STV Glasgow and STV Edinburgh now sharing all non-news programming

russellellyrussellelly Posts: 11,689
Forum Member
✭✭
As of today, STV Edinburgh and STV Glasgow no longer have their own magazine shows (The Fountainbridge Show and The Riverside Show respectively), but are sharing a show (made in Glasgow), 'Live at Five' (sound familiar? STV (i.e. Channel 3, not the local channels) used to have 'The Five Thirty Show', subsequently 'The Hour', a magazine show). There's also to be a new talk show at 11, 'The Late Show', which comes from the Edinburgh studio.

It means the only local content will be the news (and ads).

We're effectively getting STV2 through the back door, and I wonder how long it'll be until they consider rebranding the stations and trying to get 'STV2' added to the EPG on Sky/Cable across all of Scotland. While I can see the logic in that, it's not really what these local licences were given out for, is it? There's also a risk of it all becoming a bit Glasgow-centric. On the flip side, they're much more likely to be financially viable, and there's a better chance of getting better guests for a bigger audience I suppose?

Comments

  • Bandspread199Bandspread199 Posts: 4,900
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You sure it's not just for the holiday period?
  • russellellyrussellelly Posts: 11,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You sure it's not just for the holiday period?

    Apparently not - http://www.a516digital.com/2016/01/new-shows-for-stv-city-tv-network.html

    Of course, the channels' schedules could still theoretically diverge, but it doesn't look like they will often, if at all (news/ads aside).
  • DUNDEEBOYDUNDEEBOY Posts: 110,032
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Wasn't there meant to be similar STV programmes muted for Aberdeen and Dundee at one time.

    Oh for the days of Grampian .

    If I put my tv on STV hd I only get west of Scotland news.

    I have to go to sd to get news for my area
  • Mr SirsMr Sirs Posts: 4,839
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As of today, STV Edinburgh and STV Glasgow no longer have their own magazine shows (The Fountainbridge Show and The Riverside Show respectively), but are sharing a show (made in Glasgow), 'Live at Five' (sound familiar? STV (i.e. Channel 3, not the local channels) used to have 'The Five Thirty Show', subsequently 'The Hour', a magazine show). There's also to be a new talk show at 11, 'The Late Show', which comes from the Edinburgh studio.

    It means the only local content will be the news (and ads).

    We're effectively getting STV2 through the back door, and I wonder how long it'll be until they consider rebranding the stations and trying to get 'STV2' added to the EPG on Sky/Cable across all of Scotland. While I can see the logic in that, it's not really what these local licences were given out for, is it? There's also a risk of it all becoming a bit Glasgow-centric. On the flip side, they're much more likely to be financially viable, and there's a better chance of getting better guests for a bigger audience I suppose?

    What a surprise! So long as they broadcast the local news then they'll keep the OFCOM happy. STV2 indeed it is - it was bound to happen and STV are kidding noone.
  • russellellyrussellelly Posts: 11,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    STV won the licences for Aberdeen, Ayr and Dundee (they didn't bid in Inverness, and ultimately no licence was awarded there). I'm not sure when they're due on air, it'll be interesting to see how much content they share with STV Glasgow/Edinburgh.
  • pakokelso93pakokelso93 Posts: 11,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Disgusting treatment.
  • Sid LawSid Law Posts: 4,702
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    STV won the licences for Aberdeen, Ayr and Dundee (they didn't bid in Inverness, and ultimately no licence was awarded there). I'm not sure when they're due on air, it'll be interesting to see how much content they share with STV Glasgow/Edinburgh.

    If they can't make it viable in the central belt, what chance for less populated Aberdeen/Ayr/Dundee?

    Perhaps they see it as a loss leader - keeps any other competition out?

    Something I would have though that will limit the viewing in Freeview houses in Edinburgh is that due to the geography of the city, large areas of Edinburgh have aerials pointed at Blackhill not Craigkelly so the wrong local version will be received - same problem on STV, channel 3 SD for local news.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I say why not and its a shame ITV didnt think of doing the same in England, it certainly makes local TV a lot more viable. ITV might have been able to shove some of its channel 3 more regionalised commitments onto the local channel then and create super regions on its channel 3 licenced channel.

    Eventually it would have been seen as an effective ITV2/STV2 type channel and been allowed to be treated more as such as long as the local news commitments were kept.
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    For someone that mentioned this prior to the launch of STV Glasgow-Edinburgh I knew this was going to happen, so when the locals launch for Dundee Aberdeen Ayr schedule will be the same and the bumpers on STV will still say STV Glasgow, it really is a backdoor S2/STV2 but I have a question where has the archive material of Grampian TV went since STV took over, you don't see this lot putting on STV Player old Grampian shows, just seems we are wiped from history but nothing new here anyway STV HQ hardly give a fig about STV North
  • Tim_BishopTim_Bishop Posts: 64
    Forum Member
    unfortunately STV cannot expand because they already have ITV2/3/4... so the only logical way would be to get into 'local' TV.

