Definitely, it’s very cheap ‘local’ television for WIN. I get the impression Bruce likes to make the point that WIN, out of the goodness of its heart, produces “large” amounts of local television and politicians and viewers should be grateful.
Never mind that the total content (outside of studio) wouldn’t be much more than about 15 minutes per day per market, the stories themselves aren’t always produced very well. Nothing like the standard of SC Tas.
WIN could take a leaf out of 7 Adelaide and Perth’s books and invest a little more in production and create some ‘Today Tonight’ standard stories. Human interest pieces that resonate both locally and nationally. They’d need much nicer camera work and to allow their reporters more time to compile their stories, but they could then create a programme that may actually attract viewers - rather than simply make a perfunctory point.
I remember watching WIN News back when it was in WA and quite often I’d see stories produced from Wollongong with national significance and pretty good production values. Perfect for a current affairs style program as you suggest.
These days it’s all about filling out that quota as cheaply as possible. Pretty smart when you think about it from a business perspective. B-grade crap for the viewer though, especially outside of NSW/Vic/Qld.
You’re right, regional television hasn’t historically been about investing to gain/maintain ratings. But WIN could be left behind here in the same way Southern Cross was in the early 90s.
If CBS really intends to take on 7 and 9, WIN may need to pull its socks up too. We’ve seen Prime7 invest in its local offering and maintain a better than 50% share and SC has thrown a bit more money at Tassie which no doubt will bolster its number 1 position. Part of that is obviously the power of 7, but not all.
For me, Canberra and Illawarra are ripe for the picking. No one is bothering to try and gain that 50% share enjoyed in other regional markets. If only CBS made Bruce an offer on WIN Canberra that he couldn’t refuse!
They’ve got to do something beyond scheduling archaic mini-series and ramming their brand down viewer’s throats. Must be a dire place to work for these days.
You are very right. I remember many years ago Prime was going through a similar bad patch. They had a god awful brand and tag line (This is where we live…). I remember I interviewed there for a job and asked them ‘What’s up with the brand?’ I think I offended some of the programming executives who said, ‘It’s in the best place it’s ever been’. That was about 20 years ago and Prime has come a long way - while WIN seems to have regressed.
WIN’s voiceover is very old fashioned, the news music and presentation is exceptionally stale (except for Bruce Roberts and Lincoln Humphries) and of course everyone hates that silly map thing.
The trouble is, Bruce thinks he can programme his ‘network’ in spite of his audience - the reality is he really should think about appealing to them.
In the early 90s Prime had similar branding to Seven but when started (this is where we lived) it was such a let down. But they have come a full circle and look fantastic again. Who’s god dam awful idea was the this is where we lived idea anyway YUK
I don’t know where the slogan came from, but it was probably developed to say we are local your station.
It was at a time when all the stations were still producing some local content (such as half hour news bulletins) for the stations, but generally carrying metropolitan feeds.
Win in the late 80s and early 90s had a kids cartoon show called ACE on Saturday instead of Nine’s Cartoon Company. Prior to aggregation it also aired a weekday show at 3:30pm, the ad for this show was also a tacky ad.
I think the regional stations in general did tacky ads in the 1980s and 1990s (probably a hangover from having only 1 commercial channel in most regional licence areas in Australia up until 1989)
Prime and WIN’s branding were god awful at aggregation in '89 - but lifted their game in 1990 as the Ten Network re-branded CTC with the X logo and subsequently TV Oz.
Here’s 1989:
Versus
and
Here’s 1990
Versus
and
My argument with the programmers at Prime was along the lines of “If you’re showing the exact same promo in Victoria as you are in Bunbury, how can you say it’s “local”? It’s just generic!”. You are right though, they were trying to make out that ‘local’ television was in some way better. This attitude developed at the time when pay TV was coming in to Australia - and country viewers were turning to Galaxy (as it was then known) in DROVES.
It’s worth noting that Capital stopped producing local news in the Illawarra in 1989 and never produced local news in the Riverina and Central West - whereas Prime were big investors in this area. So they did have their money where their mouth was on the ‘local’ front!
Which approach to branding to people think would be better for WIN: Positioning themselves in a similar way to Prime7 or SCA Nine? Or doing completely independent branding from the metropolitan network they’re affiliated with?
Although I rarely ever get to watch WIN myself, I get the overall impression that their branding is all over the place with multiple logos, graphical styles and branding strategies all competing for each other. Promos telling us they have 30 minutes of local news, sport and weather for the Illawarra, South Coast and Southern Highlands (although aside from the weather, it’s very Wollongong/Nowra-centric from what I’ve seen) while simultaneously boasting about how they’re “Entertaining Australia” with stations in every state + the ACT.
The brand is a mess and has been since they got rid of the dots - even though 9 brought them back! On one hand they bang on about ‘your news, local news’ bla bla bla with the most god awful copy ever written for a promo; and as you say they then harp on about being national and reaching a gazillion people.
The reason for the former is political - to ensure no one could accuse Bruce of being a ‘bad broadcaster’ when it comes to media reform laws. The latter is about reminding advertisers of the reach of the ‘network’. It’s all very old fashioned, Prime is doing nicely without any of that claptrap.
Ten’s brand is finely tuned and has, for the past 25 years at least, been carefully aligned with its target audience. WIN would do well to get on board! Though the name for me is a problem, “WIN Ten” is just jarring. I’d be tempted to create a new brand called something like Ten Star, where the Federation Star could represent their ‘every state’ coverage. Nine has faded NBN right down, it’s time for WIN to let it go.
Clearly I’m no designer, but something light touch like the old Ten Capital logo would be fine.
The federation star idea is a good one. It’s a shame Southern Cross couldn’t design a decent brand around that. The name was too long, the overly detailed logo looked shit on air and their execution was so half arsed (probably for good business reasons). Something short and workable like Ten Star would have been better for them.
You are very right. I remember many years ago Prime was going through a similar bad patch. They had a god awful brand and tag line (This is where we live…). I remember I interviewed there for a job and asked them ‘What’s up with the brand?’ I think I offended some of the programming executives who said, ‘It’s in the best place it’s ever been’. That was about 20 years ago and Prime has come a long way - while WIN seems to have regressed.
