Main Page Content:
ITVRSS feed
-

Ad revenue recovery: Different strokes for different folks

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 13 August 2010 at 14:25
Tags: Associated Newspapers, Daily Mail & General Trust, ITV, Johnston Press, Northcliffe Media, Reed Elsevier, Trinity Mirror

The recovery is starting to remind me of the Tour De France. High on a mountain ridge, the peloton is stretched out along a vast stretch of road. But two groups are visible. The leaders represent consumer-facing mass media — the broadcasters and national press. The laggards come from B2B publishing and local newspapers. Worryingly, at this stage during a recovery, the latter should be doing far better than they are now. At local newspapers, advertising revenues are still declining.

And the mountain ridge? This represents the risk of a double-dip recession, which now seems to concern many analysts, despite contrary indications.

Consumer media: Q2 advertising revenues

Consumer confidence reached a nadir in early 2009, began to climb and reached a peak in April of this year. Since the election, it’s been falling. Few analysts now expect interest rates to increase soon. The notion of a double dip is no longer a dark, if marginal, fantasy. It’s closer to the mainstream of economic forecasting than at any time during the past two years.

As yet, ad revenues at major media organizations aren’t showing any side effects. Q2 wasn’t wobbly: it was strong. Marketers haven’t yet drawn in their horns, although that could change very rapidly.

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of half-year results and trading updates. DMGT released a trading statement in late July. Here, the trick was to look for the underlying numbers, which strip out the effect of disposals (like the Evening Standard).

At Associated, these advertising numbers confirmed the general pattern we’ve come to expect. The Mail had turned in 15% ad revenue increases during January and March — but less for February. The 15% rise in Q2 looked like continuing solid progress.

Digital revenues were up by 46% at Associated. This isn’t quite the 100% YOY increase that Alan Rusbridger of The Guardian claims to have seen during April. Yet fairly clearly, it’s getting to the point where last year’s online revenue declines are starting to look like a distant memory.

ITV’s half-yearly report suggested ad revenues had risen by 18% during 1H, compared with 15% for the broadcast market generally. These numbers closely resemble those from Associated Newspapers. Although ITV was early to recover and is still growing faster than the market, agencies move in lockstep.

Robust growth like this isn’t universal. At Trinity Mirror, ad revenues in the tabloids increased by a mere 2.2% during 1H. The company predicted flat ad revenues for July. At Trinity’s nationals, digital advertising was similarly subdued, rising by just 4% YOY. You’d have to suspect that chief executive Sly Bailey is examining both the reasons for these oddly muted numbers as well as ways to spur more growth.

Local & business media: advertising revenues

This bit of the peloton contains all sorts. Toward the head of the group are B2B publishers like Centaur Media. It’ll be September before we get Centaur’s full-year results (to 30 June). But the company recently suggested that ad revenues rose by 10% during 1H. For the record, that’s better than Trinity Mirror’s tabloids, where ad revenues only rose by 2%. On this basis, Centaur is up there with the leaders.

Yet a big distance separates Centaur Media from the likes of Reed Business Information. Stripping out the effect of closures and disposals, RBI’s like-for-like ad revenues during 1H declined by 4%. Here, management was content to suggest that the rate of decline in ad revenues has “moderated”.

This puts RBI on a par with what’s happening in local newspapers. Here, too, revenues are still declining, not quite bumping along the bottom. At Northcliffe, for example, underlying revenues were down by 4% during Q2 — the same as Q1’s decline.

If retail has powered ad recovery at the nationals, its relative weakness in local newspapers is worrying. Retail advertising declined by 6% at Northcliffe during 1H. Digital only rose by 10%. The fact that property ads — up by 9% — were one of the few bright spots isn’t exactly comforting.

Trinity Mirror’s local newspapers mirrored Northcliffe’s. During 1H, after stripping out revenue from titles recently acquired from Guardian Media Group, they saw revenues fall by 5%.

The bullish case runs like this: local newspapers are taking longer than expected to recover, but improvement is visible. Last year, after all, Trinity’s local newspapers saw revenues decline by 12.4%. The bearish case is pretty obvious. If a double-dip recession is coming, it seems likely that local newspapers won’t return to YOY growth before it arrives.

