This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: sponsorship

ITV hands F1 coverage to the BBC: a post-mortem on ITV's coverage

22 March 2008 01:31

Categories: News, Opinion

On Thursday I woke up too early. Having had a little over three hours of sleep, I stumbled out of bed to prepare for the day. I have outgrown the days of getting up early on my birthday, but this time it happened by accident. And I was brought a rather good birthday present by Bernie Ecclestone — it was announced that the BBC had regained the rights to broadcast Formula 1 from 2009. I couldn’t get back to sleep after I heard that.

Obviously there was much celebration among the Formula 1 fans of Britain. ITV has won few fans for its coverage. From the very start it was bad news due to the realities of commercial television meaning that races would be routinely interrupted.

This very fact is probably what, in the end, made ITV give up their contract two years early. Bernie hinted that it was ITV’s decision when he said:

It’s not that we are unhappy with ITV but I think maybe they will have their hands full with other things.

Sure enough, ITV confirmed that it was “a straightforward commercial decision”. And it probably isn’t a coincidence that on the very same day ITV won the rights to broadcast the Champions League.

But what made ITV pull out of the deal with two years of their current contract to go? ITV have been broadcasting for 12 years and if anything it had appeared as though their commitment had increased.

In the past year or two ITV have been much less likely to drop their live coverage of qualifying or shut it to another channel. And just days ago ITV announced that they had won the rights to broadcast practice sessions on the internet — the first ever time that UK viewers have been able to watch free practice.

It makes sense that ITV would up the amount of coverage given the success of Lewis Hamilton. Surely they will be able to increase their revenue now that there is a successful British driver. But ironically, I think it might be the arrival of Lewis Hamilton that was the final straw for ITV. Let me explain.

In the off season, along with the car launches and testing times, there is one story that seems to be an annual occurrence. Almost every year, ITV struggles to find someone to sponsor its coverage. This year, they even had to reduce the amount they were asking for — even following the success of Lewis Hamilton.

Honda pulled out of their £2.5 million deal after just one year. I seem to remember that was a last-minute deal, just as this year’s Sony one was. And the year before, ITV could only do a deal with Swiftcover to start sponsoring coverage four races into the season.

Why do ITV constantly have so much trouble finding a sponsor for their coverage? Simple. Each brand that sponsors the coverage becomes associated with interrupting the race. Instead of appealing to the millions of ITV viewers, sponsors simply piss them all off.

Andrew MacKinlay MP may believe that F1 coverage “could be provided, and should be provided, on commercial television.” He obviously doesn’t know much about the sport. Because if there is a sport that is wholly unsuited for commercial television, it is Formula 1.

Try as I might to think of another popular sporting event that may last as long as two hours plus without a single interruption, I have drawn a blank. Every other sport I can think of has some kind of break where commercials may be shown on television. (If anyone can think of a popular sporting event that may last for two hours uninterrupted, please leave a comment.)

It is a truism to say that, when the BBC and ITV jointly own the right to broadcast the World Cup final, everyone prefers to watch BBC. This is said to be mostly because the BBC does not have adverts. But at least when ITV broadcast a football match commercials are run at half time, well out of the way of the actual action. If adverts obscure the match, it is by accident, and only for the first few seconds of the second half.

With F1 though, ITV systematically, deliberately, routinely interrupt the action to bring us some words from their sponsors. There have been campaigns against this behaviour. It has been pointed out that 17 minutes and 15 seconds of the 2007 Canadian Grand Prix (Lewis Hamilton’s first ever F1 victory) were missed by ITV viewers. In total for the entire season, viewers lost 4 hours 6 minutes and 4 seconds — the equivalent of well over two average-length Grands Prix.

Moreover, several pivotal events have been missed by British viewers. Ironically, the moment when Lewis Hamilton effectively lost the 2007 Drivers Championship happened just seconds after ITV had gone to a commercial break. British viewers missed it, and the moment wasn’t even shown in the highlights package because James Allen and Martin Brundle were having their brief break (before resuming for other broadcasters who receive their commentary), so there was no commentary for it.

The year before, the pivotal moment also happened almost immediately after ITV went to a break. When Michael Schumacher’s engine blew in Japan, effectively handing the 2006 Drivers Championship to Fernando Alonso, British viewers were completely unaware. If football fans had to endure this sort of thing, there would probably be riots in the streets.

Yet, it is a commercial reality. ITV simply cannot afford to let two hours’ worth of televisual real estate go by without screening an advert. ITV were probably waiting for someone like Lewis Hamilton to come along to let them make more money. This would partly explain their fawning coverage of Golden Boy. But the opposite happened. As the viewership increased, it simply increased the amount of people who were pissed off by the adverts. When they struggled to find a sponsor even at the height of Lewismania, it was probably the final straw.

It is fair to say that the vast majority of fans will not be sorry to see the back of ITV. Their coverage has become laughably one-sided, with all of the commentators unashamedly obsessing over Lewis Hamilton to the extent where some viewers might be surprised to find that when the race started there were 21 other drivers.

