I would be interested to hear your views good and bad. Most TV companies have live or recorded continuity because most other TV companies have live or recorded continuity. Few people in positions of 'power' can truly identify its purpose or how effective or ineffective it is.
Imformation from a run of the mill continuity announcement is like any piece of imformation you receive from a chartered accountant.
Completely accurate and totally useless.
Time to blow my own trumpet. Letters and phone calls have been received by TV companies for whom I have done continuity saying that people tuned in earlier and stayed tuned in later in order to hear what I said. Is that good or bad? Commercially, would it makes sense for TV companies to seek out such announcers as viewers will stay for the commercial break if they are staying for the continuity bit? Do the end credits of ITV1 programmes seem cluttered with a promotion with a pre-recorded voice over followed by a Carlton(London) announcer or LWT announcer followed by your regional announcer?
Over to you. Do you want the bland leading the bland who ineffectively try to maximise opportunities to cross-sell or is it better to feel that someone is watching with you who may have some ideas on other things you may like to watch and why you should watch them.
While I'm here, a happy and prosperous 2002 to you all.
I think continuity announcements are out-dated - nowhere else in the world is this done. Instead of a still with a snobby voice telling us what is coming next why not have a short promotion which I feel is loads more effective and would make the viewer tune in after the break - also why does a programme need an introduction - surely the point of the theme tune and titles does that job - perhaps a short ident before a programme but no stupid voice.
Disagree Lester. If continuity is done well, it should be a 'teaser' to the show ahead.
The bridge between programming should at least ensure that the viewer is briefed on what is next, and at best, should convience them not to channel-hop.
I'm not keen on the ruining of theme tunes by talking over them, but sadly that is the way broadcasting is going.
If continuity is a British habit, then I say its a custom worth keeping.
That is exactly what I am saying and there are better ways of promoting programming that is to come than a still and a voice saing stay tuned coronation street is next - why not show a short clip which would tempt the viewer to stay with the channel.
There should still be programme menus with voice-overs but why we need an introduction to every single programme is beyond me - now on carlton coronation street - surely if the broadcasters just cut into the programme we know what we are about to see just by hearing thr theme music.
In other countries around the world the idents are short clips played before the programmes or a part of the menus which are in my opinion more effective.
Christmas idents finish tomorrow by the way! The BBC have introduced this new trend to run the xmas idents for one week, so I'm guessing it'll finish tomorrow (Friday).
Well if some thought is put into the announcement there is no reason why they should disappear!
There is one announcer on HTV (wales and west) who is very whitty and worth listening to rather than the pompous and squeaky 'london' announcers.
Either all announcements should be done from london or all should be done in the respective reigions! - it sounds awful to the viewer to hear chris tarrant promoting the next programme on millionaire, then a london announcer saying a few words followed by the local announcer!
The announcer should be there to give 'continuity' in BOTH senses of the word!
Im glad i dont live a GMG region where generic announcers are heard all the time!
In a strange way, the Channel 5 announcers have the right idea. At least they try to put some interest and humour in the announcements. They just need to sort out their ident now! (I liked the original C5 idents, but hate every one they've done since then.)
Announcers are pretty useless if they just tell you what is about to come up, or introduce the programme.
A key method, which seems to have been lost in modern broadcasting, is exactly as you mention Banksey -- to keep the viewer watching just to see what he'll say next.
A case in point is Julian Simmons on UTV -- his links into Coronation Street are a local legend in Northern Ireland. I've heard estimates that UTV might even achieve 2-3% higher audience figures for the programme precisely because of the announcer before the programme.
If done well, and a key element is humour in all this (and it is certainly *not* true to say that the UK is unique in having announcers), announcements can and do make a difference to the bottom line. 2-3% is a lot of audience and the larger companies could learn a lot from the approach.
It's exactly the same principle as newsreading. If there were two programmes, competing head-to-head, with the same news reports but one had a known face introducing the reports (which is all, in effect, that a newsreader does if you think about it), and the other with a voice-overed newsreader, which would you watch?
There really is very little difference.
But if it's done badly, announcements can equally be a total turn-off!!! When I saw Tyne Tees at work in the late 80's they said that their announcers were very carefully chosen, not for their vocal capabilities (an announcer could have quite a poor voice for the job and they wouldn't mind) but for their character on-screen, and they used to run regular research in-house to see how their announcements were being received by the person on the street. Such research costs very little, but it can make a genuine difference to how your station is perceived and if done properly, can have far more effect than a multi-million pound branding campaign!
BB
BringBackThames
There is an art to continuity. In my view if we are going to have announcers why not make them IVC aswell? Then instead of just recognising voices we can recognise our announcers and each would be encouraged to develop a unique style.
I recognise my local announcers but they don't have as much character when there was IVC. In the days of Thames we had great announcers like Tom Edwards who were as much a part of Thames as the skyline.
I only have one IVC one tape it's from August 1988 with announcer Evadne Fisher saying:
'Hello and welcome to Tuesday's nightime on Thames. We've got a very full and varied six and a half hours of entertainment ahead, so I hope we'll have your company for at least part of the time. And we start without further ado with Robert Mitcham in the Hurst and Davis Affair.'
Also at the time Thames had that nice 3D model of the London skyline with a river as its set and the set was important as it contributed to the total station brand.
Bring back in vision continuity!
MB
Mark B
I must admit, apart from C5's mostly appalling output, their continuity reminds me of late 80's/early 90's Central - very upbeat, joky, proud of the station; etc.
Surely company executives the world over agree that 'word of mouth' is an important thing; what they call 'networking' or 'on the grape vine'.
Company directors would hate having to stop their corridor/bogroom chats and do everything via e-mail.
The fact is, having a station 'compere' adds the same excitement that, if you watch a particular channel, you are joining in a certain 'experience'. Just like a DJ will say different things between records they play night-in and night-out, a continuity announcer is a bit like a VJ (Video Jockey) - a term actually used by MTV. And to great effect.
