Designers get together

One of those joint conferences between ourselves and the BBC in which rivalry is forgotten for a while has recently taken place at Teddington. Members of the Guild of Heads of Television Design accepted the invitation of Patrick Downing to a meeting at Teddington on 7 October to discuss points of interest and mutual problems within the industry and to exchange ideas.

(Patrick is founding chairman of the Guild which came into being at the beginning of this year).

Those present were: Michael Yates, Head of Design, London Weekend; Peter Alexander, Head of Design, Scottish Television; Richard Levin, Head of Design Services, BBC; John Dilly, Head of Design, Southern; Eric Briers, Head of Design, Tyne Tees; Geoffrey Martin, Head of Design, Yorkshire; Richard Greenough, Head of Visual Services, ATV; Peter Roden, Head of Scenic Design, ATV; Alpho O’Reilly, Head of Design, Radio Telefis Eireann; Malcolm Beatson, Head of Design, ITN; Peter Ash, Head of Design, Granada; Clifford Hatts, Head of Scenic Design, BBC.

An added reason for the meeting was that it was the last opportunity all the members had for a meeting with Richard Levin, before his retirement. After the meeting Patrick on behalf of Thames, entertained members of the Guild to dinner on the MV Iris.

No floods

The time of extreme flood danger from the Thames early this month has now come and gone without the river bursting its banks – though some newspaper reports just before the danger time talked of “the gravest threat of floods in one hundred years”. Sighs of relief everywhere – including Thames studios at Teddington where the Admin Department had taken precautions.

Inevitably there is a sense of anticlimax and some people have wondered: was there unnecessary panic? As far as Thames was concerned there certainly was not. Flooding on a serious scale could have occurred. That it did not was due to a combination of three lucky factors: little rain to swell the rivers; very high barometric pressure; and a wind blowing against the tide.

Report — Munich

Director Jolyon Wimhurst, reporter John Morgan and a Report film team have just returned from Munich where they were completing the new dramatised documentary on Munich which will be screened in the Spring of 1972. Munich, the Bavarian capital, has always had a weakness for extravagance and a reputation for laissez-faire. This attitude gave birth to artistic and political excesses – from its Baroque architecture to revolutionary ideas, culminated by the rise of Adolf Hitler. In the year of the Munich Olympics Report tells the story of the city from the beginning of the 18th century to the present day.

EMI contract

EMI Electronics has won a major television equipment contract worth almost £200,000 to re-equip a Belgian television studio for colour broadcasting. The contract, which includes the first export order for the company’s new ‘2005’ three-tube colour cameras, is for the replacement of existing EMI monochrome equipment at the Brussels studio of Belgium Radio Television’s Flemish Service.

Still winning

As already reported in the Newsletter, the Thames Vauxhall Firenza at its very first appearance at a race meeting scored two out-right wins and broke the class record twice. The car continued its winning ways on its second outing at Inglistone on 10 October. It won the first saloon car race of the day, after Gerry Marshall had clocked the fastest lap in practice. Incidently the win was achieved despite the fact that the opposition was “formidable” to quote Bill Blydenstein. Before the final saloon car race (in which the Firenza was entered) the organisers gave each of the previous race winners a lap of honour. The unfortunate result of this was that the Firenza’s engine oiled up its plugs and although the plugs were changed the car went on three cylinders again during the race and finished seventh overall. But for the lap of honour it might well have come away with a double victory again.

U.S. Rivals

“Variety”, the U.S.-published, international show business magazine has a unique vocabulary. For those of us who don’t see it regularly, the following review of Rivals of Sherlock Holmes may be amusing:

Thames TV, the London independent, has whipped up a promising ITV network series meant to redress at least some of the balance with regard to the great detectives of Edwardian fiction. Hence the overall intriguing handle for this series of 13 hour long colorfilm mellers which has already sold in a number of off-shore markets.

The initialer featured John Neville as a smoothie forsenic scientist – a bit too smooth, in fact, since Philip Mackie’s script (from an Austin Freeman story) portrayed the hero as a man of immaculate gee-whiz intellect as well as urbanity. It was, in short, no contest from the start in this tale of a brothel murder. Never mind the plot cliches – the producers couldn’t be faulted for being faithful to the original text in that respect. And include among the cliches a compliment to the Baker St. hot-shot, in that Neville, too, trailed a Watson-type sidekick.

The seg was, however, nicely paced and sharply cast, and the Edwardian flavor came across effectively if economically. In notable support of Neville were James Cossins as his acolyte, Terence Rigby, Bernard Archard, Paul Darrow and, in particular, Eve Pearce as the madame-cum-innocent-landlady.

