JO
That's a bit like the News then.
And they don't limit themselves to news topics either.
That's a bit like the News then.
CI
By the same token, there are people who are so prepared to accept what so called experts in any particular field say, that they are unable to accept that somebody else, who is looking at it differently, might actually be right.
Broadcasting these days has so many lemmings and yes men, and is so lacking in confidence and true critical thinking, that it's not surprising that those who come from a different perspective and come to a different conclusion tend to be viewed with suspicion. I don't think that the people who are paid to run it, are actually always right all the time. Just because they are paid to make those decisions, doesn't mean they always make the right ones.
There comes a point someone talks so much bunkum, they're not worth having the conversation with because they're simply not capable of comprehending points made by others or admitting when someone else has made stronger points.
This is the same guy who thinks he understand how radio works better than some of the finest minds in the industry and people who have been paid to make radio work and have done so very successfully.
This is the same guy who thinks he understand how radio works better than some of the finest minds in the industry and people who have been paid to make radio work and have done so very successfully.
By the same token, there are people who are so prepared to accept what so called experts in any particular field say, that they are unable to accept that somebody else, who is looking at it differently, might actually be right.
Broadcasting these days has so many lemmings and yes men, and is so lacking in confidence and true critical thinking, that it's not surprising that those who come from a different perspective and come to a different conclusion tend to be viewed with suspicion. I don't think that the people who are paid to run it, are actually always right all the time. Just because they are paid to make those decisions, doesn't mean they always make the right ones.
JO
Are you ever wrong?
Just because they are paid to make those decisions, doesn't mean they always make the right ones.
Are you ever wrong?
BA
Are you calling me a liar? You are on very dangerous territory if you are.
I know what message I was sending. The fact you couldn't understand it, and put words in my mouth, is very telling, then when I correct you on what I thought was an honest mistake, you then have the temmerity to accuse me of either blatantly lying, or at least not knowing what the hell I said.
Whether a programme is news, sport, comedy, drama, documentary or a movie, it is all thought of by viewers as content. Sometimes, viewers want a specific type of content or a specific programme, but not always. But, they always go looking for content, whether they are after a specific programme or not.#
If you've never had a spare hour, and just browsed through the channels looking for something interesting, then fair enough, but that does not mean it doesn't happen.
I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish. I can't possibly have a cogent discussion with you, when you're denying you said something that everyone can clearly see for themselves. Let me clarify something, however:
And a news bulletin is not regarded as badly as advertising by most people. Obviously you do, and by that token, it would suggest that you have little interest in the world at large. But, look at survey after survey in broadcasting, and it tells you that news is highly regarded as not just a public service broadcasting essential, but a commercial broadcasting essential as well.
It's those sorts of assumptions that reveal an inability to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I find news and current affairs interesting and engaging, but there are a lot of people out there who don't see it that way, or quickly become exasperated at being told the same stories again and again on different channels. In any case, I never said "most people".
It's exactly what you said.
Are you calling me a liar? You are on very dangerous territory if you are.
I know what message I was sending. The fact you couldn't understand it, and put words in my mouth, is very telling, then when I correct you on what I thought was an honest mistake, you then have the temmerity to accuse me of either blatantly lying, or at least not knowing what the hell I said.
Whether a programme is news, sport, comedy, drama, documentary or a movie, it is all thought of by viewers as content. Sometimes, viewers want a specific type of content or a specific programme, but not always. But, they always go looking for content, whether they are after a specific programme or not.#
If you've never had a spare hour, and just browsed through the channels looking for something interesting, then fair enough, but that does not mean it doesn't happen.
I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish. I can't possibly have a cogent discussion with you, when you're denying you said something that everyone can clearly see for themselves. Let me clarify something, however:
And a news bulletin is not regarded as badly as advertising by most people. Obviously you do, and by that token, it would suggest that you have little interest in the world at large. But, look at survey after survey in broadcasting, and it tells you that news is highly regarded as not just a public service broadcasting essential, but a commercial broadcasting essential as well.
It's those sorts of assumptions that reveal an inability to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I find news and current affairs interesting and engaging, but there are a lot of people out there who don't see it that way, or quickly become exasperated at being told the same stories again and again on different channels. In any case, I never said "most people".
