Oct
31
UK Children’s Television Decay – anyone care?

Beloved characters being sold off. Value of children’s television being set at zero. All is not rosy in children’s television, especially in the UK. We’re very fortunate here in Ireland to have some excellent support (some not so excellent support but that’s for a whole other post). But support seems thin on the ground in the UK, birthplace of Bagpuss, the Clangers, Peppa Pig, Charlie & Lola, Paddington Bear, Roobarb and countless other children’s classics.

Animation UK released a report earlier in the week on the state of their industry and what they need in order to continue making quality shows. To continue making shows at all. The children’s television business is, at the very least, on shaky ground. Companies folding, people out of work. That’s the industry. The big shocker for me in there was how short they were in financing the fantastic Peppa Pig – they had to turn to friends and family to raise £350,000. Peppa almost never happened. And, right now, other shows aren’t happening.

I don’t expect parents to care about that beyond maybe the odd sympathy nod (you know one of those ‘I understand’ kind of nods – they’re nice). Ultimately, it’s not the job of parents to keep us employed. And yet, what happens to those of us in children’s television does affect parents.

.

Where it affects parents is in the quality of the shows their children have access to.

Where it affects parents is in the cultural relevance of the shows their children have access to.

Where it affects parents is in the educational content versus glorified toy ad content in the shows their children have access to.*

Where it affects parents is where it affects their children.

And that’s one place I very much expect parents to care.

.

I would argue that television aimed at younger children is the most important television of all. It is around those years that children are learning the most, forming their world view. That’s why this area of television will always need special attention, safe-guarding, constant re-evaluation and an acceptance of nothing less than excellence.

And it’s not just about what your children are watching right now. Humf may be a big deal in your house today but in a few years time, he could mean nothing to your child – it will be High School Musical 74 or the like. And you might be the one parent in your town who doesn’t even own a television. Here’s the bad news – every other parent does, and their children are in your school teaching your children what they picked up from television. Children of all age groups are teaching other children.

If you’re a parent, as I am, you are not isolated. Your children need good television.

So what can you do? Well, talk about it for one thing. Discuss (whether in person or online) good television or bad television. Make it known to people who matter (broadcasters, government officials, even programme makers) if you appreciate what’s being shown, what’s not being shown and what YOU want to see on television for your children.

Demand better television.

Demand local television.

The children’s television model has to change. For it to change for the better, or simply not for the worse, parents need to take control and drive home the value of good television. To my peers, friends and lovers of great children’s television in the UK – I wish you luck and I wish you success. You have set an example for all of us in shows for younger children, from Roobarb all the way to today. One of my proudest moments was being able to be part of the animated Children In Need video, not just because it was for a great cause but because I was honoured to be among such good company and great timeless characters. The UK children’s television industry has made history many times over and should continue doing so. You deserve the support you need.

.

*There is a industry-wide conflict here that is apparent in the Animation UK document, which discusses huge markets and high licensing figures while also saying they need government support to remain viable – and yet often the reason other countries have support is because they mostly aren’t viable. Perhaps an acceptance that children’s television isn’t all big business might change perceptions and lead towards a model that isn’t quite as fragile as the current one? After all, when companies like Mattel are willing to buy Hit’s properties for $680 million, it calls the whole lack of viability thing into question. Depends on whether you’re making a great show, or a licensing brand. One is not always compatible with the other, nor should they be… just a personal thought.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , ,

Oct
24
Responsibility

If you want it and don’t have it, take it.

If you have it and don’t want it, give it away.

If you have it and want it, but you are being let down by others who can’t do what you want, or you’ve done all you can and, really, you just don’t have any choices, or those below you are moaning because they’re moaners and they don’t understand the realities, or nobody gets you or knows what you have to deal with, then you haven’t really taken it and probably don’t really want it.

Give it away.

.

Responsibility: if you want it and don’t have ittake it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Tags: , ,

Oct
20
AAP Policy Statement – my thoughts

On Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated their policy and made a statement which, once again, discouraged television for children under age 2. As someone who creates and delivers content for children, it’s always important for me to know where I stand when new research emerges or statements like this are made.

So what did I make of the AAP statement?

What I found was that impressions I got from how it was reported (and how it flew around Twitter) weren’t always the same as what I got from the words of the AAP themselves. For example, much of the reporting talked about ‘screens’ like all media and all content is equal. I’ve tackled this here before – all screen time is not equal. Playing an interactive Sesame Street app is not going to have the same effect as sitting them in front of The Exorcist, for example.

But, in this conference, the AAP aren’t lumping all screen time together.

I did find the text of the early press release a little more vague and guilty of lumping ‘screen time’ together, possibly the reason for the rather basic reporting on it. But the actual content of the conference?

