ITV News Changes from March

[Aaron.TV]

One thing odd about these changes is they've not trialed it at all, whether for known events like the budget or developing stories on the day like we have today. I think throughout covid they've only gone past 7pm once in response to the days events to cover a statement at 7pm.

They had a 45 minute ITV Evening News not that long ago where we all wondered the reason for it?

I would have thought that would have been a kind of trial or pilot to gauge reaction.

Not sure they would. They've already made the decisions and been given the green light. They certainly didn't do any research before messing around News At Ten. Big movies and dramas were enough to make that call to the dismay of ITN.

Do you have a source for this?

Very rare for anything like that to be done without some prior research.

[Steve Williams]

Do you have a source for this?

Very rare for anything like that to be done without some prior research.

Well, indeed. They said at the time that one of the reasons they changed it in 1999 was because all the research they'd done suggested that the audience were more interested in watching the news earlier in the evening, hence why they substantially pumped up the teatime news and moved Trevor McDonald there and made it the new flagship bulletin. Of course, how much of that was because the audience were fed up with films and dramas being interrupted by News at Ten is another question, rather than any great clamour for it earlier in the evening.

But certainly in those days ITV would do endless audience research regarding schedules, I remember The Box, the short-lived TV magazine, doing a piece about the state of ITV in 1997, saying that the network centre would be endlessly bombarded with stats from Granada about what shows from Carlton were flopping in their region and stats from Carlton about what shows from Granada were flopping in their region. They were incredinly conservative in their scheduling in those days as well.

They would have had to have done some research as well because the ITC had to approve the news move. I remember when there was that storm-in-a-teacup debate about Cracker in 1995, when they had to move it to Sunday because on Monday it would run past 10pm and make News at Ten late, that one of the reasons why that was an issue was that many of the franchises had deliberately mentioned News at Ten in their bids so if they didn't do it, they'd be breaching their contracts. I'm pretty sure that when the ITC approved it they would have required ITV to give them various assurances about what kind of ratings they were expecting, based on audience research, and how they intended to ensure news audiences as a whole didn't drop significantly. They wouldn't have allowed them to move it on a whim, and indeed it was the ITC who forced them to bring it back as News at When for that reason.

[Newsroom]

Do you have a source for this?

Very rare for anything like that to be done without some prior research.

Well, indeed. They said at the time that one of the reasons they changed it in 1999 was because all the research they'd done suggested that the audience were more interested in watching the news earlier in the evening, hence why they substantially pumped up the teatime news and moved Trevor McDonald there and made it the new flagship bulletin. Of course, how much of that was because the audience were fed up with films and dramas being interrupted by News at Ten is another question, rather than any great clamour for it earlier in the evening.

But certainly in those days ITV would do endless audience research regarding schedules, I remember The Box, the short-lived TV magazine, doing a piece about the state of ITV in 1997, saying that the network centre would be endlessly bombarded with stats from Granada about what shows from Carlton were flopping in their region and stats from Carlton about what shows from Granada were flopping in their region. They were incredinly conservative in their scheduling in those days as well.

They would have had to have done some research as well because the ITC had to approve the news move. I remember when there was that storm-in-a-teacup debate about Cracker in 1995, when they had to move it to Sunday because on Monday it would run past 10pm and make News at Ten late, that one of the reasons why that was an issue was that many of the franchises had deliberately mentioned News at Ten in their bids so if they didn't do it, they'd be breaching their contracts. I'm pretty sure that when the ITC approved it they would have required ITV to give them various assurances about what kind of ratings they were expecting, based on audience research, and how they intended to ensure news audiences as a whole didn't drop significantly. They wouldn't have allowed them to move it on a whim, and indeed it was the ITC who forced them to bring it back as News at When for that reason.

No, I have don't have a source, it's my own opinion. Having grown up in the that era and ( a bit before), I remember it very very well and the research they did carry out was clearly flawed as it was an utter flop. I do know for a fact that it was extremely unpopular within ITN.

[Steve Williams]

No, I have don't have a source, it's my own opinion. Having grown up in the that era and ( a bit before), I remember it very very well and the research they did carry out was clearly flawed as it was an utter flop. I do know for a fact that it was extremely unpopular within ITN.

Well, I don't doubt it was unpopular within ITN, because there was the potential for news to be downgraded and for it to lose audiences and influences. But it reminds me of what they mention in Michael Leapman's book about the Beeb in the eighties about Sixty Minutes, and how when it was axed the current affairs department lobbied hard to keep it going, not because they thought it was any good as they'd had no end of trouble with it within the department and it was a very unhappy programme, but because it was their biggest show in terms of hours and they didn't want to lose that commitment.

As I say, ITV said at the time that they'd done audience research which said viewers preferred to watch the news earlier in the evening, and that was a fair assessment, although of course that was probably coloured by the fact viewers were fed up of News at Ten interrupting films and dramas. It could have worked, for some people it was a convenient time, but what did for it in the end was that they could never find anything to play in the 10pm hour so it ended up passing on a paltry inheritance to the 11pm news most nights. But they weren't to know when they did it that pretty much all the shows they were putting there were going to flop massively.

I mean, I remember really fearing for BBC1 when the new schedules kicked in - it was one of BBC1's lowest ebbs with some high-profile flops and some very modest fare in primetime, and ITV turned up with this swaggering schedule that looked like it was going to blow BBC1 off the screen, they were swimming in cash in those days. The potential was there for ITV to do extremely well, which would have benefitted the news as much as anything.

[Bluecortina]

I presume similar research led ITV to produce an early Saturday evening football show - that turned out well didn’t it.

Personally, and I have nothing at all to support it, I don’t think theres any market for this amount of ‘news’ early weekday evenings. I’ll give it a few months, I’m happy to be proved wrong of course.

[eyeTV]

They will lose the 7pm audience in the hope of consolidating 7.30pm - 9pm.

I don't think it will be sustainable longer term. It's ITV, they don't need that much news. If the soap move works out then longer term they need a different show at 7pm in my opinion.

[LiamFitz28]

Strange to see they’re going off a ‘dedicated weather presenter’. I wonder why? What will happen to the other weather presenters?

[James]

What will happen to the other weather presenters?

Nothing. Alex will just be the main one. I'm sure we'll see others covering for Alex from time to time, just like how Charlene and Lucrezia often stand in for Mary as the Evening News presenter.

[Brekkie]

He seems to present more often than not anyway.

[CameronYoung]

all the research they'd done suggested that the audience were more interested in watching the news earlier in the evening, hence why they substantially pumped up the teatime news and moved Trevor McDonald there and made it the new flagship bulletin. Of course, how much of that was because the audience were fed up with films and dramas being interrupted by News at Ten is another question, rather than any great clamour for it earlier in the evening.

Surely if viewers really wanted the news earlier, the Nine O'Clock News would've thrashed NaT night after night.

I had a look and graphed it, and...

not really.

Source

[Matthew]

Surely if viewers really wanted the news earlier, the Nine O'Clock News would've thrashed NaT night after night.

I had a look and graphed it, and...

not really.

Source

1998 data doesn't have much relevance today, lifestyles etc have changed

[CameronYoung]

Surely if viewers really wanted the news earlier, the Nine O'Clock News would've thrashed NaT night after night.

I had a look and graphed it, and...

not really.

Source

1998 data doesn't have much relevance today, lifestyles etc have changed

I was referring to the earlier conversation regarding the original cancellation of News at Ten. I'll retroactively quote the post I was referring to.

[Brekkie]

Surely if viewers really wanted the news earlier, the Nine O'Clock News would've thrashed NaT night after night.

I had a look and graphed it, and...

not really.

Source

By earlier they meant 6-7pm rather than 9pm.

[Stanley Matravers]

Here in the ITV West Country region, I can't honestly now recall whether it was Alex Beresford or the long-standing Bob Crampton who was the "1st choice" forecaster during the final few years before the latter's retirement in 2018. They were possibly approximately equal during that period?

But, since Alex has increasingly been doing GMB and/or National weather in recent years, he is now very much "2nd choice" (if that, even) to young Charlie Powell (Bob Crampton's successor) here in the West Country.

I guess that his status on West Country regional weather will be further diminished (or even fizzle out entirely) with the further bolstering of his national weather duties around the new Evening News? (Despite him still residing - as far as I am aware - in the Bristol area)

[XIII]

He seems to present more often than not anyway.

I always thought Lucy Verasamy was the main ITV Weather presenter. I wonder if that means we might see a new second weather presenter on GMB?