CI
Are you ever wrong?
Plenty of times I get proved wrong. But I don't mind that. But proving me wrong requires evidence, not merely another person's say so. People can say anything, but if they can't back it up with evidence, then it's just hot air.
Look at the discussion on Daybreak and Good Morning Britain, if you want evidence that the people who are paid to make the decisions, don't always get them right.
Just because they are paid to make those decisions, doesn't mean they always make the right ones.
Are you ever wrong?
Plenty of times I get proved wrong. But I don't mind that. But proving me wrong requires evidence, not merely another person's say so. People can say anything, but if they can't back it up with evidence, then it's just hot air.
Look at the discussion on Daybreak and Good Morning Britain, if you want evidence that the people who are paid to make the decisions, don't always get them right.
CI
No, you saw something, that actually wasn't there, and you're not prepared to be corrected on that. That says inflexible mindset to me. And rather than accept you made a mistake in understanding what I said, you're more prepared to just dismiss me out of hand. That's a damn shame. That's why discussions tend to go round in circles online, because nobody actually listens and engages in a dialogue, they just continue their own monlogues, and eventually end up only speaking to others who only agree with them, and that's called talking into an echo chamber. You don't get much in the way of good debate in an echo chamber.
It's difficult to see someone's point of view when you can't see where the other person's persepctive is, or what they are basing their opinion on. Just saying that somebody is wrong and not offering evidence to back it up, doesn't make me think you are any more likely to be right than I am. If you can provide evidence, whether I believe that evidence is credible or not, then it gives me a more solid grounding on where the opinion's coming from.
I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish. I can't possibly have a cogent discussion with you, when you're denying you said something that everyone can clearly see for themselves.
No, you saw something, that actually wasn't there, and you're not prepared to be corrected on that. That says inflexible mindset to me. And rather than accept you made a mistake in understanding what I said, you're more prepared to just dismiss me out of hand. That's a damn shame. That's why discussions tend to go round in circles online, because nobody actually listens and engages in a dialogue, they just continue their own monlogues, and eventually end up only speaking to others who only agree with them, and that's called talking into an echo chamber. You don't get much in the way of good debate in an echo chamber.
It's those sorts of assumptions that reveal an inability to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I find news and current affairs interesting and engaging, but there are a lot of people out there who don't see it that way, or quickly become exasperated at being told the same stories again and again on different channels. In any case, I never said "most people".
It's difficult to see someone's point of view when you can't see where the other person's persepctive is, or what they are basing their opinion on. Just saying that somebody is wrong and not offering evidence to back it up, doesn't make me think you are any more likely to be right than I am. If you can provide evidence, whether I believe that evidence is credible or not, then it gives me a more solid grounding on where the opinion's coming from.
BA
No, you saw something, that actually wasn't there, and you're not prepared to be corrected on that. That says inflexible mindset to me. And rather than accept you made a mistake in understanding what I said, you're more prepared to just dismiss me out of hand. That's a damn shame. That's why discussions tend to go round in circles online, because nobody actually listens and engages in a dialogue, they just continue their own monlogues, and eventually end up only speaking to others who only agree with them, and that's called talking into an echo chamber. You don't get much in the way of good debate in an echo chamber.
Can you explain how what you said about people looking for any content over adverts is in no way saying that people are looking for any content over adverts? Thought not.
Also, can you point out where you responded to any of my points over the way you misquoted a survey in your favour, and then failed to address any of the points a proper analysis reveals?
It's difficult to see someone's point of view when you can't see where the other person's persepctive is, or what they are basing their opinion on. Just saying that somebody is wrong and not offering evidence to back it up, doesn't make me think you are any more likely to be right than I am. If you can provide evidence, whether I believe that evidence is credible or not, then it gives me a more solid grounding on where the opinion's coming from.
I believe I am the only one out of the two of us to have provided evidence that the other is wrong - namely in the survey you quoted.
I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish. I can't possibly have a cogent discussion with you, when you're denying you said something that everyone can clearly see for themselves.
