Broadcasters not mentioning other broadcasters

24

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 92
    Forum Member
    Ambassador wrote: »
    I find my local BBC pretty bad for this ( mainly Radio Newcastle)

    They have a nightly football/sports phone in and only ever mention the BBC covered sports, completely bypassing anything on ITV, Sky or BT. They only ever just say 'its on TV' unless its on the BBC

    They do it with non sports programming too. Saying that most information stuff on BBC Newcastle Radio is just an extended trailer for their news bulletin or Inside Out programming

    Sadly Radio Newcastle no longer exists. it is now the much more catchy "BBCNewcastleradioforthenortheast". Of course all the listeners, including phone in callers still refer to it by its proper name, so it is only the presenters who call it by the (I assume consultant suggested) new name. But I suppose that would be a whole different thread! ;-)
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bamber wrote: »
    the NBA have been doing it for years.

    As well as College Football, and Basketball. Even simultaneous games will have an indicator letting you know usually a little abbreviation of some sort next to the score.
  • DMN1968DMN1968 Posts: 2,875
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When there is bad weather, Sky News always says, "blah blah flooding blah blah, get updates on Sky or tune in to your local independent radio station" - not any old local radio station but your local "independent" (i.e. non BBC) radio station.
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    On the 50th anniversary of Coronation Street in 2010 it was mentioned on EE and Dot Cotton said she had been watching it

    I remember that. A nice touch of class by EE.
  • Gary_LandyFanGary_LandyFan Posts: 3,824
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DMN1968 wrote: »
    When there is bad weather, Sky News always says, "blah blah flooding blah blah, get updates on Sky or tune in to your local independent radio station" - not any old local radio station but your local "independent" (i.e. non BBC) radio station.
    Made more laughable that in a lot of places the Beeb is the only provider of a local radio station.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    American channels do this as a matter of course.

    No they do not, as others have said they do it as a matter of contractual requirement.

    You will have noticed during Fox's NFL coverage that when that they promoted the other networks for the rest of the weekend's games they used different graphics to their own, and did this only once.

    At other times, such as listing a team's upcoming schedule, they still only note the coverage for the games on Fox.

    This promotional requirement, which applies to all games regardless of network and uses the same graphics, was only introduced this season which saw the start of a new round of nine-year contracts (save for the Thursday night game which is currently being sold year-to-year).

    There is nothing stopping any sporting body in this country including a similar clause in their contracts where rights are shared, assuming there is a desire or benefit to do so.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DMN1968 wrote: »
    When there is bad weather, Sky News always says, "blah blah flooding blah blah, get updates on Sky or tune in to your local independent radio station" - not any old local radio station but your local "independent" (i.e. non BBC) radio station.

    Given Sky News Radio are the main (and maybe only) provider of national news to commercial radio stations what do you expect? It is no different to the BBC News Channel telling their viewers to listen to BBC local radio stations.

    Sky took over the contract to supply IRN with news from ITN in 2008.
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »
    No they do not, as others have said they do it as a matter of contractual requirement.

    You will have noticed during Fox's NFL coverage that when that they promoted the other networks for the rest of the weekend's games they used different graphics to their own, and did this only once.

    At other times, such as listing a team's upcoming schedule, they still only note the coverage for the games on Fox.

    This promotional requirement, which applies to all games regardless of network and uses the same graphics, was only introduced this season which saw the start of a new round of nine-year contracts (save for the Thursday night game which is currently being sold year-to-year).

    There is nothing stopping any sporting body in this country including a similar clause in their contracts where rights are shared, assuming there is a desire or benefit to do so.

    Hmm. If you look at the definition of 'a matter of course' you will see that it is 'doing what is expected' ie fulfilling a contractual obligation.

