CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  The passage given below is followed by a set ... Start Learning for Free
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
Not many Britons watch “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While “Millionaire” is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote d'Ivoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.
Hollywood may create the world's best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmes—quiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. “Britain's Got Talent”, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including “China's Got Talent” and “Das Supertalent”. There are 22 different versions of “Wife Swap” and 32 of “Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formats—more than any other country.
London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britain—or even if it performs unusually well in its time slot—phones start ringing in
production companies' offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.
Or they may buy a “bible” that tells them how to clone it for themselves.
“The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK,” says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes “Got Talent”, “Idol” and “X Factor”.
Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.
They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers' group, and Oliver & Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent £1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only £1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from £342m to £590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that company's profits now come from intellectual property—that is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.
Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on television­owning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovation—putting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.
Yet the country's status as the world's pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came “Crunch”, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.
Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hard—not a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britain's biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.
Meanwhile commissioners' tastes are changing. Programmes like “Wife Swap”, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like “One Born Every Minute” and “24 Hours in A&E”. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as “soft-scripted” shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. “Made in Chelsea” and “The Only Way is Essex” blaze that peculiar trail.
These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedia's new talent show, “Hidden Stars”, was created by the firm's Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched market—the crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.
There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Group's “One Born Every Minute”, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.
The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like King's Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.
Q.
Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?
  • a)
    Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.
  • b)
    Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.
  • c)
    Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.
  • d)
    By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the ...
Option 1 is stated verbatim in paragraph 11.
Option 2 is stated in last line of paragraph 4.
Option 3 can be inferred from the statement “Producers with operations in many countries ... refine old ones.” in paragraph 10. Option 4 is contradicted by “In such cases the producers are selling ... rather than a brand and a formula”.
Hence, the correct answer is option 4.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clon e), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following cannot be concluded from the passage?

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clon e), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is correct?

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clon e), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.What is the central idea of the passage?

Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. The author uses “labour market problems” in lines 1-2, to refer to which of the following?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it.How many really suffer as a result of labor market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930’s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programs for those failing in the labor market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigate the consequences of joblessness. Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labor market pathologies.Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labor-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at some time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffers. For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labor market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate—that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labor market problems.The author of the passage compares the 1930s with the modern-day to prove that

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Not many Britons watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? these days. The quiz show, which routinely drew more than 15m viewers in the late 1990s, now attracts fewer than 5m. While Millionaire is fading in the country that invented it, though, it is thriving elsewhere. This week Sushil Kumar won the top prize on the Indian version of the programme. Cote dIvoire is to make a series. Afghanistan is getting a second one. In all, 84 different versions of the show have been made, shown in 117 countries.Hollywood may create the worlds best TV dramas, but Britain dominates the global trade in unscripted programmesquiz shows, singing competitions and other forms of reality television. Britains Got Talent, a format created in 2006, has mutated into 44 national versions, including Chinas Got Talent and Das Supertalent. There are 22 different versions of Wife Swap and 32 of Masterchef. In the first half of this year, Britain supplied 43% of global entertainment formatsmore than any other country.London crawls with programme scouts. If a show is a hit in Britainor even if it performs unusually well in its time slotphones start ringing inproduction companies offices. Foreign broadcasters, hungry for proven fare, may hire the producers of a British show to make a version for them.Or they may buy a bible that tells them how to clone it for themselves.The risk of putting prime-time entertainment on your schedule has been outsourced to the UK, says Tony Cohen, chief executive of FremantleMedia, which makes Got Talent, Idol and X Factor.Like financial services, television production took off in London as a result of government action. In the early 1990s broadcasters were told to commission at least one-quarter of their programmes from independent producers. In 2004 trade regulations ensured that most rights to television shows are retained by those who make them, not those who broadcast them. Production companies began aggressively hawking their wares overseas.They are becoming more aggressive, in part because British broadcasters are becoming stingier. PACT, a producers group, and Oliver Ohlbaum, a consultancy, estimate that domestic broadcasters spent 1.51 billion ($2.4 billion) on shows from independent outfits in 2008, but only 1.36 billion in 2010. International revenues have soared from 342m to 590m in the same period. Claire Hungate, chief executive of Shed Media, says that 70- 80% of that companys profits now come from intellectual propertythat is, selling formats and tapes of shows that have already been broadcast, mostly to other countries.Alex Mahon, president of Shine Group, points to another reason for British creativity. Many domestic television executives do not prize commercial success. The BBC is funded almost entirely by a licence fee on televisionowning households. Channel 4 is funded by advertising but is publicly owned. At such outfits, success is measured largely in terms of creativity and innovationputting on the show that everyone talks about. In practice, that means they favour short series. British television churns out a lot of ideas.Yet the countrys status as the worlds pre-eminent inventor of unscripted entertainment is not assured. Other countries have learned how to create reality television formats and are selling them hard. In early October programme buyers at MIPCOM, a huge television convention held in France, crowded into a theatre to watch clips of dozens of reality programmes. A Norwegian show followed urban single women as they toured rural villages in search of love. From India came Crunch, a show in which the walls of a house gradually closed in on contestants.Ever-shrinking commissioning budgets at home are a problem, too. The BBC, which provides a showcase for independent productions as well as creating many of its own, will trim its overall budget by 16% in real terms over the next few years. The rather tacky BBC3 will be pruned hardnot a great loss to national culture, maybe, but a problem for producers, since many shows are launched on the channel. Perhaps most dangerously for the independents, ITV, Britains biggest free-to-air commercial broadcaster, aims to produce more of its own programming.Meanwhile commissioners tastes are changing. Programmes like Wife Swap, which involve putting people in contrived situations (and are fairly easy to clone), are falling from favour. The vogue is for gritty, fly-on-the- wall documentaries like One Born Every Minute and 24 Hours in AE. There is a countervailing trend towards what are known as soft-scripted shows, which mix acting with real behaviour. Made in Chelsea and The Only Way is Essex blaze that peculiar trail.These trends do not greatly threaten the largest production companies. Although they are based in London, their operations are increasingly global. Several have been acquired by media conglomerates like Sony and Time Warner, making them even more so. Producers with operations in many countries have more opportunities to test new shows and refine old ones. FremantleMedias new talent show, Hidden Stars, was created by the firms Danish production arm. Britain is still the most-watched marketthe crucible of reality formats. But preliminary tests may take place elsewhere.There is, in any case, a way round the problem of British commissioners leaning against conventional reality shows. Producers are turning documentaries and soft-scripted shows into formats, and exporting them. Shine Groups One Born Every Minute, which began in 2010 as a documentary about a labour ward in Southampton, has already been sold as a format to America, France, Spain and Sweden. In such cases the producers are selling sophisticated technical and editing skills rather than a brand and a formula. With soft-scripted shows, the trick is in casting.The companies that produce and export television formats are scattered around London, in odd places like Kings Cross and Primrose Hill. They are less rich than financial-services firms and less appealing to politicians than technology companies. But they have a huge influence on how the world entertains itself. And, in a slow-moving economy, Britain will take all the national champions it can get.Q.Which of the following is not true about the production companies of reality shows, as per this passage?a)Soft-scripted shows and documentaries are sold by the production companies in the name of formats to other companies.b)Perturbed by British broadcasters, production companies moved to foreign broadcasters.c)Production companies having branches in other countries, experiment with new and old tv shows.d)By selling the formats of their shows, the production companies are formulating new brands.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev