Media Dept - Programme

[RoversAlias]

I don't want to put any kind of negative on the club today but I've got to say the programme was error-strewn once more. I don't want to just slate the guys who put the time in to make it however, that is not my intention at all.

I remember the first programme of the season had a badly contrasted picture of David Syers on it that even had a blue smudge on it, even though an identical picture inside was perfectly fine as the front page one had clearly been lifted from that image and pasted onto a backdrop of the stadium for the cover. Also just things like simple mistypes of words like 'owend' and stuff.

The Hull section was full of them, 'Robert Keron', inexplicably referring to Andy Dawson as 'Andy Stalwart' and getting the pre-season score down as 2-0 when a mere couple of pages later a report was in there with the correct score of 3-1. That article also talked about how 'at the time of writing' both clubs had 100% records even though it said we had beaten both Walsall and Crawley (meaning Bury) and failed to mention that Hull had lost that same week to Blackburn.

These are things which a basic run-through to proof read before publication would iron out. Once again I am not trying to just slate the publication or those who put it together, be it Steve Uttley or anyone as I do like the range of articles and contents that are in our programme and I know it can be tough to get everything in before necessary deadlines. Just wanted to raise the issue as it was discussed alongside the quality of the website recently on here, and am again hoping to try and drum up some ideas to try and help out if needed.

I was wondering if anybody knew of any possibilities to help out as apparently there is very limited staff working in our media department right now and obviously they have got a lot of duties to fulfill as part of that job. Maybe it is something that the In Rovers We Trust initiative will be able to look at when it gets fully up and running?

[BobG]

Trouble is the splendid programmes of a few seasons back now, produced, checked and delivered by some very special supporters - step forward Red Baron for one - got canned when the Rovers in their wisdom decided they wanted the glory and kudos of producing a damn fine programme instead. Not only did they really pee off the guys who had done all the work but they couldn't produce a programme either.  Lack of resources may well be the cause of what's now dished up, but why, oh why, get rid of folk who, for nowt, did it fabulously? And why on Earth would anyone bother to help out again now?

BobG

[RobTheRover]

Bob,  that's not quite true (there was a cost involved to the club), but the VSC did try to get the decision changed back to being fan produced, to no avail. The regime at the club at the time wanted to bring it in-house.

[MrFrost]

Also a lot of errors on the stats page

[GazLaz]

Things like this just wind me up. It's just amateur. The thing with football is that there are a lot of other bigger clubs that do things well that we can take ideas from and learn from. We don't have to reinvent the wheel with how the club is run, we just need to look at how other clubs successfully manage situations and learn from them. Being able to produce a programme of a decent standard is pretty basic stuff though.

[RobTheRover]

It's not though,  Gaz. It takes a massive amount of effort and lots of contributors. Ask Glen how difficult the fanzine can be,  then multiply that by 2 on content and probably 6 on the number of issues to produce a year. And all with a very small media team who do website,  photos, press releases,  twitter,  etc. Plus we've just had 3 games at home in a week,  so the workload will have been through the roof.

To get it right every time in the timescales they have is a big ask. However,  I have put the suggestion from the OP that we have a couple of fans as proof read volunteers,  and they are considering this.

Hopefully,  no one has found too many errors on the VSC pages since I've been writing them.... 

[GazLaz]

I know they do take plenty of work but I think a multi million pound business should be able to put things in place so the end product every other Saturday is of a good standard. There are people willing to help that it seems they don't want help from so they can't complain about the work load.

[Alickismyhero]

Rob,
I don't know if its me but the RP crashed on me 3 times on Tuesday and I have tried to get the highlights of the game and nothing? surely it should be better than this?

[roversontheup]

Rob
If you need volunteers I would be happy to proof read programmes or any other publications.

[MrFrost]

I bought a programme at the Crawley game. We only named two subs on the bench for Bury apparently. And no one scored.

[bobbymax]

Rob
If you need volunteers I would be happy to proof read programmes or any other publications.

I run my own sports agency. Ditto if I could get a couple of day's notice.

[Sheepskin Stu]

This is an issue that needs resolving quickly. I'm sure Gavin and Shaun will be receptive to ideas. We know the media staff are overstretched. This has been the case for years. If they cannot produce something decent pay someone to do it right.

[RTID75]

I can only agree with what has been said up until now. The programme regularly (actually, probably always) contains spelling, grammar and occasionally factual errors. If this were the fanzine then you would forgive it, but it's an official publication from an official company and errors (especially spelling and grammar) should be few and far between.

With a tiny media dept. with time and no doubt money constraints, I don't know what the answer is. I can sympathise with their situation, but in the mean time it regularly makes the club look a little bit amateur.

Apart from said errors, it's actually not a bad read these days.

[Dagenham Rover]

I think i9t was the Crawley program that half of there players were
 5' 12" tall   

[Muttley]

I've not bought a programme regularly since the late 80's, so I'm that well placed to comment, but what I would want to know is:

How many programmes do we typically sell and what does it cost to produce (net of advertising revenue etc)?

Who buys/reads programmes? Home fans? Away fans? Kids? Adults

What do fans reasonably expect from a programme these days? Team sheet? Stats? In-depth articles? Adverts?

Maybe we're trying to do too much on a small budget and therefore failing on many fronts.

Can certain parts not be bought in/contracted out? eg use stats from the BBC, player details direct from the opponent 9or maybe this is already done.

[deebee]

Daggers I checked this with Steve and they just reproduced what Crawley had supplied to them. So its not just our lads is it?

[Dagenham Rover]

Daggers I checked this with Steve and they just reproduced what Crawley had supplied to them. So its not just our lads is it?

I did wonder after if that might be the case

[Drummond_Base]

Which still begs the question why it wasnt picked up in the proof reading stage if fans can see it immediately.

I think the fans need to be involved sooner rather than later and the club can once again have a top drawer programme.  It's not bad as it is, but would be a much better read with the error count reduced.

[RoversAlias]

It can't have been proof read at all, that's what I took from all the errors on Tuesday.

There are many of us who would be willing to contribute to putting together a good programme, hopefully steps can be taken to get discussions opened with the club about this soon.

[VivaRovers]

Ask Glen how difficult the fanzine can be... 

The fanzine is a piece of p*ss. Sort it out Rovers.

If this were the fanzine then you would forgive it, but it's an official publication from an official company and errors (especially spelling and grammar) should be few and far between.

Hey! Do you mind, I'll have you know I got the error count in Issue 59 down to single figures.

[Sheepskin Stu]

£200 an issue Glen? Sounds fair enough.

[RobTheRover]

I've just put that to Shaun and he says £200 an issue is fine. When can you start?