Fast Workers

Records were broken at Euston on 29 September to get a Daily Express ad on screen in the shortest possible time. The story began at 8.45 pm, when advertising duty officer Tony Clemens received a call from the Express asking if we had a spot available that night. We hadn’t, but one was cleared at 9.58 pm. By 9.45 pm, the script and artwork were ready and cleared, and were taken to Presentation for taping, and the commercial duly went out one hour and ten minutes after receipt of the first enquiry. John Robertson, the Publicity Manager of the Express, came to see the transmission, and expressed his gratitude for the co-operation we had given his organisation at such short notice.

Armchair for Armchair

There’s a neat compliment for the Armchair Theatre series in a glossy magazine campaign by Parker-Knoll at the moment for their Buccaneer suite of chairs. The ad shows three photographs of a man watching telly while sitting on a Buccaneer armchair. The captions read: “It’s an armchair for ‘Armchair Theatre’”…, “A knees-up for ‘Come Dancing'”…, “And an escape from the fifth repeat of the ‘Wooden Horse’”… Fortunately for our reputation the man is sitting up keen, alert and vigilant for “Armchair Theatre”; very relaxed for “Come Dancing” and sound asleep for the “Wooden Horse”.

Out in front

At the end of the first 39 weeks of 1971, Thames has established a clear lead over the BBC and all other ITV programme companies in numbers of programmes in both the Network Top Twenty, and the London Top Ten. Up to 3 October, we had had 169 programmes in the Top Twenty (21-5 per cent) compared to Granada’s 153 programmes (19 4 per cent) and the BBC’s 149 programmes (19 0 per cent). In the London Top Ten we had screened 244 programmes (55-8 per cent) and originated 127 programmes (29 1 per cent). Full tables:

Network Top Twenty

TOTAL	785	100
THAMES	169	21.5
GRANADA	153	19.4
BBC	149	19.0
ITN	126	16.1
YORKSHIRE	80	10.2
ATV	53	6.8
LWT	51	6.5
OTHER ITV	4	0.5

London Top Ten Screened

TOTAL	437	100
THAMES	244	55.8
BBC	112	25.6
LWT	81	18.6

London Top Ten Originated

TOTAL	437	100
THAMES	127	29.1
BBC	112	25.6
GRANADA	66	15.1
LWT	57	13.0
ITN	42	9.6
YORKSHIRE	21	4.8
ATV	11	2.5
OTHER ITV	1	0.2

Booked?

No, not quite! Ciss Stapleton, lady cleaner with Thames, gets a big smile from the local traffic warden, Ciss had just collected her new trolley from Bob Hurley, so she decided to invest in ‘L’ plates until she feels ‘qualified’. Ciss, by the way, has been with Rediffusion and Thames for 15 years.

The post Newsletter – 22 October 1971 appeared first on THIS IS THAMES from Transdiffusion.

My other objective was of course to break down those barriers created by any merger when it brings together executives from rival companies of totally different philosophies. This was only the beginning of a long and tortuous process, for the loyalties of Rediffusion staff were deep and it took several years to overcome their natural resentment of ABC control being forced upon them. I knew that total integration of the two companies could only be attained by joint achievements, when everyone would be proud to work under the banner of the new company, Thames. Therefore this was a further inducement (if any were needed) for Thames to emerge as the leader in current affairs and informational programmes, in addition to its acknowledged strength in entertainment and drama.

The highspot, I decided, would be The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten which had been a Rediffusion creation. Once having decided to play this as a trump card and break away from the ITV network practice of putting on documentary series at off-peak time I tried to induce ATV, Granada and Yorkshire to follow Thames’ lead and run the series at 9 p.m. This proposal was gently supported by the Authority (although not made a ‘requirement’) but it was not found acceptable, and others slotted the programmes for 10.30 p.m. directly after News at Ten, athough eventually one or two of the regions did follow our lead.

In a despairing effort to coax the two most powerful executives, Cedi Bernstein and Lew Grade, into nine o’clock networking with us I harnessed the driving force of the dauntless Lord Mountbatten. During one of the social events we cornered Lew and Cecil, and Lord Mountbatten went straight into the attack. Lew was immovable: ‘Howard must be mad, putting on your programme against the BBC at nine! That’s when the BBC put on all those sexy plays with bad language. You’ll get slaughtered. Now when I put on the programmes, after the news at 10.30, there’ll be no opposition.’ (No opposition, I thought, only football matches and feature films.) Lord Mountbatten did not withdraw from his attack until Lew Grade told him: ‘I guarantee, Lord Mountbatten, that ATV will get better ratings than Thames. In fact, I’m so sure I’ll bet on it. If Thames get higher ratings than ATV I’ll pay you five hundred pounds.’ In fact, Thames did achieve higher ratings at 9 p.m. than ATV at 10.30 p.m. and I reminded Lew Grade of this bet. ‘I know, I’ve already sent Mountbatten my cheque.’ He lit a new cigar and added ‘Cheap at the price, wasn’t it?’

Thus when Thames next offered a series of equal importance – The World at War – the companies all agreed to follow our lead and network this at 9 p.m. The programmes were rarely out of the top ten. For once, we did bring out the brass band to launch The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten with a flourish of trumpets and drums, for this series clearly had the stamp of success. We decided to have three ‘premieres’ at the Imperial War Museum, which had been such a valuable source of material for us. The first showing was for Lord Mountbatten’s military colleagues, the other for the Queen and her family, and the third for the press. The premiere for Her Majesty was probably more royal than any previous occasion, attracting the entire royal family with the exception of the Duke of Gloucester who was ill.

I found with Lord Mountbatten that in spite of his forceful personality he was susceptible to reasoned resistance, and there were several occasions when he gave in to determined argument. Our opinions differed about the values of various episodes depicting his career. For the press screening he wanted to show the episode he had selected for the Queen, his magnificent days in India. I agreed that nothing could be better for the Royal screening but it was not the right episode for the press. I wanted the second of the series, The Kings Depart, which told the story of his marriage to Edwina Ashley and their honeymoon in Hollywood, where they had made a picture which was preserved in his astonishing collection of Mountbatten films. The honeymooners had stayed at the home of Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford and taken part in a film Nice and Friendly, with Charlie Chaplin and the ‘Kid’, Jackie Coogan. It was funny and touching and was inevitably a hit with the newspaper men. Lord Mountbatten agreed afterwards that it was the correct decision. Our sales organisation went on to distribute the series on behalf of his Trust throughout the world.

For the first time we were able to break into French television. Only Mountbatten could have gone direct to De Gaulle to have the series shown in France. He then proceeded to re-record the commentaries in French, and indefatigably went through the same process to record a German version when German television also took the programmes. Our only failure was in the United States, where in spite of all the pressures and efforts the networks once again refused to find time for a series of British documentaries. Lord Mountbatten had Henry Ford as his house guest at Broadlands, for what I anticipated would be the most expensive outing of Mr Ford’s life, to sponsor the series in America. Although Mr Ford was willing, the American network concerned would not accept the programmes because they thought it would be disadvantageous to their ratings.

This series helped to consolidate the network, as well as Thames. Weekdays were now firmly established, partly because of the variable performance of the week-end schedules. The unpredictability and unreliability of Friday evening and week-end programmes disturbed the advertisers, who always wanted to be sure that their commercials would reach a known and countable audience. This could be guaranteed only on weekday television.

Thames could now claim leadership of the network, for the most effective programmes were concentrated from Monday to Thursday, based on Thames’ formula of the best of ABC and Rediffusion, plus new programmes, reinforced by the cream of the output of the three major regional companies. All this we celebrated at our first staff dance in January 1969, symbolising the union of the two companies. We had to take the huge Lyceum ballroom in the Strand to accommodate the staff of 1,600 plus their wives, husbands and friends, jubilant and secure after two years of doubts and hazards. All this gave me some satisfaction – not least that after twelve years of journeying from London to Manchester and Birmingham it was a joy to have my travels limited to Teddington.

Thames had moved into its new building on the Euston Road, which had been designed for the next phase of television, and we went forward with confidence into the world of colour. Now we set ourselves new sights with large-scale programmes which would take two or three years to mature.

Yet all was not well in the pastures of Golden Square. For years there had been trepidation about the inevitable sale of Warner Brothers’ share interest in ABPC; with Jack Warner’s advancing years speculation and rumour had opened up all sorts of possibilities. Then came a stranger at the door. At the end of January 1968 Electric & Musical Industries Ltd, had informed the Associated British Picture Corporation that they had agreed to purchase from Warner Brothers four million Ordinary Stock Units and thus acquired twenty-five per cent of the issued Ordinary Capital of the Corporation. Sir Philip Warter announced that the two companies had agreed to co-operate in the ‘full development of their combined resources in the field of entertainment at home and overseas. To this end the Board of the Corporation has invited EMI to nominate two directors for the Board of the Corporation.’ The two directors were John Read and Bernard Delfont.

