It's interesting to note that last July when LL cancelled original entertainment commissioning, Management claimed Lebedev was in it for the long-haul. Long-haul obviously means 12 months in his world.
The article also claims viewers shun the news content, claiming they are well served by The Standard and it's online counterpart. It fails to mention that the initial news offering under Vicki 'Noisy' Cook was totally crap and alienated any potential viewers. Cutting it back to a bare bones operation is not likely to win people over.
Finally, he pretty much admits their business plan is totally screwed.
I firmly believe that a local London channel can work. I hope another player comes forward and makes a proper go of it.
Auckland, who did not join the company until July 2014, five months after London Live’s launch, told Campaign: “From what I can see, they went in based on a viewing figure that was given to them by the government and [financial advisor] Lazard of 0.7/0.8% share of audience...
Quote:
Auckland has never concealed his scepticism about the local TV experiment. He is quoted in Campaign as saying:
“What made the government do it in the first place? They were worried about the loss of local news. When you get government getting involved in stuff like that it’s just a joke. The government shouldn’t be anywhere near it.
To me this is a case where you've got somebody flapping their jaws.....and maybe they shouldnt be doing so publicly. Thats like punching yourself in the head. He's bashing his own company. Its not like ESI is the BBC where you have to answer to the public. If something needs to be disclosed to shareholders (if that applies) there is a means for that. I wouldnt have thought giving such a negative interview about the "perceived stupidity" of your employers descisons is such a good idea. Think about the already low to zero morale at LL already. That will do wonders for them. It all seems odd especially since he wasnt even there when the channel launched and he doenst apparently like the idea anyway! WOW.
Some back-pedalling in there, but I actually hope they do sell it or hand back the licence. I just can't see this channel ever being good under the current owners, and the fact that the man in charge gives every impression of having thrown in the towel (and not even believing in the concept of local TV) couldn't give me less confidence that things will ever improve.
and the fact that the man in charge gives every impression of having thrown in the towel (and not even believing in the concept of local TV) couldn't give me less confidence that things will ever improve.
Hatfield, the former editor of Lebedev’s cut price national the i, stepped down as editorial director of London Live just three weeks after launch.
He maintains that it was a planned exit - he started as editor-in-chief at High50 the day after officially finishing up at London Live - despite the station producing dreaded “zero ratings” for some of its shows in the opening weeks.
“There were a lot of cooks, that’s what I’d say,” he says diplomatically.
I've only just got round to reading The Guardian follow up and it is breathtaking. It reads like an angry resignation letter rather than a public interview from a business leader. These interviews are an opportunity for people like Aukland to pitch to advertisers and potential viewers about their strategy. To basically admit that it was just a bit of an experiment for the rich Russian owner is concerning at best. Even more worrying was their lack of understanding of how viewers could help generate content. A truly shocking read.
