"Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

What's currently on the box
Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Mike S »

Clive wrote: Well if they have decided to join a programme half way through then that's their problem, I don't think the programme has to cater for the channel hopping audience. I get completely annoyed with programmes on the "Discovery Channel" which will leave for the ad-break on a semi cliff-hanger and then return after the break and spend the first 2-3 minutes recapping the first half of the programme. There-by runing any suspense they may have built up in the dedicated audience.

I've often wondered how much orginal programming you get in a Discovery style documentary excluding all the ad-breaks, coming up segments, recapping etc...
Also, who on earth (in 2013) channel-hops midway through an ad break and then sits there thinking 'I'll just wait a few minutes for the mysterious upcoming programme to start'. And then, when the programme does eventually start, would scratch their head thinking 'What on earth is the premise here?' if they didn't hear a recap. Fucking idiots, that's who. Which is what they think we are.

I understand that people flip about far more than they used to, but people are also perfectly capable of working out pretty quickly what's going on. They'll think 'Ah, looks like Heston's making the world's biggest lemon meringue pie or some such bollocks' quicker than it takes a voice-over bloke to say it.

Ernest Grainger
405 lines
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Ernest Grainger »

And I forgot to mention... on the one hand, some quite rare early stuff seems to have survived in ITV/Granada's archives. But on the other, a few clips seemed to have used off-air recordings as their source! One being Take That's first appearance, another being the start of "This Morning". Quite odd that footage from more recent years looked worse than that from the 1950s/60s in b/w.

User avatar
Lord Brett
405 lines
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Lord Brett »

Although I registered the number of reminders of what the show was about, I thought it was done with at least some degree of subtlety.

A few years ago I saw an ITV documentary about the history of Taggart which was shown on a late-night slot with no advertising whatever. The recapping before and after where the breaks should have been was absolutely relentless, and must have taken up a huge amount of the running time.

User avatar
Tim D
405 lines
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:04 am

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Tim D »

Marker wrote:There was a brief section of footage, showing cameras being moved about. It looked as though it was either a live or as-live production. Does anyone know how this footage came to be recorded? Given the scarce resources of the time, it seems incredible that this footage exists.
I think it came from Inside Granada; a sort of internal training programme that Granada kept on VT. As regards some of the recent material that looked sourced from domestic formats, it was. Granada cleared out many of their old VHS reference tapes prior to the move. Kaleidoscope rescued some of them. You wouldn't believe how difficult it was to source any material of Richard & Judy working together at Granada prior to their time on This Morning, such as on Granada Reports.

Brian F
D-MAC
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Brian F »

I wonder where the Granada letters in the boot actually came from, there must be a lot around from closed Granada cinemas and bingo halls. I've just found an old photo with the Clapham Junction bingo hall on with the familiar red sign still up.

Richard F
405 lines
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:48 am

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Richard F »

Did I miss it or was there really no direct reference to "upstart caterers" and the shambles that played out from the late Eighties until....well their respective retirements to count all their money? The Theme park segment was the closest hint we got of the turmoil playing out through the period, as outlined by Ray Fitzwalter in his book:The Dream That Died

I think I know what he would have thought of the comment that World In Action "retired" in 1998 and that current affairs is still going strong.......

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
simon10011 wrote:Why did Suranne Jones have to keep reintroducing the programme after every ad break by saying Peter Kay is saying goodbye to Granada Studios. Have the audience forgotten what they are watching in the intervening 3 minutes!!
It's not aimed at the viewers who have been with the show since before that ad break, it's aimed at those who will only just have landed on the show after channel-hopping.
Presumably this is another of those things like DOGs that broadcasters are more self-convinced of than the general public. We now live in a world where everyone is watching with the benefit of an easily-pressed "i" button, which negates the need for either.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:We now live in a world where everyone is watching with the benefit of an easily-pressed "i" button, which negates the need for either.
Only if people bother to use it, and many don't. Broadcasters are just trying to cover all the bases. It doesn't bother me unless the recaps are anything more than a brief line or two at the beginning of the part. I haven't seen the Granadaland programme yet, so I don't know if it would annoy me or not.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote:We now live in a world where everyone is watching with the benefit of an easily-pressed "i" button, which negates the need for either.
Only if people bother to use it, and many don't. Broadcasters are just trying to cover all the bases.
Proof of exactly how "many don't"? As has been noted, who channel-hops into a advert break - presumably in the process getting basic channel information, anyway - and then hangs around to have the programme explained to. Like DOGS, this just seems like something else some broadcasters have convinced themselves is an issue, rather than being validated by actual viewer behaviour.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Simon Coward
D-MAC
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Simon Coward »

And if this kind of recap is so important, why restrict it to a certain kind of factual show? Why not put similar "catch-ups" after every ad-break be it in drama, sitcom, film or what-have-you?
We all have to eat a peck of dirt before we die.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Proof of exactly how "many don't"?
Sorry, never kept a copy of the report I saw. Go and work at a broadcaster and you'll be able to read whatever the latest research is, they're bound to have done more.
Like DOGS, this just seems like something else some broadcasters have convinced themselves is an issue, rather than being validated by actual viewer behaviour.
By which you mean "My viewing behaviour is X, therefore so is everybody else's". You've got no idea about the wider viewing public, you're just making assumptions based on your own personal preferences, in a similar vein to the way you suggested that the difference between the rifles currently in use in the British and American military was some kind of general knowledge that any audience would be expected to know.

Broadcasters these days want to know their audiences better than just by making assumptions, which is why they research this sort of stuff - believe it or not, they don't have any interest in pissing their viewers off, although they do understand that they're always going to piss *somebody* off, no matter what they do.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Proof of exactly how "many don't"?
Sorry, never kept a copy of the report I saw. Go and work at a broadcaster and you'll be able to read whatever the latest research is, they're bound to have done more.
That's a rather fatuous response. Then again, most of the data I work with most days is ultimately made available to the public, so obviously I have a different view on the subject of disclosure.
Like DOGS, this just seems like something else some broadcasters have convinced themselves is an issue, rather than being validated by actual viewer behaviour.
By which you mean "My viewing behaviour is X, therefore so is everybody else's". You've got no idea about the wider viewing public, you're just making assumptions based on your own personal preferences, in a similar vein to the way you suggested that the difference between the rifles currently in use in the British and American military was some kind of general knowledge that any audience would be expected to know.
I don't believe I ever suggested that, although it's certainly true that getting it "wrong" in a film or TV drama would be noticed by more people that those who are - or recently have been - actually in the armed forces.
Broadcasters these days want to know their audiences better than just by making assumptions, which is why they research this sort of stuff - believe it or not, they don't have any interest in pissing their viewers off, although they do understand that they're always going to piss *somebody* off, no matter what they do.
But as Simon says (and I wish I'd thought of it!), why are audiences uniquely assumed to be so dumb with documentaries, and not any other form of programming? People are clearly more than used to using multi-channel digital delivery platforms, EPGs, etc., yet apparently when confronted by a certain type of factual stuff, their ability to do so suddenly dribbles out of their earhole.

You've claimed before that broadcasters do such reserach, but glibly asserted that it's never made public for commercial reasons. I might suggest that it could just be because if it were available, the methodology might be found wanted, not unlike the nonsense popularity claims in much advertising these days (which would be more honestly couched as, "X out of Y people, given a nice day of pampering and a goody bag, and in response to specific leading questions, said they thought our product was great...").
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Clive »

GarethR wrote: By which you mean "My viewing behaviour is X, therefore so is everybody else's". You've got no idea about the wider viewing public, you're just making assumptions based on your own personal preferences, in a similar vein to the way you suggested that the difference between the rifles currently in use in the British and American military was some kind of general knowledge that any audience would be expected to know.

Broadcasters these days want to know their audiences better than just by making assumptions, which is why they research this sort of stuff - believe it or not, they don't have any interest in pissing their viewers off, although they do understand that they're always going to piss *somebody* off, no matter what they do.
I am not convinced Gareth, this sounds like the broadcaster has funded research to give the answer they want. For example how can we get more people viewing our programme ? How do we convince the advertisers that we have got a high rating popular programme ?

I can almost see the questionaire sent out to the viewers with leading questions such as "If you tune in mid-way through a programme, would you wish to know what's going on ?" The natural answer would be "Yes!" but the implementation of providing re-caps after every ad-break is perhaps not what the respondent was thinking or suggesting.

You seem to think that the broadcasters are always considering the best service to the viewers, both those who have viewed the programme from the start and those who have channel-hopped into it, but the re-caps are alienating the viewers who have dedicated their time to view a documentary in full, in preference to those who have channel-hopped and may change channel again if the re-cap is not to their liking. This is based on my viewing of programmes on the Discovery Channel which is an extreme at this sort of behaviour.

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Mike S »

GarethR wrote: Broadcasters these days want to know their audiences better than just by making assumptions, which is why they research this sort of stuff - believe it or not, they don't have any interest in pissing their viewers off, although they do understand that they're always going to piss *somebody* off, no matter what they do.
But in the case of 'Heston's on a mission...' type recaps, they clearly believe viewers won't be able to work out the conceit of a show (a) themselves and (b) pretty quickly. What does that say about how those viewers are regarded?

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by stearn »

When I was a PhD student and about to give my first research presentation I was told that I should 'tell them what I am going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what I have told them'. This was for a 20 minute slot at a conference, so I was hard pressed to actually fit all the stuff in I wanted to. OK, there was a 15 minute Q&A session after which mopped up a lot left out, but this was for an audience of scientists, and predominantly experts in the field I was studying.

Perhaps this reinforcement of the facts has just spilled out to documentaries (which is why it wouldn't apply to drama), or perhaps I could be very cynical and say the more you repeat the same old stuff, the less you have to research overall. I haven't seen all the documentary yet, but someone said earlier that it was an hour in a 90 minute slot. That is probably 15 minutes less of clips and research from the good old days of meaty documentaries, and presumably a considerable saving somewhere. I suppose you can say it does open it up to the thickies who need everything repeated before they finally get it, but it is more likely that there are more adverts and trails so the thickies dont forget to buy/watch what they are intended to.

I was given a batch of documentaries on DVD made for the Discovery or History channel last year and if you stripped out the repetition of the docudrama or computer generated bits (we spent money on this so we will use it until you are sick of it), and the after ad recaps you were looking at about 20 minutes of material that was destined for an hour slot. So much TV is just filler for the important bits, the adverts.

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by stearn »

Mike S wrote:But in the case of 'Heston's on a mission...' type recaps, they clearly believe viewers won't be able to work out the conceit of a show (a) themselves and (b) pretty quickly. What does that say about how those viewers are regarded?
How about easily lead into buying what they have dangled in front of them. Isn't that what it is all about now - you target the audience and work out how to prise their wallets/purses open. I made the mistake of flicking the TV over to a music channel the other day (it keeps the nipper happy when we're changing the nappy) and it seemed to be adverts to get quick cash, sell your obsolete mobile that you got new last week for sod all, and phones lines aimed at billy no mates to make him feel like he had a social life. Yep, I'm getting old, the music was all noise, and you couldn't hear the lyrics. Oh well, I grew up with Benny Hill and Kenny Everett shows and the scantily clad women, little'un will get his fill from Viva or 4music.

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Clive »

stearn wrote:When I was a PhD student and about to give my first research presentation I was told that I should 'tell them what I am going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what I have told them'. This was for a 20 minute slot at a conference, so I was hard pressed to actually fit all the stuff in I wanted to. OK, there was a 15 minute Q&A session after which mopped up a lot left out, but this was for an audience of scientists, and predominantly experts in the field I was studying.
I have to present or listen to similar presentations on a regular basis. It is always tricky as part of the audience wants lots of detail, the others don't understand a word about what you are saying and glare at you in utter confusion. It is always dis-heartening at the Q&A when you are asked questions about something you thought and hoped you had explained clearly.

Different strokes for different folks etc.... But as a fan of documentaries, I do miss the likes of mid-80's Horizon which gave a high level of information rather than pandering to the tastes of every single viewer who may have channel hopped into your programme. Some of the BBC documentaries still manage to do this, but many commercial documentaries seem to aim to the all-inclusive lowest common denominator.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3363
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Mark »

wittoner wrote:I would add "Brass" and "The Dustbinmen" to the list of decent Granada Comedies.
Me, too.!
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3363
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Mark »

Given the slot it had, it's perhaps not surprising it was so 'Mainstream', far more so than the Television Centre ones, on BBC Four ( which were considered somewhat lightweight) hence Peter Kay messing about on the roof, and in the prop store.

The , "coming up" and recaps, annoyed me, too, they waste too much time, but it seems standard.

Surprised to see Ayshea, but didn't notice any clips from "Lift-Off".

