Watching Big Brother
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RADIO and television have an uncanny attraction for the investigator. A whole industry has sprung up, which, if they could have foreseen it, might well have made Marconi and Baird keep their inventions to themselves. What with audience reaction, surveys, listeners' panels and general research into this, that and the other aspect of entertainment at home, there must often be more samplers and snoopers than there are genuine listeners and viewers. The ordinary man may not care much about all this, but the more sensitive among us are likely to become increasingly nervous as they come to realize that every time they touch a knob a statistic is born and an average is confirmed or distorted.
They are likely to read with a shudder that much information about the economic circumstances of television owners in London in 1954 has been obtained in the course of an "as yet unpublished" (a deliciously sinister touch this) survey carried out by the Central Office of Information. It adds to the mystery to find out that the survey was made on behalf of the British Transport Commission, London Transport and the Road Research Laboratory.
The anxious viewer need not be kept long in suspense about the reason for the inquiry. Before it was made, only one fact was known about the " economic circumstances" of television owners. They were less inclined than before to spend money on travel Traffic on the road and rail services of London Transport increased after the war, and reached its peak in 1948. There followed a gradual, decline, for which the development of television is largely to blame. It is not difficult, therefore, to guess why London Transport, who like arranging people in neat columns, should think it worth while sponsoring a survey of the habits of television owners. Some details of the results are given by Mr. J. D. C. Churchill, assistant secretary, Lonaon Transport Executive, in a contribution to the current issue of British Transport Review.
The Most Serious Threat He is not the first to consider television from the novel angle of its effect upon the revenue of passenger operators. A month or so ago, for example, at the Institute of Transport congress, Mr. T. Robert Williams, an executive of the British Electric Traction Co., Ltd., said that he saw television as the most serious threat to the future of passenger road transport. Mr. Churchill thinks that the threat from the private car is even more grave, but he does not minimize the effect of television, and is better equipped than Mr. Williams with figures to support his case.
What is the effect of television upon passenger traffic in London? Mr. Churchill begins by establishing that the television public on average watch television on two evenings out of five, and that familiarity does not lead to any marked falling off in viewing. He then asks what people would be doing if they were not looking in. Even at the peak period between 8.30 and 9 p.m., comparatively few, it appears, would leave their homes; out of those people interviewed, 3 per cent. on a weekday, 12 per cent. on Saturdays, and between 6 and 7 per cent. on Sundays. Most of the people who would be out except for television would visit a cinema or theatre.
eV
From further analysis based on the 1954 travel survey, the conclusion is reached that members of households in Greater London with television spent roundly 5d. per week less on travel for purposes other than work, on London Transport services and British Railways suburban services than members of households without television. From this conclusion it is estimated, roughly, that an eighth of the total gross loss in passenger miles in the London Transport area between 1952 and 1954 was attributable to the spread of television. Another calculation produces the estimate that evening traffics are today a tenth less than they would have been if television had not been invented.
According to Mr. Churchill, the number of passenger journeys by London Transport in a year dropped by 40m. between 1950 and 1954 because of television. About half of these lost journeys would have been to the cinema or theatre, The . The Ineluctable Truth I have picked out only one or two of Mr. Churchill's figures, and no doubt there are plenty more where his came from. It is difficult to know what use they are apart from underlying the ineluctable truth that people prefer. the " telly " to the bus. Mr. Churchill made no criticism of the .quality of.thelSrogranirnes; perhaps he is himself an ardent viewer. Neither did he suggest, as some other critics have done, that television is morally and mentally harmful. He might have suggested that travel broadens the mind, whereas television merely broadens some other part of the anatomy.
He may, of course, be playing a waiting game, as the Commission occasionally do in otfier directions. Their latest annual report, for 1955, suggests competition from C-licensed vehicles as the main reason for the fall in railway goods traffic. Similar suggestions have appeared in most of the previous reports, and presumably the idea is that sooner or later somebody in power will notice the Commission's repeated cry of pain and come In the rescue. It is not so likely, however, that Mr. Churchill is reasoning along the same lines, for he specifically states that "television is not competing with public transport." The real battle, he adds, is between television and other forms of evening entertainment.
There is all the more reason to wonder why the travel survey was thought necessary. One may also ask whether its conclusions are sound. People may make proportionately less use of public transport for leisure than for work because they think the fare is too expensive. If they live only a short bus-ride from their local cinema, they may now prefer to walk rather than pay 2fel. Moreover, Mr. Churchill himself observes that television owners are more likely than other people also to own a car, so that even if they were not engaged at home they might drive themselves to the cinema, and London Transport would be no better off.
Mr. Churchill makes no desperate proposals, such as that all buses be fitted with television or that London Transport should buy time on ITV in order to snatch back their lost customers. With fatalistic calm he accepts the situation, and suggests that a combination of publicity and cheap fares be used to °Main for London Transport a larger share of the diminished traffic.