|
Post by PeterL on Mar 4, 2009 9:54:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Mar 5, 2009 9:21:06 GMT
ITV AXES TOP PROGRAMMESMy Suggestions Close the threes digital stations Stop 24 hour broadcasting shut down at midnight Drastically cut the pay of ot ITVexcutives, presenters and actors
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 5, 2009 16:58:16 GMT
My Suggestions Close the threes digital stations Stop 24 hour broadcasting shut down at midnight Drastically cut the pay of ot ITVexcutives, presenters and actors Peter, How will those measures help exactly? How is getting rid of talented people 'improve' the Station? Surely the Station needs the best 'executives' and actors they can get? If your company is losing money you need BETTER people running it, not worse! If they sack the best actors they will make WORSE programmes! They need to make BETTER programmes to retain market share. Why would anyone close down the revenue streams? Isn't that a bit silly? Why do they need to increase the costs of running the Station by shutting down and rebooting the transmiltters? Surely they should be saving money?
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Mar 5, 2009 18:42:49 GMT
Bring back the test card I say. It works for nothing.
;D
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 5, 2009 22:12:16 GMT
But adverts pay for ITV. The test card does not bring in money.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Mar 6, 2009 18:23:39 GMT
But adverts pay for ITV. The test card does not bring in money. That was meant to be a joke (hence the grinning smilie)!
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Mar 6, 2009 19:32:52 GMT
Peter, How will those measures help exactly? How is getting rid of talented people 'improve' the Station? Surely the Station needs the best 'executives' and actors they can get? If your company is losing money you need BETTER people running it, not worse! If they sack the best actors they will make WORSE programmes! They need to make BETTER programmes to retain market share But they are not retaining the market share if they were ITV would not be in the position it finds it’s self in As for your remark “.Surely the Station needs the best 'executives' and actors they can get? “ Yes they do but the question then is why are they not attracting the viewers and advertisers ? Could it be that the the quality of the programmes they make and appear in is not very good ? If they were it could be argued that are worth their very high salaries If anyone can produce actual figures [not just their opinion ] to prove that ITV digital stations are earning money which would be lost if they closed then I will reconsider my opinion The cost of rebooting a transmitter would not be anywhere near the cost of keeping a loss making station on the air
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 6, 2009 19:58:05 GMT
If they were it could be argued that are worth their very high salaries If they are not good enough then you have to get better people, but why would better people work for less money? If anyone can produce actual figures [not just their opinion ] to prove that ITV digital stations are earning money which would be lost if they closed then I will reconsider my opinion If they were losing too much money they have been closed down long before now. The cost of rebooting a transmitter would not be anywhere near the cost of keeping a loss making station on the air Really? How so? What are the costs? Surely ITV would have noticed this extra costs? Can you think of a reason why you can spot these improvement but people who have been in the industry cannot?
