Subsidy dispute splits ITV regions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A ROW is brewing between the ITV companies over the level of subsidy paid to the network's smaller regions. The argument pits Lord Hollick's United News & Media, which wants to reduce the subsidy, against the three remaining independent ITV companies: Border, Channel and Ulster Television.
The subsidy formula, which was set in 1993, allows for ITV's six smaller franchises to shoulder a lower proportion of the costs of running the ITV network.
Normally, central network costs are divided between the ITV regions by their share of advertising revenues. But because the smaller regions' own costs as a proportion of revenues are higher, they are subsidised by the larger regions.
Apart from the three independent companies three other regions: Yorkshire Tyne-Tees, Westcountry and Grampian - owned by Granada, Carlton and Scottish Media Group, respectively - also benefit from the subsidy.
As a result, three of the four large ITV groups are indifferent about the subsidy because they bear the costs and reap the benefits. Only United News, which does not control a smaller region, loses out. The issue is particularly pressing because a number of ITV companies are planning to renew their licenses, which were awarded in 1993, this year. The applications must be submitted to the Independent Television Commission by the end of May.
If the level of subsidy is reduced, that will have to be reflected in smaller companies' license applications.
Executives agree that a new agreement must be submitted for approval by the Independent Television Commission before the end of the month. However, no formal meetings have been scheduled before the middle of April.
The argument is caught up in the wider issue of the network's central budget. The four larger operators are currently pondering a major increase in programming costs as Richard Eyre, the network's new chief executive, attempts to reverse its sliding ratings.
United News argues that reducing the subsidy would make more cash available for programming. It also points out that smaller companies may not necessarily lose out, as they could use the lower level of subsidy to argue for a reduction in their franchise payments."
However, the smaller companies are adamant that the subsidy be maintained: "There is no doubt the principle will continue," says Des Smyth, chief executive of Ulster Television. "The small licensees can't pay the full costs."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments