OM
London Live is to axe a third of its staff reports The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/27/london-live-local-television-station-to-cut-third-of-staff
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/27/london-live-local-television-station-to-cut-third-of-staff
LL
London Lite
Founding member
I wonder how many of these will be on-air roles?
They could probably reduce the presenters down to three or four if they have the same presenters on for Wake Up London, Headline London and The Evening News/The Evening Show, while The Headline Interview continues to utilise the editorial staff from the Independent/Standard.
The role of the weather/travel presenter is probably also at risk as the main presenter could also do this as a live read.
Personally they should go along these lines:
6-9am: Wake up London with Alex Beard
12-1pm: Headline London with Anthony Baxter or Claudia-Liza Armah
6-7pm: The Evening Show with Anthony Baxter or Claudia-Liza Armah (alternating)
7-7.30pm: Evening News (as above)
They could probably reduce the presenters down to three or four if they have the same presenters on for Wake Up London, Headline London and The Evening News/The Evening Show, while The Headline Interview continues to utilise the editorial staff from the Independent/Standard.
The role of the weather/travel presenter is probably also at risk as the main presenter could also do this as a live read.
Personally they should go along these lines:
6-9am: Wake up London with Alex Beard
12-1pm: Headline London with Anthony Baxter or Claudia-Liza Armah
6-7pm: The Evening Show with Anthony Baxter or Claudia-Liza Armah (alternating)
7-7.30pm: Evening News (as above)
OS
The Guardian article seems to imply a much-reduced live output, and a refocus on buying pre-made content and maybe starting to commission original programming again. (One of the few successes of their news output was the Platform 8 / 8 Debate double-bill on Sunday evenings). If I were directly involved in creating their live output, either behind or in front of the camera, I'd be very worried.
As for the sackings, it looks like COO Tim Kirkman managed to survive, despite his assurances that he'd be the first to go if the channel continued to underperform. As usual, one rule for the people at the lower-end of the food chain, and another for those truly responsible for the channel's errors.
I wonder how many of these will be on-air roles?
The Guardian article seems to imply a much-reduced live output, and a refocus on buying pre-made content and maybe starting to commission original programming again. (One of the few successes of their news output was the Platform 8 / 8 Debate double-bill on Sunday evenings). If I were directly involved in creating their live output, either behind or in front of the camera, I'd be very worried.
As for the sackings, it looks like COO Tim Kirkman managed to survive, despite his assurances that he'd be the first to go if the channel continued to underperform. As usual, one rule for the people at the lower-end of the food chain, and another for those truly responsible for the channel's errors.
Last edited by OpeningSting on 27 January 2015 6:33pm
LL
London Lite
Founding member
Bar the Thursday edition, The Headline Interview is pre-recorded, so will probably survive as it's a platform for Lebedev to put on his mate Boris Johnson.
At a guess, Headline London will probably go, replaced by The Headline Interview and Wake Up London reduced from three to two hours.
At a guess, Headline London will probably go, replaced by The Headline Interview and Wake Up London reduced from three to two hours.
SD
The fundamental problem with London Live is even with massive promotion from The Standard, including prime listings, banner ads, promos on the backs of the delivery vans - no-one is watching.
From people I've spoken to, a surprisingly large number have sampled - but the general consensus is that the local programming is s**t and the c4 repeats are dated and uninspiring.
Instead of cutting staff, I'd be investing in more - not many - just a few to properly produce the programmes they already have. Getting rid of some of your useless management and more annoying presenters Mr Ebedev could pay for it!
From people I've spoken to, a surprisingly large number have sampled - but the general consensus is that the local programming is s**t and the c4 repeats are dated and uninspiring.
Instead of cutting staff, I'd be investing in more - not many - just a few to properly produce the programmes they already have. Getting rid of some of your useless management and more annoying presenters Mr Ebedev could pay for it!
BR
There is a presumption that pre-recorded content is cheaper and to an extent it is, especially when you want something that can be repeated a lot. Quality wise though I think living up to the "Live" element of their name (not that they tick the "London" box much either) would be the way to get more local content on screen, and crucially interact with their viewer(s). Aiming to become Local Radio on TV might be more worth while than becoming E4 London.
LO
It's actually half-watchable now compared to the tripe they were putting out in the early days (dogs v cats) when they treated news as a dirty word to be avoided at all costs.
the general consensus is that the local programming is s**t
It's actually half-watchable now compared to the tripe they were putting out in the early days (dogs v cats) when they treated news as a dirty word to be avoided at all costs.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
The channel may need re-branding. It didn't help from day one that they got it terribly wrong in the first place, targeting the wrong audience and a niche demographic who hardly watch television. That's going to be a massive turn-off in the first place.
News still needs a shake-up. You have a head of news who for some unknown reason is still there with her buzzwords, providing bulletins for an audience that the channel no longer serves, so we now have this half hearted attempt of mainstream news at 6pm which is scheduled so that nobody will watch it when ITV News London covers the capital better with it's padded out bulletins than LL does.
Unless Lebedev wants to keep the channel as some form of a vanity project, for example the 'news' story about him and Boris sleeping rough (copy also shared with the print titles), he should consider selling the channel to one of the other bidders and cut his losses.
News still needs a shake-up. You have a head of news who for some unknown reason is still there with her buzzwords, providing bulletins for an audience that the channel no longer serves, so we now have this half hearted attempt of mainstream news at 6pm which is scheduled so that nobody will watch it when ITV News London covers the capital better with it's padded out bulletins than LL does.
Unless Lebedev wants to keep the channel as some form of a vanity project, for example the 'news' story about him and Boris sleeping rough (copy also shared with the print titles), he should consider selling the channel to one of the other bidders and cut his losses.
SD
It's actually half-watchable now compared to the tripe they were putting out in the early days (dogs v cats) when they treated news as a dirty word to be avoided at all costs.
Sorry Londoner - it may be half watchable, but that isn't good enough. By now it should be better, a lot better.
If London Live wants to compete with the big boys, it has to raise it standards. It needs to put resources into producing proper local news that at least matches the quality of its local competitors.
They have some great resources on their doorstep, but for reasons known only to the proprietor, they don't seem to make use of them.
Even if they just had a couple of people to re-hash copy from The Standard into 3 minute on the hour summaries, it would be better than the rubbish they churn out currently.
the general consensus is that the local programming is s**t
It's actually half-watchable now compared to the tripe they were putting out in the early days (dogs v cats) when they treated news as a dirty word to be avoided at all costs.
Sorry Londoner - it may be half watchable, but that isn't good enough. By now it should be better, a lot better.
If London Live wants to compete with the big boys, it has to raise it standards. It needs to put resources into producing proper local news that at least matches the quality of its local competitors.
They have some great resources on their doorstep, but for reasons known only to the proprietor, they don't seem to make use of them.
Even if they just had a couple of people to re-hash copy from The Standard into 3 minute on the hour summaries, it would be better than the rubbish they churn out currently.