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Mar 7, 2009 20:03:16 GMT
If they are not good enough then you have to get better people, but why would better people work for less money? No matter how good theses people are [and in my opinion they are not very good . Otherwise why does ITV find it’s self in this position] they are certainly not worth the very large suns they are paid Many organizations who are losing money struggle on The cost of rebooting a transmitter would not be anywhere near the cost of keeping a loss making station on the air I do not know what the cost of rebooting the transmitter would be compared with keeping the station running But I would be very surprised if it was more Perhaps you can produce some figures to prove me wrong No but the people in the industry have not been very good spotting it
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 8, 2009 1:56:29 GMT
No matter how good theses people are [and in my opinion they are not very good . Otherwise why does ITV find it’s self in this position] they are certainly not worth the very large suns they are paid ITV's problem is that advertising revenues are down thanks to companies cutting back on adverts. If they need BETTER staff they are going to have to pay better wages.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff Moto on Mar 8, 2009 12:16:40 GMT
Companies would be more likely to advertise on ITV if it was more competitive. BBC did well to resuscitate Doctor Who. It is as popular now as it was before, though partially for a different audience. Rome was also well received
Neither BBC or ITV can survive on endless repeats or utter cack. When in the UK I liked the Dispatches documentaries, though they may have been on CH4 I can't remember (has been 2 years since the move). ITV needs some innovation, it cannot survive on the lacklustre interest in Coronation Street or Inspector Morse repeats (most diehard fans of IM would have bought the DVD boxed set anyway)
They need new and interesting programmes - this will lead to more sponsors, I think that is all that would save them from extinction
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 8, 2009 13:16:50 GMT
Companies would be more likely to advertise on ITV if it was more competitive. BBC did well to resuscitate Doctor Who. It is as popular now as it was before, though partially for a different audience. Rome was also well received The audience is changing though, moto. At one time there was three or four channels and people watched TV for hours at a time. Inspector Morse was on for two hours as was Sherlock Holmes etc. That takes a huge budget to do that now a days. People don't watch that type of thing in the sort of numbers that ITV need to make that worthwhile. You could watch a CSI, Numbers or something like that in half the time and do something like the internet. Things like Big Brother and sport get big audenices. The BBC are stuck between two stools. They have to retain marketshare with things like game shows, but they have to make good programmes too. I can remember when the anti BBC people were trying to destroy it. Those prople look pretty foolish now though.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Mar 9, 2009 9:01:51 GMT
ITV's problem is that advertising revenues are down thanks to companies cutting back on adverts. If they need BETTER staff they are going to have to pay better wages. Why are companies cutting back on adverts ? I would suggest one of the main reason is the very high costs of advertising on ITV Reduce those costs and you make TV advertising more attractive But so long as ITV continues to pay high salaries they will have to charge high fees to advertisers
|
|
|
Post by random voice on Mar 9, 2009 11:22:17 GMT
[ Why are companies cutting back on adverts ? I would suggest one of the main reason is the very high costs of advertising on ITV Reduce those costs and you make TV advertising more attractive But so long as ITV continues to pay high salaries they will have to charge high fees to advertisers It costs over half a million pounds to make a decent TV drama. That is the biggest cost. Companies are cutting back on advertising because they are losing money in a World Wide ressision. They are also spending money targetted advertising on internet sites that specialise in those products, that is something ITV cannot do. At this time ITV need the best people running a company not the fifth or sixth best
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 19, 2009 13:26:05 GMT
Ah! Here's one close to my heart! It was a big mistake letting ITV merge the individual companies together. As it was you had a wide range of producers with access to an even more diverse number of writers. You had News people in touch with the communities and at the heart of that is being able to talk to the "consumer" to know what they want. Real talent was allowed to shine through the competition between the companies, and the viewing public had a fondness for their own local television station.
Ofcom has shown similar tunnel vision in letting the GWR radio group and Capital - a: take over the number of stations that they did - and b: let the two companies merge. They killed off local radio! and they were completely out of touch with the listening audience! In the mid 90's - as they took over each station they turned it from an Independent alternative to the BBC catering for all the community into Teenybop stations where "Serving the community" meant sticking a couple of 4x4's in the shopping precinct handing out stickers.
Michael Grade has lost the plot. All those years mixing with his Uncles and none of their talent has rubbed off. The Grade Brothers were interested in talent - they sought out talent to put on their television programmes - to attract viewers - and attracting viewers attracted advertisers! By putting any old cr+p on the telly is not going to attract viewers or advertisers.
Going back ot Ofcom though - they're in love with the big corporates - that's how the TV and the radio have got away with blue murder - Ofcom will bend over backwards to help! How else is it that Murdoch has been able to ride roughshod over any rules and regulations to create his own monopoly on Sport and films! Sure - people might say the BBC once had a monopoly on Sport - but that's cos there were only 3 or 4 channels!
I say scrap Ofcom - make it more answerable to the public, put the ITV companies back as locals again, scrap ITV4 at least - which only shows BBC repeats! Ditto radio, and come down hard on Murdoch and slash the number of channels he can have (most of them showing BBC repeats anyway) and put more sporting events into the bag that has to be shown to everyone.
|
|