RESEARCH 22/2009/E 53
Jeanette Steemers The thin line between market and quality
Balancing quality and commerce in preschool television1
This article raises the question builder, Thomas and friends, Barney are of course not new. Disney recog about the compatibility of qual- and friends), Entertainment Rights nised as early as the 1930s that more ity programming with commercial (Postman Pat, Rupert Bear)2, Cho money could be made with all the considerations linked to licensed rion (Noddy, Mister Men, Olivia) and products connected with content rath merchandising, and whether shows the BBC’s commercial subsidiary, er than the content itself (see Gomery, that are less well-suited to licensed BBC Worldwide, which represents 1994). Even BBC programmes like merchandise can actually survive in a number of independently produced Muffin the mule in the 1940s proved an economic climate where broad- properties, including those produced very profitable for its creators (but cast license fees do not cover the by Ragdoll Productions (Teletubbies, not the BBC) (Oswell, 2002: p. 59) costs of production. In the night garden). Rather than sim because children wanted to have the ply functioning as programme-mak characters they saw on screen. The ers, these companies have established difference then was that consumer t the root of children’s tele businesses based on the ownership products were usually considered as vision there is often a very and exploitation of all rights in endur an additional source of income af basic conflict of interest. As ing character-based preschool prop ter a programme had been made and A erties across territories and different screened. This began to change from much as programme-makers stress the creative integrity, educational media. Within this context television the 1980s as audiences and revenues value and age-appropriateness of is simply a platform for generating re began to fragment with the emergence what they have produced, there are venues elsewhere. For example tele of multi-channel television making frequently suspicions among parents vision revenues accounted for only it more difficult to fund children’s and cultural critics (cf. Engelhardt, 5 % of HIT Entertainment’s $ 274 programming from broadcast licence 1986; Kline, 1993; Linn, 2004; Schor, million revenues in 2008, with 65 % fees alone (Steemers, 2004). At the 2004) that these shows are little more attributable to consumer products and same time commercial interests in than “giant toy ads” (cit. in Dade, 24 % to home entertainment (Sun the US began to recognise the wider 2008: p. 127), whose function is sim shine Holdings, 2008). commercial value of the preschool ply to attract children as consumers This raises some interesting questions audience and their parents as a tar for a plethora of branded products about the compatibility of quality pro get market in their own right (Carter, ranging from toys and DVDs to py gramming with commercial consider 1994; Pecora, 2004: p. 25), expand jamas and lunch boxes. This argu ations linked to licensed merchandis ing demand for programming. As a ment has become particularly rele ing, and whether shows that are less consequence licensing considerations vant for British-produced preschool well-suited to licensed merchandise have become much more prevalent in television, which has thrived since can actually survive in an economic defining the shape of preschool televi the mid-1990s on the back of inter climate where the most ambitious ani sion in recent years because of the nationally successful shows which mated or costumed character shows substantial financial pressures affect have generated considerable revenues are unlikely to be made without pros ing the whole children’s production from licensed merchandise, support pects for ancillary revenues, because sector – not just preschool. ing the rise of some key players in broadcast license fees do not cover Licensed characters are a very large the international marketplace – in the costs of production. business indeed with the preschool cluding HIT Entertainment (Bob the Licensed merchandise considerations licensing market in the UK alone es RESEARCH 54 22/2009/E timated recently to account for £ 800 preschool programme-makers3 we set US, “Kids over six don’t buy toys: million of the £ 2.5 billion generated out to establish how those involved they’re turning to technology” (cit. from licensing at retail in 2007 (NPD reconcile the competing demands of in Hayes, 2008: p. 7). This makes cit. in Fry, 2007: p. 26). Indeed with creative and commercial interests and preschool children the primary tar out licensing revenues some of the the extent to which preschool pro get for toy manufacturers. Licensing most expensive and creatively ambi grammes are shaped and influenced executives talked about a property’s tious British preschool shows could by considerations relating to ancillary “toyetic” qualities, which go beyond not be financed, because broadcast exploitation.These questions seemed the ability simply to sell train sets and commissions only cover a very small very apt given British regulator Of cuddly toys, and extend towards a proportion of the budget, often not com’s 2007 assessment of the UK concept or world where children can more than 25 %, with the remainder preschool market in its comprehen immerse themselves in play. Licens generated from overseas sales and po sive overview of the provision of ing executives working either within tential income from licensed products British children’s TV as a whole. production companies or for licensing and DVDs. For example In the night Ofcom concluded that preschool agents prefer: garden, commissioned by CBeebies television was probably one of the •• Costumed character shows (e.g. reputedly cost £ 14.5 million for 100 least endangered sectors of children’s