    As long as the news service is local to the particular area, what is the problem of having a second scottish tv channel?
  • russellellyrussellelly Posts: 11,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tim_Bishop wrote: »
    unfortunately STV cannot expand because they already have ITV2/3/4... so the only logical way would be to get into 'local' TV.

    Back in the early days of digital TV, STV had S2, which replaced ITV2 in their areas. However, at some point a decision was made to rent their capacity to ITV Plc to allow ITV Plc's digital channels (at present, ITV2 and ITV4) to broadcast on STV's capacity. Of course, the terms of that are commercial, but it's certainly hypothetically possible that they could change in time (in reality, unlikely)
    Tim_Bishop wrote: »
    As long as the news service is local to the particular area, what is the problem of having a second scottish tv channel?

    A good question, and really STV Glasgow/STV Edinburgh is the first Scottish TV channel broadcast in English! (BBC Alba the other, and STV itself mostly showing non-Scottish programming). The argument is that it's not what these licenses were licensed for, but I don't personally have a big problem with what they're doing.
  • Mr SirsMr Sirs Posts: 4,839
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tim_Bishop wrote: »
    unfortunately STV cannot expand because they already have ITV2/3/4... so the only logical way would be to get into 'local' TV.

    As long as the news service is local to the particular area, what is the problem of having a second scottish tv channel?
    Back in the early days of digital TV, STV had S2, which replaced ITV2 in their areas. However, at some point a decision was made to rent their capacity to ITV Plc to allow ITV Plc's digital channels (at present, ITV2 and ITV4) to broadcast on STV's capacity. Of course, the terms of that are commercial, but it's certainly hypothetically possible that they could change in time (in reality, unlikely)



    A good question, and really STV Glasgow/STV Edinburgh is the first Scottish TV channel broadcast in English! (BBC Alba the other, and STV itself mostly showing non-Scottish programming). The argument is that it's not what these licenses were licensed for, but I don't personally have a big problem with what they're doing.

    Personally I have no objection to an STV2 as well - but the nail has been hit on the head there - it's not what the original intention of the licences was for. And you could argue that it's squeezed out anyone else who might have launched local tv and done a better job.

    I reckon STV knew that if the local content failed/became too costly then they could merge and streamline the services to what we now have. Whether that's sneaky or good business practice we could debate for a long time!
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr Sirs wrote: »
    Personally I have no objection to an STV2 as well - but the nail has been hit on the head there - it's not what the original intention of the licences was for. And you could argue that it's squeezed out anyone else who might have launched local tv and done a better job.

    I reckon STV knew that if the local content failed/became too costly then they could merge and streamline the services to what we now have. Whether that's sneaky or good business practice we could debate for a long time!

    I wonder though what OFCOM would say? As someone that has seen some content mostly on STV Glasgow can someone list shows/variations between them and what difference will it make to their 3 new ones launching soon, as I mentioned before when I was in Newcastle Made In Tyne and Wear had maybe one programme from channel 5, another programme from another "local" channel in England and I believe their shows are made by themselves, just baffles me that a local channel in Newcastle does better content (in my mind) meanwhile STV gets away with it by flogging "taggart" and old STV shows as the now "local" content :confused:
  • pakokelso93pakokelso93 Posts: 11,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I bet now all their shows they produced to air in the evening etc - they'll probs not bother making anymore and loop same 20 shows produced or whatever as if it's the STV Nightshift.
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I bet now all their shows they produced to air in the evening etc - they'll probs not bother making anymore and loop same 20 shows produced or whatever as if it's the STV Nightshift.

    Thats one thing I did notice was the Fountainbridge show being repeated on STV Glasgow, I think in a way this might backfire as these channels are meant to be local but I guess its the public that must say but I could see STV HQ ignoring complaints but will continually blab that these local channels are doing what they say, I beg to differ on this
  • Dan_CbbcDan_Cbbc Posts: 1,842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The only difference is the news, output of Take the High Road STV Glasgow is 1986, STV Edinburgh is 1984. Taggart is different and that's about it. Weins World is the same as well basically archive Kids programmes from STV.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    As of today, STV Edinburgh and STV Glasgow no longer have their own magazine shows (The Fountainbridge Show and The Riverside Show respectively), but are sharing a show (made in Glasgow), 'Live at Five' (sound familiar? STV (i.e. Channel 3, not the local channels) used to have 'The Five Thirty Show', subsequently 'The Hour', a magazine show). There's also to be a new talk show at 11, 'The Late Show', which comes from the Edinburgh studio.

    It means the only local content will be the news (and ads).

