NG
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
noggin
Founding member
Depending on who's presenting - the whole show can be clunky and jarring!
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
LL
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
None of the news programmes made the top 10 for week ending May 31.
Two airings of documentary The Notorious Kray Twins are in the top 3 along with Ali G in the USA.
An edition of Movie Talk was 4th.
London Lite
Founding member
Depending on who's presenting - the whole show can be clunky and jarring!
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
None of the news programmes made the top 10 for week ending May 31.
Two airings of documentary The Notorious Kray Twins are in the top 3 along with Ali G in the USA.
An edition of Movie Talk was 4th.
TV
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself. The companies who do radio travel news would be perfect - I don't even think the presenter needs to be in vision - the graphics should be enough.
INRIX who used to provide the travel news in-vision for ITV London during GMTV/Daybreak would be perfect.
As shown above, the presenter has a console to change between the traffic cameras in front of a CSO.
I believe the plan was originally for the travel to come from the TFL control room from a specially constructed mini studio. That never happened and clearly the the lack of funding ensured it never did.
And they need to stop repeating this Movie Talk shows. Or get some new ones.
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself. The companies who do radio travel news would be perfect - I don't even think the presenter needs to be in vision - the graphics should be enough.
INRIX who used to provide the travel news in-vision for ITV London during GMTV/Daybreak would be perfect.
As shown above, the presenter has a console to change between the traffic cameras in front of a CSO.
I believe the plan was originally for the travel to come from the TFL control room from a specially constructed mini studio. That never happened and clearly the the lack of funding ensured it never did.
And they need to stop repeating this Movie Talk shows. Or get some new ones.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
Disappointed, but not surprised at the poor coverage of the fire in Hackney this afternoon which LBC London News and even Sky News were all over.
All I saw was some video from the London Fire Brigade in the heads. This is ultra-local news which should be covered instead of sending Baffoe to Trafalgar Square for some poxy protest.
All I saw was some video from the London Fire Brigade in the heads. This is ultra-local news which should be covered instead of sending Baffoe to Trafalgar Square for some poxy protest.
SD
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
Fair point. In that case they need to rethink how it's presented. Back in August last year they admitted that weather and travel needed improving - I'm not seeing any improvement - are you?
Depending on who's presenting - the whole show can be clunky and jarring!
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
Fair point. In that case they need to rethink how it's presented. Back in August last year they admitted that weather and travel needed improving - I'm not seeing any improvement - are you?
SD
But Baffoe does poxy protests so well!
I think we have to accept that London Live has no capability or interest in covering breaking news.
Disappointed, but not surprised at the poor coverage of the fire in Hackney this afternoon which LBC London News and even Sky News were all over.
All I saw was some video from the London Fire Brigade in the heads. This is ultra-local news which should be covered instead of sending Baffoe to Trafalgar Square for some poxy protest.
All I saw was some video from the London Fire Brigade in the heads. This is ultra-local news which should be covered instead of sending Baffoe to Trafalgar Square for some poxy protest.
But Baffoe does poxy protests so well!
I think we have to accept that London Live has no capability or interest in covering breaking news.
LL
I think we have to accept that London Live has no capability or interest in covering breaking news.
I'd say it's capability to be fair. It's easier for them to book pre-arranged slots such as the Kensington Gardens thing at lunchtime or the protest this evening.
London Lite
Founding member
I think we have to accept that London Live has no capability or interest in covering breaking news.
I'd say it's capability to be fair. It's easier for them to book pre-arranged slots such as the Kensington Gardens thing at lunchtime or the protest this evening.
NG
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
Fair point. In that case they need to rethink how it's presented. Back in August last year they admitted that weather and travel needed improving - I'm not seeing any improvement - are you?
I'd have to watch it to do that. I have far better things to do with my life than that...
noggin
Founding member
Depending on who's presenting - the whole show can be clunky and jarring!
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
It would be better to hive the travel off to a 3rd party - with sponsorship so it pays for itself.
But at the audience levels London Live are currently achieving, do you think sponsorship WOULD pay for it? I suspect the audiences aren't there yet...
Fair point. In that case they need to rethink how it's presented. Back in August last year they admitted that weather and travel needed improving - I'm not seeing any improvement - are you?
I'd have to watch it to do that. I have far better things to do with my life than that...
SD
The peculiarities of London Live's schedule never ceases to amaze.
The 5 and 5.30 AM editions of London Live Review (a compilation of the previous day's news output) made it into the Top 10 w/e 7 June with 26,000 viewers.
I don't think the 5.30PM edition of London Live news have ever managed that.
The 5 and 5.30 AM editions of London Live Review (a compilation of the previous day's news output) made it into the Top 10 w/e 7 June with 26,000 viewers.
I don't think the 5.30PM edition of London Live news have ever managed that.
TV
A solid indicator that rather than moving the breakfast show later it should have gone earlier as there is an audience for it but they would sacrificed an audience to save money on taxi fares. They barely have the resource to do general news let alone breaking.
The peculiarities of London Live's schedule never ceases to amaze.
The 5 and 5.30 AM editions of London Live Review (a compilation of the previous day's news output) made it into the Top 10 w/e 7 June with 26,000 viewers.
I don't think the 5.30PM edition of London Live news have ever managed that.
The 5 and 5.30 AM editions of London Live Review (a compilation of the previous day's news output) made it into the Top 10 w/e 7 June with 26,000 viewers.
I don't think the 5.30PM edition of London Live news have ever managed that.
A solid indicator that rather than moving the breakfast show later it should have gone earlier as there is an audience for it but they would sacrificed an audience to save money on taxi fares. They barely have the resource to do general news let alone breaking.