process,” says one. The BBC “favours certain indies” and “has a reluctance to work with companies that are outside of their normal suppliers”, say several producers. “Still condescending to indies” and “very hard for smaller companies to crack” says others, with another citing “geographical snobbery.”
One producer has a range of criticisms: “Extremely slow decision making, excessive unpaid development, unrealistic budgets, excessive input in edits which ALWAYS push them over, still a complete closed shop in certain genres, cliquey, total lack of clarity in what they want to commission.” While others say the BBC
worries too much about offending: “The BBC was hard last year as there was a lot of nervousness over any content seen as controversial or divisive. Too many notes. “
Channel 4
C4 has climbed the rankings from third to second and is voted the best broadcaster by 21% of indies. But it’s also the focus of plenty of indie ire too, with 30% saying it is the hardest to deal with. Several praise C4’s quick decision making. “They have really improved comms, clarity and responsiveness. Fast and decisive,” says one indie. Others call C4 supportive, clear and knowledgeable. The broadcaster is the bravest in terms of commissioning and takes risks, according to many indies. “Good people, good intentions. Seem to be taking chances,” says one. “Such personable, decisive, collegiate commissioners,” says another. “They take and accept some responsibility.” Not all agree though. It’s a closed shop says some, while others criticise the “many hoops to jump through.” C4 can be over-involved in creative and editorial decisions to a frustrating degree, say others. “Schizophrenic in their approach to content commissioning – from the top down, there is a lack of
clarity and confidence, with low morale and aversion to the genuine risk taking which should be their USP,” says one producer. Channel 4 is chaos, argues one indie, citing “inflexible hierarchies, Commissioning and Business Affairs completely out of sync and general staff inertia.” Says another: “Confused editorial messaging, confused company structure, slow decisions.”
ITV ITV, meanwhile, has fallen back somewhat from last year, with 12% saying it is the best broadcaster. Praise for ITV focuses on the fact that it is easy to deal with and unbureaucratic. “They trust their suppliers to deliver,” says one. “Clear editorial messaging, clear company structure, quick decisions,” explains another. “Easy to approach, quick to
get back with notes or yes/no on ideas,” writes one indie. Others talk of ITV’s sensible budgets and say that the broadcaster is “amenable to changing contractual terms that would be beneficial to the show.” Criticism of ITV is focused on its
lack of slots to pitch into and that it “seems to be working with a small group of suppliers.” One describes ITV as “greedy”, while another cites its “unreasonable expectations on budgets.” “This broadcaster isn’t the easiest to negotiate with, and lacks a certain degree of transparency,” argues one indie.
Sky Sky also scores 12% of the best broadcaster vote, with indies variously describing it as responsive, quick and supportive. “Their commissioning editors are pleasant to deal with and knowledgeable about the subject matter,” says one. “They work in partnership both on the editorial side and production management with the tariff,” adds another. But there is criticism too. One indie says that Sky has historically been a great partner.
Autumn 2022 P32
televisual.com
They usually make the riskiest choices when it comes to commissions, but this pays off as they make the majority of the best homegrown British drama
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
