Problem also is they are using a public-access style content model for some of these channels and attempting to shove it into an ad-supported commercial tv mould and that wont work. It has to be a mix. 100% local will never work. LL dropped the ball on their complete and total lack of commitment to London News also programming across all demos rather than the E4-style demo. They could have really did a a hybrid NY1-type channel during the day and other programming across the evening.
And for the uninformed not all US tv stations are networked affiliated. There are many highly successful indie stations not linked a major network.
I think we need to stop looking at comparisons to the US model. The US broadcast landscape is not really relevant to the UK.
There are some very strong and major differences - in particular the fact that we've never had the 'local station' model (whether independent or network affiliated).
A UK channel's identity has always been based on it's network. It's even down to things as basic as channel numbers. In the UK (in fact in much of Europe) we've never really used the actual RF frequency channel as a station identifier, we've always used the standard accepted (now enshrined by LCN or EPG) preset number. When we had to manually tune pre-sets everyone set-up their TV (with few exceptions) the same way. When automatic tuning (based on Teletext IDs) came in in the 80s, the same thing was done automatically.
BBC One is always Channel 1, BBC Two is always Channel 2, ITV is always Channel 3 - but even the 'channel number' is not really used as a brand identifier (some bits of ITV tried "Channel 3" as a brand. It failed). It has been this way since the 60s when BBC Two launched. We've never had "BBC Channel 23 for London" as a concept, unlike the US model where NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and independent stations have all used their locality and specific frequency as part of their brand identity.
The ITV macro-regional franchises were the closest we came - but they really weren't 'local'
True, but the UK model of local tv hasnt proven to be a runaway success. So where else can you look as a model? Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, Columbia...?
In the UK (in fact in much of Europe) we've never really used the actual RF frequency channel as a station identifier, we've always used the standard accepted (now enshrined by LCN or EPG) preset number. When we had to manually tune pre-sets everyone set-up their TV (with few exceptions) the same way.
I recall someone I worked with arriving from North America in the 80s. She bought a TV set, took
it home, plugged in an aerial, switched it on, pressed buttons 1-4 on the remote, got nothing, so
assumed it was faulty, and took it back to Dixons
BBC One is always Channel 1, BBC Two is always Channel 2, ITV is always Channel 3 - but even the 'channel number' is not really used as a brand identifier (some bits of ITV tried "Channel 3" as a brand. It failed). It has been this way since the 60s when BBC Two launched. We've never had "BBC Channel 23 for London" as a concept, unlike the US model where NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and independent stations have all used their locality and specific frequency as part of their brand identity.
Are these the only examples of it happening in the UK?
True, but the UK model of local tv hasnt proven to be a runaway success. So where else can you look as a model? Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, Columbia...?
Why does it have to be based on another region's idea of local TV?
It doesn't work here because there's no demand for it, apart from from a few media execs who want a bigger slice of the advertising pie, and the chance to get hold of a bit of licence fee cash. It wouldn't matter if you exactly cloned the most successful local tv stations on the planet if the only people who care for it's existence are the people running it so they can afford a new holiday villa.
It's 1 week to the launch of Sheffield Live (TV), and apart from a terrible poster in the city centre, I've seen absolutely no publicity for it. Especially bad considering I walk past their base nearly every day. No information on their website either...
Are these the only examples of it happening in the UK?
Not at all. When ITV launched in 1955, the on air promos in advance all ended with the caption "On Band III Channel 9". In the early days of ITV, channel numbers mattered a lot because viewers only had a tuner marked 1 - 13 and had to know which number to select for their local ITV station. In a number of areas there was a choice and some companies vied with each other for audiences, emphasising the channel numbers. In Central Scotland, STV was branded as "Scotland's Channel Ten", and graphic station idents generally had the channel number included. I have some STV promo slides where the only graphic was "Tonight on Channel 10".
True, but the UK model of local tv hasnt proven to be a runaway success. So where else can you look as a model? Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, Columbia...?
Why does it have to be based on another region's idea of local TV?
It doesn't work here because there's no demand for it, apart from from a few media execs who want a bigger slice of the advertising pie, and the chance to get hold of a bit of licence fee cash. It wouldn't matter if you exactly cloned the most successful local tv stations on the planet if the only people who care for it's existence are the people running it so they can afford a new holiday villa.
Are these the only examples of it happening in the UK?
Not at all. When ITV launched in 1955, the on air promos in advance all ended with the caption "On Band III Channel 9". In the early days of ITV, channel numbers mattered a lot because viewers only had a tuner marked 1 - 13 and had to know which number to select for their local ITV station. In a number of areas there was a choice and some companies vied with each other for audiences, emphasising the channel numbers. In Central Scotland, STV was branded as "Scotland's Channel Ten", and graphic station idents generally had the channel number included. I have some STV promo slides where the only graphic was "Tonight on Channel 10".
More recently, local RSL channel, York TV was bizarrely rebranded as
York@54
for a while before it closed – the 54 being a reference to UHF channel 54. Given virtually no viewers have really ever used analogue UHF channel numbers, I'm not quite sure what the point of this was.
BBC One is always Channel 1, BBC Two is always Channel 2, ITV is always Channel 3 - but even the 'channel number' is not really used as a brand identifier (some bits of ITV tried "Channel 3" as a brand. It failed). It has been this way since the 60s when BBC Two launched. We've never had "BBC Channel 23 for London" as a concept, unlike the US model where NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and independent stations have all used their locality and specific frequency as part of their brand identity.
Are these the only examples of it happening in the UK?
Yes, Westward, who had two (later three) VHF transmitters, hence the Ch 9 and Ch 12.
London ITV only had a single VHF transmitter, so easy to promote as Ch 9
The problems started with the move to UHF, each ITV region had (still has) anything between 20
and a couple of hundred transmitters, all operating on up to 44 different UHF channels, so any idea
of using UHF channel numbers in the branding became a non starter