Teletubbies) and animation over episodes (Lane, 2007), while CBee programming precisely because of presenter-led live action shows the ability of some pro or story-telling formats, because grammes to secure funding these more culturally neutral forms and commercial returns lend themselves more easily to from DVDs and consum character-based toys and interna er products including toys tional exploitation. (Ofcom, 2007: p. 198). •• 3D animation (CGI and stopframe) However, there was also over 2D animation because it is a suggestion that reliance more “toyetic”. on ancillary revenues and •• Teams of characters to generate overseas sales might affect “collectability”. Vehicular (e.g. “the future range and vol tractors, racing cars, building ve ume” (ibid.) of what was hicles, trains etc.) and vocational produced in the UK and it reported (postmen, builders, racing drivers, bies’ expenditure on television con industry evidence that these revenues firemen) characters have proved tent totalled only £ 16.4 million in “tended to be a myth, with big hits especially popular in Britain, be 2007–08 (BBC Trust, 2009: p. 49). like Bob the builder or Teletubbies cause they allow children to “act Within a year of its launch in 2007 In happening only once in a generation” out a role” as “part of their play the night garden had been sold to 19 (ibid. p. 150). Licensed merchandise pattern”. countries and generated £ 11 million is therefore one factor that underpins •• Detailed backgrounds and worlds, from toy sales and £ 1 million from preschool’s strength as a business which can be transformed into play publishing and DVD sales (Grimston, proposition, particularly internation sets. 2008), recouping production costs in ally, but it is also a potential point of •• Props (including vehicles, pets, the process. weakness if it favours certain forms and accessories), which can be But is it true that preschool shows of programming (animation for ex marketed as toys. have become simply advertisements ample) over live action formats with •• Distinctive non-generic characters for toys? That suggests that some Brit “real” people. that stand out on crowded shop ish preschool programmes are made So what exactly works for licensing shelves. For example a character entirely in pursuit of commercial in respect of preschool properties? cannot simply be a teddy bear. It goals, that they are unencumbered by There is no single formula for licens has to have some defining feature considerations about the audience’s ing success in the preschool television that makes it stand out against developmental or educational needs, market, but most of the licensing ex other characters. let alone whether children might actu ecutives we talked to pointed to a core •• Sufficient episodes (at least 26) to ally enjoy those programmes. Clearly set of conditions for programmes, generate awareness on television the pressures to generate merchandise focussed on “how a range of toys and sustain longevity. retail sales for some shows are in could evolve from them”, because in •• Frequent broadcast exposure in tense, but is this statement true of all the words of Brown Johnson, Presi cluding multiple repeats preferably shows? In our research with British dent of Nickelodeon Preschool in the on a major free-to-air broadcast RESEARCH 22/2009/E 55
outlet (CBeebies, Five, Nick Jun local British audience, and there is lit Then we distinguished those who fol ior) to secure the interest of re tle licensing potential for shows that low a more balanced approach be tailers who are unlikely to stock take place in a studio setting or feature tween costly high-end animation and a product unless it has exposure human beings as opposed to anthro costumed character shows which in on a major children’s broadcast pomorphic trains, cars, animals etc. volve considerable risk, international ing outlet. For example the schedule of CBee commitment and consumer product •• Classic well-known properties bies, the BBC’s dedicated television potential on the one hand, and those which have resonance with parents channel for preschool children, com programmes whose commercial ben (e.g. Noddy, Rupert). prises 76 % non-animated content, efits are likely to be less exceptional, •• Properties with some educational compared with levels of animation and which have to be financed in ways value that appeals to parents. reaching 70 % on rival channels (BBC that take account of this more restrict •• Online applications (games, down Trust, 2009: p. 23). Unlike many of ed commercial potential. This two- loads, and increasingly “immer its competitors, CBeebies broadcasts pronged approach derives from the sive” and personalised interactive many programmes with human pre knowledge that global hits like Bob experiences) to extend and sustain senters and performers that attract the builder are infrequent and that as the brand beyond television. minimal interest from its commercial a producer you need to have creative Of course, what licensing executives subsidiary, BBC Worldwide, but form credibility to sustain your reputation want may not always coincide with part of its public service obligations to and attract the best creative staff to producers’ or broadcasters’ creative provide a wide range of programming your company. This means support ambitions or developmental consid that reflects the diversity of the child for shows that might be successful erations. What we found from our audience (BBC Trust, 2008). in television and possibly DVD sales, interviews and programme analysis We were interested to see how dif but may not necessarily hit the mark was that the extent to which consumer ferent programme makers dealt with in licensing and merchandising. product considerations influence pre considerations around licensing and Other players pursue an adaptive school content varies widely