Thanks for the replies, very useful info and it confirms very much what Lazzard said about the prominence of the pitch.
It's not where I've put my focus, although I think they are adequate. But they are certainly not sparkly 'look books' Okay then, I'll try in this free day I have to spruce them up, although I hate all this modern use of multimedia crap and I'm rubbish at IT. But I will extend the the treatments and give references to similar sitcoms. I might even enjoy doing it.
BTW, have any of the prods now using the service given you feedback yet on what they're seeing, ie. 'We'd like more of this type of comedy to look at; we've got too many of that type in the queue; we'd prefer to see them to include more of this or that in their pitches.' etc. ? Cheers in advance.
Also I'd like to add, I get the impression that most of us think this Pitch Centre is a very positive development for writers fed up with the lack opportunities offered to them, and I applaud its creation. I only hope the producers do back up what they've been saying, by using the service to genuinely develop new shows by unknowns and relative unknowns.
Their usual clientele (the stand ups) are doing alright, believe me, and the channels are choc full of their panel shows, comedy quiz shows and comedy dramas. But viewers AND critics are not getting anything like what they want and were once used to getting in terms of quality and quantity of genuine SITCOMS. Why don't you invite them to read some of the threads here on current comedy show output?
Oh and one more little thing, the overall package of our pitches looks very good except for: no gaps between the natural paragraphs as typed out by us, which I'm worried will make it very difficult for them to read. Or do THEY see it as we've written it. Thanks for any replies and well done for this venture.