Ad revenues, for most media owners, wax and wane far more dramatically than circulation revenues. As a result, it’s ad revenues that tend to define the industry’s mood — as well as the ease with which it can make profits. Typically, too, the distance between the fortunate and the unfortunate always widens at economic turning points.

As a result, life at ITV and Associated Newspapers currently feels very different from existence at Johnston Press and Reed Business Information. The distance between winners and losers will probably contract if a double-dip recession takes hold. But it could expand further, too.

-

Reasons For Saving Radio 6, No.158: Shaun Keaveny on Adrian Chiles & GMTV

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 11 June 2010 at 13:38
Tags: ITV, Media

The reasons for saving Radio 6 keep piling up.

This morning, I found myself listening to the station’s presenter Shaun Keaveny playing Velvet Underground and The Gang Of Four. . . before the 9am watershed.

As if that wasn’t good enough, Keaveny does media analysis, too.

This morning, the laconic Northerner picked apart ITV’s announcement that it would be replacing GMTV with a new show fronted by Adrian Chiles and a “glamorous female co-presenter”. (You can listen to this yourself, on iPlayer, here: the segment in question begins after 1hr 25 mins. . .)

“Do they have to be glamorous?” asked Keaveny. “Are they going to looking at her journalistic CV or is it just onscreen chemistry they’ll be looking at? Which translates to: can we disseminate rumours that they’re sleeping together?”

Next, Keaveny pinpoints ITV’s odd suggestion that the new show will contain more “male-friendly features”. Keaveny suggests that “Arm-Wrestling For Pints” might be among them.

New studios are being built for the £1.5m launch, he points out. At this point, surrealism takes over entirely (so it’s best to simply quote verbatim):

“It’s going to be presented by Adrian Chiles, who they’ve spent do much money on, they’re making the most of it.

“It’s going to be presented from the White Cliffs of Dover, which will be sculpted Rushmore-style into the shape of Adrian Chiles’s face. Apparently.

“And the studio will be situated in his mouth, which I can’t wait to see. It’s going to be spectacular.”

Where to start with Keaveny’s critique? It’s a sharply-turned satire on celebrity egotism, tabloid collusion, and broadcast sexism. Want to criticise the BBC for paying ridiculous amounts to Jonathan Ross? Ah, but perhaps we should also be looking at how much ITV pays Adrian Chiles. . .

No doubt ITV’s new morning show will be great.  Me? I reckon I’ll be sticking with Shaun Keaveny on BBC Radio 6. . .

-

Best case scenario: editors to start hiring by Christmas

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 2 June 2010 at 10:02
Tags: Associated Newspapers, Daily Mail & General Trust, ITV, News International

If anything stops the cuts, and prompts new hiring, it’s going to be advertising (not slowly declining circulation revenues). Or as Peter Williams, the finance director at DMGT, put it last week: “Advertising is probably the thing which is going to move the numbers at the margin.”

So what do DMGT’s half-year results, published in the middle of last week, tell us about advertising markets?

How is Associated Newspapers doing by comparison with ITV (ad revenues up 8% YOY in Q1)? How is it faring against The Sun (which led a YOY ad revenue rise of 10% at Wapping during Q1)?

Answer: a rising tide lifts all boats. Between October and December, underlying ad revenues at Associated fell by 7% YOY. Between January and March, they rose by 11%.

That’s very similar to what we’ve seen at Wapping and ITV. In parts, Associated may even have done better. Metro, in particular, seems to have done brisk business during Q1.

The slides accompanying last week’s presentation to analysts suggest that display revenues at the Mail, Mail On Sunday and Metro rose by 15% YOY in January and by the same amount in March.

Peter Williams, finance director at DMGT, told analysts that April was “a bit sort of choppy” but May has been “perfectly OK again”. Like others, he blames the General Election for a slight slowdown in ad spend.

Later, he elaborated, talking about YOY increases in ad revenues:

On a month by month basis, [advertising at Associated Newspapers in] March was actually well into double digits, April is actually quite low, single digits, but I think you’ve got to put those two together, that’s our view, and then May is actually looking, will be back into double digits.

So: growth is coming along nicely at ITV, Associated Newspapers and News International. Speaking in person talking to analysts on Wednesday morning, DMGT’s executives sounded chirpier than the dour earnings release they issued beforehand.