It is, of course, understandable that ITV would concentrate on the British hope. But the sheer obsessiveness, to the point where Hamilton’s father and brother have both been elevated to the status of minor celebrities in their own rights, utterly grates. Imagine if football broadcasters started every programme with a hour’s worth of, “Well, we really hope Manchester United can do the business today,” and interviews with Cristiano Ronaldo’s brother and Wayne Rooney’s father. And all without a mention of any of the other teams in the Premier League. You would be thoroughly sick of it.

Whenever they weren’t stalking Lewis Hamilton, viewers were treated to patronising fluff of the lowest order. Who could forget ‘Cooking with Heikki’ or the tour of Jarno Trulli’s vineyard? Just one race into the season, ITV delivered a gem presented (sic) by Tamara Ecclestone. She “interviewed” the Ferrari drivers going skiing, but all she could say was, “That’s wonderful. Amazing. Just incredible.”

Then, of course, there is James Allen. You don’t have to dig deep to find swathes of people on the internet criticising his coverage, often in rather rude terms. He is a good writer, but his contrived excited style really grates and he is constantly putting his foot in his mouth. Murray Walker made plenty of mistakes as well, but that was more endearing. James Allen has an air of smugness about his commentary that most people cannot abide.

It is strange because James Allen is a really good writer, and I thought he was a fine pit reporter as well. But he simply isn’t suited to the role of main commentator. ITV’s inaction over this matter — this is Allen’s seventh full season as ITV’s main commentator — earned them a major black mark in most F1 fans’ minds.

It is not all bad news though. It is easy to forget that ITV truly have revolutionised coverage of F1 since they won the rights in 1997. Even though the preview show is often annoying, at least it exists. The BBC used to do the bare minimum. A bit of competition is healthy, and no doubt the BBC will up their game. It certainly sounds like it from the little hints we have been hearing already. But I will write a separate post about that.

3 comments

Learndirect are shocked, just shocked, by Jeremy Kyle

2 October 2007 12:29

Categories: Biased BBC, Current affairs, Entertainment, Newspapers, Politics, Television

Last week The Jeremy Kyle Show was branded as a human form of bear-baiting by District Judge Alan Berg. He is probably quite right. I say “probably”, because I have not actually sat down and watched a full episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show. The man’s demeanour is enough to put you off after just a few seconds.

I was going to say that it is not a surprise that The Jeremy Kyle Show should be compared to bear-baiting. Modern-day freakshow is how I usually describe these programmes. The predecessors to Jeremy Kyle (Trisha and Vanessa) were mostly the same. Some — interestingly enough, mostly the American ones — can be sympathetic to the programme’s participants. But Tampon Teabag’s summary suggests that Jeremy Kyle is by far the most despicable example of the genre.

Most of the time these programmes pluck out the most grotesque failures of humanity and plonk them under the spotlight for the rest of the nation to point and laugh at. I suspect the main reason for these programmes’ success is that it allows the utter failures that watch daytime television feel slightly better about themselves.

For me, though, the interesting aspect of this story is the fact that the programme’s sponsors only felt the need to pull out of the deal after District Judge Berg made his comments. Some are revelling in the fact that it was a publicly-funded organisation — Ufi’s Learndirect.

But let us be fair here. Most of Learndirect’s target audience probably watches Jeremy Kyle, because it is a programme for thick economically inactive people. So this was probably the most cost-effective way to get their message out.

But it’s the hypocrisy that gets me about it. Ufi’s response has basically been: “What? You mean to say that The Jeremy Kyle Show is a modern-day equivalent of cock fighting, but with chavs instead of cocks? I am shocked, just shocked!” Nobody who has seen these programmes before should be so surprised.

The real reason Ufi have pulled out is, of course, because the spotlight turned to them. The same happened when Carphone Warehouse pulled out of sponsoring Celebrity Big Brother in the wake of the Shilpa Shetty / Jade Goody controversy. They said they pulled out because they couldn’t condone racism. So did this mean that they took the blame for all of the other bad behaviour that went on in the Big Brother house in years gone by?

The same goes for this year’s debates about “trust in TV”. Hypocrisy from top to bottom. When it isn’t feigned horror that premium rate phone-in competitions are indeed in existence merely to fleece viewers, it is the Daily Mail treating some set-up shots in Bargain Hunt or Nigella Lawson’s programme as heinous crimes punishable by hanging. That would be the Daily Mail, a newspaper well known for its rigorous honesty and integrity!

Learndirect knew full well what they were sponsoring before Judge Berg made his comments. As Jonathan Calder says, The Jeremy Kyle Show didn’t suddenly become inappropriate because a District Judge said so.

But I don’t think they should have withdrawn their sponsorship. As I said, this was probably the best way to get their message out. I just wish Learndirect would have the honesty to say so.

