Why ITV is such a turn off
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 God knows, the BBC has its faults but the absence of commercial breaks in the middle of programmes (especially sport and drama) is worth the licence fee alone.
Don't get me wrong. I support commercial television and I know that without advertising ITV (as we know it) cannot survive. I understand too that we're in a recession and the commercial sector has to grab whatever advertising it can. But was it really necessary for ITV to exploit Wuthering Heights to such an extent as it did?
Last night's episode (the second and final part) featured no fewer than five commercial breaks, each one lasting five minutes. That's 25 minutes devoted to adverts in a 90-minute broadcast. There were barely ten minutes between each break which threatened to ruin an otherwise enjoyable production.
I can handle a few ad breaks but this was ridiculous.
In future I will simply Sky+ programmes like this and fast forward through the breaks, or I will buy a mini series like Wuthering Heights on DVD, as we were invited to do at the end of last night's episode. One thing I won't be doing is watching programmes as they are broadcast in real time.
It's a vicious circle because if the current policy persists ITV will lose even more viewers and that, in turn, will result in the loss of even more advertising revenue.
Personally I would like to see the revenue from the licence fee shared between a slimmed down BBC, ITV and Channel 4. All three could supplement this income with advertising - yes, even the BBC, although some channels should remain free of interruption.
This weekend ITV broadcasts another "jewel" in its increasingly tarnished crown - the first in a new series of Miss Marple. Me? I'm going to press the record button and watch it later without those pesky ads.
Reader Comments (3)
I was under the impression that there is a physical, legal limit to the number/time of adverts that was allowed on ITV per hour. Has this been changed?
Scrap the licence fee and let the BBC advertise or charge. I pay for Sky and ESPN and until recently subscribed to Setanta. I can Skyplus any program and other than live events do not have to watch advertisements. Even then I go grab a beer or if in a pub go for a smoke.
ITV and BBC are millstones round the necks of taxpayers as the massive cost of advertising on ITV is passed on to the consumer. If they charged and had limited advertising the costs of everyday products would decrease and there would be no need to pay any licence fee. The savings would mean we could pay to watch what we wanted and choice would be better, as our money would not be wasted on junk programmes that people just will not pay to view.
Advertisers would need to find better quality adverts or like most are already doing, switch their budgets away from mainstream television.
I couldn't agree more, Simon. It's my favourite book and I was hugely excited about a Peter Bowker version of WH, after his excellent screenplays for Occupation and Desperate Romantics, but it was very nearly ruined by ridiculously frequent and lengthy ad breaks,