EXCLUSIVE Report & Analysis From Deadline|London editor Tim Adler: The BBC tells me that development funding is now flowing again. It had been frozen for 6 months. Indie producers supplying drama shows to the Beeb had to borrow money from outside financiers to keep script development going. Some indies faced going out of business before the BBC turned the funding tap back on. One producer I spoke to couldn’t understand why the BBC froze development funding in the first place. “I mean, it’s not as if the government stopped paying its £3.4 billion [$5.2 billion] annual licence fee, is it?” he says.
Now that the Beeb has opened its purse again, what exactly is BBC Drama developing? It used to be we could rely on the BBC to make period dramas. A glance now through the BBC America schedule shows vampires, dinosaurs and space monsters. Auntie, as the BBC is affectionately known, is facing unprecedented squeeze on her finances. Until now, it’s expanded with each year, mapping everything the private sector does. No more. It’s just announced plans to close two radio stations and halve its internet output. The budget for Hollywood acquisitions could be cut by one third. Critics complain it’s the least the BBC could do given the chorus of criticism.
The licence fee comes up for renewal in 2012. It’s expected that a Tory government will freeze it. The Beeb must show the next government that it’s living up to its public service remit. Tony Garnett, the influential TV producer of the seminal docudrama Cathy Come Home, believes that 33-year-old BBC Drama boss Ben Stephenson’s push towards one-off single drama and mini-series is politically motivated. Garnett tells Deadline|London, “The pressure is on. It is election year and the Beeb will always do what it thinks will help its survival chances.”
BBC Drama boss Ben Stephenson’s £200 million department has come under fire even as producers I’ve interviewed sympathize how he’s got an almost impossible job. He must satisfy a diverse viewership across four TV channels. (BBC1 and BBC2 are the main TV channels. BBC3 caters to a youth audience, while BBC4 is the arts channel.) The official shorthand for the upcoming drama slate is “engage and enrage.”
But it didn’t help that Stephenson enraged BBC golden boy Stephen Poliakoff. Stephenson told Poliakoff that he had to pitch alongside everybody else. The esteemed playwright has never had to submit projects for approval before, with Auntie always greenlighting anything he wanted. (This did not make Poliakoff popular with fellow screenwriters. Deborah Moggach (Pride and Prejudice) calls Poliakoff overrated and “resents him for having an over-reverential coterie of people at the BBC who think he’s got something significant to say.”) When Stephenson began reining in Poliakoff, the stand-up row between them was so intense that security was called.
Veteran screenwriter Lynda La Plante (Prime Suspect) complains that, under Stephenson’s management, she, too, now has to go through a “retinue of people” before “you get to the god”.
But the other problem is money. Indie drama suppliers know they can spend up to £900,000 million an hour on its main channels and up to £500,000 an hour on the smaller BBC3 and BBC4 digital channels. But the percentage of each show that the BBC covers is getting smaller. When the BBC first started funding Spooks (MI5), for example, the budget gap was around 3-5%. This has widened to around 20%. The BBC tells producers they can sell off international rights themselves, or they can profit from DVD revenue. But DVD sales are down dramatically. Illegal downloading is eating into revenue. Many producers fear they’ll be unable to paper over this funding gap if the BBC doesn’t increase investment.
Producer Stephen Garrett, who makes Spooks (MI5), has warned that his kind of big-budget drama will be impossible unless Auntie loosens her purse strings. Stephenson responds to me, “We recognize these are trying times and are regularly talking to producers like Stephen [Garrett] about funding issues and how the BBC can use its resources to be at the forefront of the future of drama.”
Of course, U.S. viewers want cozy period dramas from the Beeb, not the sci-fi fantasy that BBC America is currently showing. The problem is that America is the only market for costume drama, even if it does win the BBC Emmys (Little Dorrit). Period only accounts for 15 out of 450 hours of drama. PBS has just announced a remake of Upstairs Downstairs in partnership with BBC Worldwide, the BBC’s commercial arm. Arts channel BBC4 is remaking DH Lawrence’s Edwardian saga Women In Love. But UK TV execs still say that the BBC needs to program “more contemporary and less heritage stuff”.
Stephenson has announced 3 offbeat TV movies set in the 1980s: one about troubled pop singer Boy George; another about the impact of Charles and Diana’s wedding on a Welsh mining village; and the 3rd an adaptation of Martin Amis’ novel Money starring Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz). The BBC also announced a BBC2 series White Heat following the lives of London-based arts students from 1965 to the present.