Their joy wasn’t unconfined, however. Williams, for example, warned that Associated “will not get a big bounce in June from the World Cup in the way that ITV does” because this “just doesn’t happen in newspapers”.

He added that the number of ad pages being run by Associated Newspapers “remains some way below 2008”.

And you needn’t expect that Associated will start hiring in a big way any time soon. In the words of DMGT chief executive Martin Morgan, Associated and Northcliffe have “quite a way to go before we need additional resources” to handle the upsurge in ad sales and pagination.

As profits start to surge inward over a much-reduced cost base, there’s a strict hierarchy of needs at quoted companies.

First, bankers get what they are owed (if they weren’t already). After the bankers, it’s the shareholders’ turn to benefit from resumed, or enhanced, dividends. Next come investment bankers touting hot takeover prospects. (As Martin Morgan of DMGT noted last week, media M&A markets seem to be returning to life.)

Last in line come the wage slaves. Even if recovery remains on track, many newsrooms will spend the next six months dealing with a rising tide of pagination on the basis of depleted resources. With any luck, some editors will be hiring again — albeit very cautiously — by Christmas.

-

Why Adam Crozier shouldn’t buy Five for ITV

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 26 April 2010 at 16:08
Tags: ITV

Oh, come off it. ITV to buy Five from RTL?

Dan Sabbagh (at Beehive City) and James Ashton (at The Sunday Times) bravely argue that this story has legs. But short of discovering a hidden pot of gold at the bottom of Dawn Airey’s garden, I find it hard to credit.

1) Yes, the mooted savings of £100m sound like a lot (in fact, they’re around one-third of Five’s turnover). But next to ITV’s revenues of £1.9bn, this amount looks less impressive. Under its own steam, ITV plc delivered cost savings of £169m last year. This year, its profits will leap by £100m without any help from Five, thanks to resurgent ad revenues. The immediate crisis in terms of ad revenue declines is over. While this proposal smacks of opportunism, the time for opportunism is past.

2) What would ITV be buying? Around 6% of the nation’s telly-bound eyeballs — a proportion unchanged at Five since 2005 — and 8% of net TV advertising in the UK. Yet why buy more old-fashioned distribution capacity when YouTube – four years old this month – is selling moves to rent and streaming Indian Premier League cricket in the US? Buying Five would be a ridiculously defensive move.

3) In addition, ITV would be buying the rights to Five’s wobbly brand proposition. (Quick: what’s the channel’s slogan? *) Plus that coveted No.5 slot on EPGs (Yet as Lord Grade himself was wont to muse, the value of this is anyone’s guess in a world where web and telly are set on a permanent collision course.)

4) You don’t hire a CEO like Adam Crozier (in exchange for £14m over five years) as the boss of a heavily-indebted company and then allow him to restart the wheezing wurtlitzer of industry consolidation. For that money, Crozier should set his sights on tougher challenges that matter in the long term, like boosting revenues in competitive markets beyond ITV’s quasi-monopoly of commercial TV impacts. For ITV’s own production arm — perennially trying to sell more stuff elsewhere – another vertically integrated distribution channel would represent the softest of options.

5) The Competition Commission would have a whale of time with an ITV-RTL merger. The Commission already considers ITV to be a hapless monopolist. On this basis, how much of the benefit accruing from a deal to buy Five would ITV’s shareholders be allowed to enjoy? Very little indeed, I suspect. Meanwhile, for ITV’s management, the distractions of dealing with regulators and an internal reorganisation would loom large.

I know, I know. Everything has its price. Five remains a problem in search of a solution. And Alex de Groote, an analyst at Panmure Gordon, suggests that “consolidation is being talked about”.

And yes, we really should wait to see what the Competition Commission says later this week about the regulatory regime under ITV sells advertising. (Yet having read the Commission’s aggressive interim report, I can’t imagine it smiling benignly upon a profitable extension of ITV’s monopoly. Even if did agree a deal — and that’s one big “if” — the terms of Contract Rights Renewal would presumably be tightened.)

ITV to bid for Five? Either RTL is getting very desperate or the silly season has arrived already.

* It’s “Hello, we are Five”.

-

Consumer ad recovery is coming along nicely

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 16 April 2010 at 16:27
Tags: Associated Newspapers, ITV

Goldman Sachs is predicting good things for ITV.

The broadcaster’s ad revenues should rise by 10% during 2010, say Goldman’s analysts.

