MediaTel’s TV Summit – current and future issues… and a Chinese meal
Jim Marshall wonders whether MediaTel’s recent TV Summit makes the case for scaling up to a full TV Conference now – the sort of TV conference that used to happen in Monte Carlo and Barcelona some years ago when everything was less complicated, more profitable and more profligate…
A couple of weeks ago, MediaTel ran its inaugural TV Summit. Was it any good? Clearly it is difficult to suggest that it wasn’t in my monthly piece for MediaTel but, in fairness, it covered some interesting topics, was suitably feisty on occasions and threw up a number of issues, which generated a reasonably healthy debate. It was also very well chaired by Ray Snoddy and, very importantly, provided a decent free lunch after the morning event.
Yes, but was it any good? I felt it was comparable with a Chinese meal – enjoyable at the time but quite soon afterwards I felt in need of another. So, not entirely satisfying and it begs the question whether in the future it should be longer and maybe turned into a proper TV Summit/conference – the sort of TV conference that used to happen in Monte Carlo and Barcelona some years ago when everything was less complicated, more profitable and more profligate.
I’ll get back to that question later, but what of the Summit?
The panel of TV sales directors and Phil Georgardis (a rose among the thorns) went through some mainly well trodden but still relevant issues, for example –
- An inability to predict the market because they didn’t predict the downturn in 2008/2009 and the extent of the recovery in 2010. But given the entire financial brainpower of the world didn’t predict the recession, this hardly seems like a heinous crime! Next year, they think it will be flat or up a bit, but no-one was betting the shirt on it.
- Agency deals were a big issue with Phil – he doesn’t like them or do them, and he challenged the audience to defend them. No one did, maybe because no-one fancied the argument but also maybe because the argument is obvious – big agency groups do them because they feel it’s the best way of leveraging their volume for clients; smaller agencies don’t because they feel they will get better deals and terms for their clients by negotiating individually. Does it really matter if both routes are available to the market?
- And inevitably CRR came up again. At which point John Billett made a timely intervention and announced that he invented CRR in 1993, and that it was now being maintained because of vested interests on the part of the IPA and ISBA and it was all about share. I think that was his argument. It was said eloquently enough, but the content was largely nonsense in my view. I think Granada can take the credit for inventing it (in 2003); the IPA and ISBA exist to represent the vested interests of their members; and CRR is all about substitutability (whether ITV is or isn’t for clients) not share – share happens to be the mechanism by which CRR is applied. Gary Digby of ITV then made the point that it’s application, on the basis of share, was becoming increasingly iniquitous, which I agree with. But this doesn’t mean that CRR should end, just that its application should be modified. Mark Howe of Google suggested that we should all move on from CRR, which sounded like good sense, particularly coming from a man whose company controls well over 80% of the UK search market!
The next session was on connected TV. It was preceded by a short but helpful presentation from David Brennan of Thinkbox. Incidentally, in my view, Thinkbox is an excellent organisation and has done a fabulous job for TV.
I was on the panel and hoping to have a debate about the potential end of live TV as we know it, but David’s presentation put paid to that. His argument, which I agree with, stated that content on live TV will benefit from the access that connected TV will provide to other platforms – more flexibility to view, discuss and engage with the content. I also feel that these new platforms will offer a big potential opportunity for the better current content providers – for example, why not an ITV mobile TV channel or a Channel 4 News iPad application?
Next and finally up was Adam Crozier – CEO of ITV and a bit of a coup for the TV Summit. He is of course one of our own (ex media man and football lover) and a very polished performer. He came across very plausibly in talking about a healthy future for ITV. His main message was that ITV is going to get on with genuine change and commercial developments, which reflect the new challenges and opportunities of the digital world, while maintaining high quality content. All in all a pretty good message and one you felt that ITV could now deliver against – whereas previous ITV management regimes were never quite so convincing.
So pretty good as far as it went. But is there a case for more of a full TV conference? If it did happen, it would need to be clear on the definition of TV, because it now extends into all sorts of new and interesting areas such as the internet, mobile, out of home etc, and it would need to attract ‘heavyweight’ speakers such as Crozier.
It would also need to take on ‘difficult issues’ from the future of trading to the future of research, and would certainly need to attract the client community. And though it shouldn’t be seen as being trivial or profligate, it probably needs to be somewhere slightly more exciting and warmer than Liverpool Street in November! Assuming that it can get over those hurdles, I think it would be good – good to debate the issues and good to get a dialogue going between TV and its customers.
Your Comments
Firstly, can I thank John for his comments about my age and problems with hearing and understanding. It makes a nice change, because normally my age is associated with my loss of hair and the disappearance of my boyish good looks!
However, I’m afraid his assertions about CRR are less accurate. CRR remains in place because the Competition Commission continues to believe that ITV is not ‘substitutable’ and therefore requires ITV’s airtime sales to be regulated.
The problem is that John is still confusing the reason for CRR’s existence with the way it operates. I agree, and I said this in the column, that certain aspects of the way that CRR now operates are potentially iniquitous and there may be an argument for modifying it. Though, in this regard, I think it affords greater protection to smaller agencies and advertisers.
But that’s just my opinion and John’s opinion is clearly the opposite to this – so we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. What isn’t opinion or conjecture is why it was introduced in the first place and why it continues to exist – the Competition Commission report is very clear on this, so perhaps John should re-acquaint himself with CC’s findings and report.
Or maybe let’s just say that CRR, like old age, isn’t great but it sure beats the alternative. I’m sure both John and I can relate to that.
I am delighted to know that Jim Marshall found my seminar contribution ‘timely’, but naturally sad he found my comments ‘nonsense’. It’s sad to know that age is affecting both his hearing and understanding. I’m sure MediaTel Newsline readers are not similarly afflicted, but for those who missed the aural comments at the seminar, here are a few written observations…
The fundamental change since CRR is the polarization of media buying into five large entities. The CRR contracts are not with advertisers (with a few exceptions) but with the large media agencies, none of whom can exist without deals with ITV.
CRR underwrites their deals and allows those buyers to commit easily large tranches of money with a safety net price guarantee. Under CRR, ITV price premium has increased but the buyers trading on discount not absolute price are relaxed so it seems from their investment portfolio. This is despite the fact that the larger discounts and TV audiences on other channels can deliver valid high reach with more ratings at lower costs.
But the operation of the agency deals means CRR acts as a barrier to entry for smaller buyers and as a protection for the larger agency. Without CRR they would just have to work harder to get the same result.
That is why I assert that CRR remains in place because the large media agencies use it to their advantage. And for their representatives to claim that prices would rise without CRR is merely what would happen if large media agencies don’t buy and just allocate discounts around their client portfolios. CRR protects the large media agencies and their PRF discount based remuneration policies.
It is time that CRR was disbanded and replaced with a trading of airtime based on absolute value. (And apologies for the slip of the tongue over CRR’s introduction in 2003 not 1993).