I did notice however, a clip from a special that I would love to see network release sometime, "There's Something Wrong In Paradise", as I loved it, at the time, you have to be a fan of Kid Creole, though ( and his Coconuts.!).

There are some clips on YT from "Inside Granada" ( not the clips from the "Granadaland" prog, though) very good nonetheless.

Most of the clips have cropped up before, but at least the studios were given some kind of recognition.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: That's a rather fatuous response
No more than the question deserved. Why would you expect any commercial organisation to publish internal research that would be handing free advantage to its competitors? I can't think of a single occasion through my entire career in broadcast, both BBC and commercial, when any piece of internal research I've seen has ended up being made publicly available in full. Perhaps selected figures to allow a bit of positive trumpet-blowing where appropriate, but never anything of strategic value to their rivals.
But as Simon says (and I wish I'd thought of it!), why are audiences uniquely assumed to be so dumb with documentaries, and not any other form of programming?
I would suspect it's because the structure of factual programming tends to lend itself more to recaps after ad breaks. We're used to presenters or a VO directly addressing the audience in factual shows - "Welcome back to X, where Simon Quinlank is trying to be the first person to count every rivet on the Titanic" etc.
You've claimed before that broadcasters do such reserach, but glibly asserted that it's never made public for commercial reasons
Which commercial organisations, in any industry, routinely publish their own internal strategic research that has been commissioned specifically to try and gain advantage over their competitors?
I might suggest that it could just be because if it were available, the methodology might be found wanted
Well of course you would, because you assume that everybody who watches TV does so in the same way as you.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Clive wrote: I am not convinced Gareth, this sounds like the broadcaster has funded research to give the answer they want
That's the standard line people on forums like this spin about any research that provides results they don't like. Odd how people are never cynical about research that provides results that they agree with.

As I've said before, I've sat in on focus groups and other means of data-gathering, and I've seen research that convinced broadcasters *not* to do something they'd thought might be a good idea. I've never seen anything suggestive of trying to lead people to give a specific answer. In all seriousness, what would be the point?

If broadcasters want to do something, they can just do it, within the bounds of broadcast regulations. They don't have to get research claiming it's a good idea first. Why spend all that money to manufacture a desired research result in a confidential internal report if you're going to do something anyway?

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Clive »