No, you saw something, that actually wasn't there, and you're not prepared to be corrected on that. That says inflexible mindset to me. And rather than accept you made a mistake in understanding what I said, you're more prepared to just dismiss me out of hand. That's a damn shame. That's why discussions tend to go round in circles online, because nobody actually listens and engages in a dialogue, they just continue their own monlogues, and eventually end up only speaking to others who only agree with them, and that's called talking into an echo chamber. You don't get much in the way of good debate in an echo chamber.
Can you explain how what you said about people looking for any content over adverts is in no way saying that people are looking for any content over adverts? Thought not.
Also, can you point out where you responded to any of my points over the way you misquoted a survey in your favour, and then failed to address any of the points a proper analysis reveals?
It's those sorts of assumptions that reveal an inability to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I find news and current affairs interesting and engaging, but there are a lot of people out there who don't see it that way, or quickly become exasperated at being told the same stories again and again on different channels. In any case, I never said "most people".
It's difficult to see someone's point of view when you can't see where the other person's persepctive is, or what they are basing their opinion on. Just saying that somebody is wrong and not offering evidence to back it up, doesn't make me think you are any more likely to be right than I am. If you can provide evidence, whether I believe that evidence is credible or not, then it gives me a more solid grounding on where the opinion's coming from.
I believe I am the only one out of the two of us to have provided evidence that the other is wrong - namely in the survey you quoted.
CI
Again, that was not what I said. Let's go back to the original point. It was gottago, who made the point that...
To which I countered...
It turns out the figure I should have quoted was 85% not 90%, but that 5% difference doesn't fundamentally alter the point. If most people will sit through 6 minutes of adverts, which they only tolerate, then they'll sit through 5 minutes of news, which most people regard as an essential part of broadcasting for major channels such as Channel 5.
That was the point. I did not say that people were looking for any content over adverts, specifically. You might asume that from that, I would believe that people would pick 5 minutes of any kind of content over advertising, and I'm not totally sure that would happen. For instance, if I'm watching 5*, I will tend to avoid their 5* Access programme, because I have little interest in celebrity news and the celebrity culture. It's still content, but not something that I am particularly interested in. People won't watch content they have no interest in. But considering how many surveys always point to news as an important part of broadcasting for viewers, mainly in terms of expectation, then I find it astounding that people believe that 5 minutes of news in primetime, will force people to switch off or switch over in their droves, when there is no evidence to support that idea.
Nothing you said in your rebuttle, fundamentally changed a damn thing. And in fact, you actually got some parts wrong, and pardon me for not correcting them.
One I should correct right now...
Not totally true. On average, US shows run for 44 minutes per hour, with 16 minutes of advertising time, including programme promotions. Some shows are made up of four segments, some are six segments and some are more, but the more breaks there are, the shorter those individual breaks are.
Another point...
I think you are missing the fundamental point here, that no matter what the platform, whether it's radio or television, an advert has the task, to sell a product or service to you. That doesn't change. Just because television has a visual element and radio doesn't, doesn't alter the fundamental thing that the advert is there to do, which is to sell. Everything else is just style, making it work for the platform it is on. An advert can be funny, moving, emotional, memorable, but if it doesn't ultimately make you want to buy the product or service, it's failed in its mission. If it puts you off the product and service, then it's actually hurt its mission. When it comes to advertising, it's all about getting you to buy, nothing else matters. That's the same whether it's radio or television, or indeed, in the cinema.
You said I was 5% out, that's hardly anything to write home about.
Can you explain how what you said about people looking for any content over adverts is in no way saying that people are looking for any content over adverts?
Again, that was not what I said. Let's go back to the original point. It was gottago, who made the point that...
Quote:
Five minutes at 9 is just going to eat into primetime and make viewers switch off.
To which I countered...
Quote:
the 6.30 is their current prime-time news commitment, but they are struggling ratings wise in that slot, news is not working for them. so, why not offer to replace it with a more sustainable commitment, and something that won't turn viewers completely off. If 90% of radio listeners will put up with 6 minutes of advertising in a break, then I don't see TV viewers switching to another channel just because of 5 minutes of news.
