Masthead Programming: Breakthrough Or Pyrrhic Victory?
The recent success by the Periodical Publishers Association (PPA) in persuading the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to relax its regulations on masthead programming was described by a television producer yesterday as possibly being a Pyrrhic victory.
Peter Bazalgette was speaking at the PPA’s Magazines ’98 conference at which the television and magazine publishing industry examined the viable business opportunities which have been opened by the relaxation in the ITC’s regulations on terrestrial masthead programming (see ITC Extends Masthead Programming To Terrestrial).
Opening the debate John Brown, of John Brown Publishing, asked of masthead programming: “Holy Grail or trendy bollocks?”. Both opinions were expressed by the speakers who followed. Mike Soutar of Kiss FM is extremely sceptical about the prospects which masthead programming supposedly holds for the magazine, television and radio industries.
Soutar describes television as an industry which “knows nothing about brands” but desires to get its hands on magazines’ established brands ‘for free’. He also argues that it is naďve to believe that the whole content of a 200-page title can be transferred successfuly into a half-hour television programme. The only way forward, he says, is to take successful sections or pages from a magazine and turn them into a TV programme. These sections, argues Soutar, are character-led with clear ideas and a clear purpose. This makes it possible for them to be converted into television more easily.
There is a general concern that the sheer cost of making a relatively short TV programme will lead to a dilution of quality which in turn will damage, rather than enhance, the brand of the publication. Moreover, Bazalgette – producer of shows like Ready, Steady, Cook and Changing Rooms – says that if he wants to make a programme about a subject covered by a magazine he will not bother paying for brand rights and collaborations, but will just buy the magazine off the shelf and steal the ideas from there. This is what he described as “the transfer of expertise for around £2.50.” This is an honest response which might worry publishers hoping to strike television deals for their titles. More to the point, Bazalgette says he is more interested in selling his TV programmes to publishers than in any deal the other way around.
Will masthead programmes be successful even if they do make the screen? The consensus in the industry is that a successful magazine is by no means guarantee of a successful television show. Zest editor, Eve Cameron, admitted that the magazine reaches over 300,000 more people than her GSkyB show of the same brand and name. Tellingly, Cameron was reluctant to reveal how many viewers The Zest Beauty Show actually does receive.
Current ITC restrictions stipulate that a masthead programme may not refer back to the ‘parent publication’ or its features directly within the show, and that the programme may not duplicate material from the printed title. In the light of this John Brown questions whether the whole exercise would even be worthwhile.
Peter Bazalgette is also curious as to “who pays whom for what?”. Do the magazines charge television producers for providing their brand value; or does television charge the magazines for allowing them to extend their business? Also, says Bazalgette, the TV producer is attempting to create brands of his/her own so why would they ‘service’ other companies’ brands?
Peter Jackson of Headwater Cross-Media believes that he has the answers to these concerns. Headwater announced the creation of the Magazine Channel earlier this week (see Plans For Magazine Channel Are Underway). According to Jackson, this channel will provide the coherence and awareness which publishers need if they are to make a success of masthead programmes. He believes that viewers will browse the Magazine Channel much as they browse the magazine shelves in WHSmith.
Under current ITC requirements a terrestrial television licence-holder must meet certain diversity of programming quotas. This means that more than one programme from a genre (beauty or cars, for example) will probably not be permitted by the ITC under the remit of a single broadcasting licence. The Magazine Channel, says Jackson, diffuses this problem by allowing all the different magazine genres to produce a programme under the channel’s licence: ‘a multiplicity of choice’, as he describes it.
However, the future for masthead programming in the digital terrestrial age is far from clear. The relaxation in ITC rules may indeed be a Pyrrhic victory as publishers struggle to figure out how and why to make the transition to television. The investments and potential failures in the coming months and years could prove costly to publishers and brands alike.