    I just think that it is interesting that bbc.co.uk goes out of its way to show you 'this story around the web' but their tv and radio broadcasts are not quite so free with the promotion of rival outlets.
  • TUCTUC Posts: 5,105
    Forum Member
    Why would a station want to promote a rival? What logic would there be in expecting them to do otherwise?
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TUC wrote: »
    Why would a station want to promote a rival? What logic would there be in expecting them to do otherwise?

    not promote. MENTION.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    DMN1968 wrote: »
    When there is bad weather, Sky News always says, "blah blah flooding blah blah, get updates on Sky or tune in to your local independent radio station" - not any old local radio station but your local "independent" (i.e. non BBC) radio station.
    Of which there are now actually very few, if any, left :)
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hmm. If you look at the definition of 'a matter of course' you will see that it is 'doing what is expected' ie fulfilling a contractual obligation.

    In which case all the British channels do it as a matter of course too, then. They also do it whenever it is expected of them, and in this matter are identical to American networks in every respect.
    I just think that it is interesting that bbc.co.uk goes out of its way to show you 'this story around the web' but their tv and radio broadcasts are not quite so free with the promotion of rival outlets.

    The BBC's primary function is as a broadcaster, their online services are an extension of this and their public service values. They are not meant to act as a competitor to other sites or make them commercially unviable. This is one of the reasons why stories in their news and sport sections link to other sites.

    It also comes from the early days of BBC Online when the internet was still young and they acted more as a British portal to the internet with various services including a search engine. As the internet evolved, both the development of commercial services and user habits changing as it became more popular, these needs faded away.

    An independent report a decade ago which lead to the current system of linking from news and sport stories made the case that linking both fostered the development of other internet services and helped users get more from the internet, which are both in keeping with its public service remit.

    The internet is not like television or radio. You can just change channels or tune up and down the dial to find other stations, you cannot just browse through other web sites to discover new ones without links. For the BBC not to link would therefore be detrimental to both users and other providers, which is not the case with broadcast services where users can exercise choice without needing to know what else exists.

    Broadcast and online are completely different mediums and what id suitable for one is not necessarily right for the other.
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »
    In which case all the British channels do it as a matter of course too, then. They also do it whenever it is expected of them, and in this matter are identical to American networks in every respect.



    The BBC's primary function is as a broadcaster, their online services are an extension of this and their public service values. They are not meant to act as a competitor to other sites or make them commercially unviable. This is one of the reasons why stories in their news and sport sections link to other sites.

    It also comes from the early days of BBC Online when the internet was still young and they acted more as a British portal to the internet with various services including a search engine. As the internet evolved, both the development of commercial services and user habits changing as it became more popular, these needs faded away.

    An independent report a decade ago which lead to the current system of linking from news and sport stories made the case that linking both fostered the development of other internet services and helped users get more from the internet, which are both in keeping with its public service remit.

    The internet is not like television or radio. You can just change channels or tune up and down the dial to find other stations, you cannot just browse through other web sites to discover new ones without links. For the BBC not to link would therefore be detrimental to both users and other providers, which is not the case with broadcast services where users can exercise choice without needing to know what else exists.

    Broadcast and online are completely different mediums and what id suitable for one is not necessarily right for the other.

    Crumbs... ever wish you hadn't started a thread. .. I'll leave it to you Mr Logic. Unsubscribe.
  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When you have a major sports tournament such as the World Cup. If a match was on in the evening on BBC , the daytime match will be on ITV and the commentator of that match will say 'you can catch all the highlights of (whoever is playing in the evening) on our highlights show at 10.55 pm. There will never be any reference to the fact that the match will be shown live on the BBC at 7.45. This will be the case in a vice versa situation. I think that is just stupid in this modern day.
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »
    No they do not, as others have said they do it as a matter of contractual requirement.

    You will have noticed during Fox's NFL coverage that when that they promoted the other networks for the rest of the weekend's games they used different graphics to their own, and did this only once.

    At other times, such as listing a team's upcoming schedule, they still only note the coverage for the games on Fox.

    This promotional requirement, which applies to all games regardless of network and uses the same graphics, was only introduced this season which saw the start of a new round of nine-year contracts (save for the Thursday night game which is currently being sold year-to-year).

    There is nothing stopping any sporting body in this country including a similar clause in their contracts where rights are shared, assuming there is a desire or benefit to do so.


    Umm? http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/schedule
    http://www.foxsports.com/nba/schedule
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/schedules
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/schedules
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/schedule/_/week/12
    http://espn.go.com/nba/schedule
    Notice how they all have TV columns, or TV notations? Are you telling me that ESPN who basically own the College Football Playoff, is contractually bound to promote games on other networks? http://espn.go.com/college-football/schedule or don't you think it's more just good sense in a competitive marketplace to be viewer friendly. I don't think they have any animosity to the other networks as evidenced by the way the networks use pool cameras and mics all the time. There doesn't have to be the animosity as demonstrated by the BBC, and Sky.
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's also this http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/10/21/please-watch-another-channel-networks-benefit-from-promoting-competitors-sports/
    Sure, they're helping the competition, network executives say. They also believe they're helping themselves. If more fans get excited about the NLCS, the thinking goes, they'll also be more likely to tune into ALCS games.

    As Fox Sports President Eric Shanks puts it, "A rising tide lifts all ships."
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    this might used to have been the case, but we no longer live a vacuum of information, there are plenty of places for a MLB fan to get the required information from, and come the post season, chances are fans are part of an online community, and posting about the DS, CS ans WS as it goes. Their feelings about the ALCS will come from that not the NLCS.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    not promote. MENTION.

    By mentioning it you automatically promote it.
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    By mentioning it you automatically promote it.

    Mention: to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of:
    Promote: to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

    eg: 'I don't like Frosties' mentions but does not promote.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mention: to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of:
    Promote: to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

    eg: 'I don't like Frosties' mentions but does not promote.

    Still might lead some people to try Frosties to see how bad they are:D
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Crumbs... ever wish you hadn't started a thread. .. I'll leave it to you Mr Logic. Unsubscribe.

    You asked "Why is it that…," literally starting your post with those words, and then get upset to be given an answer?

    Crumbs indeed.
    Notice how they all have TV columns, or TV notations?

    I also notice they are web sites and not television broadcasts, so completely irrelevant to this thread.

    As the provider of an editorial web site you want to provide all the information you can so that you become people's first choice, otherwise they will just use another site which does tell them what they need to know. They are also not provided under a commercial contract so there is no financial investment to protect with them.

    That is different to a live broadcast which in most cases is exclusive, so people cannot watch elsewhere, and you do not want to be promoting rival networks unless obliged to do so.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mention: to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of:
    Promote: to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity..

    Advertising or publicity: to mentioning something to gain a commercial or other beneficial advantage.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    On March 6, 1981, the legendary CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite signed off after nearly 20 years presiding over the No 1 rated Evening News. In a catastrophic management error CBS insisted he retire having reached 65. His closing remarks - that he was simply going on assignment and Dan Rather would be sitting in for a few years - were carried simultaneously on ABC and NBC, the only time this has ever happened on US TV. CBS was never No 1 again in the evening ratings.
  • The Great 208The Great 208 Posts: 982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mavreela wrote: »
    Advertising or publicity: to mentioning something to gain a commercial or other beneficial advantage.

    OK. I'm guessing, given the grammatical error, that this is your definition (if not I would like to know the source) but, in any case you have neatly underlined my point that while advertising must involve mentioning, mentioning does not necessarily involve advertising.

    For example: 'I find that mavreela's posts on the Digital Spy forums are pompous and unhelpful'. This mentions 'mavreela' but does not advertise or promote him.

    :) have a lovely day :)
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK. I'm guessing, given the grammatical error, that this is your definition (if not I would like to know the source) but, in any case you have neatly underlined my point that while advertising must involve mentioning, mentioning does not necessarily involve advertising.

    For example: 'I find that mavreela's posts on the Digital Spy forums are pompous and unhelpful'. This mentions 'mavreela' but does not advertise or promote him.

    :) have a lovely day :)

    But it might lead me to do a search to see why you describe his posts in that way and see whether I agree with you thus giving him some publicity.
Sign In or Register to comment.