By the end of 2010, this will push ITV’s net advertising revenues up to £1.42bn. This is within spitting distance of what the company achieved on the eve of recession in 2007 (£1.49bn). On top of that, we can expect a further 6% increase during 2011.

Game over? Not quite. ITV still has big problems, including a ridiculously underdeveloped online business, which brought in £24m last year. Archie Norman, the company’s new chairman, is keen to emphasise that ITV’s ad revenue base is still “below where it was in 1999”.

But let’s be grateful for small mercies. VAT’s return to 17.5% in January hasn’t dented advertising investment (perhaps it simply encouraged more expenditure).

Encouragingly, ITV’s success is being replicated elsewhere. In late March, Associated Newspapers reported an 8% YOY rise in underlying ad revenues for Q110.

The Sun, we’re told, experienced a 50% leap in ad revenues from supermarkets and DIY retailers during the Easter holidays.

In the consumer-focused ad markets, you can set your watch by following the movements of Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest advertiser.

The company fired the starting gun on recession in Q208, slashing its US ad expenditure by 20% YOY. Now we learn that P&G is planning to boost its 2010 UK advertising budget by more than the rate of sales growth.

Quite how fast the company’s sales are growing remains a subject for speculation. Almost certainly, sales aren’t growing as fast as unit volumes. These, we’re told, are rising by a “high single-digit” percentage YOY. Meanwhile, quite naturally, P&G is talking about extracting “efficiencies” from media owners.

Yet the news looks good and it’s getting better. Hopefully, the rising rate of investment in advertising will generate the kind of returns that encourage marketers come back for more, even in the face of rising public sector unemployment later this year.

-

ITV forecasts returns to growth: Time to hang out the flags?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 5 November 2009 at 12:20
Tags: ITV

Perhaps we’ll look back on this week as pivotal. Last Friday, Sir Martin Sorrell attacked those who talk up ad markets on the basis of slowing revenue declines. Following his lead, I suggested yesterday that we’re not out of the woods yet.

This morning, ITV announced a forecast 4% YOY growth in ad revenues during December. The last time ITV witnessed ad revenue growth was June 2008, three months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Time to hang out the flags? Perhaps. So far as I know, ITV is the first big, mainstream, media owner to forecast a return to growth. Its shares were up by 7% this morning.

There will be caveats. For 2009 as a whole, ad revenues will still decline by 12%. This morning, after digesting ITV’s news, Numis Securities nixed its prediction of a 5% decline in ad revenues next year. It replaced that forecast with the prediction that the broadcaster’s ad revenues would be flat during 2010.

Not everyone, it seems, is willing to take this announcement as a signal that recession is over. Quite rightly: 2010 could still have some nasty surprises in store.

Even so, when you reach the bottom of a mountain, the obvious reflex is to look behind you and ask what it would take to scale the same heights again.

For all the talk of ITV’s structural problems, its decline hasn’t been quite as deep as other media companies have witnessed. The company’s advertising revenue base peaked in 2005 at £1.6bn.

ITV plc: Net Advertising Revenue

2004: £1.59bn

2005: £1.63bn

2006: £1.49bn

2007: £1.49bn

2008: £1.43bn

Factor in that 12% decline for the current year, and ITV’s ad revenues should emerge at around £1.25bn during 2009.

To get back to 2005 levels, therefore, ITV will need to grow its advertising revenue base by 30%.

There will be those who say that this is impossible because of audience fragmentation, online competition and the Contract Rights Renewal. Equally, there will be those who say it doesn’t matter, that ITV should instead concentrate on selling its in-house programming overseas and developing online revenues.

But ITV hasn’t exactly excelled in either area in recent years. The revenues involved are relatively small.

Here, then, is a sobering thought to add to the cautious forecast issued by Numis Securities this morning.

If ITV continues to expand its ad revenues by 4% on a consistent basis, it will equal, or beat, its 2005 performance. . . at some point during 2016.

-

Ad revenue confusion: Where does slowdown end and recovery begin?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 4 November 2009 at 17:49
Tags: Daily Mail & General Trust, Google, ITV, Independent News & Media

Confusion stalks the land. Is flat the new up? Or is down the new flat?

