In February, the Royal Television Society held a seminar event on the so-called 'Lost TV Generation'. Guest speakers included TV Editor for The Guardian Gareth McLean, Skins creator Bryan Elsley, MySpace Senior Vice President for International Marketing and Content Jamie Kantrowitz, commissioning editor for BBC Three Karl Warner and executive producer of Big Brother Phil Edgar-Jones.Their response to the question of this tricky demographic reveals that the industry is quite out of touch with what I feel is the reality. For instance, I think BBC Three are deluded to think the channel simulcasting online will revolutionise their viewing figures or the popularity of their channel. Online viewers want content on-demand, so will seek specific programmes via web services such as the BBC iPlayer, 4oD and sites like AllUC.org and QuickSilverScreen.com. I also think the media big-wigs are naïve to think interactive programmes are a huge draw for young audiences - teenagers are more passive than they seem to realise.
Below are extracts from the transcript of the event sent to my by the event organisers. There are some particularly intriguing answers to some rather probing questions...
LOOKING AT THE TOP 20 YOUTH SHOWS, THEY ARE MAINLY REALITY, ENTERTAINMENT AND DRAM. WHAT ABOUT FACTUAL – DO YOU THINK THAT WORKS FOR THAT AUDIENCE?
Karl Warner: I know on BBC THREE the docs we’ve done such as the one about Lizzy the young single parent did very well with nearly a million viewers, which is very big for us. Our audience are interested in those sorts of topics, ones that are much more meatier not just silly and fun ones. Lots of research has been done into this audience and one of the things that often comes back is that young people really respect experience and those key figures who have been through lots of in their lives are popular such as Jeremy Clarkson. The audience like him because he’s lived a bit and knows what he’s talking about. Russell Brand as well, people understand he’s been through a lot with his drug addiction and they respect that triumph over adversity – that’s often reflected in those factual programmes. So I think there is definitely an appetite for it. I think because they’re done as one off docs they don’t get the biggest ratings, but it’s something we still really care about and want to do more of.
Peter Edgar-Jones: It’s certainly harder on digital platforms to do one off documentaries as it all comes down to cost and they’re not as repeatable as the rest of the stuff on those channels. It’s much harder to get things like that noticed on such digital channels. But there’s still a big place on the more mainstream channels for documentary one offs.
KW: I know BBC THREE has been criticised for it’s titles, but that’s exactly why we have to use them – because we have to try and get noticed, otherwise they get lost on the schedule. I suppose the other main broadcasters don’t do factual based programmes aimed only at a younger audience – It’s left to BBC THREE, ITV2 or E4.
DO YOU THINK A LOT OF PROGRAMME MAKERS AND BROADCASTERS UNDERESTIMATE THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE YOUTH AUDIENCE AND THAT TURNS THAT AUDIENCE OFF THOSE PROGRAMMES?
Bryan Elsley: I think broadcasters tend to under estimate all audiences a little bit. I think they take less risks than they could do from time to time but it is a highly commercial business. But I can only speak for drama. I do think the amount of risk taking ahs diminished rapidly in the last 10 years and it’s a real shame. I think a lot of energy spent on talking about interactivity could be better used on thinking about the futures of drama.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT PROGRAMMES AND BROACASTERS HAVE BECOME MORE RISK AVERSE?
PEJ: Yes I think that’s true. People underestimate how sophisticated and TV savvy a younger audience is. They understand the TV process much more than we did when we were growing up. Last year was a horrible year for TV, no risks were being taken at all. But now there’s certainly a trend for the 360 degree obsession – it’s the buzz word, but less obsessed with finding the place where a really good big story is going to come out of. There are some similarities between drama and reality, they are all about stories: real soap operas. Viewers can be underestimated. They can see all the joins.
KW: Often when you hear lots of ideas coming through aimed at young audiences people do obsess with being wacky or cool or crazy. Like over using graffiti fonts. Yet programmes like Skins are traditional, well written shows and that never really changes. People still want to be entertained in the same sort of way they always have done. There’s a bit of mystery that surrounds what young people want, but I do think they want the same thing that they’ve always wanted really. Although packaged as a youth show, it is just really good story telling. A funny idea is a funny idea. Fonejacker for example is a really simple neat idea, not necessarily a new one, but it’s packaged beautifully, which makes it vibrant and modern.
HOW FAR DO YOU THINK THE RISE AND SUCCESS OF REALITY TV HAS HAD A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO COMMISSIONERS BECOME MORE RISK AVERSE? AS IT IS CHEAPER TO MAKE AND RELIABLE, AS YOU CAN ROLL THE FORMAT OUT, IT MEANS THAT PEOPLE NOW DON’T WANT TO TAKE THE GAMBLE AS MUCH AS THEY MIGHT HAVE USED TO.