Now the solid Associated British Picture Corporation began to feel the tremors of changes ahead. But Thames Television was consolidating its position in the television industry.

The post Consolidations appeared first on THIS IS THAMES from Transdiffusion.

The effect of this was that only a rich and established British company, acceptable to the Board of Trade as owner of a cinema chain, and to the ITA as partner in its ‘prime company’ with the London weekday contract, could effectively bid to take over ABPC in its entirety.

EMI’s wealth was mainly in profits from the records of the Beatles and it was a natural development for them to extend their diversification from electronics into the business of leisure. When Sir Joseph Lockwood had become Chairman he had hoisted EMI out of the doldrums up to the heights. He was also keenly aware that although capital assets and profits were key factors, where the entertainment industry was concerned entrepreneurism was all-important. Therefore he resolved to take under the wing of EMI the most professional of all the showmen, the Grades and their brother Bernard Delfont. Possibly EMI overpaid for what they eventually acquired in the Grade Organisation because events proved that Lew and Leslie were not available to add much to the EMI organisation, but it would be difficult to put a price on the tremendous contribution Bernard Delfont brought to EMI through sheer showmanship. The buying and selling of the Grade Organisation and the purchase of the Blackpool Tower Co. scarcely justified the high price paid by EMI, but ultimately the millions made from the Beatles and their music were deftly used Sir Joseph Lockwood and John Read to steer EMI into supremacy in the realm of British show business.

Now the amassed dollars of EMI and Capitol Records in America were earmarked for the purchase of Warner Brothers shares in ABPC and with it the control of one of Britain’s two major cinema circuits. There was a prolonged and bitter defence by ABPC when EMI finally made their bid for ownership. There were blasts and counterblasts of official statements to bewildered shareholders but the end was inevitable, with EMI’s determination to win, apparently regardless of the cost. Because of Robert Clark’s dour resistance they paid heavily for ABPC, perhaps too highly, but as the years have gone by their huge investment has never ceased to bring increased turnover, with the Group’s profits ultimately reaching £50,000,000 a year.

EMI gained control of ABPC early in 1969. Their encirclement of ABPC had been closely studied by interested parties in Independent Television, not least by the Authority itself. After all, Thames Television was the company it had designed to operate the principal contract in London. As Lord Hill has written since, it was the calibre of the management of ABC Television which had influenced the Authority in its decision to let the smaller company be in control of the resident company when the London weekday merger was effected. The Authority, therefore, was less concerned about the future of ABPC than it was with the key executives from ABC Television who were now running Thames precisely in the style and to the standard the Authority had stipulated.

The attitude of Lord Aylestone and Sir Robert Fraser was firm and definite. The Authority, in making its contract decisions, had chosen individuals, not merely the companies that employed them. If there were wholesale changes in a parent company’s Board the Authority’s priority would be to safeguard executives in the specialised posts for which they were highly qualified. The Authority’s policy, then, was to maintain the management and executives in Thames in their jobs so that they could continue to fulfil the contract as originally intended. It was clear that Thames Television had either to be given a protected situation within the EMI-ABPC merger, or it would have to be hived off and kept outside the transaction.

As the arguments wore on between the two giant company there were other interested onlookers. At ATV Lew Grade and Robin Gill were giving mysterious nods and winks to suggest that they expected to become party to the outcome of the merger. They were anticipating a close link between EMI/ABPC and ATV, extending their own interest to include Thames. We could all be together, they assured me, in running a colossal conglomerate.

It was this very assumption that compelled the Authority to lay down stringent rules concerning the take-over’s application to Thames. Their first conditions were that EMI would have to sever all connection with the agency activities of the Grace Organisation; nor could any members of that group be connected with the Board or management of Thames Television. The Authority had already exercised their right to approve the election of any new director of Thames from the Associated British side and they now reserved the right to approve any nominee of EMI proposed for inclusion in the specified number of directors on Thames’ Board. This was more stringent than the rules for Rediffusion who were free to nominate anyone they wished for their four directorships.

Unusual conditions like this were making the merger all the more complicated and difficult for John Read (now Sir John Read) EMI’s Managing Director, but he realised the potential for his company in Thames and its staff, and he was determined to keep the company within the EMI Group. I accepted assurances that Thames would in fact have greater freedom and more opportunity for expansion as part of EMI. This proved to be the case.

