Aline Ingwersen: Could you define a TV format?   

Christoph Fey(Frapa – Format Recognition and Protection): In short, it is describing the product by what you want to achieve with it. 

A concept becomes a format when you can take a television programme and format it so you can re-make that TV show, for a different audience, in a different country. This would involve deconstructing the concept, with all its building blocks, and laying down the formula or instructions to recreate it and sell this know-how in a package. The original programme is often slightly adapted to suit certain cultural requirements or fit another television culture.

It is up to the owner of the format to decide how much variation to allow. For example, if you take Who wants to be a millionaire, the guidelines are very strict so as to keep and build up the brand of this game show. Broadcasters must respect the programme’s formula and are not allowed to modify any details right down to the lights and music. 

The more you leave room for adaptation of a TV programme, the more the risk that it looses its original formula, which was successful in the first place.

Where can public service broadcasters get assistance to protect their formats?   

First, I think the format industry needs to contribute in shaping the law. It is about getting the facts right. Copyright law has a history of evolution. It has always been up to the creator and seller of a commercial property to be able to describe in detail the product and its market. Then, it is up to the law to translate this information into legal terms. Therefore, I think that it is crucial that all parties involved in the creation of a format come together to describe the product they want to be protected under a law. If this is not done, the risk is that the law will get it wrong, which is what happens most of the time. 

Broadcasters will always be vulnerable to disputes over formats – either they are suing someone or are being taken to court. When various parties go to court to settle a dispute over a TV format, a large amount of time and brainpower will be exerted to figure out how formats, as the industry sees them, can be protected by law. Whatever the outcome of a public dispute in court, those involved will wish that clearer legal guidelines exist as the delays, burdens and costs of litigation can be damaging for those involved, reputations and business relationships often get harmed.  

If there is a way to settle the dispute outside of the courtroom, why not explore the possibility? Mediation helps the owners, producers and broadcasters stay out of court by helping them to solve a dispute at its source.

So how do broadcasters or format developers go about ‘educating’ the law?    

First of all I would say that it is about bringing all of the stakeholders together. First, the key players in the industry need to agree on common criteria and facts before these can be translated into policies and laws. When it comes to creating precedent cases, ideally, these should be based on the right types of cases. Before lobbying for the protection of formats, this field of business needs to make up its mind on what it is about. Ultimately, if you take a look at the law, it can evolve through case law and by ‘educating’ its judges. There is actually no need for legislation to protect formats as there is a way of protecting them under existing copyright and unfair competition laws; this is the first step I would recommend broadcasters to take. 

What do you think about Strictly come dancing? Is this a new format or only a mixture of formats which already exist from past formats?      

With Strictly come dancing the BBC brought back the best of similar shows they produced years ago and gave them a new face. However, I would be reluctant to say that this is an ‘old format’. A format is not just an idea, it is also about how it is implemented. The execution of Strictly come dancing is done in a very original way and this is why it can sell well on the international market. 

The BBC has combined family entertainment with its experience in making factual programmes into a variety show. The BBC probably would not have been able to come up with this ideal combination five years ago but now with all the other formats they have developed, they have turned an old theme into a fashion novelty.

Aline Ingwersen: How can you explain the fact that Sweden is developing most of the formats in-house?   

Markus Sterky (Head of Programme Development, SVT): Sweden is developing many programmes that can be formatted and sold both on the international and local markets. At SVT we have always had our own in-house development. The big change, however, has come with the independent production sector, which has begun to produce most of the reality shows for the commercial broadcasters in Sweden, including TV4. The volumes indicated in the report by Screen Digest show that all three [Swedish] commercial channels are mainly featuring reality shows, like Big Brother, The Farm and Star Academy or Fame Academy, on a daily basis. In fact, the bulk of that volume is actually made up of many hours but few properties. The number of programme formats in Sweden is not really higher than in any other country. We also have a very compact schedule which means that the focus is on local productions. For Swedish viewers, national productions are more interesting than imports because we subtitle instead of dubbing the shows we import, therefore, audiences will hear the difference between a Swedish show and a foreign show.   

Can you go into more detail about the production inside of SVT?  

SVT has a very strong tradition in developing and producing its own programmes and formats. We have a very strong and established production organization that is represented in the whole country and we produce for our viewers, who are paying for our work. Therefore, it is important that we represent all of our viewers across the country. We have offices in around 30 different cities, main production offices in 11 cities, and hub production offices in 5 cities. 

What is your view on the fact that the UK seems to be the key player in the formats market? 

I think there are different explanations for different territories. Certainly Scandinavia, Holland and the UK all share the same viewing habits and similar funding structures. We also face the same competition including one main terrestrial competitor and several smaller commercial channels. 

In terms of other parts of Europe a company such as Freemantle is UK based and has production offices in France, Germany, Italy, etc., meaning that they have a very influential role in those markets. I also think that in general the UK market is leading the way because it has always been a very influential trendsetter. The UK also has the language advantage and can quite easily adapt programmes from the USA. Additionally, the UK is also usually the first to receive productions from the US. 

Do you see a new trend in the format business?     

Perhaps we will soon see a major change from Asia. With the growing strength of India, China, Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam and all of those countries, their markets must be starting to have an effect on international programming trends, or at least they will sooner or later. 

If I have to point at one area which is going to become a greater part of television output (but not necessarily for public service broadcasters) its would be the very inexpensive, revenue-generated shows like quizzes that you will play on mobile phones. These formats will be moving into  prime time to replace reality shows as we know them today. Although I am not saying that this is a good trend to look forward to it is a possibility for generating revenue with very, very inexpensive production.

What can public service broadcasting do to be more independent from the private production companies?   

Stop blaming the audience for not watching the shows! 

We [the public broadcasters] have to start looking at different ways of teaching and different ways of communicating. We need to start defining public service broadcasting in a new way. We haven’t really adapted that much to new ideas in teaching and the fact that you learn more things if you can laugh at the same time, for instance. PSBs should not be scared of trying new combinations and genres to produce innovative programmes: combining entertainment, looking at reality shows as a potential to actually do new things with traditional subjects.