
Shakespearean is the only word that can be used to describe the departure of Five’s director of programmes, Dan Chambers. By ruthlessly appointing Flextechs’s Lisa Opie above him as managing director of content, Chambers’ latitude to manoeuvre in his existing role was effectively neutered, and in the final analysis, had little choice but to ask for his cards.
In light of alarmingly sliding ratings, clearly something has to change at Five, but whether the changeover will achieve that remains to be seen. Certainly Opie has a clear cut brief to turn things around: stop the ratings slide. But as ever, the devil is in the detail.
Where has it all gone wrong? In 2004, Five reached the apogee of a small, but sustained ratings growth, achieving an overall audience share of 6.4%. That’s as good as it got, and since then the channel has slid to, in the first 10 months of 2006, 5.8%. It might not seem like much, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s huge.
Chambers commenced his time with Five with a desire to up the intellectual clout of the channel, and he arguably achieved that. But where does a programme like Tim Marlow… Highlights of the New Tate Modern sit with Make Me a Supermodel following directly after it in the schedule? Your audience for one is not going to stick around for the other. Yes, Five’s documentary output is highly proficient, but, as is the case across the entire schedule, nothing fits. That has lead to serious problems of identity. In short, who is the audience for Five?
And then there are the much-vaunted US imports that now serve as a blessing and curse for the channel. The acquisition of the CSI powerhouse was a godsend that finally put Five on the map, and shows such as Prison Break, House and Grey’s Anatomy add to that sheen. But these shows have made Five over reliant in an “It’s all okay, we’ve got CSI,” kind of way. But when you can catch new episodes of CSI on Living (ironically where Opie hails from) and House essentially has Hallmark branding all over it, imports are not the great boon they used to be. Losing CSI in the future might be no bad thing, and could force the channel to think outside the box.
When there are home grown dramas and comedy (see Perfect Day), it’s always too little. With a miniscule programming budget of around 200 million, once the cheques have been written for CSI et al, there’s very little left in the coffers to pay for a top flight drama that might be able to build up some momentum and audience. There are the occasional successes, such as Suburban Shootout, but that success comes with too many caveats. Suburban Shootout was a co-production with Paramount Comedy, which aired the show within a week of its Five premiere, quickly tarnishing the terrestrial’s sheen of having a moderate hit.
It also easy to perceive the cancellation (or at least the lack of a new home grown soap to replace it) of Family Affairs as a mistake. Yes, Home and Away might do the business, but there’s nothing like your own soap to help anchor schedules and set out a thumbnail mission statement on channel identity and who your core audience is. And let’s face it, how many would take an episode of Family Affairs over EastEnders these days?
Finally, where does Five’s toe-dipping into the multi-channel pool take it with Five Life and Five US? Opie’s experience in this area makes her appointment quite sensible, and the starting figures for the channels haven’t been too bad. In fact, one success of Five Life has backfired – new episodes of Home and Away are now premiered here, ahead of a showing on Five. The soap still does well on Five, but fans are turning over to watch the new episode, leaving the 6.30 half hour on Five somewhat bereft of an audience. Oops!
And what of Dan Chambers? He should have no trouble finding gainful employment somewhere in the TV sector – he’s affable and intelligent, and made some good decisions. Shortly after he succeeded Kevin Lygo at Five, Chambers said to David Rowan of the Evening Standard:
“If the channel had continued as it was, with Keith Chegwin’s willy flapping about, it would be in real trouble by now.”
He had a point, but what would have happened had Five kept Keith Chegwin’s willy flapping around? Possibly not worth contemplating.
But is it possible that anybody sitting in the programming hot seat at Five is ultimately going to fail? Was the launch of Five just one terrestrial channel too many for an audience on the verge of a multi-channel revolution? With so much against it from the start, Five was always going to have a difficult upbringing. As it approaches its teen years under a new nanny, it remains to be seen whether Five will ever grow up to have the potential it surely deserves.











Recent Comments