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 programme­mak­ 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 character­based preschool prop­ ter a programme had been made and A erties across territories and different screened. This began to change from much as programme­makers stress the creative integrity, educational media. Within this context television the 1980s as audiences and revenues value and age­appropriateness 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 multi­channel 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 British­produced preschool well­suited 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 mid­1990s 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 programme­makers3 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 presenter­led live action shows the ability of some pro­ or story­telling formats, because grammes to secure funding these more culturally neutral forms and commercial returns lend themselves more easily to from DVDs and consum­ character­based 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 Tele tubbies 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 non­generic 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 free­to­air 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 high­end animation and a product