UK TV Chiefs Are Historically Long Serving: Has Industry Gone Stale?

On stage at British television’s biggest annual gathering in 2023, Paramount UK content chief Ben Frow recounted the story of his resignation with signature flamboyance. Frow told Edinburgh TV Festival delegates he was suffering from gnawing burnout that felt as if he were being “pecked alive.” Quitting granted him paradoxical relief: it soothed his anxiety to the point where he felt able to later withdraw his resignation. 

Sixteen months on from his confession, Frow remains in charge of Channel 5, the jewel in the crown of Paramount’s UK operations. It’s a job he has done for more than 12 years, which is at least three times longer than any of his predecessors. Frow’s brush with burnout may be a personal story, but he touched on a universal issue: how long is too long in the rarefied executive roles at the top of television? 

Wherever you turn, Britain’s boss 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. Over at Channel 4, Ian Katz has ridden out a wave of industry discontent to sweep past Jay Hunt as the broadcaster’s longest-serving content boss.

Charlotte Moore, the BBC’s chief content officer, has been running the corporation’s television output for eight-and-a-half years, meaning she recently surpassed the late Jana Bennett’s spell in a similar role. Add in Moore’s three years as BBC1 controller and she overshadows some of her most decorated predecessors, including the giant figure of Sir Huw Wheldon, who was responsible for Dad’s Army and Civilisation during a decade-long tenure as TV boss 50 years ago.

The pattern can also be seen outside of Britain’s public service broadcasters. Richard Watsham has been calling the shots at UKTV for more than a decade. Zai Bennett ran Sky’s UK networks for eight years before becoming the first content chief of his era to blink, joining BBC Studios in November. Where once producers would complain about musical chairs at the top of television, now you’re more likely to hear grumbles about decision-making gathering dust. 

Ask senior industry figures about the phenomenon, as Deadline did for this article, and various theories are forthcoming. One senior figure says it has become much harder to measure success in the age of streaming, which works to the advantage of incumbents. Where once overnight ratings were a brutal greenlight grading system, now networks can spin success stories and obfuscate flops using selective streaming figures. Another TV doyen says the pandemic added years to the shelf-life of Moore, Lygo, Katz, and Frow as UK broadcasters sought stability in the storm.

There is also a clear consensus that these jobs are hard to give up. They remain influential and coveted, handing incumbents spending power that stretches to billions (if you’re Moore) and the chance to shape national conversations. For those at the top of the British TV tree, alternative jobs can appear to be a few branches below your perch. Even the allure of working for a revered U.S. studio may not be enough, as Moore proved late last year when she rebuffed a charm offensive from Disney to stay put at the BBC.

So we have some theories as to why people are sitting tight, which takes us to the question of whether long-tenured TV chiefs are good for business, or are they — as one high-ranking broadcasting executive ponders — a bunch of “bed blockers”?

Let’s start with reasons to be cheerful. Seasoned producers and commissioners who spoke with Deadline point to the talents of those at the top. Frow was praised for consistently reinventing Channel 5 and being uniquely attuned to audience needs. Moore frequently bewilders colleagues with how she deftly juggles huge volumes of competing priorities. There was also agreement that familiarity has its advantages. Having a good understanding of the tastes and agendas of content chiefs is helpful at a time when opaque data points and algorithms are informing greenlight decisions. As one producer put it: there is comfort in knowing which effigy to worship or pin to a dart board. 

Now the causes for concern. There is a widely held view that job security can breed complacency, or at the very least comfort, which dulls the appetite for creative risk-taking. Put simply, there is a fear the industry has gone stale. When producers warm to this theme, they will point to the steady stream of revivals and reboots, the lurch towards overseas formats (or both, see Gladiators and Big Brother), and an over-reliance on hits of yore. At least one content chief has openly acknowledged the urge to re-heat old shows, with Channel 4’s Katz describing it as television’s “microwave issue.”  

The BBC’s Christmas Day ratings bonanza was a timely reminder of the strength of TV, but also served to illuminate concerns about creative stasis. Gavin & Stacey and Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl demonstrated 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 that premiered in 2000), Strictly Come Dancing (celebrated its 20th birthday last year), Doctor Who (the timeless Time Lord dates back to 1963), and Call The Midwife and Mrs Brown’s Boys (both of which have long passed a decade on screen).

In short, none of the BBC’s primetime offerings on the biggest TV day of the year were created on Moore’s watch. Some might consider this observation churlish when her biggest rival, ITV, was criticized for abandoning the playing field on Christmas Day after scheduling a parade of repeats. Both truths do nothing to calm anxiety about creative malaise.

A genre chief, who has held top roles at the BBC and beyond, says commissioning works in two-year cycles and once you’ve been for a couple of spins, it becomes harder to reinvent the wheel. “What you will then start doing is repeating all of the things that you’ve done before,” this person says. “We have got a model now where we are inhibiting big swings. Two years into a job you can spend £20M on a show that bombs. Seven years into a tenure, that could be career-ending.”

Others juxtapose stability in the UK with the U.S. where there is a higher turnover of leaders, albeit in a market where competition and consolidation have been more intense. The executives responsible for the country’s biggest networks, ABC (Craig Erwich), NBC (Frances Berwick), and CBS (Amy Reisenbach), have been in place for between three and five years. As one senior broadcasting figure acknowledges: “There is a fine balance between the value of clear eyes and fresh eyes.” 

Many think the concerns about risk-aversion would be allayed if content chiefs switched up their commissioning teams more regularly, like football managers refreshing their squads. Others make the case for democratizing greenlight decisions. “Commissioners are certainly able to say ‘no’ [to pitches] without any constraint. What isn’t clear is how they arrive at ‘yes’,” a former ITV executive surmises.

As we enter 2025, the scent of change is in the air. The BBC is preparing for an existential conversation about its funding and operating agreements, which expire in January 2027. ITV appears to be quietly courting takeover interest, which could result in the listed company being carved up into separate broadcasting and production businesses. There remains lingering disquiet about Channel 4’s leadership and, although pre-Christmas speculation about a board plot to oust CEO Alex Mahon was wide of the mark (as was endless chatter about her eying jobs at Google, ITV, Chloé etc), the company will welcome a new chairman this year. Finally, Skydance’s takeover of Paramount Global will complete in the spring, inevitably raising questions about the future of Channel 5. 

It remains to be seen if this translates into movement among TV’s top brass, but there is a feeling that if one domino drops, the whole pack could quickly fall. As one executive puts it: the longer people are in post, the shorter the odds become on regime change. One thing seems certain, the record tenures of those at the top will take some beating.