The BBC also is making 3 big-budget TV movies starring Rufus Sewell as Italian detective Aurelio Zen. The shows are being made by Left Bank Pictures, which also makes the Wallender TV movies starring Kenneth Branagh. The idea is that the two detectives will play tag in the schedules – one in the summer and one in the winter.
UPDATED: Stephenson also has suggested that several long-running shows could have their life-support turned off. Spooks (MI5), whose 9th season airs this autumn, and another Kudos-produced show, conman drama Hustle, have been talked about as likely to go. Ashes To Ashes, a sequel to Kudos’ hit series Life On Mars, has already gone. The BBC has poured cold water on this, saying both series will continue. Stephenson has admitted that wielding the ax is “a bloody terrifying decision.” Hospital soaps Casualty and Holby City are safe, though. Stephenson tells me less than 30% of his budget is spent on continuing dramas such as soap operas, which are enjoyed by over 21 million viewers each week.





I’d like to know if during the freeze on development funding there was any freeze on hiring executives by the BBC, or if the venerable broadcaster’s notoriously multitudinous layers of BBC management faced any trimming.
One thing I’ve learned about bureaucracies, is that it’s incredibly easy for those running them to completely lose focus on what they’re supposed to do and instead dedicate themselves with personal empire building with legions of loyal toadies.
The BBC doesn’t know its market very well. I could introduce them to an awful lot of viewers who are furious over the prospect of getting rid of the costume dramas.
*Of course, U.S. viewers want cozy period dramas from the Beeb, not the sci-fi fantasy that BBC America is currently showing.*
Is BBC America under the impression that costume dramas would get them better ratings than simply showing the Dr. Who episodes on the same day they air in the UK? Because if they are, they are SADLY MISTAKEN. I had to stop watching BBC America not because I wanted costume drama, but because they’ve MONTHS OFF on the new episodes, and my only choice is to pirate them. Sure, I’ll watch the rerun eventually, but as far as I’m concerned, nothing on BBC America is being seen for the first time in the US – they’re ALL effectively reruns – why expect great ratings?
As an American, I do enjoy the scifi/fantasy of “Being Human” and “Primeval,” both shown on BBC America. Being Human is especially well-written. PBS should cut loose a little and allow other formatting in. Their period pieces are great, but also somewhat stale at times. How many versions of Jane Austen can we take? Also, Linda La Plante is a brilliant writer who needs to be produced more. She originated Prime Suspect.
Just a small point on a very interesting report, but I don’t think anyone in Britain has referred to the BBC as Auntie, affectionately or otherwise, for 40 years at least ( I believe the term originated in WW2 and hence applied to the BBC’s radio services). Somehow the name has stuck in American minds and regularly crops up in reports in the New York Times and elsewhere. If British people use a nickname for the BBC these days it is invariably “the Beeb”.
The problem with the BBC is that it refuses to understand just how valuable their American channel is in regards to the UK channel and just how poorly BBC Worldwide (their Studio) is being used. If ever there were a more perfectly teed up trio of resources from which to draft off of. Stephen Garrett needs to understand that great storytelling doesn’t need to be expensive and the BBC needs to understand that stuff costume drama need not be stuffy nor abjectly in unrelatable periods. Expectation on the BBC brand is for quality alone. No one really equates it with one kind of programme, but rather a dedication to quality storytelling. If being carried on the American channel positively impacts foreign presale numbers and if content can be produced for 15% less (which makes up the cited gap) than usual then the UK channel would be a much more robust environment both creatively and financially. The problem truly is a lack of foresight as to how a multi-national company should co-exist within itself in order to effecuate a more positive bottom line. Garth Ancier couldn’t connect the dots. No one at Worldwide can connect the dots and clearly this story misses the big picture if you’re focusing in on Ben Stephenson and not the fact that John Smith talks about getting more than 10% of its revenues from the Internet. Where is the discussion of what a series of interwoven assets like these three should be focusing on now that “development money is flowing again”? Ben Stephenson may prove to be another wunderkind named Ben who crashes and burns over the sheer weight of resistance from those tethered to the old way of doing business. But shaking it up and telling LaPlante and Polakoff and Garrett they have to evolve and do things differently is not only a by proeduct of need, but in its own way an arrow pointed to the reality of what Media is and how it will be consumed in the future.
“Of course, U.S. viewers want cozy period dramas from the Beeb, not the sci-fi fantasy that BBC America is currently showing.”