Typically, recovery means revenue growth. But after two years of declining ad spend, sentiment encourages inflated claims. Disappointments seem exaggerated in their effect. Some persist in talking up a recovery. We all want the pain to end.

At the Guardian a few weeks ago, Roy Greenslade asked whether newspaper publishers might be on the “verge of a remarkable recovery”. The evidence for “renewed optimism”, Greenslade told us, lay in share prices that have “come off the floor”.

This morning, by contrast, Greenslade has noticed a Wall Street Journal piece which argues (in his words) that “there is no real recovery in advertising income”.

Greenslade goes on to paraphrase the allegation that publishers have hyped “slight moderations in the rate of decline of their year-on-year ad revenues”.

There has been some hype. But in general, this is something that chief executives and finance directors tend to avoid. Irresponsible cheer-leading is career-limiting.

Financial PRs are often less squeamish. In the face of pressure to maintain share prices, they’re paid for their promotional skills.

Of course, what matters to journalists is a new direction for the narrative. At the moment, we’re all straining at the leash to declare the end of recession.

This is visible, most of all, in the headlines that fill up Blackberry screens. One among many tells a story: “Daily Mail looks to happy New Year as advertising slide slows” (The Times, 30 September).

Dan Sabbagh’s accompanying copy spells out the facts on which this bright headline relies: a 21% decline revenue at the Mail and Metro during July and August, followed by a 10%-12% decline in September.

This big contrast between flaky summer months and back-to-school September might not tell us much. Notably, Sabbagh’s story quotes Peter Williams, DMGT’s finance director, refusing to “call the bottom, in case it turns out we are on a ledge”.

The reaction to Independent News & Media’s trading update on 29th October was similarly interesting.

INM’s trading update was ugly. Ad revenues fell by 19% YOY during the nine months to October. Operating profits nearly halved. Worst of all, from the City’s perspective, INM cut its forecast profits for the full year, which ends in December.

Yet some of the coverage — at Dow Jones, Reuters and the Irish Times — underlined the idea that ad revenues are stabilizing.

Arguably, it was the third par of INM’s trading statement that influenced these stories and headlines:

This marginally improved year-to-date revenue performance compared to the trend for the 1st half of 2009 demonstrates a stabilising advertising revenue trend, with each region experiencing similar advertising trends to H1 2009.

The “marginal improvement” mentioned here was very marginal indeed: a 19.6% decline in ad revenues during 1H, versus a 19% between July and October. Tucked away in the 20th par of the earnings release, meanwhile, was this warning:

Based on still limited visibility, the advertising trends experienced in September and October remain challenging and are expected to continue for the remainder of 2009.

In other words: things might continue to improve very slowly, but don’t bet on it.

Stephen Miron, the chairman of Global Radio, probably thinks similarly about the prospects for his business. Last month, Miron told the Times: “Single-digit declines are the new up now — so used are media businesses to the problems of the year so far.”

It was a back-handed comment. Yet already, the game has moved on. Since Roy Greenslade raised the prospect of a rip-roaring recovery three weeks ago, the shares of DMGT, Johnston Press and Trinity Mirror have all turned downward. The markets have hit the pause button: the six month-long run-up in share prices is over for now.

This suggests that Big Media needs to generate real revenue growth, and quickly. Yet the GDP numbers for Q3 — down by 0.4% — say that this isn’t possible, not yet. Retailers, the biggest advertisers of all, are experiencing similar difficulty. Marks & Spencer may have beaten the market’s profit expectations today, but only because of canny cost management. Like-for-like non-food sales are still declining.

After Christmas, we’ll find out more about how consumers are feeling. Perhaps VAT cuts and the car scrappage scheme have simply brought forward household expenditure that would otherwise have occurred in 2010. Richard McGuire, fixed income strategist at RBC Capital Markets, is among those who think this is the case.

Last week, Sir Martin Sorrell unveiled disappointing results at WPP. He had this to say to those who (for understandable reasons) persist in talking up the market.

“I don’t want to get into that mentality where you accept that declines in negatives is good. We don’t accept that. I’m surprised at people who see sequential declines in negatives [of revenue loss] and say the downturn is over. . . We will only declare final victory when we see positive growth year on year. You can’t declare victory on improving negatives.”

The message was a stern one. As usual, though, Sorrell was on the money. We’re not out of the woods yet.

