BBC Pres on Points Of View

I am unaware of the reason. Since I am not using the term in a derogratory fashion I see no reason why I should censor a word.



You are unreal. I have no reason to be a mouthpiece, let alone a Red Bee mouthpiece. For someone who moans so much about having his views mocked, why should my views - perfectly well-founded, supported and logical views, unlike certain members - be dismissed by yourself as being a "mouthpiece"? Unless you can't actually construct an argument, at least come back with a slightly stronger response than your weak, watered down, rather lame and wet attempt so far.



Well that's funny, since that's probably one of the aims they have! I suppose that hasn't crossed your mind though.

The problem with you Simon is that you cannot qualify your points and I have little to no time for people who make such effort in putting down other people's opinions in favour of their own bizarre views, when they show no effort in supporting their comments.

You have evidently not understood a key point of my previous post. Or, if you did, you have chosen to ignore it since you can't be bothered to tackle it. You cannot base your view that ECPs "CLEARLY do not work" on TV Forum and the BBC messageboards. I have already explained why and won't do so again.

Find some other evidence.

Sorry Marky, What utter rubbish, I am sure the Red Bee Staff and CA's don't give a fig, they are purely following directives, and they get paid for doing so. It's their job and as Gavin says there are parts of all our jobs we don't like but put up with it.

I am sure most CA's would rather talk more than less on air - beats posting on here and eating tuna sarnies

Just because a few anoraks dislike them doesn't mean ECP's are no effective - they are. It's been said before and said again most viewers don't give a stuff.

Whose households after being told whats on next via an ECP or CA's voice finds someone asking 'What's on Next?'.

Quite a lot normally, because I always change channels when an ECP pops up, unless the music in the background's really good in which case I have to strain to hear it.

Nobody is claiming that CAs ever, or ever should, just take matters into their own hands on a whim. I didn't claim that and neither has anybody else who is against the overcompressed and limited annos and ECP audio tracks.

What IS being suggested is that, with the CAs being professional communicators, they might just have some interest taken in their views by network directors and other managers as to what they think will work well on air and what won't. Do you seriously expect me to believe that anybody who makes any suggestion to anybody in any workplace should immediately be sacked on the spot? Well, forgive me, but you must have VERY low expectations of your career path (and a career that gives you national exposure isn't necessarily a *good* career simply by that definition) or you have never heard of the concept of "negotiation". I have negotiated with my managers many times and sometimes their idea has been the winning one and sometimes mine, or my colleagues' ones, have. Give and take. Again, a simple concept to those of us who don't *actually* work in the media but that are interested in it, but for one moment wouldn't want to work alongside people who will stab you in the back for so much as breathing at the wrong time.

Besides, this whole topic isn't on the subject of marketing - i.e. what should and shouldn't be promoted, or whether something should or should not be said, or if anything should be said at all. The topic, I believe, was supposed to be about the *technicalities* of it - the method of delivery, in terms of overboard sound intensity.

Announcements made over end credits have, as has been mentioned many times, been going on since the year dot. However, these announcements did NOT jar audio wise until fairly recently. That is the point.

I disagree. Its quite plain in this thread that some outspoken opponents of ECPs are in fact suggesting that either Announcers are complicit in a scheme to wreck televisual enjoyment, or that they are somehow spineless for not standing up to their boss' requirements.

I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion, but that's not the way it reads from where I am sitting.

I remember reading a very good saying once: "Nobody wants a boss. Everybody needs a leader." This is something I've kept in mind whenever expressing 'requirements' to underlings (and they are free to suggest improvements or alternatives, for throwing into the melting pot) and it seems, a similar mindset is employed by the people I answer *to*.

Methinks a very poor working relationship being experienced by a select small number of people is leading them to bottle up all of their resentment and bitterness that they feel towards their bosses and just look for the nearest convenient outlet - their nearest internet message board - and then verbally abuse anyone who challenges them. That is unfair and the total antithesis to the so-called 'professionalism' of which the protagonists to which I allude speak at great length.

Mark yet again utter rubbish but hey it made me laugh - you should be on the telly

I'm not clear to whom that is directed, Mark, could you dumb it down a shade for me?

I can't imagine you are suggesting that Dan or I or others are verbally abusing anyone in this discourse?

They use PPM meters, in case anyone's still interested.

They are being noticed yes, but for the right reasons? Open to question. Broadcasters have always seemed to collude with the PR men to skew any audience research towards their way of thinking, enabling them to carry on imposing their will and hiding behind the claim "the public has spoken".

Dismiss the community of the POV message board as "anoraks" if you will, but far fewer visitors to that board share our interest in Pres yet the complaints about ECPs and credit-squeezing far outnumber those posted here.

So to answer the question do ECPs work? The broadcasters say yes, but the evidence is not really clear. They are being noticed, that's for sure, but their detractors might be grabbing for the remote as soon as they see one and if they don't, are unlikely to remember what the ECP was promoting once it leaves the screen. A but like commercial breaks - we sit through them, but when the programme starts/resumes we don't give them a second thought. The marketing message is lost, so it's all been for nothing.

For something that is supposed to be an effective marketing tool it sure is annoying a lot of viewers. And if you cast your minds back, we went from not having ever seen an ECP at the start of 2000 to all terrestrial broadcasters having adopted them by the end of 2001. The must-have weapon in the war against channel-changing, or a case of "me too!"?


Well I hope the above demonstrates that I can substantiate my claims, but I doubt it'll be good enough for you. If I may further astound you with my audacity, YOU have been unable to backup your assertions that ECPs are an effective way of marketing other than to say they are "evidently" so.

There's the rub. Even if the evidence was crystal clear Simon you would suggest (as you did in your opening gambit) that there is collusion and deception at work.

It seems that you are going to be unpersuaded no matter who presents the case.

However, you seem to have no difficulty with the concept that they are "noticed".

In advertising land, awareness is EVERYTHING. It is the golden chalice. Sure not everyone wants to tune into the promoted programme, but if they are made aware of its existence and placement then it stands a better chance than one which has not been pointed to.

It's a basic numbers game. Not complicted, not deceitful.

I understand why you don't want ECPs there, but can't you meet me halfway and admit you understand why they are ?