Really? What do you base this statement on? If that were true that’s what BBC America would be showing. The Brits do great sci-fi/fantasy and there are PLENTY of Americans who “want” it. Especially since US TV so often screws up sci-fi, with some notable exceptions, of course.
This stuff is probably boring the pants off most visitors to Deadline, but it’s pure mother’s milk to a die-hard Anglophile (and British TV podcaster, see my link) like me who loves to hear all the “inside baseball” talk about the production of British television, especially the impact of the upcoming election is having on the BBC. Keep up the great work, Tim!
There is a lot more to BBC than what is shown on BBC America these days (which seems to be more of Gordon Ramsay and the other nonfiction drivel that is shown on BBC-A, than the sci-fi and horror that the article mentions above)–they just don’t show it on BBC-A though; you have to look around at various PBS stations and other places to see it. If it wasn’t for the BBC, we probably wouldn’t have so much “reality” crap on American TV these days. So let’s see more period pieces and novel adaptations come from them, as well as some of the contemporary shows they are know for, such as Life on Mars and MI-5/Spooks.
Speaking of facts, a lot of the programming on BBC America is actually from ITV, particularly the Sci Fi. I also think you’re making too much of a generalization saying that Americans just want cozy period drama; some of the programming coming from the BBC, particularly the misspelled “Wallander” and “Being Human,” is terrific and would do well were it to be available to a wider audience. PBS aside, BBC America isn’t on all cable systems and is, therefore, moderately obscure.
“Indie drama suppliers know they can spend up to £900,000 million an hour on its main channels”
One producer I spoke to couldn’t understand why the BBC froze development funding in the first place. “I mean, it’s not as if the government stopped paying its £3.4 billion [$5.2 billion] annual licence fee, is it?” he says.
Well, if indies were spending £900billion per hour of TV, and the BBC gets £3.4billion annually in licence fee revenue, it’s no wonder the Beeb froze drama production.
Nikki please say you hired a good copy editor for Deadline London, alongside with Tim Adler. Parts of this report are just frickin’ embarrassing.
what about comedies?
EVERYONE will be fighting to get a piece of this pie!
Of course there never actually was a total stop on development – only on third-party projects. The in-house BBC Productions were kept going of course [ I'm not kidding- they have a separate commissioning exec. and dept. to deal just with in-house projects - though if they were to stop they do have a huge stockpile of unused projects. How a project becomes in-house is a fascinating piece of alchemy all by itself; it could be an opportunist pitch by a bright spark to someone other than their boss, [Note: everyone's boss in the Beeb has about two if not three direct rivals who appear to do the same job - with a different title or purpose depending on whether they were hired from private sector, were trained in-house or at Oxbridge with the Director General ] Or it could be a pitch by some overlooked lifer with a grudge or the negatives/e-mails whatever seizes a moment for payback. This will land them an office a budget and someone to answer their phone – because everyone needs someone to order around – and they get to set up a ‘cell’ of their own. To their co-workers they just disappear overnight. Two very consistent patterns are maintained whatever happens to development;
i] The most frequent form of ‘pass’ letter issued by the Beeb contain along with some generic praise the priceless phrase ‘ your project bears a close resemblance to another we are developing’ or words to that effect – no one ever learns what the other ‘similar’ project was but it’s an even bet if it goes it’ll be as an in-house production.
ii] There is a steady drift of Beeb-execs. who having paid their dues with in-house shows then set up their own shingle on the back of a commission won whilst they were in-house. All in all it would be better for UK creative economy and the Beeb’s domestic and intl. auds. if no in-house production were allowed at all and 100% of programming were commissioned whether it’s drama, documentary, sport or current affairs. [ this was debated in 1953 but thrown out as the nation needed the Beeb as a 'moral compass' or was it because that's the American's do! ] All anecdotal and opinion of course.
I don’t particularly like the costume dramas anymore, but I know, as the owner of a region-free DVD player and a customer of Amazon UK, that there is still quite a lot of high-quality contemporary drama being produced in Britain, and that’s what intelligent American viewers would like to see. Sure, I loved Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Life on Mars (completely uninterested in Primeval and Being Human), but I also enjoy edgy comedies and contemporary dramas, especially the political and mystery dramas that the Brits do better than anyone.
That’s what I’d like to see on BBC America.
In fact, if BBC wants a U.S. presence, they could do worse than just show us what they show in other overseas locations, such as Hong Kong