Here in the UK a news
story which has featured highly in populist chatter over recent weeks
has been the dismissal, and now seeming re-instatement, of Jeremy
Clarkson from BBC2's prime time Sunday night TV show 'Top Gear'.
Over one million
on-line signatures demanded that the BBC return the presenter, by
those who had an affinity with the man's “unreconstructed”
brashness and non-”PC” persona; even if it be 'turbo-charged' in
part to provide distinction and mass popularity.
“Read All About It”
-
The original dismissal
itself obviously offered a talent-poaching opportunity for other
terrestrial and internet based TV networks - particularly ITV, Sky
and possibly BT and Netflix - as they themselves seek to strengthen
their own business appeal.
This achieved either
through improved advertising rates underpinned by the audience
attraction of star names, or via a direct expansion of service
subscriptions for pay-for-content broadcasts.
As to what future
potential still remains for such external parties is presently
unclear, given that Clarkson and his loyal band of merry men in the
form of James May and Richard Hammond, are reported as having
latterly agreed to undertake the (already organised) live
performances of “Top Gear's World Tour”, itself starting in
Norway.
The Commercial
Bandwagon -
This latest 'brew-haha'
has however – somewhat fortuitously - provided much high grade
publicity.
Something akin to the
break-up rumours or “last appearance” announcements of major rock
bands, raising the likelihood of “sell-out” arena ticket sales.
Given today's 24/7 media driven, “monetising” world, it is even
conceivable that the whole thing was completely stage-managed, even
if to the ignorance of its central character.
[NB If true, such
real-world 'acting' by those seeking to puppeteer Clarkson, very
unfortunately reflects the now repugnant state of everyday British
social affairs. This in effect a merging of social reality and
personal agendas, in which it seems many people all too willingly
'act' to obtain their typically petty goal. No doubt telling
themselves it is the 21st century standard. If unaltered, this
now engrained everyday en mass behaviour will eventually lead to
substantial levels of social distrust].
As to whether the
Clarkson led trio eventually jump ship to a better media deal
elsewhere, we shall have to wait and see, Though any such instance
would obviously be of prime interest to the shareholders of the
aforementioned publicly listed media enterprises.
The popularity of 'Top
Gear's' high-entertainment format was itself very different when
re-introduced over a decade ago as compared to the show's previous,
seemingly long defunct incarnations.
Top Gear “Version
1.0” -
As is now well
recognised, yesteryear formats for the “programme” (not “show”)
between 1977 and 2001 more broadly reflected Lord Reith's inaugural
doctrine for the BBC: to “inform, educate and entertain”.
Initially produced by Birmingham's Pebble Mill base and introduced by
the news-reader Angela Rippon (for the Midlands TV region only) and
assisted by Barrie Gill, it sought to demonstrate a light
investigative manner and gain credentials as a serious motoring
magazine; something welcomed by the increasingly affluent and mobile
masses.
This same tone later
echoed with inclusion of the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists)
and by the presenters Noel Edmonds, Sue Baker, Frank Page, Chris
Goffey, William Woollard, Gill Pyrah and Julia Bradbury. Of the day
issues, specific and competitive vehicle reports and such would be
seriously discussed so as to provide the viewer with far greater
general motoring, consumer and regulatory affairs, and auto-industry
insight.
The now long-lived
current format – “version 2.0” - has been very much biased
toward the latter element of “entertainment” via the vehicular
adventures and antics of the trio.
Top
Gear “Release 2.0” -
Established
soon after the turn of the milenium it would become the TV motoring
equivelent of previously absorbed 'Brit-Pop'.
Created as 'authentic', with bare-bones studio with the central
platform showcasing the “iconic” pieces of a Sofa inspired by the Ron Arad 'Rover P5 Chair', and the glass-topped F1 engine block
table; the studio itself set within an ex-RAF airfield appeared as vast as the then newly constructed
Greenwich Dome.
