« Topics
1234...343344345346...353354355
dbl9,244 posts since 11 Jun 2004
London London
London Live from its optimistic launch brief is dead, no point in trying to compare the two. It's only surviving by the Standard putting a couple of coins in the metaphoric 'leccy' meter so to speak.

Its dead now because they wasted and squandered a perfect opportunity.

That, but also no one is watching either. No matter how much they promoted or gave prominence in the TV listings section within the Evening Standard. I often forget it exists, I just go to either the internet, BBC or ITV for local news.
Mouseboy332,741 posts since 10 Feb 2014

That, but also no one is watching either. No matter how much they promoted or gave prominence in the TV listings section within the Evening Standard. I often forget it exists, I just go to either the internet, BBC or ITV for local news.

And no one watched because there was nothing interesting TO watch. Local tv news cant financially cant work unfortunately under the same stifling advertising rules that the deep-pocketed networks can. Newsgathering costs money and clearly the regulator mandated ad spots werent enough and lack of ad sales affects the investment or lack thereof for newsgathering abilities of these small local stations. They simply cant operate the same as a network. As the results have born out. Non-news segment sponsorships and other commercial revenue streams that could/should have been leveraged, werent and apparently arent allowed. In the same way the weather segment news is currently fenced off and sponsored on UK commercial tv there clearly isnt enough done on these local stations.

But instead LdnLive chose to do "knowing and celebratory" "news". That clearly didnt work. Far too many, cheap, public access-style channels, instead of full-on commercial tv. Hours of boring dry conversations with people sat on sofas under bad lighting, talking about a local charity is nice and all that, but frankly endless hours of that sameness isnt going to attract anyone to watch and clearly it didnt. Hence the dismal state of the local tv experiment. The deck was stacked against it no matter how they attempted to make it "possible" for these channels to operate.
I'm here to give you something to talk about!
https://youtu.be/1g18oiI2WIU
1
WW Update gave kudos
WW Update4,903 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Absolutely.

Here is a promo for BFM Paris; I've posted before in another thread, but the clip shows what a lively, fast-paced commercial news channel for a major European capital can look like if it has a committed owner:



And you won't hear complaints that no one is watching BFM Paris. That's because its audience is very healthy -- and growing:

https://www.bfmtv.com/emission/rentree-record-pour-bfm-paris-avec-256-millions-de-telespectateurs-1537296.html
Last edited by WW Update on 13 February 2019 5:46am
lhx1985237 posts since 23 Apr 2015
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
Sky News has never turned a profit because it was never designed or intended to be a profitable part of the Sky business.

It's value to Sky (and by extension Uncle Rupert) was influence and credibility, especially in 1989 when Sky was not to be taken seriously. We've always known that this was the model so to play Sky News as the card to say that in the UK news can't be profitable is disingenuous.

News channels can and are managing to be successful all over Europe and beyond. Still, in 2019. In many territories, so are local channels.

Spain has its autonomous region channels (govt funded), and it's local channels (private), France has BFM TV Paris. Canada has City. There are examples too in Russia, Asia.

Yes, there's American local TV too - but I'll try to avoid mentioning them as for some reason it seems to make some quite defensive, competitive and borderline irrational. Never really understood why.

The thing that's key though it that people won't watch crap that has no relevance to them. This is the problem with most of our local TV.... It's utter crap, trivial to the point of irrelevant and nobody is interested. There is still a strong appetite for local news, however.
1
WW Update gave kudos
Whataday10,281 posts since 13 Sep 2001
HTV Wales Wales Today
It's perfectly reasonable to play the "Sky News card". It is an example of a commercial news organisation that has failed to make a profit despite heavy investment, in a discussion about how such operations should work with heavy investment.

And if you're taking that particular card off the table, allow me to play one for ITV regional news, another for local commercial radio and heck, let's plonk another down for local newspapers?

Perhaps it is just the case that BBC Television and Radio services are too strong (and commercial free) to make commercial competition viable?
1
Brekkie gave kudos
lhx1985237 posts since 23 Apr 2015
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
It's perfectly reasonable to play the "Sky News card". It is an example of a commercial news organisation that has failed to make a profit despite heavy investment, in a discussion about how such operations should work with heavy investment.

And if you're taking that particular card off the table, allow me to play one for ITV regional news, another for local commercial radio and heck, let's plonk another down for local newspapers?

Perhaps it is just the case that BBC Television and Radio services are too strong (and commercial free) to make commercial competition viable?


Again - Sky News was never run with the intention of making a profit. It is not a commercial failure because it was never run on a commercial basis.... as well you know.

I actually think ITV regional news could be profitable if the network that produces it were a) interested in it and b) used it to its potential.

ITV are paying to staff multiple shifts despite only putting out one 30 min programme, and a bunch of insignificant-length bulletins at times of the day that are quite far from one another.

They are absorbing that as a regulatory overhead because they want to be a national entertainment channel despite squatting on a set of frequencies allocated for a regional/national public service broadcast network.

Using those teams to provide a 5AM hour and a lunchtime hour and an hour between 5:50 and 6:30 would at the very least significantly cut the cost-per-minute.

Commercial radio licenses have been bought up by other giants that want to maintain national entertainment networks and newspapers are in decline everywhere.... because their core audience are not as 'alive' as they used to be.

Quote:
Perhaps it is just the case that BBC Television and Radio services are too strong (and commercial free) to make commercial competition viable?


As a viewer of Look North, I would never describe it's content as particularly 'strong' but, for the sake of the argument, lets say it was... If the publicly-funded BBC is really so strong in the regional news department that commercial competition is not viable... don't you see a problem? I thought one of the marks of a healthy media landscape is plurality?