Although my involvement with the merger itself was limited to board meetings where Sir Philip Warter and Robert Clark reported on the state of warfare, I spent much of my time in delicate conversations with both parties, and with Lord Aylestone and Sir Robert Fraser. I kept my colleagues closely informed because they were as anxious as I was to preserve Thames Television management as a team, and to secure the maximum freedom and backing for the future development of the company.

The larger issue of EMI’s take-over of ABPC was drawing to its inevitable conclusion and Robert Clark was fighting to the last ditch to resist the financial onslaught of EMI. Such an abrasive relationship had developed that there was no possibility of Sir Philip Warter or Robert Clark staying behind to join the board of the victor if and when the Corporation were vanquished. There was an element of sadness for me in this because Robert Clark would have made a good Chairman of Thames Television, but it was becoming increasingly obvious that he and EMI were irreconcilable and it would not be easy for him to maintain smooth communication between EMI and Thames.

There followed an elaborate solution to the problem of establishing Thames as a subsidiary of EMI, consisting of the formation of a new company, Thames Television Holdings Ltd, to control EMI/ABPC’s majority stake (as partners with Rediffusion Television) in Thames Television. The four principal executives of Thames, George Cooper, Brian Tesler, Bernard Greenhead and myself, were allocated twenty per cent of the newly created voting shares in TT Holdings Ltd, EMI had the controling forty per cent, and two other independent companies mere to be offered twenty per cent each. EMI had difficulty in disposing of these shares to outside parties, because of profit uncertainties in Independent Television. They were turned down by British Lion Films but ultimately the shares were acquired by Sir Charles Forte and Charles Hunnisett.

Ail we wanted to do, at Thames, fiercely engaged as we were in building up our company, was to get on with the job and make programmes. There was relief when at last the details had been agreed and the official ITA announcement included the phrase: ‘there will be no change in the present executive management of Thames Television’.

The post Enter EMI appeared first on THIS IS THAMES from Transdiffusion.

With colour promised for later in the year, the company’s management could settle down and start building up to a truly brand new type of television for London.

At that point, fate intervened. The Associated British Picture Corporation, owners of a cinema chain, film production assets and ABC Television, the 51% owner of Thames, received notification of a takeover bid.

ABPC had been a large player in the cinema world when the cinema had been the nation’s universal choice of entertainment.

But television had started to eat away at the audiences early on. British films, once so popular, began to fade as Hollywood started to develop the “blockbuster” movie.

ABPC diversified, first into television with ABC Weekend, then into converting disused cinemas into bowling alleys – a fad that has often looked like taking off in the UK but never quite managed it.

ABC Weekend was soon in profit and the company started to live off the earnings. Cinema attendances and bowling alleys stopped concerning them and they started to see themselves as a property company. In short, they grew complacent and became ripe for the picking.

Electrical and Musical Industries – EMI – had been a relatively successful record company with a history stretching back as far as ABPC’s.

But the 1960s had seen a massive boom in the sales of records – partially led by one of EMI’s better signings, a Liverpool group known as The Beatles.

Suddenly EMI was rolling in money. This money had to be spent somewhere – it couldn’t just be taken home in wheelbarrows.

So EMI started to look for ways to expand. The best way to expand in the 1960s was to buy a large but complacent business in the field you wanted to get into, exciting the City with plans to revitalise the management (rather than asset strip and sell on, as now).

EMI started by buying the Grade family’s businesses, getting it access to the top live talent in the UK.

Now it needed to do something with that talent. It would need a company that could make films. Or a company that would make television. Or both, ideally.

ATV in Birmingham would be one option. With a close relationship with the Grades, EMI could have swooped. But Lew and Bernard weren’t the easiest people to get on with already. Bring ATV in and you get an even closer relationship with people who like to dominate a room. Besides, ATV’s parent company, later to be named Associated Communications Corporation, wasn’t for sale and wasn’t suffering from complacency.

The Rank Organisation had television, cinemas and film making to hand – but Rank was too big an organisation to swallow.

ABPC, however, was the Goldilocks scenario – “just about right”. The board level management were close to retirement; the company wasn’t being dynamic so had potential; and the Thames investment was very tasty. Best of all, EMI had already picked up 25% of ABPC when Warner Bros decided to leave the UK market on the death of Jack Warner.

But the Thames investment was the stumbling block. The ITA had no view on the sale of ABPC to EMI, but it certainly did have a view on allowing the Grade empire to come into contact with Thames.

