have a definite answer.

It's not really a foreshadowing, or anything particularly insightful really. Channels full of repeated material existed in 1988, it's just that fewer people were watching them. People seem to have this cock-eyed notion that satellite/cable TV started with Murdoch's Sky.

It was always inevitable. The only material that small-interest channels can show that is cheap and mass-market are repeats, and imported cheap stuff from other large markets (the US mainly). Anyone who thought that multi-channel TV would be anything else was living in cloud cuckoo land, frankly.

The one exception to this has been the BBC, who created two very respectable new channels, but in the process spread themselves too thinly and are now paying the price.

Multi-channel is a crock, for the most part. Unless you're prepared to pay obscene amounts of money for the full Sky package, the only channels truly worth having are still the traditional terrestrials for the most part. 30 year old repeats and US imports were what stopped the terrestrial channels from having to put out hours of cheap crap to fill the schedules. Now we just have the same series repeated over and over again on the like of Dave and E4, and terrestrials reduced to putting out the kind of bulk filler material the US networks churned out for decades -- soaps, game shows and cheap 'lifestyle' rubbish. That's fine for the commercial channels but it's reducing the BBC to the level of "just another broadcaster" and hastening its demise.

Equity, the actor's trade union, once vigorously opposed repeats of TV programmes because an increase in the quantity of archived video material could result in a fall in the production of new programmes and many actors would lose their jobs. There were even agreements made that programmes could not be repeated more than a certain number of times which explains why so many programmes produced in the 1950s and 60s no longer survive.

I heard a radio interview with Christopher Biggins from a few years ago in which he claimed to get about a grand in repeat fees when Porridge is shown on BBC1 or 2. He said that Ronnie Barker's widow gets substantially more.

Not sure if that is for each episode of for the whole r run, but it seems like the kind of sum that could be a result of resolving those Equity concerns?

??????

I do not think that multi-channel TV has lived up to the expectations (or the hype) that some visionaries had in the 1980s but I disagree with you that the traditional terrestrial channels are the only channels truly worth having for the most part.

I mentioned over in another discussion about whether there are too many TV channels that one area where satellite channels have the potential to succeed are with people of foreign origin who are after programmes connected with their culture and religion or in languages that they speak. Programmes which are rarely, if ever, shown on the main channels.

http://www.tvforum.co.uk/tvhome/are-there-too-many-channels-41237/page-5

Are there enough people on this forum who regularly watches such channels so are able to comment on them, or do we have around 25 regular members with interests strongly biased towards culturally British programmes on the traditional terrestrial channels?

I can understand frustration with repeats back in the days when 99% of viewing was on the traditional terrestrial channels but I can't see anything wrong with 'themed' TV channels repeating the same programmes once a month or so providing the programmes are still watchable and relevant. Are there any programmes that you think should be repeated (more often)?

It depends on the deal struck at the time.
Because "repeats' were rarer in the 70's and 80's some Equity members got good deals - sometimes almost the same as the original payments as repeats were unlikely. The logic being if repeats were shown actors were not working.
I've a former actor who only got so far as bit parts but every so often a cheque would arrive (via his agent)with a small amount because the series had been screened somewhere in the world.

In my opinion it just seems to take longer to find something decent to watch.
I've no experience of Sky because I refuse to bankroll Murdoch and his ilk - never have, never will.
It's been mentioned before elsewhere but the Paxo's summing up in One Day In The Life Of Television is spot on in my opinion.