depend merchandising. What we identified strategy. This was prevalent among ing on the players involved and the in our interviews and programme smaller producers, particularly in nature of each production. analysis were four responses. These animation, who have the creative For some projects with considerable depended on the different motivations standing to attract co-production and licensing possibilities, and where this and priorities of producers at any one distribution partners, but who also en is a priority for the show’s producers time, and producers could find them gage pro-actively with licensing and and investors, there may be consider selves in any grouping depending on merchandising so that it reflects the able efforts to shape a show in ways the priorities or funding structure of values of their creations rather than that enhance prospects for consumer each project. “degenerating into a label-slapping products. For example, while a writer Some players adopt an integrated exercise” on poorly executed prod may be concerned with a character’s approach to television, consumer ucts. As much as they are driven by role in a story, marketing executives products and home entertainment creative priorities, they are also keen may be more concerned with how that and increasingly online applications. ly aware of the need to secure funding character will translate into a range of It was noticeable that this approach beyond television and build on their marketable products. This may lead, was not necessarily confined to the Intellectual Property rights so that for example, to a character needing a largest producer-distributors like HIT they can reinvest in more program vehicle, or having to appear in par Entertainment or Chorion. It was also ming. They take advantage of multi ticular settings that are linked to a a strategy pursued by smaller com ple sources of funding from pre-sales, potential product. panies with one or two properties, tax breaks, co-production finance, and Many producers have misgivings who are also driven by the need to advances, protecting their creative in about programmes becoming too cen deliver a return on investment. Early tegrity, by making sure that no one tred around potential products at the on in development they will discuss backer has too much of a financial expense of well-crafted stories and character designs, their functionality stake to exercise excessive control characters with “true personality and as toys, colours as well as the way over their creative vision. integrity” with which children have storylines and environments might Finally there are those who place “an emotional connection”. However, link in with products. This approach audience and creative concerns first these anxieties are not relevant for all tends to favour internationally attrac focussing on characters, good story shows. For some productions licens tive animation over more culturally telling and an overarching ethos that ing is a marginal concern, because specific live action or studio-based relates to the audience. Indeed there these are low-cost productions for a formats. are some producers who put research RESEARCH 56 22/2009/E based on intensive audience observa itself intends to exploit commercial Buckingham, David (1995). The commercialisation of childhood? The place of the market in children’s tions and developmental awareness at sources of income from co-produc media culture. In: Changing English, vol. 2, no. 2, the heart of what they do, and resist tions and secondary revenues twelve- pp. 17-40. any commercial interventions in the fold by 2010 to fund its programming Carter, Bill (1994). A cable challenger for PBS as king of the preschool hill. New York Times, creative process, particularly during output (BBC, 2008: p. 13, p. 29). This 21 March, p. 1. development. This approach is based is a strategy which has attracted con Engelhardt, Tom (1986). Children’s television: The on the view that if a show is suffi cern from the BBC’s governing body, shortcake strategy. In: Gitlin, Todd (ed.). Watching ciently appealing and comprehensible the BBC Trust. It fears that increas television. New York: Pantheon, pp. 68-110. to its child audience, then this will ing reliance on commercial revenues Fry, Andy (2007). Licensing special: sector over- view – How to post a profit in licensing.Broadcast. benefit other revenue streams anyway. may inhibit the Corporation’s ability 7 September, p. 26. An unmistakable distinction is drawn to satisfy its core purposes, by focus Gomery, Douglas (1994). Disney’s business history: between licensed products that might sing attention on a more limited range A reinterpretation. In: Smoodin, E. (ed.). Disney discourse. London: British Film Institute. emanate from a successful show and of commercially and internationally Grimston, Jack (2008). New gold mine ITNG. Eh-Oh licensing considerations actually dic appealing programming, which may creator of Teletubbies has new TV gold mine. Sunday tating content and characters. Among be less relevant to British child audi Times 10 February, p. 7. UK producers we found a range of ences (BBC Trust, 2009: p. 58-59). Hayes, Dade (2008). Anytime playdate: Inside the preschool entertainment boom, or, How television accommodation between those who No one disputes that children might became my baby’s best friend. New York, NY: Simon foreground what they do primarily want to engage with programmes be & Schuster. as a business, and those who are in yond television. Sometimes this will Kline, Stephen (1993). Out of the garden. Toys and spired more by considerations con involve purchased toys. The concern culture in the age of TV marketing. London: Verso. Lane, Harriet (2007). Night fever. The Observer, nected to the audience and creativity. is that growing reliance on external Magazine, 25 November, p. 46ff.