The
first few episodes were lacklustre at best, until basic changes were
undertaken, including the mixing of female and ethnic faces; a mix which was - and remains - a somewhat smug and self satisfied white men's zone. (To add to male viewer interest, the attractive females in the audience typically placed in the sight-lines of the cameras), Content improvements were made with the addition of audience interactive items, such as the social-stylised “cool wall”, the “star in a reasonably priced car" board” and the Clarkson-Hammond-May
“intra-competition" board.
Much
increased viewing figures by 2004 allowed for an ever increasing
budget, able to travel to and across Europe, and to more exotic
regions: from the USA to Japan, from China to Vietnam, the
Middle-East to Africa, Australia to Canada.
Whilst
this format has proven immensely popular at home and worldwide over
the last 13 years (as gauged by BBC Worldwide's 'Top Gear' income
stream), the very zeitgeist of what led to the creation of today's
show has, within the UK at least, has shifted dramatically since
2008/9.
This
radical change in socio-economic backdrop begs the question as to
whether the show itself would gain by once again evolving its character, content
and presentation formats.
Where Life Meets Art -
The pertinent question
is to what degree the programme effectively substitutes and possibly
eventually replaces the actual emotional quotient of real-world car
ownership in the West.
Has the car become so
'fetishised' in the post-modern philosophical sense, that it mimics
the hyper-real role of food programmes beamed into people's homes.
Whilst celebrity TV chefs prepare and eat as high-grade luscious
food, the viewing public simultaneously actually consumes far less
wholesome fare, yet is absorbed into the overall food fantasy by the
merging of subject and object.
Likewise, an automotive
TV diet of newly released super-cars deployed on cross-continental
races, mid-level hatchbacks used for “a celebrity in a reasonably
priced car” race competition, budget hatchbacks used in autos
inspired football and rugby and threesome travels in an array of
vehicle types could be seen as the necessary fantasy antidote to an
all too conventional life lived. One with a script-laden blue-oval,
banner brandishing griffin, or 'people's car' roundel, all too often
stuck in traffic or piling-on motor-way miles, its residual
depreciation almost seemingly inverse to the rising of its dashboard
odometre.
BBC WorldWide's own
media-export success of Top Gear suggests that the global public's
“automotive consumption” still requires a media-fuelled fantasy
element; either as: the dream-scape counter-balance, or more
encouragingly, as temptation into new vehicle ownership within
expanding and newly emerging regions.
More pertinently the
programme plays an audio-visual consumption role (across age ranges)
which provides a subtler, more diluted but similar stimulation to
that of “Gen Y” and “Millenial” video-gamers psychologically
glued to the 'Grand Theft Auto' series and similar. Between 35 and
17, many cannot afford to run a car, or at least a car of their own
true choice.
In an improving but
still economically surpressed era, coupled with a somewhat
eco-propogandist and eco-regulatory regime that has promoted private
vehicle substitution by bus, train and bicycle, which results in
generally lower motoring expectations and demands by the young, it is
a wonder that the automobile still has the regard it generally holds.
However, add the stagnation of overall (Euro-Global) Formula One
viewership together with the decline of feasible owner-driver
servicing and repair on the domestic driveway (given the IT
diagnostic complexities of modern vehicles), and it is easy to see
how conversly – as an opposite reaction -'Top Gear' provides an
alternative mental submersion.
Posing a Dilemma -
Given this context, the
prime question is...
“to what degree
today, and critically into the future, will the British and Western
public actually retains its fascination for cars; as products in
their own functional and emotional right”.
Has
the West effectively over-dosed on the car and fallen out of love?
In
an increasingly cyber-orientated and virtually-augmented environment,
has auto-aspiration for model and badge declined? Are people
presently weaning themselves off the conventional automobile, by
imagining alternatives ranging from the electric-bikes to
driverless-cars, and slowly entering that world through purchases
such as the boot / trunk housed fold-away pedal bicycle?