It turns out the figure I should have quoted was 85% not 90%, but that 5% difference doesn't fundamentally alter the point. If most people will sit through 6 minutes of adverts, which they only tolerate, then they'll sit through 5 minutes of news, which most people regard as an essential part of broadcasting for major channels such as Channel 5.
That was the point. I did not say that people were looking for any content over adverts, specifically. You might asume that from that, I would believe that people would pick 5 minutes of any kind of content over advertising, and I'm not totally sure that would happen. For instance, if I'm watching 5*, I will tend to avoid their 5* Access programme, because I have little interest in celebrity news and the celebrity culture. It's still content, but not something that I am particularly interested in. People won't watch content they have no interest in. But considering how many surveys always point to news as an important part of broadcasting for viewers, mainly in terms of expectation, then I find it astounding that people believe that 5 minutes of news in primetime, will force people to switch off or switch over in their droves, when there is no evidence to support that idea.
can you point out where you responded to any of my points over the way you misquoted a survey in your favour, and then failed to address any of the points a proper analysis reveals?
Nothing you said in your rebuttle, fundamentally changed a damn thing. And in fact, you actually got some parts wrong, and pardon me for not correcting them.
One I should correct right now...
Quote:
In addition, this is a US study, where breaks are longer and more numerous.
Not totally true. On average, US shows run for 44 minutes per hour, with 16 minutes of advertising time, including programme promotions. Some shows are made up of four segments, some are six segments and some are more, but the more breaks there are, the shorter those individual breaks are.
Another point...
Quote:
If there weren't real differences between radio advertising and TV advertising, then you wouldn't have advertisers picking one over the other as a focus for a campaign, different targeting, etc.. Personally, I hear a lot more humorous advertising on the radio - whether it be cheesy or naff, or plainly comedic. You don't get that anywhere as much on TV, and especially not with 5 minute news bulletins - and it shows there is a difference between them.
I think you are missing the fundamental point here, that no matter what the platform, whether it's radio or television, an advert has the task, to sell a product or service to you. That doesn't change. Just because television has a visual element and radio doesn't, doesn't alter the fundamental thing that the advert is there to do, which is to sell. Everything else is just style, making it work for the platform it is on. An advert can be funny, moving, emotional, memorable, but if it doesn't ultimately make you want to buy the product or service, it's failed in its mission. If it puts you off the product and service, then it's actually hurt its mission. When it comes to advertising, it's all about getting you to buy, nothing else matters. That's the same whether it's radio or television, or indeed, in the cinema.
I believe I am the only one out of the two of us to have provided evidence that the other is wrong - namely in the survey you quoted.
You said I was 5% out, that's hardly anything to write home about.
LL
What people say what they want and what they consume are two different completely different things. They'll ask for the PSB commitments, such as news, but then do they watch them in their droves? No!
Would people ask for a news bulletin sandwiched in the commercial break of a movie or a successful drama to shoehorn it in? No.
You only have to look at ITV's News at 10 to see when you start moving bulletins around, as Channel 5 have done with regularity in peak that they won't come back, which leaves them with the current situation where they're providing a tokenistic bulletin to meet the licence requirements,
News is of course a very important part of public service broadcasting, but it has to be handled well and where it works for Channel 5 is at 5pm on weekdays.
London Lite
Founding member
[But considering how many surveys always point to news as an important part of broadcasting for viewers, mainly in terms of expectation, then I find it astounding that people believe that 5 minutes of news in primetime, will force people to switch off or switch over in their droves, when there is no evidence to support that idea.
What people say what they want and what they consume are two different completely different things. They'll ask for the PSB commitments, such as news, but then do they watch them in their droves? No!
Would people ask for a news bulletin sandwiched in the commercial break of a movie or a successful drama to shoehorn it in? No.
You only have to look at ITV's News at 10 to see when you start moving bulletins around, as Channel 5 have done with regularity in peak that they won't come back, which leaves them with the current situation where they're providing a tokenistic bulletin to meet the licence requirements,
News is of course a very important part of public service broadcasting, but it has to be handled well and where it works for Channel 5 is at 5pm on weekdays.
