The Equity general secretary Christine Payne has launched an attack on satellite broadcaster Sky, for not producing enough UK dramas, according to Stage Newspaper. Channels which rely on repeating programmes made by other broadcasters are threatening both the acting and writing industries.
But do Sky have a responsibilty to invest in new UK drama? Well, for years Sky has marketed itself on it's exclusive sports coverage and extensive movie packages. Sky has not been traditionally seen as a broadcaster of drama. Yet several channels such as UK Gold only broadcast repeats of shows, bought at cheaper rates because they have already been shown before on other channels. The public openly see huge amounts of money invested by Sky in it's sports but are they investing in drama? Sky claim they made an eight-figure commitment to drama just last year, claiming this was one of the largest from any UK broadcaster.
It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if the BBC and ITV began showing mainly repeated programmes, but thankfully this looks unlikely to happen at present. I don't think it would be fair to say that Sky are fully responsible for their so called lack of UK drama. It is surely much harder for them to compete with the BBC and ITV in this area who are such long standing respected providers of UK drama. Also they are broadcast on terrestrial TV, whereas many Sky channels cost extra. Most people who feel the need to pay for Sky do so because of the Sports. Would the public really want to pay more for UK drama on top of the TV license we already have to pay?
In my opinion it would be a positive move for Sky to commision more UK drama, thus providing more opportunitoes for actors and writers. Yet it is unlikely that Sky will place drama on the same level as movies and sports as that is what they set out to gain the market in. What do you think?
But do Sky have a responsibilty to invest in new UK drama? Well, for years Sky has marketed itself on it's exclusive sports coverage and extensive movie packages. Sky has not been traditionally seen as a broadcaster of drama. Yet several channels such as UK Gold only broadcast repeats of shows, bought at cheaper rates because they have already been shown before on other channels. The public openly see huge amounts of money invested by Sky in it's sports but are they investing in drama? Sky claim they made an eight-figure commitment to drama just last year, claiming this was one of the largest from any UK broadcaster.
It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if the BBC and ITV began showing mainly repeated programmes, but thankfully this looks unlikely to happen at present. I don't think it would be fair to say that Sky are fully responsible for their so called lack of UK drama. It is surely much harder for them to compete with the BBC and ITV in this area who are such long standing respected providers of UK drama. Also they are broadcast on terrestrial TV, whereas many Sky channels cost extra. Most people who feel the need to pay for Sky do so because of the Sports. Would the public really want to pay more for UK drama on top of the TV license we already have to pay?
In my opinion it would be a positive move for Sky to commision more UK drama, thus providing more opportunitoes for actors and writers. Yet it is unlikely that Sky will place drama on the same level as movies and sports as that is what they set out to gain the market in. What do you think?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment