The Newsroom

London Live

announce News presenters (December 2013)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
bilky asko
dvboy posted:
Do any normal viewers really like teleshopping (I don't count TV Forumers with their fascination for bid tv normal viewers)


A recent interview with Andy Hodgson revealed that they could achieve 2 million viewers in their peak when they signed up to BARB, with high average viewing times.

dvboy posted:
And teleshopping during your prime/peak time schedule wouldnt work, as it will only serve to degrade the "image" of the station. So i wouldnt think that teleshopping would be a good idea at all.


What I meant was that if you specify non-local programming in certain slots, that's what you're going to end up with, particularly in daytime and overnight.

Do any normal viewers really like teleshopping (I don't count TV Forumers with their fascination for bid tv normal viewers)


I don't think anybody actually likes teleshopping of any kind. At best it provokes a kind of curiosity that's normally only done by drivers rubbernecking a car crash. At worst, it's just painful.


I reckon you could replace teleshopping with community radio or Source FM and you'd be more accurate.
BR
Brekkie
mark posted:
0530: Morning commuter information
Real-time travel and weather graphics, plus music to get you moving.
0900-1200: Non-local programming
1200: Local news
(live)
1230: Local lifestyle slot (repeated from previous evening)
1300-1700: Non-local programming
1700: Local news (live)
With travel ticker for the rush hour
1800: Nightly entertainment programme (live)
What’s happening tonight, with live performances
1830: Local culture slot (pre-recorded)
Different theme each weeknight – eg theatre, music, comedy
1900: Local news (live)
1930: Local lifestyle slot (pre-recorded)
Different theme each weeknight – eg food, shopping, sports
2000-2200: Non-local programming
2200: Local news (can be a repeat of the 7pm bulletin but must be updated with breaking news)
2230: Local discussion or analysis (pre-recorded)
Different themes including politics, transport, health
2300-0530: Non-local programming

What's the point of the local channel though if it doesn't run local content in primetime as a genuine alternative to the networks. That's where I think we differ to the US market - there is an audience who is looking for content other than Bake Off and The Voice.

I think the key is acknowledging your viewers will not be watching all day and having points in the schedule where viewers know content is new, and not being restricted from repeating content in a relatively short turnaround. It's far better for these channels to repeat an hour of content just a couple of hours later to try and catch a different audience than to try and have twice the amount of content.

I do think though with news they have to really be smart about it. It doesn't have to be a long form bulletin - something like PM which basically repeats the headlines every 15 minutes and then runs one or two longer for pieces or interviews in between them would work very well and the repetition isn't too much of an issue.
CI
cityprod
dvboy posted:
Do any normal viewers really like teleshopping (I don't count TV Forumers with their fascination for bid tv normal viewers)


A recent interview with Andy Hodgson revealed that they could achieve 2 million viewers in their peak when they signed up to BARB, with high average viewing times.

dvboy posted:

What I meant was that if you specify non-local programming in certain slots, that's what you're going to end up with, particularly in daytime and overnight.

Do any normal viewers really like teleshopping (I don't count TV Forumers with their fascination for bid tv normal viewers)


I don't think anybody actually likes teleshopping of any kind. At best it provokes a kind of curiosity that's normally only done by drivers rubbernecking a car crash. At worst, it's just painful.


I reckon you could replace teleshopping with community radio or Source FM and you'd be more accurate.


Bilky, if you've got nothing other than ad hominem attacks to contribute, then don't say anything.
CI
cityprod
mark posted:
0530: Morning commuter information
Real-time travel and weather graphics, plus music to get you moving.
0900-1200: Non-local programming
1200: Local news
(live)
1230: Local lifestyle slot (repeated from previous evening)
1300-1700: Non-local programming
1700: Local news (live)
With travel ticker for the rush hour
1800: Nightly entertainment programme (live)
What’s happening tonight, with live performances
1830: Local culture slot (pre-recorded)
Different theme each weeknight – eg theatre, music, comedy
1900: Local news (live)
1930: Local lifestyle slot (pre-recorded)
Different theme each weeknight – eg food, shopping, sports
2000-2200: Non-local programming
2200: Local news (can be a repeat of the 7pm bulletin but must be updated with breaking news)
2230: Local discussion or analysis (pre-recorded)
Different themes including politics, transport, health
2300-0530: Non-local programming

What's the point of the local channel though if it doesn't run local content in primetime as a genuine alternative to the networks. That's where I think we differ to the US market - there is an audience who is looking for content other than Bake Off and The Voice.


Is all local content really working now? Not merely for London Live but for any of the local TV channels. The STV channels are only really local for the news bulletins, otherwise they share a schedule.

I'm not sure all local programming is viable or even feasible.
BA
bilky asko
dvboy posted:
Do any normal viewers really like teleshopping (I don't count TV Forumers with their fascination for bid tv normal viewers)


A recent interview with Andy Hodgson revealed that they could achieve 2 million viewers in their peak when they signed up to BARB, with high average viewing times.


I don't think anybody actually likes teleshopping of any kind. At best it provokes a kind of curiosity that's normally only done by drivers rubbernecking a car crash. At worst, it's just painful.


I reckon you could replace teleshopping with community radio or Source FM and you'd be more accurate.


Bilky, if you've got nothing other than ad hominem attacks to contribute, then don't say anything.


Well I proved your point wrong. There clearly are normal people who do enjoy (good) teleshopping. I was simply positing that I would say that community radio is probably less popular.
DO
dosxuk
For some reason that I've never cottoned onto, our TV industry in the UK has developed a chronic aversion to local programming. The industry seems to think that fancier is better, and that content is less important than making it look comparable to something that the big US networks might produce and frankly I think such obsession with style over substance is the biggest problem in the broadcast media today.


I don't really understand your argument here. You seem to be saying that everyone in TV tries to make the fanciest programme possible, without worrying about the content. However, I'm yet to see a single local TV programme that could be described as fancy. Some of them are barely watchable. It can't be an issue of style over substance, when many of the programmes have no neither.

If the local TV stations were all struggling because they bought fancy kit, and have all singing all dancing studios with american style fancy graphics, but no budget left to get competent reporters to go out and find out what's going on, you might have had a point. But when we have stations using a large printout gaffer taped to a wall to use as a background for their single (fixed) camera studio, we can't really complain they've gone for frivolities rather than content.

The entire concept is unwanted, the market to fund it isn't there, and the quality isn't there to attract investment and involvement. If the current central funding was to dry up, I'd give these channels a matter of days before they close.
Brekkie, bilky asko and London Lite gave kudos
TV
TVGBs
I think the key is acknowledging your viewers will not be watching all day and having points in the schedule where viewers know content is new, and not being restricted from repeating content in a relatively short turnaround. It's far better for these channels to repeat an hour of content just a couple of hours later to try and catch a different audience than to try and have twice the amount of content.

I do think though with news they have to really be smart about it. It doesn't have to be a long form bulletin - something like PM which basically repeats the headlines every 15 minutes and then runs one or two longer for pieces or interviews in between them would work very well and the repetition isn't too much of an issue.


With the average viewer watching for just one minute according to BARB they should embrace that with less-but-often and targeted pods of content would easily be the best option such as 90 second/2 minute bulletins at the top and/or bottom of each hour and a few 30 minute blocks at key times.
MO
Mouseboy33
The entire concept is unwanted, the market to fund it isn't there, and the quality isn't there to attract investment and involvement. If the current central funding was to dry up, I'd give these channels a matter of days before they close.


You are right, and thats because the entire launch strategy and/or programming goals wasnt clear and/or feasible from the start. 100% local is not a good strategy and the results currently on-air make that glaringly apparent.

It wont be successful unless all the stations sit down with OFCOM and come-up with a better strategy to bring in viewers and drop the fantasy of 100% local, they might be on to something. Until then, IMO some of the stations will continue to flounder. IMO the rules of for these commercial stations need to be slightly differently than the networks. As far as sponsorship of segments and/or programmes (and of course it needs to be regulated not a wild-west-free-for-all). But its clearly obvious these stations cant survive without a re-think on how they can increase their funding and frankly these glacial changes for London Live arent going to mean much. Local tv on this level is "new" to the UK. So it needs to adapt to make it successful to a UK model, the currently it aint working.

IMO they were set up to fail, using this current model.
No one is saying they should be US clones, but its clear this current 100%local model isnt working.
DO
dosxuk
No one is saying they should be US clones, but its clear this current 100%local model isnt working.


But they aren't 100% local. Not only are they free to show non-local content outside of the agreed hours, they're also supposed to get income from the additional channels on the local mux, which are 100% not local. The plan has never been to force these channels to only show local

But, and this kind of agrees with what you're saying, the plan is/was to allow the channels to use their peak time output and high profile EPG slots to give local producers and local people more exposure on proper tv. The people behind the idea lived in a rosy-world where people would make amazing content and give it away for free, and there would be a million and one local events desperate for some local exposure, which could all be underpinned by a high quality local news outfit that can provide complete stories to the BBC (and gain income from those). Many of the same people also happened to have fingers in local media pies, and could see this being a new "licence to print money" like the original ITV franchises, especially once you throw in a few million from the licence fees and required investment from the BBC. Everybody would provide the content for free, and there would be loads of income, contracted and from advertisers, so it's a gold mine waiting to be tapped. It seems to have come as a shock to all of these that you can't make quality television on the same budget as a local newspaper.

So basically, we have a load of people who came up with this amazing idea, none of which are familiar with the concept of admitting they got it wrong, and a group who've invested a load of money with the expectation of getting many riches in return. The only thing this TV story has written all over it is car-crash.


[To clarify, as I've said before, I don't agree with this model of local TV. I have no problems with them being run as commercial operations, but this silly publicly funded, ill thought out idea is just a waste of time, money and effort]
WW
WW Update
The people behind the idea lived in a rosy-world where people would make amazing content and give it away for free, and there would be a million and one local events desperate for some local exposure,


Someone (I forgot who) once said that the problem with low-budget community TV projects is that the types of programs ordinary people want to make bear no resemblance to the types of programs they want to watch.
Mouseboy33, SuperDave and Jon gave kudos
GE
thegeek Founding member
You are right, and thats because the entire launch strategy and/or programming goals wasnt clear and/or feasible from the start. 100% local is not a good strategy and the results currently on-air make that glaringly apparent.

I thought the strategy was "Jeremy Hunt thinks this is a good idea", and unlike his more recent ideas, there weren't thousands of people in opposition to it.
CI
cityprod

A recent interview with Andy Hodgson revealed that they could achieve 2 million viewers in their peak when they signed up to BARB, with high average viewing times.


I reckon you could replace teleshopping with community radio or Source FM and you'd be more accurate.


Bilky, if you've got nothing other than ad hominem attacks to contribute, then don't say anything.


Well I proved your point wrong. There clearly are normal people who do enjoy (good) teleshopping. I was simply positing that I would say that community radio is probably less popular.


I actually seriously doubt that. The latest RAJARs indicate that almost 4 million people listen to stations not registered with BARB, and the majority of that is listening to community radio stations, after all, online only accounts for 7% of total listening time, and very few if any local commercial radio stations are not on RAJAR, so other than some RTE listening in Northern Ireland, you could reasonably conclude that most of those "other radio" listeners are listening to community radio.

And whilst at one time, a very select number of teleshopping stations may have reached 2 million people a week, I think it's very safe to say, they don't anymore. So the evidence would suggest you are wrong by a large margin.

But thanks for playing and you don't go away empty handed, you take the latest edition of the "How To Fail At Online Trolling" book, and our thanks for playing the game.

Newer posts