This
question vitally important to not only auto-based TV producers, but
also the future of automotive and private-vehicle investment in all
its different guises. (One of which is the classic car fraternity). Another UK programme presented by Quentin Wilson and Jodie Kidd devoted
to this economically evolving arena.
(Re)
Generating Auto Industry Interest -
Whilst
a useful ongoing debate, of more direct pertinence to the immediately
previous essays, the remainder of this web-log chooses to compliment
the content of a wholly jingoistic, yet very memorable, edition of
Top Gear
(Series 20 episode 6).
Broadcast
at a vital point in time when Britain's public and politicians alike
needed to wake-up to the power of domestic manufacturing as a
socio-economic engine, the usually 'troublesome trio' made a very
powerful "Made in Britain" boast.
With
Buckingham Palace as backdrop, and The Mall deployed as the 'nation's
driveway', a plethora of UK made vehicles were displayed to invoke national pride and regenerate multi-stakeholder interests.
Whilst
the turnout was strong, with many firms highlighting their many
diffferent types of vehicles, the programme was understandably unable
to draw all UK producers, and of those shown, only (again
understandably) showcased the typically most exciting and glamourous.
Thus
to compliment Top Gear's effort, investment-auto-motives presents a
more exhaustive list:
(along
with with basic investor status)
Key:
NYSE
– New York Stock Exchange
LSE
– London Stock Exchange
TSE
– Tokyo Stock Exchange
“BF”
– Bourse Frankfurt
“BP”–
Bourse de Paris
BSE
– Bombay (Mumbai) Stock Exchange
Mass
Volume Production Vehicles:
Nissan
(publicly traded on TSE) [Renault traded on “BP”]
Toyota
(publicly traded on NYSE / TSE)
Honda
(publicly traded on NYSE / TSE)
Vauxhall
[cars and licenced vans] (GM publicly traded on NYSE)
Mini
(owned by BMW) [BMW traded on “BF”]
Mid
Volume Production Vehicles:
Jaguar
- Land Rover (owned by TATA Motors, traded on BSE and NYSE)
Intermediate
Volume Production Vehicles:
Aston
Martin Lagonda (privately owned)
Rolls-Royce
(BMW Group)
Bentley
(Volkswagen Group)
McLaren
(privately owned)
Low
Volume Production Vehicles:
Morgan
Motor (privately owned)
Ginetta
(privately owned)
Marcos
(privately owned)
Noble
(privately owned)
Caterham
(privately owned)
Westfield
(privately owned)
MK
(privately owned)
Ariel
(privately owned)
Briggs
[BAC] (privately owned)
Bristol
(owned by KamKorp)
David
Brown (privately owned)
Radical
(privately owned)
Grinnal
(privately owned)
Ultima
(privately owned)
Arash
(privately owned)
TVR
(privately owned) [currently non producing]
Connaught
(privately owned) [Status unknown]
Lister
(owned by Warrantywise)
London
Taxis International (owned by Geely of China)
MetroCab
(owned by Kamkorp)
JZR
Trikes (privately owned)
Triking
(privately owned)
Vehicle
Reconfiguration Companies:
Bowler
Motorsport (Land Rover Modification) (privately owned)
Twisted
Automotive (Land Rover Adaption) (privately owned)
Overfinch (Range Rover Adaption) (privately owned)
Kahn Design (Range Rover Adaption) (owned by Kahn Group)
Kahn Design (Range Rover Adaption) (owned by Kahn Group)
Chelsea
Truck Company (LR Defender Adaption) (subsiduary of Kahn Group)
Urban
Truck (LR Defender Adaption)
Coleman
Milne (Limousines and Hearses body-fitters)
MacNellie
(Chassis-Cab body-fitters)
Alloy
Bodies (Chassis-Cab body-fitters)
Truck,
Bus and Coach Producers:
Leyland
Trucks [DAF branded) [owned by PACCAR Inc, USA] (traded on NYSE)
Wrightbus
(privately owned)
Alexander-Dennis
[inc Plaxton] (privately owned)
Agricultural
and Industrial Vehicle Producers:
JCB
(privately owned)
CaseNewHolland
(publicly traded via CNH Industrial NV on NYSE)
Military
Vehicles:
BAE
Systems - Land Systems Division (Group publicly traded on LSE)
