Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
There is quite a convincing argument that London is not like the rest of the UK and should not be seen as a reliable testbed for local TV. LondonLive is sensibly changing to target the readers of sister company the Evening Standard rather than the Janet Street-Porter type approach it initially went for. This may make well increase its success, it certainly should help reduce costs. It remains to be seen how well it does but we can't extrapolate the performance of one operator in an unrepresentative city to say that Local TV does not work.
Whilst there is no evidence at this early stage that the project is dead in the water, I am inclined to agree with you that it is a bit of a pet project. I would have preferred to have seen the money spent on retaining BBC3 on cable, terrestial and satellite platforms.
|
My reasoning for viewing London as a testbed for the other local TV stations was that it has a high density of population and would be attractive to advertisers.
Why do you think that London cannot be compared to the rest of the UK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky Trevor
|
Local TV catch up!!! I never even thought about that, this puts many of the smaller cable channels to shame for not having a catch up service at all.
Also, local TV stations are restricted to their target areas on both cable and satellite. The reason being given is that this is because of rights issues. Making programmes available via VOD makes a mockery of this (perhaps they only show content they have created themselves).