-

Forget Murdoch in Edinburgh: Let’s have a real fight about TV’s “dinosaur bosses”

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 4 September 2009 at 12:27
Tags: BBC, BSkyB, ITV, Media

Obviously, it’s a pity that Robert Peston and James Murdoch didn’t come to blows at the Edinburgh TV festival last week.

It’s also a pity that the vast murmuration caused by Murdoch’s speech overhadowed another, equally important, theme at Edinburgh: the impending clash of civilisations between the broadcast establishment and web video.

In this debate, Ashley Highfield of Microsoft (and formerly of the BBC) delivered the provocation, with his suggestion that broadcasters have just two years to create “credible, truly digital, brands” before facing what he described as an “iTunes moment”. (The parallel is with the music industry, which failed to create a digital business, leaving the way open for Apple to do it instead.)

The organisers of the Media Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival seemed to take a different view. They chose to kick off proceedings with a feel-good survey written up by Deloitte and researched by YouGov.

Quite clearly, the first line of the accompanying press release was designed to smite the digerati: “New report reveals television advertising still packs the greatest punch”. As for the findings, well, if Lord Grade has daydreams, they presumably go something like this:

  • 64% of respondents ranked TV advertising as the format “with most impact”
  • Three-quarters of 18-24 year-olds ranked TV ads top for impact
  • Only 12% chose search as one of their top three ad formats (again in terms of “impact”)
  • 44% researched a company, product or service online in response to a TV ad.

The accompanying quotes from Howard Davies, media partner at Deloitte, left little doubt that the survey had been an exercise designed to deliver good news:

“Online advertising’s poor showing relative to television may surprise given that the former has often been portrayed as television’s nemesis.

“However, what television does best – display and brand building is what online struggles with. Online advertising is best at search, which previously newspapers, had excelled at, particularly for classified.”

At which point, it’s worth turning to marketing academic Mark Ritson’s demolition of the survey. In a blog post, Ritson — who currently teaches at the MIT Sloan Management School in Boston – modestly described Deloitte’s findings as “absolute and total crap”.

First, Ritson criticised the methodology:

“It’s not that consumers lie when asked a question like this. Rather, they simply do not know the answer. Self-reporting data has been proven to be invalid for questions as basic as estimating a consumer’s household income.”

Next, he criticised the survey’s relevance:

“For the past 15 years, no one has cared about comparing one media with another in this binary way. . . Comparing apples with oranges is an irrelevant endeavour in the age of the fruit salad.”

Finally, Ritson lambasted the idea of measuring “impact” without taking into account the cost of rival media and the “effective frequencies” required to yield an impact:

The last time I looked at a rate card, the price of a 30-second spot was wildly different from that of an outdoor ad. . . In the study, TV advertising was reported to have four times the impact of outdoor advertising. What if an out-door ad costs 20% that of a TV ad, and needs only two, rather than three, exposures to deliver its impact? It would work out to be a superior medium even with a lower reported ‘impact’ score.

The TV industry is in trouble, wrote Ritson, partly because it is “run by the kind of dinosaurs who think these kind of reports are good for business”.

Ouch. Perhaps MGEITVF should invite the good professor along to speak next year. He’d stand a better chance of inciting fisticuffs than the ever-so-polite James Murdoch.

Footnote: Mark Ritson (see comments) suggests that Tess Alps of Thinkbox has written a “completely toothless” response to his critique of Deloitte’s research. IMHO it’s anything but that.

We at Thinkbox prefer not to rely on claimed behaviour research, in fact, and instead use rigorous and impartial econometrics to prove that, pound for pound, TV advertising delivers more incremental profit than any other form of advertising, 4.5 times the investment according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Decide your yourself.

-

Who pays the bill for the boom years? You do: with your job

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 20 May 2009 at 10:55
Tags: ITV, Johnston Press

The bill for the boom years is becoming evident just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer spies light at the end of the tunnel. ‘Twas ever the way.

Johnston Press has just walked away from a deal to sell its Irish newspapers for a reported €40m –- less than one-fifth of the lavish sum it splashed out on them during 2005.

Johnston Press paid for these deals with bank debt. The value of the newspapers in question has been written down drastically on its balance sheet. But in the liabilities column, that debt still exists, emitting death rays that destroy jobs in the real world.

Or take Incisive Media, burdened with so much debt relative to plummeting profits that it resembles an upside-down ziggurat.

