DT
But most viewers don't want something a little different at 1100 - they want rolling news which is the point of a rolling news channel. If the BBC want a human interest programme they should put it on BBC One or Two but not the News Channel. Even though why they want one is beyond me given that ITV do it so much better. Rolling News is highly competitive particularly the 0900-1100 slot as that is when office workers arrive, if they switch to Sky at 0900 why would they switch back later. Office workers often want headlines or business markets not 20 minute features on something better placed in a broadsheet feature magazine.
While you say the show has grown, I would totally disagree. It hasn't really changed from launch - it still tries to do everything. Soft interviews, hard interviews, human interest stories, location news, debates, politics, sport, weather, viewer opinions, vox-pop debates, breaking news, Newsbeat reports etc.. Most flagship programmes only do two of those at most, it tries to do them all and thus has no identity as a programme. It's not a go to programme like the Daily Politics, it's not an agenda setter like Marr, it's not a household name like Newsnight. You don't see 'so and so said on the Victoria Derbyshire programme' in news articles, but you do for the BBC's other programmes. The only thing I've seen less of are the 'films' that use Vegas video filters and camera techniques like someone who's just found them - though unfortunately they do still pop up occasionally.
The programme is essentially a camel like 'the Newday' newspaper. It seems like they've got a focus group and asked what do you want in a news programme and they've taken the ideas away and created a programme. The issue there is the part where the public got involved because...
1 - the public don't really know what they want (if someone asked you about an opinion on agriculture policy would you know how to respond?)
2 - the public lie (people don't admit to wanting celebrity gossip in papers, but it sells the red and black-tops)
3 - the public all have different opinions (some people want hard news, some want soft news)
Camels never turn out well because if you try to make everyone happy then you end up pissing everyone off because you've both done what they wanted and what they didn't want. That's why ideological politicians are liked by half the population and hated by the other half and opinion-followers are hated by all.
You said possibly attracting viewers who don't tune into rolling news - that's another issue with the programme - it hasn't attracted viewers. Within weeks of the debut we were hearing about offices switching to Sky and on BBC Two viewers below 50,000. There have been no reports of boosts, just of a lack of viewers. Part of this will be scheduling - its first and last half hours are against ITV human interest programmes that have a brand and are experts at human interest. Scheduling a human interest programme against ITV is like scheduling a satire against Armando Iannucci or a sports programme against the world cup final. You'll always struggle to beat the best at the game especially if yours hasn't really defined what it is or can't. Can you describe the programme in less than five words?
Marr - Interviews with top politicians
Newsnight - Forensic news analysis and interviews
Question Time - Topical political debate with audience
Daily/Sunday Politics - Political news and interviews
News at Ten - The day's top news stories
Derbyshire - ?
Furthermore you were rude about those who questioned the naming of the programme. Would you name a programme after a presenter if in the planning stages you knew that they would regularly not present at least 20% of the programmes? If you are trying to build up a brand around a person you can't plan for them not to be part of the brand 20% of the time. But again it wasn't the only mistake at the drawing board - the fact they ordered about half-a-dozen sets of furniture each suited to a different genre should have been an early indication that the programme wasn't well defined. Sofas, bar stools, lounge chairs, director-style chairs - that's just the seating and half the programme is done standing up. They also have the weird paint stroke motif running across the studio and graphics yet nobody is sure what it represents. It doesn't represent arts and culture as they don't actually cover that often, it isn't an abstract D to go with the V. Also the symbol is colourful, unlike the studio which is a horrible washed out, clinical white.
To be honest if the BBC wants the programme to succeed then it needs to go back to the drawing board and most importantly figure out what the programme is about. They can then fine tune the details and hopefully move it off the news channel. Which is one of the major problems with the programme - the fact it is the child of one of the BBC's many stupid (often focus group led) schemes - this one being the move to put programmes on the news channel rather than news. Nobody was really calling out for it in the first place, some BBC boss thought it would be nice and it went to focus group and we got this. The programme needs some serious rethinking otherwise it'll just remain a money-wasting camel in the BBC News budget, and nobody goes to a zoo to see a camel.
Rant/essay/dissection over.
Seriously, no one, apart from a few weirdos on here care that there is someone else presenting a self titled show. I'm sure the viewers don't take notice of how many times victoria has had off ( and who is presenting the show) err, maybe they might notice the difference between Victoria and norman smith.
In all seriousness though, I think the show has grown well. And does offer something a little different, the human Interest stores alongside harder news, is something they are doing well, and possibly attracting viewers who would not normally watch rolling news. Also, from a pres point of view, it's refreshing to see how versatile the set is for all the shows, much better than TC7's barco walls.
