´óÏó´«Ã½ in the news, Wednesday
| 09:36 UK time, Wednesday, 27 September 2006
Daily Mail: "The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has spent £1.2 million of licence payers' cash on 80 seconds of programming." ()
The Telegraph: Reports that pigeons are disrupting the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Labour conference coverage in Manchester. ()
The Guardian: "´óÏó´«Ã½ News is to axe 108 jobs by the end of March next year in a bid to save £11m." ()
Comments
I'd only just got used to the old idents. And I rather like red.
The new idents seem to have a much bluer theme. It seems the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is planning for the future...
So the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is getting rid of 108 jobs to save £11 million, but yet can afford to waste £1.2 million on the annoying intros to programs?
I wonder if any of the 108 jobs being lost is Wossy or Norton?
Please stop the lazy habit of linking to external sources with the word '(link)' or 'here'. This is completely meaningless when read out of context, as many accessible browsers such as screen readers will do.
Admittedly these pages read much easier now that the links are next to the relevant text rather than in the right hand bar, but the whole purpose of a web link is to apply it to the text that it refers to!
Thanks.
It might be a typo, but 30 seconds by 6 is 180 seconds, not 80. It's still a lot of money for what it is. ;-)
I don't see the point really - the old clock or even the globe were pretty good, and the (I guess cheaper) ´óÏó´«Ã½ TWO, THREE and FOUR idents look neater and cooler than the new ones.
Right or wrong, I would think that presentation and ´óÏó´«Ã½ One has a seperate budget and expectations from News where the job cuts are concerned?
It would be nice though if money was saved by not doing any update to News 24 before the move to Broadcasting House in the same way has been done to the nationals.
In reponse to Mark E
"but yet can afford to waste £1.2 million"
How is it wasted they're using them aren't they, they're on in between 'every' programme on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 1 all the time and like the previous ones will be used for like five years.
In todays money that seems pretty cheap to me, amazing production value unlike other channels.
I don't work for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ by the way, I just get annoyed with folk that see a figure and thats it, same with the Conservative Logo, 40,000 is a bargin in the design industry but the media persist to put the priice before the product?
Get over it :)
£1.2m! How many single mothers were imprisoned to pay for this insanity?
Paul Says
"How is it wasted they're using them"
It is a waste if they weren't wanted or needed in the first place. It is a waste if it could have been better spent elsewhere.
But what do the ´óÏó´«Ã½ care? Their income is not tied to results - it is guaranteed through enforced licensing.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ could do a useful useful job of education. What seem, to the public, to be excessively large amounts of money have been spent by a number of other concerns e.g. British Airways.
What are the costs of the factors involved in production and how is a limit put on the total cost?
In response to Paul:
As Andy says it is a waste because they did not NEED to spend it. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ probably have months of outside broadcast footage of real British life that they could slice together and slap a logo on.
We are talking about short trails that go before a TV program - who cares if the production value is "amazing". Although, considering some of the tat that is on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 1 I imagine that the idents will probably be more entertaining then the actual show.
The only ´óÏó´«Ã½ 1 show I have watched in the last week was Spooks (although I have videoed Rome from last night!). I spend more time watching Five on saturday evening then the flagship ´óÏó´«Ã½ Channel because the quality of the programming is better. Considering the past reputations of both channels that speaks volumes.