Land
Rover (part of JLR, owned by TATA Motors, see above)
Marshall
ADG (privately owned)
Motorcycle
Producers:
Triumph
Motorcycles (privately owned)
Norton
Motorcycles (privately owned)
Ariel
[tbc] (privately owned0
Hesketh
(privately owned)
CCM
[tbc] (privately owned)
Metisse
[tbc] (privately owned)
Product
Engineering Consultants:
Ricardo
plc (publicly traded on LSE)
Williams
GP Holdings (publicly traded on DAX)
Prodrive
(privately owned)
Cosworth
(privately owned)
Specialist
Components:
Hewland
[gearboxes] (privately owned)
Torotrack
plc (publicly traded)
Xtrac
(privately owned)
Zytec
(privately owned)
Auto
Industry Facilities Constructors -
Rolton
Group (privately owned)
The
Take Away -
This
web-log started by comparing the very different televisual production
formats of the 'Top Gear' programme, in its original “news-worthy”
vs “light-entertainment” guises. And questions whether the
present format requires yet another re-shuffle, into “Version 3.0”?
The
2002 change-over was undertaken for good reason, although very
belated. Even with a succession of new presenters, including Clarkson
and May, the original template had become somewhat stale and
irrelevant for a new generation of viewers. increasingly less attuned
to the very much changed mindsets of 1990s and 2000s drivers.
Unlike
the demographgic and sensibilities of the 1970s and early 1980s
motorists (predominantly middle aged males and middle class females)
by the 1990s a much wider age range of car owner and user had become
apparent. Now both sexes across the full age spectrum, with a higher
disposable income, and who for the most part were not so necessarily
economically and technically orientated as their parents generation.
It was a very different era to that in which 'Top Gear' had originally been born.
By
the 2000s cars had increasingly become both more functional for the
more utilitarian driver (eg MPVs), and critically more socially
symbolic to the majority of “lifestyle aspirationals”, thanks to
the economic rising tide of the mid 1980s to 2008, which had in turn
underpinned the popular rise of premium badged cars (eg GTI
thereafter BMW, Audi etc).
Those
good times had then substantially changed the face of UK motoring,
and more presciently, the very mentality of the mass populace. That
credit-fueled, media-led and youth orientated 30 year span had
gradually eroded the practicality and seriousness engendered by the
previous Baby-Boomer generation and esposued by 'Top Gear' version
1.0.
Likewise
a dramatic shift has occured again, one in which we should perhaps
“look back to the future”.
Today's
economic 'New Norm' of managed low inflation mated with only gradual
income rises, means that even older “Generation Xers”, aswell as
younger “Yers” and newer “Milennials” have in the vast
majority of cases been literally forced to adjust and adopt the more
cautious and sensible economic outlook last seen by their Baby-Boomer
parents and grand-parents.
Given
this broad Western reality, a new era introduced by a new “version
3” format would logically be in product conceptualisation phase by
either the strategy executives within the core of the BBC, BBC
Worldwide managers, or possibly by Clarkson-Hammond-May themselves
(as possible syndicate producers in their own right).
The
reason for this new era would be:
A.
an answer to the viewer 'over-dose' of 'Top Gear 2.0”, which has
run for so long, and has been arguably worn-out by continual re-runs
on the Dave Channel.
B.
the need to remould the programme to fit the far more serious Western
socio-economic climate of today.
C.
the possibility of better honing the individual international
versions for local markets
D.
the future “coverage” potential of a now rebounding UK Autos
“High Value Manufacturing” scene.