PEJ: We I would always argue that it didn’t have that effect of course. I think it’s very hard to quantify. I don’t know how many fewer dramas have been commissioned since the rise of the reality TV show. For example BB was a huge commercial success for C4, allowing it to make more risks in other areas and pay for other programme that perhaps weren’t so commercial. I would say to some degree there’s a certain risk aversion in the reality TV as well. I think the rise of the formatted documentary had more of an effect than the bigger long-running reality shows.
BE: It’s very complicated because there’s probably more drama being made than ever, but a lot of it’s shite. There’s an approach to drama now, which has subtracted meaning from drama. Its very difficult to get a real quality show like All Creatures Great A Small for example, it was a show that was funny, had meaning and real character. It was a light drama. I don’t mean this is the death of serious drama, but I mean there is a way of constructing story in drama now, which is to do with the volume that drama needs to have to be cost effective and to be a success. We make 10 episodes of Skins – that’s borderline. I need to die and come back to life to make 10 episodes of something properly. Everyone would much rather you made 20.
…IS THERE PRESSURE ON YOU TO MAKE MORE?
BE: It’s just down to cost. You’re always trying to run the cost equation all the time – how can you make a good show and have the people who need to make a profit make a profit – that’s the equation you’re trying to solve. I think there’s been a failure of will in drama in the last 10 years because people decided the way to do it was on mass. I started writing on Casualty in the late 1980’s early 1990’s in those days we made 12 episodes a year, now I think they make 49 episodes a year at the sample length. Now that means something – it means something for the content and the focus and commitment of the show and personally I think that’s a terrible shame because I think the tactics you have to adopt to make that mass of drama function are formulaic. They have to be. And they shut out the true originals and the wildcards and the mad kids who are going to arrive with something good. And even if they are a bit mad, they soon get saned up because someone says ‘we’ll have 25 episodes of that’. And that I think is a bit of a problem.
DO YOU THINK REALITY TV IS A WHIPPING BOY OF TELEVISION?
PEJ: I think reality TV does get the blame for all of TV’s ills and I don’t think it’s all bad. I’m really proud of big brother – I think it’s very innovative and it tells good stories. People always talk about the ‘Golden Age of TV’ and I fell like we’re living in the middle of one and always have been. There’s always going to be good drama and there’s always going to be bad drama and now there’s always going to be good reality TV shows and bad reality TV shows. We can single out particular genres. If we’re talking about budget shrinking that’s also partly to do with the fragmentation of the industry and the rise of multi-channel TV and that has effected terrestrial channels, who have seen their audience go down in the past five or six years in some cases quite dramatically and that’s bound to have an effect. I certainly don’t think its all doom and gloom I think there is good tv on at the moment.
I WANTED TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH OF THE PANEL ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE TO FIND OUT THEIR VIEWS AND WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE?
BE: Of course Skins has a writers group, which is about 20 strong, comprised of people aged 16 – 25. This year episode 8 of Skins is written by an 18 year old. So it’s a very young process and that works for us. Its very labour intensive and relatively expensive because we pay all our contributors for attending and for their ideas and we respect their intellectual rights. So it’s a high maintenance programme. I’ve been doing it for two years now and I’m knackered! You wouldn’t use it as a model for everything. It’s very enjoyable and brings a real buzz to the workplace, which is full all the time with lippy kids shouting too loud and using the wrong toilets. It’s great but you couldn’t do it for everything definitely not.
HOW DO YOU MAKE BIG BROTHER APPEAL TO THAT YOUTH AUDIENCE?
PEJ: It’s not what we’re trying to do with the programme. It was never intended as a youth programme. We always thought of it having a broader appeal, but obviously the stuff we do on E4 is a bit more tailored to the younger end of the audience. We certainly don’t sit down with 16-year-olds, but we have a pretty young team that works on it and it refreshes all the time, most of which are in their early 20’s who work on Bigmouth. We tend not to pay much attention to the focus groups and that sort of stuff, it’s a very instinctive process for the TV producer.
FOR THE RELAUNCH OF BBC THREE, DID YOU USE A FOCUS GROUP?
KW: Yes we’ve got a sample group of 16 – 24-year-olds who we meet with twice a month. We can take shows to them, pitch ideas to them and that’s ongoing, so we’re constantly getting feedback from them. Personally I think some of it is useful, in drama and entertainment especially. We are currently doing a sketch show written by a 19-year-old at university. I think also we should trust our instincts, as programme makers you will know what a good idea is – you don’t need a 16-year-old to tell you. I think Endemol have got a really good model, I’ve worked on Big Brother and you have people with experience like Phil (Edgar-Jones) and also you get all these young people who are 20 with fresh ideas coming through. I think it’s about finding the balance but not always thinking if a 16, 17 or 18-year-old said the idea was rubbish we should scrap the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment