Why Thames wants ITV-2

WHY do we want an ITV-2?

First, to survive. Study of the ratings reveals the encroachment of BBC-2. Technical barriers are being overcome as colour viewers increase (one million now in Britain); the pressing of a button brings in an attractive third channel. BBC-2 programmes are skilfully planned and there are now some evenings when BBC-2 audiences surpass BBC-1 and come uncomfortably close to ITV.

Within a few years the outcome of this could bring a 3-way split of audience, with the threat of ITV’s share being reduced to one-third. The inevitable results of any such reduction of audience would mean a loss of revenue and a non-viable ITV system.

A fair division

The only fair division is for ITV to have a second and complementary system (like the BBC) so that we, too, can balance a serious programme with a light entertainment. Only by having two simultaneously planned channels can we maintain our present edge on the BBC.

The way Thames sees ITV-2 is that if ITV-1 is like the Daily Express, ITV-2 would function like the Daily Telegraph, offering a different range of programmes to a different audience and attracting new kinds of advertising. This does not mean that ITV-2 would be in any sense a “minority” service. There would need to be a full quota of entertainment, although we should want to use ITV-2 as a try-out ground for programme experiments and for new concepts and new ideas.

It is essential that ITV-2 should be operated by the existing contractors. A completely new group of contractors could only inflate ITV costs to an impossibly high level and, in the process, debase programme standards to the lowest common denominator. ITV-2 would offer a full evening-and-weekend service, using existing contractors’ studios and equipment, with increased manpower. The regions would produce more networked programmes. Thames would operate a 7-day week to produce additional peak programmes.

The cost? Perhaps another £20 million a year [£256m in today’s money allowing for inflation — Ed], £10 million [£128m] of which would come from reducing the advertisement levy to zero. The remainder would come from advertisers mostly new to television, and probably at the expense of the Sunday newspaper supplements.

The date? If our campaign succeeds we could begin ITV-2 in Autumn 1973; at worst Autumn 1974. But before then we would need to spend 12/18 months producing a stockpile of programmes for ITV-2; at high cost.

Once on the air, it would take a year or two to attract an audience (look how long it has taken BBC-2). Advertisers would be unlikely to come in until we had established an audience.

Will start at a loss

So it will be uphill; starting at a loss, then breaking even, and finally making enough profit again to plough into bigger programmes.

An exacting plan? Yes, but better than the shrinkage of ITV into a position inferior to BBC-1 and BBC-2.

As I see it, here’s our Progress and Prosperity Calendar or the next five years:

• 1971/2 A good year for Thames, with money available for prestige programme series like World War Two, British Museum, etc.
• 1972/3 Heavy investment in bigscale programmes to launch ITV-2, including colourful series like Charles the Second and The Private Diaries of Samuel Pepys.
• 1973/4 Continued heavy programme expenditure towards ITV-2 and for the launching of the new channel.
• 1974/5 ITV-1 holding its own and ITV-2 combating for audiences and revenue.
• 1975/6 ITV-1 and ITV-2 firmly established in the battle against BBC-1, BBC-2 and Commercial Radio.

These five dramatic years will pass all too quickly.