It’s about television.

Their statement is mainly about television. They even go as far as to say that there may be some benefit to interactive media. Bear in mind that ‘may be’ is a long, long way from ‘is’ and much product is pushed as being educational – they might well be but are the results really there? In this statement, the AAP are refreshingly honest about what they don’t yet know.

On television, the focus of this statement, the AAP discourages TV before the age of 2. Discourages – they recognise the world we live in and how that’s not always easy (if you have older children, for example).They have found no benefit in children too young to understand what they are seeing, while finding benefit in other activities that simply don’t take place when they’re watching TV. This seems to be just common sense. If they sit watching a box of what is essentially (to them) flashing colours for an hour rather than figuring out how to dismantle a dog toy or how to get dad’s attention or how to force a large figure into a tiny car from a whole other playset, well, they’re missing out.

That’s not about guilt. I’m a parent. We’re all about the guilt and TV Guilt is something we parents do just fine on our own. Guilt isn’t their job – that’s what our mothers are for!

The AAP discourage background TV. TV is distracting and its content should be an active choice. Forget about under twos – we could all do with keeping this in mind!

They encourage talking about media use and limitations – again, making an active choice.

They value free play and talk time. Fantastic. We all should. Watching children discover cause and effect as they use objects, there can be no doubt as to the value of that. And, by the way, I include some media devices in there too – it’s amazing how quickly children can figure out how a phone works, or a computer. And of course talk time is important. Not always easy, but important. Otherwise, your daughter may get most of her language from TV like one little girl I know who greeted me the other day with, “Do you see the Daddy? When you see Daddy, shout ‘Daddy!’” Oh, there’s that TV Guilt kicking in…

Lastly, the AAP encourage more research into all of this and the long-term effects. As would I.

So, as someone who makes children’s television, where am I on the AAP statement? I’m all for it. Everything in it makes sense. Let’s embrace it, keep parents informed and encourage active choices in content for children.

And keep the research coming.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Tags: , , ,

Oct
17
Filling a need

In an earlier post, I discussed how production of children’s television could stop dead today and we’d never run out of shows to watch.

So it would seem, in order to really create something worthwhile, a show should deliver something new. Offer something different, that isn’t already sitting there on the shelves of every broadcaster’s archives.

To stand out, a show should fill a need.

Now there are two kinds of needs – those we know we need, and those we don’t yet know we need. The bad news about those needs we know about? They’re filled. Most of them anyway. People tend to try to fill needs the moment they are recognised.

But there are so many needs we don’t yet know about. For example, few people ever thought, you know what? I need a message service that will only let me use 140 characters! And yet now there are people who would be lost without access to Twitter (whether that’s a good thing or not is a whole other discussion). It has become a need, and people will upgrade their tech to get access to it on the go. And Twitter is just one example.

The difficulty here is obvious – often those needs we don’t know about are a tough sell because… until they are out there, the real truth is we don’t need them. The age-old example is this – there was no market for cola until Coca-Cola launched. And look where we are now. Often those things that will hit biggest, will have the most impact in the lives of everyone, will be those things that appear to have no market whatsoever.

So where does that leave us?

Well, when applied to children’s television, I think what it says is this: if you are told that people won’t want your show because there are already shows doing the exact same thing or it offers nothing new, that’s reason to worry. You could be aiming to fill a need so obvious that everyone else has already filled it. Broadcasters already have it.

BUT…

If you are told people won’t want your show because they won’t know what to do with it, or it’s too different or there has never been a market for this ever, hang in there. You just might be on to something.

The ideal? That elusive Holy Grail? That you can fill a need people don’t know about until just the moment you mention it. And their reaction is – wow, why isn’t that on television already?!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Tags: , ,

Oct
13
There’s a planet called Mercury!

Fancy a song? Like electropop? Like planets?

Then I’ve got just the thing for you. Below, you’ll find the whole Mercury song from COSMO. Just go to the link, turn up your speakers, click play and enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/30362810

COSMO features all eight of the main planets and each one gets a song. So, as well as Mercury, we have Venus, Earth and Mars. The Inner Planets:

And the Outer Planets. The gas giants – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune!

The planets are all pretty amazing. Each one is different and each one fantastic. But the rest of the songs will have to wait until the show gets the green light and makes its way to your screens. I hope you enjoy the Mercury song and, who knows, maybe you learned something too! If you like it, as with the last video, please feel free to spread it around and let people know. And if you make it to my little site and you’re a broadcaster and you’re thinking, ‘you know what? I need a show like this!’ then please track down Monster Animation’s Gerard O’Rourke and hound him until he lets you have the show.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Tags: , ,