    We're effectively getting STV2 through the back door, and I wonder how long it'll be until they consider rebranding the stations and trying to get 'STV2' added to the EPG on Sky/Cable across all of Scotland. While I can see the logic in that, it's not really what these local licences were given out for, is it? There's also a risk of it all becoming a bit Glasgow-centric. On the flip side, they're much more likely to be financially viable, and there's a better chance of getting better guests for a bigger audience I suppose?
    This proves the rules for awarding local tv licenses should be tightened up. I've always felt each media company that wants to operate a local tv station should be awarded no more than one local tv license each.
    Given STV already have the CH3 license in most of Scotland I always thought it wrong for OFCOM to give them even one local license, never mind two or more. As they already have a big presence in Scotland as ITV's affiliate there, these local tv channels should've been awarded to a media company other than those already established, so in Scotland the local licenses should've been awarded to other Scottish media companies precisely to provide that competition to STV, but its not just about stopping STV from monopolising local tv in Scotland but to stop ANY media company from doing the same, in Scotland and throughout the UK. Hence my suggestion above to award media companies only ONE license each, precisely to stop the sort of streamlining of services that STV are doing.

    With each and every local license throughout the UK awarded to a different media company, you ensure local tv stations can't just streamline their schedules together so every local tv channel ends up with virtually the same programmes as each other, which goes against the whole point of local tv.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    From watching them on satellite, Scotland is lucky to have the STV local stations, even if they are sharing programmes now. Most of the local stations in England are absolutely dire and appear to be run with virtually no money or resources, and certainly no minimum quality threshold.
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dan_Cbbc wrote: »
    The only difference is the news, output of Take the High Road STV Glasgow is 1986, STV Edinburgh is 1984. Taggart is different and that's about it. Weins World is the same as well basically archive Kids programmes from STV.

    When I was in Glasgow for a few days before Christmas STV Glasgow/Edinburgh aired EXACTLY the same episode at 9pm (picture quality on its archived programming is atrocious - Taggart is more watchable if its repeated on True Entertainment/Drama channel)
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Turk wrote: »
    This proves the rules for awarding local tv licenses should be tightened up. I've always felt each media company that wants to operate a local tv station should be awarded no more than one local tv license each.
    Given STV already have the CH3 license in most of Scotland I always thought it wrong for OFCOM to give them even one local license, never mind two or more. As they already have a big presence in Scotland as ITV's affiliate there, these local tv channels should've been awarded to a media company other than those already established, so in Scotland the local licenses should've been awarded to other Scottish media companies precisely to provide that competition to STV, but its not just about stopping STV from monopolising local tv in Scotland but to stop ANY media company from doing the same, in Scotland and throughout the UK. Hence my suggestion above to award media companies only ONE license each, precisely to stop the sort of streamlining of services that STV are doing.

    With each and every local license throughout the UK awarded to a different media company, you ensure local tv stations can't just streamline their schedules together so every local tv channel ends up with virtually the same programmes as each other, which goes against the whole point of local tv.

    You would think OFCOM alarm bells would ring, but I guess not, seems more likely they were happy for STV to get the licences but at same time I wonder why OFCOM has not looked at these channels more closely.
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    From watching them on satellite, Scotland is lucky to have the STV local stations, even if they are sharing programmes now. Most of the local stations in England are absolutely dire and appear to be run with virtually no money or resources, and certainly no minimum quality threshold.

    I have only viewed one "local" in England - Made in Tyne and Wear, the channel is local as you could get - the more times I visit Newcastle I am slowly watching their "local" to ITV/BBC in that area (felt channel was more connected to the area), however as this is STV, this is from a channel that hardly gives a fig about the old Grampian area (and that area in particular must rush for its connection back to feed at HQ).

    If I want a local channel - I want it to be for my area - not using fillers from the STV archive (yet area before merge with STV was Grampian but again none of that material will air - I guess STV HQ have made sure thats dead and buried), as well how many times does this Scottish public really need to see Taggart repeated (are the actors getting royalties or what?)
  • Bandspread199Bandspread199 Posts: 4,900
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    aaaw, come on! We allknew the idea of city tv was a non-starter. Remember L1ve TV? Every Telewest area had it...where is it now?
  • kezokezo Posts: 11,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    aaaw, come on! We allknew the idea of city tv was a non-starter. Remember L1ve TV? Every Telewest area had it...where is it now?

    I remember it - if I remember correctly Scotland had its own called Edinburgh L!ve TV, I presume it didn't live up to much and closed (pretty sure there was a presenter from there ended up doing STV's Sports Centre - can't remember his name)
  • russellellyrussellelly Posts: 11,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    aaaw, come on! We allknew the idea of city tv was a non-starter. Remember L1ve TV? Every Telewest area had it...where is it now?

    Was that different to the L!VE TV with The Weather in Norwegian, Topless Darts etc? NTL had ONTV back in the day, which had static information and occasional local ice hockey. Anyway...

    Has anyone watched The Late Show? From the clips I've seen it looks like it's not bad, a bit of an alternative to all the housewife friendly material on much of the local content (did see an ad for it on STV Glasgow Twitter with an STV Edinburgh caption - another reason to eventually call them all STV2 or the like).
Sign In or Register to comment.