STVNewsAtSix's posts, page 5

Faye was actually on Sunday's lunchtime update and I thought she was really rather good. Wasted on the Morning News.

The history of overnight presenters being used on daytime bulletins is non existant, even in the days of Sharon Grey and Owen Thomas, It never happens, its as if those presenters work for a different company rather than ITV News.

You could say that ITV went partly down a road of having a logo when they had their '4 blocks' device

But in today's times when 'the brand' is important, did people know it was ITV1 if only the 4 blocks were on screen, if that branding was still in use now, would they now know it was ITV1?

Excellent post, cwathen.



Brands used to give the impression of being reliable and trustworthy, and it worked.

Now I'd say modern branding that changes regularly just makes things look disposable, temporary and poor quality as well as dull and samey, instead. It's a great shame.

Sangheeta Kandola? (Just a guess because she was on London Tonight)

Alastair on today - strange !! - He seems to be on near enough every day now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HErYzxaDjMU

Some clips from the programme, I found it much more watchable with these two, than with Mary or Katie or whoever.

I'm not sneering at all.

It's quite simple. STV is keen to convince politicians that it deserves to survive, that it isn't simply ITV in Scotland. They've been actively lobbying MPs and MSPs for some time. Showing programmes like this in peak time all adds to the argument in their favour.

But the fact that they screened this in place of The Bill - not at some weak point in the network schedule or at, say, 1035 - only adds to the circumstantial evidence that STV is dropping network output in order to cut costs or because of the row with ITVplc over the cost of the network schedule.

Even in the days of regulation by the IBA, I can't think of times when STV would have shown a programme like this in peak in place of a network programme which would have gained them a significantly higher audience. Though of course there was plenty of serious output in the network schedule then - and plenty of times when STV showed serious output of its own.

I wasn't born yesterday and know how commerical broadcasters (even when they sincerely honour their PSB obligations) usually behave. What STV did last night was very surprising and of no obvious immediate commercial benefit to them - but could win them the respect of serious newspapers and politicians. Like it or not, as a broadcaster it exists for its shareholders nowadays, not a public interest regulator, so you have to speculate as to their motives. The personal benevolance or interest in a subject of Alan Clements or Rob Woodward is unlikely to be the explanation in itself!!

You mentioned once that you know John Frame. Ask him about how STV management reacted in the 70s when John did too good a job producing Cavalcade and gained too large an audience!! Changed days from then!!

The Scots Who Fought Franco may well have been an excellent documentary on a worthwhile subject last night - but in ratings terms, you'll not be surprised to learn, it got a far smaller audience than The Bill might have achieved.

An audience share of barely 6%... fewer viewers than BBC2 and C4.

Of course, a programme like that was never going to get big ratings and that isn't how its merits as a piece of television should be judged.

But for a commercial broadcaster to replace The Bill with a programme which, inevitably, got such a small audience can only be seen as either: a, commercial suicide; or, b, a move to get brownie points from politicians.

some one has postage this in the stv forums,
"Apparently The Bill is struggling for ratings in its new slot while STV is "delighted" with the viewing figures for its Thursday night offerings. Maybe they have got the right idea after all"