British TV bosses have historically been in their positions for a long time: has the industry become obsolete?

On stage at British television’s biggest annual gathering in 2023, Paramount UK content chief Ben Frow told the story of his resignation with his trademark flamboyance. Frow told delegates at the Edinburgh Television Festival that he was suffering from a gnawing exhaustion that left him feeling like he was being “pecked alive”. Quitting smoking gives him paradoxical relief: it calms his anxiety to the point that he feels capable of withdrawing his resignation later.

Sixteen months after his confession, Frow remains at the helm of Channel 5, the crown jewel of Paramount’s UK operations. It’s a job he’s been doing for more than 12 years, at least three times longer than any of his predecessors. That Frow faced burnout may be a personal story, but it addressed a universal question: How long is too long in the rarefied leadership roles at the top of television?

Everywhere you turn, the British corporate class is setting new precedents. Kevin Lygo, ITV’s managing director of media and entertainment, has been the network’s most loyal TV chief since the role was created in 1992, eclipsing his predecessor Peter Fincham by a year. At Channel 4, Ian Katz rode out a wave of industry discontent to sweep aside Jay Hunt as the channel’s longest-serving content manager.

Charlotte Moore, the BBC’s head of content, has led the corporation’s television output for eight and a half years, meaning she has recently surpassed the spell of the late Jana Bennett in a similar role. Add to that Moore’s three years as controller of BBC1 and she eclipses some of her more decorated predecessors, including the giant figure of Sir Huw Wheldon, responsible for Dad’s Army And Civilization during a ten-year tenure as head of television 50 years ago.

This trend is also seen outside the UK public service broadcasting sector. Richard Watsham has been at the helm of UKTV for over a decade. Zai Bennett ran Sky’s UK networks for eight years before becoming the first head of content of his time to blink, joining BBC Studios in November. Where once producers complained about musical chairs at the top of TV, you’re now more likely to hear grumbling about decision-making gathering dust.

Ask industry figures about the phenomenon, as Deadline did for this article, and various theories come up. A senior executive says it has become much harder to measure success in the streaming era, which benefits incumbents. Where once overnight ratings were a brutal rating system, networks can now tell success stories and hide failures using selective streaming numbers. Another television doyenne says the pandemic added years to the lifespans of Moore, Lygo, Katz and Frow as British broadcasters sought stability in the storm.

There is also a clear consensus that it is difficult to give up these jobs. They remain influential and coveted, giving incumbents spending power that extends into the billions (if you’re Moore) and the ability to shape national conversations. For those at the top of the British TV tree, alternative jobs can appear like a few branches below your perch. Even the lure of working for a respected US studio may not be enough, as Moore proved late last year when she fended off a charm offensive from Disney to stay at the BBC .

So we have a few theories about why people are sitting still, which brings us to the question of whether longtime TV bosses are good for business, or are they — as one top exec muses broadcasting – a bunch of “bed blockers”. » ?

Let’s start with the reasons to be joyful. Veteran producers and commissioners who spoke with Deadline highlight the talents of those at the top. Frow has been praised for constantly reinventing Channel 5 and being particularly responsive to audience needs. Moore often baffles her colleagues with the way she deftly juggles enormous volumes of competing priorities. It was also agreed that familiarity had its advantages. Having a good understanding of the tastes and agendas of content executives is useful in an era where opaque data and algorithms inform green-light decisions. As one producer said: It’s comforting to know which effigy to worship or pin on a dartboard.

Now the reasons to worry. There is a widely held view that job security can breed complacency, or at least comfort, which dampens the appetite for creative risk-taking. Simply put, there is concern that the industry has become obsolete. When producers address this theme, they will point to the constant stream of revivals and reboots, the shift to foreign formats (or both, see Gladiators And Big brother), and an over-reliance on the successes of yesteryear. At least one content executive has openly acknowledged the need to reheat old shows, with Channel 4’s Katz describing it as TV’s “microwave problem”.

The BBC’s Christmas ratings bonanza is a timely reminder of the strength of television, but has also served to illuminate concerns about creative stasis. Gavin and Stacey And Wallace & Gromit: Revenge Most Birds showed how to bring viewers together, but both shows were created before Netflix was even a streaming service. The supporting cast was: The weakest link (a reboot of a series created in 2000), Strictly Come Dance (celebrated its 20th anniversary last year), Doctor Who (the timeless Time Lord dates from 1963), and Call the midwife And Mrs. Brown’s Boys (both of whom spent a decade on screen).

In short, none of the BBC’s prime-time shows on TV’s biggest day of the year were created on Moore’s watch. Some might find this observation crude as its biggest rival, ITV, has been criticized for abandoning the playing field on Christmas Day after scheduling a parade of reruns. These two truths do nothing to ease the anxiety associated with creative malaise.

A genre boss, who has held senior roles at the BBC and beyond, says orders work in two-year cycles and once you’ve done a few rounds it becomes harder to reinvent the wheel. “What you’ll then start doing is repeating all the things you’ve done before,” this person says. “We now have a model where we inhibit large fluctuations. Two years into your job you can spend £20m on a show that bombs. Seven years into this term, it could end a career.

Others compare stability in the UK with that in the US, where executive turnover is higher, albeit in a market where competition and consolidation have been more intense. The leaders of the country’s largest networks, ABC (Craig Erwich), NBC (Frances Berwick) and CBS (Amy Reisenbach), have been in office for three to five years. As a senior broadcasting executive acknowledges: “There is a delicate balance between the value of a clear perspective and a fresh perspective. »

Many believe that concerns about risk aversion would be allayed if content managers changed their fielding teams more regularly, like football managers refresh their teams. Others argue in favor of democratizing green light decisions. “The commissioners are certainly capable of saying ‘no’ (to pitches) without any constraint. What’s not clear is how they get to ‘yes’,” supposes a former ITV executive.

As 2025 dawns, the scent of change is in the air. The BBC is bracing for an existential conversation over its funding and operating deals, which expire in January 2027. ITV appears to be quietly seeking takeover interest, which could result in the listed company splitting into separate broadcast and television businesses. production. Concern persists over Channel 4’s leadership and, although pre-Christmas speculation about a board plot to oust CEO Alex Mahon was far from the truth (as was endless talk about his plans job at Google, ITV, Chloé, etc.), the company will welcome a new president this year. Finally, Skydance’s takeover of Paramount Global will be completed in the spring, inevitably raising questions about the future of Channel 5.

Whether this translates into movement among TV’s top brass remains to be seen, but there’s a feeling that if one domino falls, the entire platoon could quickly fall. As one leader says: The longer people stay in office, the lower the chances of regime change. One thing seems certain: record terms of leaders will be broken.