In Howard Thomas’s engaging autobiography With An Independent Air, he recalls meeting with Lew Grade to discuss ITV matters taking a creepy turn as the EMI-ABPC takeover got underway.

Lew, cigar in one hand and an unpaid invoice in the other, took pleasure in dropping broad hints to Thomas on how the business of ITV would be made simpler when Thames was part of the Grade Organisation and ATV.

Whilst Thomas doesn’t admit to ratting on Lew to the ITA, it’s likely that within days of Lew first mentioning that his brother Bernard would become chairman of ABPC (later EMI Films), the Thames MD was telling all to the Authority.

The ITA moved quickly, based on a set of worst-case assumptions that would undermine the nature of ITV and the control of the Authority itself:

• Thames controlled by, jointly planned with or considered part of a joint undertaking including ATV, ACC, Lew or Leslie Grade or Bernard Delfont could not be allowed to happen.
• Any change in the shareholding of Thames that allowed Rediffusion or BET to gain more than their allotted 49% of Thames could not be allowed to happen.
• Any change in control of Thames that would allow another organisation of any sort to change the management and policy of Thames could not be allowed to happen.

These conditions were told to ABPC in early 1969, so that the takeover could proceed with them in mind.

The ITA helpfully presented three options.

• EMI could retain the 51% of Thames, but would have to sell the Grade companies and disassociate itself from the Grade family.
• Rediffusion could be allowed to buy the shares, assuming that they agreed in advance with the ITA that they would not alter the board, management or policy of the company – in effect, own but continue not to control.
• ABPC could be forced to sell 2 of the 51% it held in Thames before the merger to a third party agreed by the ITA, who would either be required to keep hold of “the casting vote” or to sell it on only to someone agreed with the ITA.

In practice, none of these options was really viable on the open market. But the ITA had thrown enough obstacles in the way of EMI gaining control of ABPC to ensure that they would have a voice in the actual takeover.

When the takeover went through in mid-1969, both Fraser at the ITA and Howard Thomas at Thames would claim the credit for the compromise that allowed ABPC to fall to EMI.

The 51% of Thames owned by ABPC was hived off into a new company, Thames Television Holdings Ltd. This was then put at arms length of EMI, left to run its own affairs with Lord Shawcross at the head of an independently-minded board.

Thus EMI got the Thames profit share it wanted; the control of Thames stayed with Thames as the ITA wanted; and Lew Grade had no way to get his sticky mitts on a neighbouring company.

The ultimate idea was for Thames Television Holdings to be floated on the stock exchanged or otherwise dispersed, mainly to prevent Bernard Delfont, now in the chairman’s shoes at ABPC, from exerting any pressure on Thames.

However, with no sign of this pressure or of any change of policy at Thames, the ITA was happy to ignore the problem.

It would be 1971 before Thames Television Holdings was floated, at the ITA’s eventual insistence, with 60% of the voting shares being sold off – 23.5% to the City, 23.5% to big investors, 13% to Thames management.

The future of Thames was finally settled in mid-1971 – the best part of 3 years since they came on air.

Everything was decided for the best, but the company had now lived through the distraction of its senior management and board, strikes, lean periods, the near-fall of LWT and another prolonged Tory recession.

Finally, Howard Thomas could get to work on building Thames (in colour) into something great. Thames was already good and important and liked by the viewers – but Thomas required his works to be special, not just good. He was ready for battle.

The post Who’s the boss? appeared first on THIS IS THAMES from Transdiffusion.

Unlike earlier systems which simply monitored the availability of airtime and administered the bookings, ‘Enterprise’ also provides accurate and continuous evaluation of the many factors which affect campaign planning: audience composition; ratings patterns; the impact of programme changes; the current demand on the time available, which governs its price; and even the existence of bookings for competitive products. So clients can use the service to plan their campaigns before placing a firm schedule booking.

Over 300 different programs are built into the system with 60 million characters of information on bookings, breaks, programmes, ratings, products and agencies. It is run on EMI’s multi-million pound computer installation at Hayes in Middlesex, which is linked by four data lines to Thames’ Euston offices. At Euston, there are twenty ‘work stations’, operated by sales executives each with a visual display unit, keyboard and thermal printer. In addition, order confirmations and management reports are automatically printed out.

As well as being a breakthrough in time-buying, ‘Enterprise’ represents a new relationship between people and technology in the work of media evaluation. Since its inception several other ITV companies have expressed interest in how the system might be applied to selling airtime in their own areas.

The post Changing the face of time buying appeared first on THIS IS THAMES from Transdiffusion.