[Stooky Bill]

I guess if Talk continues in an online format and is just a simulcast of the radio station it could potentially remain simulcast on the local channels, at least until any deal expires.

It could but it wouldn't be ideal.

Do they insert anything else than just their evening news, like ads? If so I'd imagine that doing that into a more basic visualised radio stream will be a bit more tricky

[Neil Jones]

Was just about to post the same thing. It's like the American affiliation system - stations taking on and then removing network branding.

Wonder what they're planning on showing, I think the CBS channel that used to supply them with a constant diet of Judge Judy have gone too now haven't they?

Might be a very revolutionary idea, but they could make some content of their own!

Although I suspect hell was freeze over first.

[Brekkie]

I guess at worse they loop an hour of content throughout the day. Presumably these simulcast deals are there main source of income - I think the nonsense of them selling stories to the BBC which they'd never use has come to an end now.

Trying to think of who else on Freeview might benefit from a simulcast on 7/8 and the most obvious choice is their main rivals in the local network, That's TV. That seems unlikely but possible one way or another the circumstances could see a merger, although That's TV are even worse than Local TV for actual local content and really should have been stripped of the licences years ago.

[lookoutwales]

I think the nonsense of them selling stories to the BBC which they'd never use has come to an end now.

Once that three-year deal expired (think it started from the moment each licence went on air?), it was pretty much the cue for Local and That's to start slashing everything to the bare minimum (and in That's case, to buy up more licences and effectively, all but close their operations)

I personally wouldn't be surprised if they revert back to simulcasting the former CBS channels.

[James2001]

The reason why STV2 never took the funding, as they obviously wouldn't have wanted the BBC using their reports and they were probably the only ones making something of a quality the BBC might have considered using anyway.

And when an ITV franchisee with all their resources couldn't make local TV work, it really tells you what a bad idea it was.

[Jon]

The reason why STV2 never took the funding, as they obviously wouldn't have wanted the BBC using their reports and they were probably the only ones making something of a quality the BBC might have considered using anyway.

And when an ITV franchisee with all their resources couldn't make local TV work, it really tells you what a bad idea it was.

The fact there are still independent local channels, means it wasn’t a totally failed experiment. The trouble is the ones run as profit making entities haven’t lasted. But the ones run more like community radio have largely lasted. So ultimately I think the mistake was allowing larger group that were profit orientated.

[justhere991]

The reason why STV2 never took the funding, as they obviously wouldn't have wanted the BBC using their reports and they were probably the only ones making something of a quality the BBC might have considered using anyway.

And when an ITV franchisee with all their resources couldn't make local TV work, it really tells you what a bad idea it was.

STV encountered a major challenge with their local services, primarily stemming from the expectation that these services would highlight and cater to the unique content needs of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, and Ayr—their designated license areas. However, the introduction of the 'STV2' brand inadvertently transformed these services into what felt like a localized version of ITV2, contrary to their original vision.

It's evident that STV aimed for a model akin to the regional structure of ITV, yet struggled to execute it effectively. From an outsider's perspective, particularly as an Australian observing the UK's local TV landscape from a distance, the shortcomings of the scheme aren't surprising. Instead of embodying a robust local TV framework, it appears to lean more towards a community TV approach, which is disheartening.

[Milkshake]

STV Glasgow actually covered its costs, the trouble started when it expanded to the 5 other areas and STV ***** the money up the wall. Why on earth did it even buy that Irish Soap Fair City. Its news operations were actually cheap to make and Aberdeen even covered the evenings. During the day on the hour there was news bulletin and last 2mins was for local news form one of the five areas.

[London Lite]

Storm Huntley, now of Channel 5 fame started off on STV Glasgow.

[Brekkie]

Notts TV showing how it should be done - seem to have a strong social media content and their news actually includes news, not voxpops on national issues done on street corners.

twitter.com 

Meanwhile That's TV and Local TV have virtually zero presence online - even if their news content showed anything worthwhile unless you see it on TV you're not going to see it.