GarethR wrote:
Clive wrote: I am not convinced Gareth, this sounds like the broadcaster has funded research to give the answer they want
That's the standard line people on forums like this spin about any research that provides results they don't like. Odd how people are never cynical about research that provides results that they agree with.
Well considering you have mentioned "research" but not given any evidence that research was carried out, or what the results were then of course people are cynical. Especially over something that many people seem to get annoyed about, but the broadcaster's independent, confidential and alleged research suggests this is what viewers want. So that's all right then. It's strange how lots and lots of people get annoyed about this, but the broadcaster's surveys seem to suggest the opposite.
GarethR wrote: As I've said before, I've sat in on focus groups and other means of data-gathering, and I've seen research that convinced broadcasters *not* to do something they'd thought might be a good idea. I've never seen anything suggestive of trying to lead people to give a specific answer.
Again, as all this is confidential and not seen outside the realm of internal secret reports then what is the point of funding focus groups ? You're very naive if you don't think that commercially funded focus groups and data-gathering exercises aren't there to provide "evidence" to support the views of those funding it. It's all dependent of how you analyse the results and fit them into your stated aims. In this case, how far 20 minutes of original programming can be padded out into a 60 minute slot without the viewers starting to feel short-changed.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote: That's a rather fatuous response
No more than the question deserved.
And that's just snide.
Why would you expect any commercial organisation to publish internal research that would be handing free advantage to its competitors? I can't think of a single occasion through my entire career in broadcast, both BBC and commercial, when any piece of internal research I've seen has ended up being made publicly available in full. Perhaps selected figures to allow a bit of positive trumpet-blowing where appropriate, but never anything of strategic value to their rivals.
Hang on, we're now talking about two pretty broad-brush issues here - DOGs and recaps - not actual programme content. And you have claimed that "all" the broadcasters are researching this sort of thing, so it's hard to see that one bit of research on either one is going to come up with some killer revelation that is going to be massively advantageous to whoever commissioned it. As far as I know, only the BBC has ever - grudgingly - published research on DOGS, and an even then it was clear that a) the survey was designed to justify the practice, rather than work out whether they should be doing it in the first place, and b) the results were presented/spun contrary to the quoted figures accordingly. The most glaring omission was a simple and pretty obvious question of, "Would you rather watch a programme with a DOG or not?"
But as Simon says (and I wish I'd thought of it!), why are audiences uniquely assumed to be so dumb with documentaries, and not any other form of programming?
I would suspect it's because the structure of factual programming tends to lend itself more to recaps after ad breaks. We're used to presenters or a VO directly addressing the audience in factual shows - "Welcome back to X, where Simon Quinlank is trying to be the first person to count every rivet on the Titanic" etc.
But there a difference between a quick recap and the sort of excessive repetition that Steve and others have mentioned above.
You've claimed before that broadcasters do such reserach, but glibly asserted that it's never made public for commercial reasons
Which commercial organisations, in any industry, routinely publish their own internal strategic research that has been commissioned specifically to try and gain advantage over their competitors?
As above, we're talking about two issues that - if one steps back and looks at the objectively (which obviously is often very difficult for those actual on the inside of the system in question) - don't really fit into that category. It's not "what type of programmes should we be making," but a simple, "would you rather were used these two presentations devices or not?"
I might suggest that it could just be because if it were available, the methodology might be found wanted
Well of course you would, because you assume that everybody who watches TV does so in the same way as you.
That's a massive non sequitor, and I suspect even you know that. The reality is that in the case of DOGS, it has everything to do with constant brand reinforcement, and with recaps it's born of a rather tragic fear that some tiny percentage of viewers might channel hop in and then out again, who might otherwise be persuaded to stay. The reality of the latter is probably that they leave either immediately after/during the recap, or else do so after a few second/minutes with no recap, anyway.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:
Clive wrote: I am not convinced Gareth, this sounds like the broadcaster has funded research to give the answer they want
That's the standard line people on forums like this spin about any research that provides results they don't like. Odd how people are never cynical about research that provides results that they agree with.
It's also not unknown for many industries to reveal research that shows what they're doing isn't as effective/popular/safe as they claim.
As I've said before, I've sat in on focus groups and other means of data-gathering, and I've seen research that convinced broadcasters *not* to do something they'd thought might be a good idea. I've never seen anything suggestive of trying to lead people to give a specific answer. In all seriousness, what would be the point?
And I've also seen lots of surveys that are clearly intended push the sample in a certain direction, and that's for subjects I've either ambivalent about or would "agree" with the direction of push. Of course, you may also simply be displaying your own confirmation bias here.
If broadcasters want to do something, they can just do it, within the bounds of broadcast regulations.
"We comply with all UK tax regulation."
They don't have to get research claiming it's a good idea first. Why spend all that money to manufacture a desired research result in a confidential internal report if you're going to do something anyway?
Well, very obviously because if the results can be presented as being in favour of it, then they can be (selectively) disclosed to the public to "justify" it.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Clive wrote: Well considering you have mentioned "research" but not given any evidence that research was carried out
What kind of evidence am I supposed to provide, then? PDF copies of the relevant reports? How am I supposed to get them, given that they're for internal use only, I no longer work for the companies concerned, and even if I did still work for them, I would be courting dismissal by publishing internal documents that had not been cleared for public release?

Or are you doubting that research is carried out at all?
Especially over something that many people seem to get annoyed about
You mean, people on a forum like this one. Who are about as unrepresentative of the wider viewing public as it's possible to get. Even if I didn't work in TV, I'd know from my own personal observation of friends, family and others that we're very different from normal people.
Again, as all this is confidential and not seen outside the realm of internal secret reports then what is the point of funding focus groups ?
I genuinely don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that focus group research is pointless if the results are kept within the organisation that commissioned it? So all companies should give away their research information so anyone (including their competitors) can make use of it?
You're very naive if you don't think that commercially funded focus groups and data-gathering exercises aren't there to provide "evidence" to support the views of those funding it
Again, that old saw. And again I have to ask, what would be the point? Bad ideas lose companies customers, goodwill and money, so where is the value in spending a lot of money faking research to make bad ideas look like good ones?

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Clive »

GarethR wrote:
Clive wrote:
Especially over something that many people seem to get annoyed about
You mean, people on a forum like this one. Who are about as unrepresentative of the wider viewing public as it's possible to get. Even if I didn't work in TV, I'd know from my own personal observation of friends, family and others that we're very different from normal people.
Nope, from the results of my own independent focus group and audience survey. I would love to share the results with you but it's all very confidential.