The
fact is that Top Gear 2.0's effective 'blokey' escapism was very much required for a
period during which the UK's own domestic automotive manufacturing climate had slowed dramatically.
But a new re-formatted 'Top Gear 3.0' could feasibly merge the best of
versions 1.0 and 2.0, thereby adding more informative consumer
insights for cash-strapped motorists, a far higher technical and
industrial dimension to re-enthuse the country's new apprentices, plus critically central and local government supported industrial zones and critically the UK's domestic and FDI investment
communities.
To
this end 'Top Gear' should once again re-align itself and induce
itself with a new automotive 'spirit of ecstacy' that befits the more
upbeat yet cautiously sensible zeitgeist.
Post
Script -
Much
'Said In (the) Jest' of Jezza -
Clarkson's
massive popularity amongst broad swathes of Brits of all colours and
creeds, may very well be because they themselves feel hemmed-in by
the overt political correctness of modern life, to which 'Jezza'
(through his somewhat naughty schoolboy manner) simply refuses to
comply Something which in actuality many think but dare not do.
But
even “the schoolboy” recognises what is offensive to others, and
so when seemingly requested to sing the rhyme “eeny, meeny, miny,
moe” by the film-makers, he intentionally mumbled the offensive
word.
This
post script is not here to defend the manner and behaviour of an
extremely well paid and comfortably well off TV presenter – his
enormous salary is no doubt more offensive to those viewers who
scrape-by on little – but it must be recognised that Clarkson seems
to be the sociological release valve for many in Britain.
Today's
ethereal but all too real Big-Brother pan-optical authoritarianism (via CCTV and Web scanning) plus the societal diktats of modern Britain (often generated by
the improportional interests of minority interest groups) appears the antithesis of what
previously made Britain great.
There
should never be an atmosphere of majority racism, sexism etc, but the
truisms of the self-interest tribal behaviour across many different
social tribes (from “hoody” street gangs to jewish nepotism to
oxbridge “boys clubs”) cannot be denied. Strength and power has
always been retained and gained by a core collective.
However,
it is the overtly politicised modern social atmosphere in which
people can say virtually nothing, with the press deployed as
manufactured mass mouthpieces, which has indoctrinated many with a
kind of ever-present schizophrenic animosity and guilt.
It
is this reality which has led to the popularity of Nigel Farage and
UKIP, not so much because of its headline anti-EU, anti-immigration
stance, but precisely because Farage weighs against the atmosphere of over-whelming politicised social oppression.
And so likewise, akin to the schoolboy japes of yesteryear's heavily
regulated and repressed public schools, people of all colours, creeds
and sexes ironically subliminally live vicariously through Clarkson's
seeming Neanderthal manner.
To
intentionally re-deploy the 1970s wording, no doubt many “honkies”,
“chalkies” and “but-buts” will be metaphorically honking
their car horns for Clarkson, and doing so not because they are
secretly racist, but simply because they've had enough of a constantly
politicised “thin ice” society which fragments people into ultimately competing groups; and in which for many even experienced truisms cannot even be muttered.
Britain's
Union Flag is of course “red, white and blue”...but perhaps
another version should be created for periodic illustrations of social unity in “white, black and brown”.
PPS -
Beyond the instances of racism caused by group indoctrination against other colours or creeds, racism itself will all too naturally be the reactionary result of those individuals who themselves have been violently and/or psychologically victimised by another distinctly homogeneous group.
Society at large must be very very watchful of this type of behaviour - especially that of distinct group vs an individual - often using the tactics of socially enabled guerrilla warfare (eg social exclusion, mobility constraint to enable observation of personal movement patterns, unyielding direct and indirect persecution, premeditated violence masked as "unfortunate incident", leading to intended isolation and psychological destruction of that person).
Without a doubt, "Not on my watch" should be society's watchword.
