British TV bosses are the longest-serving in history: Is there strength in stability or has the industry stagnated?

On stage at British television’s biggest annual meeting in 2023, Paramount UK content chief Ben Frow told the story of his resignation with characteristic flamboyance. Frow told delegates at the Edinburgh Television Pageant that he was suffering from persistent exhaustion that felt like he was being “pecked alive”. Resigning brought him a paradoxical relief: it calmed his anxiety to the point that he later felt able to withdraw his resignation.

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

Everywhere you look, the British bosses are setting new precedents. Kevin Lygo, ITV’s general director of media and entertainment, has been the network’s most loyal TV boss since the role was created in 1992, eclipsing his predecessor Peter Fincham by a year. At Channel 4, Ian Katz has overcome a wave of industry discontent to overtake Jay Hunt as the broadcaster’s longest-serving head of content.

Charlotte Moore, the BBC’s chief content officer, has been leading the corporation’s television production for eight and a half years, meaning she recently overtook the late Jana Bennett’s tenure in a similar role. Add to that Moore’s three years as controller of BBC1 and she eclipses some of her most decorated predecessors, including the giant figure of Sir Huw Wheldon, head of Dad’s army and Civilization for a decade as head of television 50 years ago.

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

Ask major industry figures about the phenomenon, as Deadline did for this article, and several theories emerge. One senior figure says it has become much more difficult to measure success in the streaming era, which benefits incumbents. Where once late-night ratings were a brutal green-light rating system, networks can now tell success stories and obfuscate failures using selective streaming numbers. Another TV doyen says the pandemic added years to the lifespans of Moore, Lygo, Katz and Frow as UK broadcasters sought stability in the storm.

There is also a clear consensus that it is difficult to give up these jobs. They remain influential and coveted, granting incumbents purchasing power that extends into many millions (if you’re Moore) and the opportunity to shape national conversations. For those at the top of the British television tree, alternative jobs may seem to be a few branches below your position. Even the lure of working for a revered American studio may not be enough, as Moore demonstrated late last year when he rejected a charmer’s pitch from Disney to stay at the BBC.

So we have some theories about why people sit still, which brings us to the question of whether long-serving TV bosses are good for business or are (as one senior broadcast executive reflects) rank) a group of “bed blockers”. ”?

Let’s start with reasons to be happy. Seasoned producers and commissioners who spoke to Deadline point to the talents of those at the top. Frow was praised for constantly reinventing Channel 5 and being uniquely attuned to the needs of the audience. Moore frequently baffles colleagues with his ability to juggle enormous volumes of competing priorities. There was also agreement that familiarity has its advantages. Having a good understanding of content bosses’ tastes and agendas is helpful at a time when opaque data points and algorithms are informing green-light decisions. As one producer put it: It’s comforting to know which effigy to worship or nail to a dart board.

Now the reasons for concern. There is a widespread view that job security can breed complacency, or at least comfort, which dampens the appetite for creative risk-taking. Simply put, there is a fear that the industry has stagnated. When producers get excited about this topic, they’ll point to the constant flow of reruns and reboots, the move toward foreign formats (or both, see Gladiators and Big Brother), and an excessive dependence on the successes of yesteryear. At least one content boss has openly acknowledged the need to reheat old shows, with Channel 4’s Katz describing it as television’s “microwave problem.”

The BBC’s Christmas Day scores bonanza was a timely reminder of the strength of television, but it also served to illuminate concerns about creative stagnation. Gavin and Stacey and Wallace and Gromit: The Birdest Revenge demonstrated how to bring viewers together, but both shows were created before Netflix was even a streaming service. The supporting cast was: The weakest link (a reboot of a series that premiered in 2000), Strictly come dance (he celebrated his 20th birthday last year), doctor who (the eternal Time Lord dates back to 1963), and Call the midwife and Mrs. Brown’s Boys (Both have long since spent a decade on screen.)

In short, none of the BBC’s primetime broadcasts on the biggest television day of the year were created under Moore’s direction. Some might consider this remark churlish when its biggest rival, ITV, was criticized for abandoning the playing field on Christmas Day after scheduling a parade of repeats. Both truths do nothing to calm anxiety about creative discomfort.

One gender boss, who has held senior roles at the BBC and beyond, says the commission works in two-year cycles and once you’ve made a couple of spins, it becomes harder to reinvent the wheel. “What you will then start doing is repeating all the things you have done before,” this person says. “Now we have a model in which we are inhibiting big changes. After two years of work, you can spend £20 million on a program that fails. “Seven years into office, that could mean the end of his career.”

Others juxtapose the stability in the United Kingdom with that of the United States, where there is greater turnover of leaders, albeit in a market where competition and consolidation have been more intense. The executives responsible for the country’s largest networks, ABC (Craig Erwich), NBC (Frances Berwick) and CBS (Amy Reisenbach), have been in office for between three and five years. As one prominent broadcasting figure acknowledges: “There is a delicate balance between the value of clear eyes and fresh eyes.”

Many think concerns about risk aversion would dissipate if content bosses changed their commissioning teams more regularly, the way football directors update their teams. Others defend the democratization of approval decisions. “The stewards can certainly say ‘no’ (to pitches) without any restrictions. What’s not clear is how they get to ‘yes’,” surmises a former ITV executive.

As we enter 2025, the smell of change is in the air. The BBC is preparing for an existential conversation over its operating and funding agreements, which expire in January 2027. ITV appears to be quietly courting takeover interests, which could result in the listed company being split into businesses separate broadcasting and production. There remains lingering unease over Channel 4’s leadership and while pre-Christmas speculation about a board plot to oust CEO Alex Mahon was wrong (as was the endless talk about his pursuit of jobs at Google , ITV, Chloé, and so forth.), the company will welcome a new president this year. Finally, Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount World will be completed in the spring, which will inevitably raise questions about the future of Channel 5.

Whether this translates into movement among TV’s top brass remains to be seen, but there is a sense that if one domino falls, the whole package could fall quickly. As one executive puts it: The longer people stay in office, the lower the chances of regime change. One thing seems certain: the tenure records of those at the top will be broken.