Again, that old saw. And again I have to ask, what would be the point? Bad ideas lose companies customers, goodwill and money, so where is the value in spending a lot of money faking research to make bad ideas look like good ones?
Ego massaging ? Justification for a bad idea ? "We were right all along !" How far can we pad out a minimum of original content into a 1 hour slot before the public start turning off ?

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: And that's just snide
Like I said - no more than the question deserved.
Hang on, we're now talking about two pretty broad-brush issues here - DOGs and recaps - not actual programme content
That's irrelevant. We're still talking about the content of research commissioned for internal use only, and as I'm sure you're aware, internal documents in any organisation are generally considered confidential unless they have been formally cleared for public release. Simply publishing the content of inter-company emails would be grounds for disciplinary action in most companies. If you want to read the relevant research for yourself, you'll either have to get inside the relevant organisations, or petition them to publish it. But you knew all that anyway, right?
And you have claimed that "all" the broadcasters are researching this sort of thing, so it's hard to see that one bit of research on either one is going to come up with some killer revelation that is going to be massively advantageous to whoever commissioned it
Quite possibly not. But in such a competitive environment, it's hardly surprising that everybody is researching the same stuff, and the fact that everybody is researching it doesn't mean that the individual broadcasters shouldn't exercise their right to keep their internal documents private. It's just possible that one piece of research happened to ask a certain question that identified a weakness that a competitor could exploit, for example.
As far as I know, only the BBC has ever - grudgingly - published research on DOGS, and an even then it was clear that a) the survey was designed to justify the practice, rather than work out whether they should be doing it in the first place, and b) the results were presented/spun contrary to the quoted figures accordingly. The most glaring omission was a simple and pretty obvious question of, "Would you rather watch a programme with a DOG or not?"
I've seen research that asked that very question, and only a minority of respondents replied with a definite "without" - the majority were largely noncommittal. One of the follow-up questions was to ask if the presence of a bug would make people actively switch off - with the majority answer "no". For me, that tallied pretty much precisely with my own purely anecdotal observations of how normal people watch TV.
As above, we're talking about two issues that - if one steps back and looks at the objectively (which obviously is often very difficult for those actual on the inside of the system in question) - don't really fit into that category. It's not "what type of programmes should we be making," but a simple, "would you rather were used these two presentations devices or not?"
As above, none of that alters the nature of the information as far as the commissioner of the research is concerned.
The reality is that in the case of DOGS, it has everything to do with constant brand reinforcement
Absolutely it is. There aren't many organisations out there producing something completely unbranded. As I look around my desk now, just about everything electronic has a prominent logo on it.
The reality of the latter is probably that they leave either immediately after/during the recap, or else do so after a few second/minutes with no recap, anyway.
"Probably". You really ought to do some research on that.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Clive wrote: Nope, from the results of my own independent focus group and audience survey. I would love to share the results with you but it's all very confidential
I'd have to discount it as being of little value anyway, since you're unlikely to have the money to work with a decent sample size.
Ego massaging ? Justification for a bad idea ? "We were right all along !" How far can we pad out a minimum of original content into a 1 hour slot before the public start turning off ?
No, you've lost me again. Surely "We were right all along" would mean that the results after implementing the idea proved that it wasn't a bad idea?

Clive
625 lines
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by Clive »

GarethR wrote:
Clive wrote: No, you've lost me again. Surely "We were right all along" would mean that the results after implementing the idea proved that it wasn't a bad idea?
No, I was suggesting that research can easily be led and interpreted to support any idea or aim. I am not talking about 'faked' research but the direction the questions lead the respondent to give the opinion the company wants. Just look at the amount of discussion on-going in regards to the Scottish Independance referendum and how the question should be asked.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: "Goodbye Granadaland" Jun 15

Post by GarethR »

Clive wrote: No, I was suggesting that research can easily be led and interpreted to support any idea or aim. I am not talking about 'faked' research but the direction the questions lead the respondent to give the opinion the company wants
As I pointed out earlier, broadcasters don't *need* to get research to justify stuff they want to do. They can just do it, and then live or die by how the audience responds. It may be difficult to comprehend, but broadcasters genuinely want to know what their audiences really think, because there's no future in ploughing ahead with changes the audience hates.

Post Reply