NL
Yes, indeed..totally agree.
An issue with discussion with this and similar forums in the UK is the misunderstanding of the word "local". In the main US media markets, local TV is essentially what we would call regional TV. Often our sub-regions are smaller than US markets quite a way down the ranking.
Our "local TV" experiment wouldn't equate to local US or regional Australian TV, but to small often city-subsidised initiatives.
Having said that, even if our local stations were better scaled (eg Cambridge from Sandy Heath mux2, Norwich from Tacky, something from Colchester from Sudbury), it still wouldn't have worked.
The US network/affiliate model works because networks pay the stations a subsidy (network compensation) out of national /regional spot sales, and that the reach of most stations is (a) very large (b) has a monopoly in that area on the network, often with very little overlap with other media markets (c) carriage rights on cable TV.
The UK equivalent would have been sub-regional stations opting-out of C5, getting a subsidy from C5 in the process. C5 would have needed to be much more highly scaled to support this.
That is a good point. To my mind "local news" means Calendar whereas that would be better classified as "regional news". My question is where would "locality" stop. For example you mentioned Cambridge.
Where would a "better scaled" Cambidge TV stop. The city the suburbs or the county itself.
The Sandy Heath transmission area, all of it, including Luton, Northampton, Peterborough, MK, Bedford etc... etc...
That's how both BBC and ITV sub-regions work, and is probably fairly logical, given that all these places are close together. Peterborough is the most far-flung but is in the county. MK looks toward Oxford and Birmingham, and everything looks toward London.
Its exactly the same with Emley Moor but i can't see any city looking to each other.
Yes, indeed..totally agree.
An issue with discussion with this and similar forums in the UK is the misunderstanding of the word "local". In the main US media markets, local TV is essentially what we would call regional TV. Often our sub-regions are smaller than US markets quite a way down the ranking.
Our "local TV" experiment wouldn't equate to local US or regional Australian TV, but to small often city-subsidised initiatives.
Having said that, even if our local stations were better scaled (eg Cambridge from Sandy Heath mux2, Norwich from Tacky, something from Colchester from Sudbury), it still wouldn't have worked.
The US network/affiliate model works because networks pay the stations a subsidy (network compensation) out of national /regional spot sales, and that the reach of most stations is (a) very large (b) has a monopoly in that area on the network, often with very little overlap with other media markets (c) carriage rights on cable TV.
The UK equivalent would have been sub-regional stations opting-out of C5, getting a subsidy from C5 in the process. C5 would have needed to be much more highly scaled to support this.
That is a good point. To my mind "local news" means Calendar whereas that would be better classified as "regional news". My question is where would "locality" stop. For example you mentioned Cambridge.
Where would a "better scaled" Cambidge TV stop. The city the suburbs or the county itself.
The Sandy Heath transmission area, all of it, including Luton, Northampton, Peterborough, MK, Bedford etc... etc...
That's how both BBC and ITV sub-regions work, and is probably fairly logical, given that all these places are close together. Peterborough is the most far-flung but is in the county. MK looks toward Oxford and Birmingham, and everything looks toward London.
Its exactly the same with Emley Moor but i can't see any city looking to each other.