CI
10 million watch the BBC News Channel during the week, and by the best estimates going, most people watch at least one news bulletin of some kind. I wouldn't exactly say that News isn't well watched. How many people are watching those shopping channels these days?
But putting one in there doesn't seem to drive viewers away, years of ratings evidence have proved that.
But the fact is they have two bulletins in pretty short succession, and we know that that does not work. TV3 in Ireland had the same problem. When their initial attempt to compete with RTE's Six-One failed, they tried bulletins at 5.30 and 7pm, and they ended up dropping the second one, because it came too soon after the previous bulletin, and wasn't getting the ratings.
Now we know that Channel 5 are not going to give up 30 minutes of primetime every night these days for news, not like they did when they started, and their 8.30pm bulletin was quite successful. But, it is possible to imagine, that they might agree to set aside 5 minutes a night for a primetime news bulletin, and the most open space for them to do that, is at 9pm. There's no other news programme on at that time on the main channels, and they have very successful shows at the moment currently in the 8pm and 9pm slots every night, so it would be possible to hammock the news between them.
We're not talking about in the middle of a film, or the middle of a drama, but between programmes.
That is where it works now, but that doesn't mean that a 5 minute bulletin couldn't work for them at 9pm, especially as there is currently no competing news programme on any of the major entertainment channels. I'm not counting the news channels in this for obvious reasons.
Sometimes, it doesn't pay to stick to the status quo. Not often, but it does happen. 6.30 news on 5, is right now a losing proposition. It will never work, as long as BBC and ITV have their 6pm newshours, and there is no sign that they are going to change anytime soon. So why not find a way to do something else that might work better? Why are you opposed to trying?
What people say what they want and what they consume are two different completely different things. They'll ask for the PSB commitments, such as news, but then do they watch them in their droves? No!
10 million watch the BBC News Channel during the week, and by the best estimates going, most people watch at least one news bulletin of some kind. I wouldn't exactly say that News isn't well watched. How many people are watching those shopping channels these days?
Quote:
Would people ask for a news bulletin sandwiched in the commercial break of a movie or a successful drama to shoehorn it in? No.
But putting one in there doesn't seem to drive viewers away, years of ratings evidence have proved that.
Quote:
You only have to look at ITV's News at 10 to see when you start moving bulletins around, as Channel 5 have done with regularity in peak that they won't come back, which leaves them with the current situation where they're providing a tokenistic bulletin to meet the licence requirements,
But the fact is they have two bulletins in pretty short succession, and we know that that does not work. TV3 in Ireland had the same problem. When their initial attempt to compete with RTE's Six-One failed, they tried bulletins at 5.30 and 7pm, and they ended up dropping the second one, because it came too soon after the previous bulletin, and wasn't getting the ratings.
Now we know that Channel 5 are not going to give up 30 minutes of primetime every night these days for news, not like they did when they started, and their 8.30pm bulletin was quite successful. But, it is possible to imagine, that they might agree to set aside 5 minutes a night for a primetime news bulletin, and the most open space for them to do that, is at 9pm. There's no other news programme on at that time on the main channels, and they have very successful shows at the moment currently in the 8pm and 9pm slots every night, so it would be possible to hammock the news between them.
We're not talking about in the middle of a film, or the middle of a drama, but between programmes.
Quote:
News is of course a very important part of public service broadcasting, but it has to be handled well and where it works for Channel 5 is at 5pm on weekdays.
That is where it works now, but that doesn't mean that a 5 minute bulletin couldn't work for them at 9pm, especially as there is currently no competing news programme on any of the major entertainment channels. I'm not counting the news channels in this for obvious reasons.
Sometimes, it doesn't pay to stick to the status quo. Not often, but it does happen. 6.30 news on 5, is right now a losing proposition. It will never work, as long as BBC and ITV have their 6pm newshours, and there is no sign that they are going to change anytime soon. So why not find a way to do something else that might work better? Why are you opposed to trying?
BA
Cityprod, you're making little to no sense in your posts, so I am not going to try and dig through the irrelevance to get quotes worth replying to.