7 comments

What else were Channel 4 supposed to do?

18 January 2007 20:42

Categories: Current affairs, Entertainment, Internet, Politics, Technology, Television

What I find most strange about this whole Celebrity Big Brother hoo-ha is the idea that Channel 4 should apologise and the fact that the Carphone Warehouse have felt the need to withdraw their sponsorship of Big Brother.

So Carphone Warehouse finds the racism broadcast by Channel 4 deplorable. Presumably Carphone Warehouse want to dissociate themselves from the racist comments made by Big Brother contestants.

But Carphone Warehouse has been sponsoring Big Brother in some form or another for years. So are we to assume from this that Carphone Warehouse condoned the several instances of bad behaviour that have happened in the Big Brother house since they began sponsoring the programme?

Did anybody, for instance, say that because Carphone Warehouse sponsored Big Brother then they must have supported Sandy taking a massive slash in the kitchen bin? Of course not. If you sponsor a reality programme, you ought to expect reality — good and bad — to be associated with your brand. But nobody will expect you to like everything that makes up reality. None of us do; why should Carphone Warehouse be made to feel any different?

Clearly, the entire row has been blown out of proportion. This whole thing does stink a little bit like a coordinated campaign. People are amazed that Ofcom has received so many complaints about Big Brother now, but that is just the nature of campaigning today. The internet spreads the word and empowers people to do this sort of thing very easily.

Just like the complaints about Jerry Springer: The Opera, the numbers will be misleading because of the nature of the campaign. In future, complaints on all matters will be measured in tens of thousands — not dozens like they were just a few years ago.

As Chris Dillow says, criticising Channel 4 is just shooting the messenger. Besides, surely Channel 4 should be applauded for bringing the issue to the fore.

It is a cliche to say that Big Brother isn’t a “reality” television programme. But it is really. What we are seeing here is what Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara et al really think. Of course, were they not shielded from “the outside world”, the protagonists would have stopped bullying Shilpa Shetty as soon as the issue of race came up. But because they are not aware of the public reaction we continue to see their true colours; we are seeing the real reality.

I have always liked Big Brother compared to other reality television shows because it focuses on these kinds of issues that affect us all. Other reality shows focus instead on, for instance, which celebrity can eat the grossest animal gonads. Big Brother is smarter than that.

So imagine now if Channel 4 had decided to censor Big Brother by deleting all of the comments made by Jade et al against Shilpa Shetty — which I presume is what those who are complaining would rather have happened. That would have completely gone against the entire point of the programme. Channel 4′s job is to show us what is going on inside the house and to ask us what we think of it (by the mechanism of the regular public vote for eviction). What else are they supposed to do?

As things stand at the moment, you can probably expect Jade to be evicted unequivocally and she will face a fierce and worldwide public reaction. She will have paid her price for her racist comments and for losing the game of Big Brother (ironic, given the fact that Jade — having been on Big Brother before — was said to have an upper hand over the celebrities in terms of winning the game). Everybody looking on will have a pretty good idea that racism causes a great deal of offense.

Had Channel 4 censored the comments, nobody would know anything about it and Jade et al would have got off with their bullying. Then there would have been a real reason to criticise Channel 4 — for covering up the misdemeanors of the racist housemates and allow them to get away with it without having to face the reality of the offense their comments make.

Put simply, it is not Channel 4′s fault of some of the people in the Big Brother house turned out to have racist views — although it’s clearly not as simple as racism, as Robert Sharp excellently points out in a good post looking at class and other issues surrounding the row as well, as does Cassilis.

As for those people who claim that people like Jade Goody and Jo O’Meara are role models for young people — bollocks! If anybody has Jade Goody as a role model — which I highly doubt! — then they are already a lost cause.

I saw Big Brother’s Little Brother the other day. On it was Paul Morley, who rather optimistically saw this as a potential turning point. He said perhaps this was the turning point where people realise that celebrating non-entities is pointless because there’s nothing to celebrate about them.

I also saw a few people comment on the fact that it was the foreign housemates — Shilpa, Jermaine and Dirk — who were smarter than most of the British housemates. I think this says something about celebrity culture in the UK. I’m not a snob about this, but the Celebrity Big Brother gig probably only appeals to a certain kind of celebrity.

An funny comedian, for instance, would not be seen on CBB today — although you did when Big Brother was still new. That’s because Big Brother is now associated with the Jade Goodys of this world. Shilpa, Jermaine and Dirk probably didn’t realise this. Shilpa said in the house, “This is what the modern UK has come to?”

Fortunately, Shilpa is incorrect in this instance — because she has only been living with the real dregs that British celebrity has to offer. It is a pity that it is this shameful side of British culture that the world is seeing. Come the eviction, everybody will be reminded of the downright mediocrity — and unpopularity — of Jade Goody.

Update 23/01: I can’t believe it took me this long to realise the mistake I made in the title…

6 comments

« Newer posts