In all seriousness though, I think the show has grown well. And does offer something a little different, the human Interest stores alongside harder news, is something they are doing well, and possibly attracting viewers who would not normally watch rolling news. Also, from a pres point of view, it's refreshing to see how versatile the set is for all the shows, much better than TC7's barco walls.
But most viewers don't want something a little different at 1100 - they want rolling news which is the point of a rolling news channel. If the BBC want a human interest programme they should put it on BBC One or Two but not the News Channel. Even though why they want one is beyond me given that ITV do it so much better. Rolling News is highly competitive particularly the 0900-1100 slot as that is when office workers arrive, if they switch to Sky at 0900 why would they switch back later. Office workers often want headlines or business markets not 20 minute features on something better placed in a broadsheet feature magazine.
While you say the show has grown, I would totally disagree. It hasn't really changed from launch - it still tries to do everything. Soft interviews, hard interviews, human interest stories, location news, debates, politics, sport, weather, viewer opinions, vox-pop debates, breaking news, Newsbeat reports etc.. Most flagship programmes only do two of those at most, it tries to do them all and thus has no identity as a programme. It's not a go to programme like the Daily Politics, it's not an agenda setter like Marr, it's not a household name like Newsnight. You don't see 'so and so said on the Victoria Derbyshire programme' in news articles, but you do for the BBC's other programmes. The only thing I've seen less of are the 'films' that use Vegas video filters and camera techniques like someone who's just found them - though unfortunately they do still pop up occasionally.
The programme is essentially a camel like 'the Newday' newspaper. It seems like they've got a focus group and asked what do you want in a news programme and they've taken the ideas away and created a programme. The issue there is the part where the public got involved because...
1 - the public don't really know what they want (if someone asked you about an opinion on agriculture policy would you know how to respond?)
2 - the public lie (people don't admit to wanting celebrity gossip in papers, but it sells the red and black-tops)
3 - the public all have different opinions (some people want hard news, some want soft news)
Camels never turn out well because if you try to make everyone happy then you end up pissing everyone off because you've both done what they wanted and what they didn't want. That's why ideological politicians are liked by half the population and hated by the other half and opinion-followers are hated by all.
You said possibly attracting viewers who don't tune into rolling news - that's another issue with the programme - it hasn't attracted viewers. Within weeks of the debut we were hearing about offices switching to Sky and on BBC Two viewers below 50,000. There have been no reports of boosts, just of a lack of viewers. Part of this will be scheduling - its first and last half hours are against ITV human interest programmes that have a brand and are experts at human interest. Scheduling a human interest programme against ITV is like scheduling a satire against Armando Iannucci or a sports programme against the world cup final. You'll always struggle to beat the best at the game especially if yours hasn't really defined what it is or can't. Can you describe the programme in less than five words?
Marr - Interviews with top politicians
Newsnight - Forensic news analysis and interviews
Question Time - Topical political debate with audience
Daily/Sunday Politics - Political news and interviews
News at Ten - The day's top news stories
Derbyshire - ?
Furthermore you were rude about those who questioned the naming of the programme. Would you name a programme after a presenter if in the planning stages you knew that they would regularly not present at least 20% of the programmes? If you are trying to build up a brand around a person you can't plan for them not to be part of the brand 20% of the time. But again it wasn't the only mistake at the drawing board - the fact they ordered about half-a-dozen sets of furniture each suited to a different genre should have been an early indication that the programme wasn't well defined. Sofas, bar stools, lounge chairs, director-style chairs - that's just the seating and half the programme is done standing up. They also have the weird paint stroke motif running across the studio and graphics yet nobody is sure what it represents. It doesn't represent arts and culture as they don't actually cover that often, it isn't an abstract D to go with the V. Also the symbol is colourful, unlike the studio which is a horrible washed out, clinical white.
To be honest if the BBC wants the programme to succeed then it needs to go back to the drawing board and most importantly figure out what the programme is about. They can then fine tune the details and hopefully move it off the news channel. Which is one of the major problems with the programme - the fact it is the child of one of the BBC's many stupid (often focus group led) schemes - this one being the move to put programmes on the news channel rather than news. Nobody was really calling out for it in the first place, some BBC boss thought it would be nice and it went to focus group and we got this. The programme needs some serious rethinking otherwise it'll just remain a money-wasting camel in the BBC News budget, and nobody goes to a zoo to see a camel.
Rant/essay/dissection over.