You're making the massive leap that if 85%, on average, of a US audience will listen to 6 minutes or more of adverts, then a UK audience will tolerate 5 minutes of news, presumably topped and tailed by at least some trailers or ads. You have no evidence to prove that other than "news is important". Does that assertion that hold true with the demographic of Channel 5 and what they want to watch? Do any of your assertions have any basis in fact other than the massive leaps you've made?
Again, I don't know where you're pulling these figures from, but the average 60 minute block contains 42 minutes of programming in the US. Additionally, I was referring to radio ads when saying that the ads were longer and more numerous - ad spots on US music stations can be 7 minutes and longer, something which the study you quoted glosses over with averages.
Other parts of your post are completely irrelevant to what I was talking about (I know what an advert is for, I don't need it explaining to me).
If you're going to ask for evidence-based arguments in future, then make sure your own evidence is accurate.
My exasperation over "debating" with you stems from the fact that you're peppering your side with presumptions, logical fallacies, and a general lack of coherence. I feel I've made my point enough for other people to understand that your argument is fallacious, so don't be surprised if I don't respond next time.
You're making the massive leap that if 85%, on average, of a US audience will listen to 6 minutes or more of adverts, then a UK audience will tolerate 5 minutes of news, presumably topped and tailed by at least some trailers or ads. You have no evidence to prove that other than "news is important". Does that assertion that hold true with the demographic of Channel 5 and what they want to watch? Do any of your assertions have any basis in fact other than the massive leaps you've made?
Again, I don't know where you're pulling these figures from, but the average 60 minute block contains 42 minutes of programming in the US. Additionally, I was referring to radio ads when saying that the ads were longer and more numerous - ad spots on US music stations can be 7 minutes and longer, something which the study you quoted glosses over with averages.
Other parts of your post are completely irrelevant to what I was talking about (I know what an advert is for, I don't need it explaining to me).
If you're going to ask for evidence-based arguments in future, then make sure your own evidence is accurate.
My exasperation over "debating" with you stems from the fact that you're peppering your side with presumptions, logical fallacies, and a general lack of coherence. I feel I've made my point enough for other people to understand that your argument is fallacious, so don't be surprised if I don't respond next time.
LL
Now we know that Channel 5 are not going to give up 30 minutes of primetime every night these days for news, not like they did when they started, and their 8.30pm bulletin was quite successful. But, it is possible to imagine, that they might agree to set aside 5 minutes a night for a primetime news bulletin, and the most open space for them to do that, is at 9pm. There's no other news programme on at that time on the main channels, and they have very successful shows at the moment currently in the 8pm and 9pm slots every night, so it would be possible to hammock the news between them.
Ok, so you'd shoehorn in a news bulletin at 9pm instead of C5's latest acquisition? Those viewers will go to a rival channel where there's another programme on because of a 5 minute PSB bulletin. That move is as stupid as the England goalkeeper being away from the goal during the World Cup final.
I agree that 6.30 isn't perfect, but there isn't anywhere to put that bulletin with the current requirements without losing a slot for prime advertising. The fact is as a commercial business, scheduling Cowboy Builders, Gibraltar - Britain in the Sun or Police Interceptors is more viable than a news bulletin after 7pm.
London Lite
Founding member
Now we know that Channel 5 are not going to give up 30 minutes of primetime every night these days for news, not like they did when they started, and their 8.30pm bulletin was quite successful. But, it is possible to imagine, that they might agree to set aside 5 minutes a night for a primetime news bulletin, and the most open space for them to do that, is at 9pm. There's no other news programme on at that time on the main channels, and they have very successful shows at the moment currently in the 8pm and 9pm slots every night, so it would be possible to hammock the news between them.
Ok, so you'd shoehorn in a news bulletin at 9pm instead of C5's latest acquisition? Those viewers will go to a rival channel where there's another programme on because of a 5 minute PSB bulletin. That move is as stupid as the England goalkeeper being away from the goal during the World Cup final.
I agree that 6.30 isn't perfect, but there isn't anywhere to put that bulletin with the current requirements without losing a slot for prime advertising. The fact is as a commercial business, scheduling Cowboy Builders, Gibraltar - Britain in the Sun or Police Interceptors is more viable than a news bulletin after 7pm.