pc49
Neck and Neck with Charlie McKinna
Posts: 101
|
Post by pc49 on Jan 3, 2020 19:00:58 GMT 1
Glasgow finished 4th out of 26 for their 2019 programme. Top Feature: The Tigers News at Den. So different, a great idea to present it in newspaper style. Problem Area: None. Observation: Classic interior design - top job. Judges comments: Many programmes would do well to follow Glasgow rider based material. It can be done! This is a quality production and arguably Tigers' best for decades or so. Great page designs and paragraphing almost spot on. Value for money: 10/10. The programme scored 90/100 based on content, design, paragraphing, cover and racecard. Edinburgh finished 9th with 83/100. Sheffield was first with 96/100. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Flying Tiger on Jan 4, 2020 0:21:51 GMT 1
It's always a subjective exercise (one man's meat is another man's poison as the old saying goes) and therefore you'll not be surprised that I disagree with the assertion by the reviewers that it's the best programme Glasgow have produced for a decade or so. Was it really better than the 2016 edition, deemed second only to Newcastle in that year's Premier League review? Not one of last season's programmes was error-free, whether that be spelling, grammar or factual mistakes. You could count the mistakes in the entire 2016 season on the fingers of one hand whereas I spotted six mistakes in the 2019 issue reviewed alone! The fixtures page, for example, was wrong every single time it appeared after the first team change, so I don't understand how the reviewers can state there is no problem area. Oh for the days of Ian Steel, Argee, Code Red and some visitor stats...
|
|
|
Post by coombes on Jan 4, 2020 9:32:54 GMT 1
The annual programme review continues to place style considerably higher than substance. For me programmes are a useful reference giving details of the ups and downs of seasons past. However this has been sadly missing from our programmes in the last few years since we discontinued the promotions editorial page, something of which the reviewer seems oblivious. This is our problem area. When I pointed this out a few years ago I was told the Team Managers page fulfilled this role - sorry it doesn't. Its just a ghost written page, padded out and largely concerned with repeating how good our team spirit is - even when it wasn't during the Lawson/Worrall time!
While there are many aspects of the programme that are not to my taste - the cover photo of a sulking Tiger seemingly taken in a dark tunnel; Phil Lanning recalling his father's TV broadcasts - I'd forgive them all if we brought back the promotions page - provided it really is written by the promoters.
|
|
|
Post by benbulben on Jan 4, 2020 10:56:13 GMT 1
I have every home programme from 1964 and a good few prior to that. I did articles for it when Ian Steel edited it. In the Facenna era it is all gloss and little substance. It seems aimed at a new market and ignores fans who know their history. Compare John Campbell's insightful columns in the Edinburgh one to what Stewart and Cameron have in their columns. The ludicrous analogies simply dont ring true. I sent what I thought was some interesting stuff to the lad who did it before Phil. He liked it but it was never printed. The editorial content is the editor's responsibility and to me it is padded out with contributions from Pearson and Natalie and have nothing to do with Glasgow. I can read it on the way home while the lights are at red.
|
|
|
Post by coombes on Jan 4, 2020 12:18:33 GMT 1
David Walker is no longer shown as Programme Editor with the role being shared between Phil Lanning and Robert McKenzie, the General/Marketing manager. This probably explains the change in emphasis towards all things marketing and why PL gets such a free hand in his less than insightful stuff.
While I've always enjoyed, and occasionally contributed to, reviews of the past times, I accept that these are now of limited interest to a lot of supporters, but I stand by my earlier point that we need current up to date news and opinions from the promotion. As Benbulben points out we lag behind Edinburgh quite badly in this respect. Perhaps next season .......?
|
|
|
Post by citytiger on Jan 4, 2020 19:11:40 GMT 1
It's always a subjective exercise (one man's meat is another man's poison as the old saying goes) and therefore you'll not be surprised that I disagree with the assertion by the reviewers that it's the best programme Glasgow have produced for a decade or so. Was it really better than the 2016 edition, deemed second only to Newcastle in that year's Premier League review? Not one of last season's programmes was error-free, whether that be spelling, grammar or factual mistakes. You could count the mistakes in the entire 2016 season on the fingers of one hand whereas I spotted six mistakes in the 2019 issue reviewed alone! The fixtures page, for example, was wrong every single time it appeared after the first team change, so I don't understand how the reviewers can state there is no problem area. Oh for the days of Ian Steel, Argee, Code Red and some visitor stats... I noticed that as well and it is something that annoys me not just with our programme but in web sites, newspapers, posters, adverts, etc, etc. Even Peter Oakes's column in the Star has had typing errors that in the past wouldn't have happened - pressure of print deadlines perhaps, amendments by editors and probably people relying too much on spell check. Hippy New Yeer, by the whey.
|
|
pc49
Neck and Neck with Charlie McKinna
Posts: 101
|
Post by pc49 on Jan 5, 2020 14:33:58 GMT 1
I thought that it would be of interest to make a comparison of the Glasgow programme over recent years. I looked at one issue from 2013 (v Plymouth) and compared it with all of the issues from 2019. There were a number of obvious differences; size and the number of pages were the immediate ones. Another significant difference was in the "Meet the Visitors" pages. I estimated around 1400 words in 2013 and less than 300 words in 2019. Included in the 2013 item you could delve into the records and statistics such as "What Happened Last Time", "Glasgow v Plymouth league record", "Previous Ashfield Performances" of the riders together with "most recent score, biggest win and heaviest defeat." The equivalent 2019 item had short pen portraits of the opposition with Ashfield averages. The averages were dropped after the first match! Another difference? Items with no direct relevance with Glasgow Speedway. In issue 21 last season, we had Paul Burbridge, Nigel Pearson and Phil Lanning all contributing in this fashion. Bring back The Gordon Pairman Experience :-) I also noticed that the 2019 "Championship News" became the "UK Speedway News" after issue 11. I could go on, but I've been told to make the lunch!
|
|
|
Post by coombes on Jan 5, 2020 16:26:35 GMT 1
Another difference - Burbridge, Pearson and Lanning were no doubt paid for their efforts. 2013 was done by volunteers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 16:50:02 GMT 1
time the programme went back to the old daysthey might have a chance of a award
|
|
|
Post by coombes on Jan 6, 2020 14:19:35 GMT 1
Can't get too excited about grammar and spelling and don't feel we should encourage the self absorbed Howard Jones by taking any heed of his comments in a bid to win his favour. However factual mistakes and omissions are something to be addressed for this season, starting with reinstating a page by the promotion.
|
|
dadam
Neck and Neck with Charlie McKinna
Posts: 196
|
Post by dadam on Jan 6, 2020 15:15:40 GMT 1
I am a long time supporter and after reading the first few issues of 2019 for the first time in my speedway life I stopped buying a programme. The first issues as already stated on this thread had spelling and grammar mistakes also some wrong facts. I felt the programme was no longer worth reading or value for money hence my reason to stop purchasing the programme. Hopefully the promotion may consider going back to previous editors and style of content.
|
|
|
Post by benbulben on Jan 6, 2020 15:15:41 GMT 1
Despite Jones' high praise posters on here are not happy with the production. If the editors cant think of anything other than hooking in the likes of Pearson , all they need to do is have a look at other programmes and pinch their ideas. The best football programmes are done by enthusiasts such as at Aberdeen and Clyde.
|
|