Incisive Media will this year attempt to service net debts of around £400m off the back of EBITDA of £45m. No doubt the pressure to cut jobs in order to support profits and thus pay the company’s interest bill has been immense. Quite how fast such a company will grow in the future remains to be seen.

As for ITV, it took last week’s AGM to put the mismanagement of recent years into perspective.

At the meeting, Leslie Hill, the retired chairman of the pre-merger ITV network, asked what benefits had been accrued by the company’s expansion of net debt from £800m to £1.25bn during the past five years.

Back came the answer: the money was spent on sports rights (fail); online businesses (fail); production (hardly a roaring success).

And yes, there was the small matter of a £250m share buyback in 2006.

So ITV borrowed £250m from its banks in order to give the cash to its shareholders?

Buying back your company’s shares from shareholders is an established ruse to support the share price. But doing this with borrowed cash smells very wrong.

In this respect, ITV resembles an athlete who couldn’t keep up with the high-octane pace of casino capitalism. The answer, of course, was the financial equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. After injecting hot money from loose bankers into the system, ITV was ready to compete.

Companies exist to allocate capital to productive use. The greater their ingenuity in doing so, the greater the return that shareholders will receive.

Doing this is hard. Withdrawing borrowed money from a cash machine and handing it to investors is a lot easier.

I suppose that the relative cheapness of debt relative to equity during the noughties provides a technical explanation of sorts.

Even so: buying back your own shares is an admission that you can’t find anything particularly exciting in which to invest. And yet look at ITV in 2006: this was a company yearning so desperately for creative investment that it enticed Michael Grade, the master impresio, to join it as executive chairman.

Mortgaging the future to invest in the present is one thing. Mortgaging the future to fend off awkward questions about your business model is something else.

ITV’s debt-fuelled share buyback doesn’t quite qualify as a Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme. But it wasn’t that far off, either.

-

Annals of crisis management: Meridian boss goes AWOL as viewers lambast local news changes

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 17 February 2009 at 14:00
Tags: ITV

The all-new Meridian Tonight has got off to a predictable start.

The show went out for the first time last week, combining what used to be three separate “opted-out” bulletins for ITV Thames Valley, ITV Meridian South and ITV Meridian South East.

The new Meridian territory stretches from Banbury in the north, eastward to Canterbury and Brighton, and westward to Weymouth.

We’re talking about a potential audience of 8m across an area that includes 12 county councils, 60 district councils and 86 MPs’ constituencies.

On the show’s blog, Robin Britton, head of news, engaged in some unwise corporate boosterism:

The new service is the culmination of months of planning and collective effort from newsrooms all over the country. We have developed new technology and work patterns that enable us to run a number of “opt” services. This will ensure “sub-regional” audiences will get the news from their area, and at the same time services will combine to keep audiences in touch with important pan-regional issues.

Eh? Oddly, Britton makes no mention of Ofcom’s decision to relax the rules on local news as they apply to ITV. Nor does he mention the slightly cash-strapped nature of ITV’s finances.

Ah well. What’s that the gurus say about blogging? The bit about authenticity of voice?

Presumably, Britton hasn’t ever encountered such gurus. Touting an “exciting new onscreen relationship” between Fred Dinenage and Sangeeta Bhabra, he sounds more like a corporate speak-your-weight machine.

This might be tolerated by employees. But viewers are a different species.

Britton’s blog post has so far attracted 379 comments. So far as I can see, every single one is negative.

Sadly, Britton doesn’t seem very interested in responding to the critics. Nor has he perceived that these complaints are actually a token of respect for the local news service viewers used to receive.

After writing that initial post, Meridian’s head of news seems to have high-tailed it. The job of responding appears to have been left to ITV Meridian’s online editor Jonathan Marland. The poor bloke has been visibly overwhelmed.

Kudos, then, to the comment poster called Media Muppet, who makes the following sensible suggestion:

Support Meridian’s talented team while you still can because unless we all start complaining to our MPs soon there won’t be local news outside of the BBC — be it a small or large region.

Hopefully, the unhappiness of viewers might be turned to good account.

If that happens, it will be despite — not because of — the way in which Meridian has handled its viewers’ complaints.

Previous Posts

-

Advertisement

E-mail Newsletter Signup

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement