There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Chapman is the man to boost C4 Racing coverage
BY SAM WALKER 10:34AM 23 JUN 2015
THE only racing certainty at Royal Ascot last week was that Channel 4 viewing figures would fall. It's just a fact of life these days. Pubs are closing, children are getting fatter and fewer people watch Channel 4 Racing.
While the viewing figures released on Monday reveal a relatively minor overall decline compared to the drop-off for Channel 4's first two Royal Ascots, the total of around 2.9 million viewers still languishes significantly behind the 6.9m who tuned in for the BBC's final year of coverage in 2012.
The new-look programme has been in place for two and a half years, but the producers have yet to acknowledge the under-performance in terms of audience numbers. Instead they give excuses and trot out different sets of figures.
It may be a tough ask in this digital age of head transplants and delivery drones but the focus at Channel 4 should still be on increasing racing's audience, not excusing its decline.
There are strong feelings about the battle for viewing figures. A popular concern is the programme is too dry - the subdued Royal Ascot coverage was symptomatic - and a popular solution is personnel change.
It may be harsh to pin all the blame on the presenters but, given the increased production values of the new BBC-style offering, the team who present the show are one area surely ripe for reconsideration in the search for a solution.
If there is a problem with the Channel 4 team it probably started at the beginning. The selection method appears to stem from a theory that if viewers don't like a presenter they will turn off, while if they are indifferent to them they will stay tuned.
To this end the old BBC and Channel 4 teams were stripped of all the characters, like John McCririck, Derek Thompson and Willie Carson, and a new team was formed. All-stylish, all-professional, all-sleek and all-vanilla. The problem with the vanilla theory is that while you may not alienate viewers, you also fail to attract them. Cosy and sedate is not entertainment.
The name that pops up most often when poor viewing figures are mentioned is At The Races frontman Matt Chapman. In fact, it crops up so frequently the production team must be sick of hearing it.
Some say Chapman is Marmite - a love-him-or-hate-him character. He may well be an outsize personality who occasionally drives those who have to manage him to distraction, and that may have counted against his being considered for a role when Channel 4 Racing was relaunched. But the Marmite analogy is deceptive.
OF COURSE, many people will claim they can't stand Chapman. They will also say they voted Green and that they love spending time with their kids at the weekend. In reality, however, many love nothing more than watching Chapman; they voted Tory because they were scared of the SNP and, if they're honest, by the time Monday morning comes around work is a blessed relief.
Whatever your view of Chapman, what should be appreciated is that he has a real knack for entertainment. We all live in the same world watching the same things, but some people can repackage that world in an engaging manner that sparks our interest. It's a rare skill and one British racing can ill afford to waste.
Chapman may be restricted to ATR, but he still rivals Clare Balding as the most popular presenter in racing - and he isn't just a lad for the lads. He has fans across the whole spectrum because he's fun, likeable and incredibly passionate about the sport.
He provokes debate, challenges convention, has an easy, interactive style that engages the viewer and is so indispensable to ATR that when he took an extended holiday in 2008 unhappy viewers started a petition to get him back on air.
For many the answer is simple. British racing has an outstanding broadcaster working on a specialist channel and poor viewing figures on its sole terrestrial channel. One is entertaining, the other requires someone entertaining.
The non-Chapman route has, of course, paid off in one respect for Channel 4, as the hand-picked team were recognised with awards for their work on the 2014 Grand National. Technically they have raised the bar from the old show, which was admittedly dated and bawdy - albeit more entertaining. The new show is more high-brow and that shift has obviously pleased awards judges.
We should also applaud Channel 4 for broadcasting six live Royal Ascot races a day and heavily promoting the event. But the viewing figures cannot be ignored.
It would be nice to have the best of both worlds: high production values and a professional team, with a dollop of light entertainment from Chapman to keep viewers coming back for more.
The IMG contract to produce Channel 4 Racing expires at the end of 2016 and, with just 18 months left to run on their tender, the production team are unlikely to go for the Chapman solution. But it is staring them in the face.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/channel-4-matt-chapman-popular-chapman-is-the-man-to-boost-c4-racing-coverage/1902796/top/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews
BY SAM WALKER 10:34AM 23 JUN 2015
THE only racing certainty at Royal Ascot last week was that Channel 4 viewing figures would fall. It's just a fact of life these days. Pubs are closing, children are getting fatter and fewer people watch Channel 4 Racing.
While the viewing figures released on Monday reveal a relatively minor overall decline compared to the drop-off for Channel 4's first two Royal Ascots, the total of around 2.9 million viewers still languishes significantly behind the 6.9m who tuned in for the BBC's final year of coverage in 2012.
The new-look programme has been in place for two and a half years, but the producers have yet to acknowledge the under-performance in terms of audience numbers. Instead they give excuses and trot out different sets of figures.
It may be a tough ask in this digital age of head transplants and delivery drones but the focus at Channel 4 should still be on increasing racing's audience, not excusing its decline.
There are strong feelings about the battle for viewing figures. A popular concern is the programme is too dry - the subdued Royal Ascot coverage was symptomatic - and a popular solution is personnel change.
It may be harsh to pin all the blame on the presenters but, given the increased production values of the new BBC-style offering, the team who present the show are one area surely ripe for reconsideration in the search for a solution.
If there is a problem with the Channel 4 team it probably started at the beginning. The selection method appears to stem from a theory that if viewers don't like a presenter they will turn off, while if they are indifferent to them they will stay tuned.
To this end the old BBC and Channel 4 teams were stripped of all the characters, like John McCririck, Derek Thompson and Willie Carson, and a new team was formed. All-stylish, all-professional, all-sleek and all-vanilla. The problem with the vanilla theory is that while you may not alienate viewers, you also fail to attract them. Cosy and sedate is not entertainment.
The name that pops up most often when poor viewing figures are mentioned is At The Races frontman Matt Chapman. In fact, it crops up so frequently the production team must be sick of hearing it.
Some say Chapman is Marmite - a love-him-or-hate-him character. He may well be an outsize personality who occasionally drives those who have to manage him to distraction, and that may have counted against his being considered for a role when Channel 4 Racing was relaunched. But the Marmite analogy is deceptive.
OF COURSE, many people will claim they can't stand Chapman. They will also say they voted Green and that they love spending time with their kids at the weekend. In reality, however, many love nothing more than watching Chapman; they voted Tory because they were scared of the SNP and, if they're honest, by the time Monday morning comes around work is a blessed relief.
Whatever your view of Chapman, what should be appreciated is that he has a real knack for entertainment. We all live in the same world watching the same things, but some people can repackage that world in an engaging manner that sparks our interest. It's a rare skill and one British racing can ill afford to waste.
Chapman may be restricted to ATR, but he still rivals Clare Balding as the most popular presenter in racing - and he isn't just a lad for the lads. He has fans across the whole spectrum because he's fun, likeable and incredibly passionate about the sport.
He provokes debate, challenges convention, has an easy, interactive style that engages the viewer and is so indispensable to ATR that when he took an extended holiday in 2008 unhappy viewers started a petition to get him back on air.
For many the answer is simple. British racing has an outstanding broadcaster working on a specialist channel and poor viewing figures on its sole terrestrial channel. One is entertaining, the other requires someone entertaining.
The non-Chapman route has, of course, paid off in one respect for Channel 4, as the hand-picked team were recognised with awards for their work on the 2014 Grand National. Technically they have raised the bar from the old show, which was admittedly dated and bawdy - albeit more entertaining. The new show is more high-brow and that shift has obviously pleased awards judges.
We should also applaud Channel 4 for broadcasting six live Royal Ascot races a day and heavily promoting the event. But the viewing figures cannot be ignored.
It would be nice to have the best of both worlds: high production values and a professional team, with a dollop of light entertainment from Chapman to keep viewers coming back for more.
The IMG contract to produce Channel 4 Racing expires at the end of 2016 and, with just 18 months left to run on their tender, the production team are unlikely to go for the Chapman solution. But it is staring them in the face.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/channel-4-matt-chapman-popular-chapman-is-the-man-to-boost-c4-racing-coverage/1902796/top/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 35
|
By:
Derek Thompson and Willie Carson
 How often did Willie Carson appear?  John Francome and Fat Al shirley? OUT with Tarn, Fitzy IN with Chappers. Simon Holt should be brought back too. |
|
By:
Where is Patrick king horn...ideal replacement for Tanya.....say what you like about BIG MAC but when he was on the morning line I was interested to watch to see WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
|
|
By:
patrick kinghorn.........where is he now??
|
|
By:
If I was in charge of Channel 4 Racing the first thing I would do is get rid of everyone one bar Jim, Richard Holies and Holt. No reason why Richard and Simon can't do more pre race talk alongside the commentating.
Next thing I'd do is to sign Matt Champman up.The guy is a character and there is a serious shortage of these in the sport. Sure he is a bit of a sycophant at times but only when its deserved and as long as he gives out a bit of stick to those deserving of it too, which we know he's not afraid to do, then I think Matt would work a treat as the main presenter. The next thing the show needs is a REAL character in the betting ring and one who knows what they are talking about. I've always thought a Harry Findlay type would be perfect for this role. I can't think of anyone who is presently working in TV that could fill this role so I would send out a scouting team to find one. Actually maybe Harry himself would be interested in the job? I would like to see more talk of the betting leading up to the races with Betfair and Industry Bookmaker price comparisons, late drifters and steamers. The production values of the show are far too slick too. I don't want Hollywood style when I'm watching racing and I certainly don't want the dark Gothic music that seems to accompany every clip. Also the over used of the slow motion cam technique is embarrassing. Sure it works when showing a reply of the last few yards and seeing horses battling it out the finish but is it really necessary to use it to show a double chinned trainer laughing or one of the Saturday racegoers guzzling down the buck fizz? I would like to see EVERY horse shown going down to post, certainly at the big meetings when there is time. Even when its a busy Saturday they should make time to show the first 6/7 in the betting going down to post. You could then hear Simon, Richard & Jim talking about how they are going down, what kind of form the horse and trainer are in and how the betting on them is shaping up. I also have some more ideas on what could make this bland and boring TV programme much more fun and interesting to watch again. |
|
By:
....but I'm busy with my betting for the rest of the day!
|
|
By:
I agree with the idea of
|
|
By:
Leaving them wanting more?
|
|
By:
I agree with the comparison of betfair & bookmakers before racing but the industry have lots of advertising time they pay for so they probably wouldn't encourage people seeing the differentials which exist particularly on longer priced selections
matt chapman would definitely improve the programme immeasurably and some of the dead wood have to be removed for the betterment of the programme far too much time discussing racing in general but most punters want analysis of the days racing that is being covered - they completely fail in this regard |
|
By:
Honestly some of the people they have on the channel 4 to present "LIVE RACING" Channel 4's coverage IMO last week was dire. I cant remember last week actually being shown a horse/horse's going to post. I mean cmon half the week we saw Gok Wan talking mindless drivel about fashion. Im all for a bit of fun etc but where does Gok Wan cmon into the equasion are who actually thought of this idea?
Most of last week we had to endure an afternoon of Gok Wan? What does this guy know about racing its an actual insult to the people who work hard come home for a afternoon/weekend of racing. People turn the channel on to watch the racing so what do they want? Im hardly a rocket scientist but surely you'd start first with the easy stuff. analyse the field/form/trainer form/corse form anyhting to do with racing (Can people honestly tell me they want to be hearing Gok Wan analysing the queens outfit every other female's outfit throughout the afternoon its beyond cringworthy. Secondly think you are correct Whipping somebody who could freshen up the betting ring. Prime example I had a laugh to myself when Tanya Stevenson is classed as "Our betting expert in the ring" ERMM OK WAR ENVOY WINS AT 10/1 SAYS TANYA. Well the so called betting expert decided to leave out the fact that you could easily back the horse at 20/1 online on Betfair 2 mins before the off. Why? Its hardly a small pull its half the f**king price? Jeesus Why no attention brought to this? Exactly why she has the job she doesnt want to rock the applecart. Channel 4 is a bookies benefit the amount of adverts PR is awful. I think the exact reason these bafoons are employed is they dont want to educate people regarding value. Bookies ripping off punters etc.. The gravy train will keep rolling. |
|
By:
I find the entire Channel 4 team to be absolutely hopeless, rather listen to Chapman, though he is also a bit of an "Oaf" too. Its baffling that all these so called horse racing experts are so poor at actually highlighting winners. The all too common comments about how well horses have run after their defeats, especially fancied shorties, goes beyond the pale and does the sport no favours whatsoever. I think the whole thing is just a gravy train for Claire, Fitz, Tanya and Co, the whole lot are boring, clueless and totally predictable. I don't think Chapman is the answer though. Lets face it, the entire Channel 4 team didn't have a clue what side of the course the draw would favour at Royal Ascot last week, that is unforgiveable as it would have been quite easy for one of them to have walked the course and give punters a clue what was going on. Gravy train, with the blind leading the blind.
|
|
By:
OF COURSE, many people will claim they can't stand Chapman. They will also say they voted Green and that they love spending time with their kids at the weekend. In reality, however, many love nothing more than watching Chapman; they voted Tory because they were scared of the SNP and, if they're honest, by the time Monday morning comes around work is a blessed relief.
That's quite some argument...those that say they dont like him are lying  |
|
By:
i also think channel 4 team are useless
|
|
By:
I like Matt Chapman but I suspect he would be somewhat 'gelded' on CH4 as he seems to have a loosened reign on ATR...a bit like a quality midfielder/playmaker that plays in whatever role HE wants to - I reckon the ponces upstairs at CH4 wouldn't let that happen.
|
|
By:
In all honesty I think the least of Channel 4's worrys should be what Chapman has to say it can only help them improve which shouldnt be too difficult topping Cunningham etc... Its almost offensive seeing Gok Wan constantly popping up on a racing week near enough presenting the show im sure im not the only one.
|
|
By:
The Gwok guy dominating the week was an insult to racing fans, I agree entirely mate. For sure have a bit of fashion for the girls, but to let it dominate and take up so much of the was unforgiveable, Channel 4 feminist liberal BS at its very worst.
|
|
By:
Two things. Who does the author think he is telling me I imagine I dislike Chapman intensely. Secondly Chapman and Balding racing's two most popular presenters? Has the world gone mad?
|
|
By:
Sacked from Towcester horseracing duty 'cos he's a prick who never knows when to shut up.
Channel4 may be stupid,.. but Chapman,.. your having a laugh  |
|
By:
My perfect set up. Mick Easterby presenting.McCririck doing the fashion !
|
|
By:
Chapman is a no brainer. He must be given free rein. It would be great they had a proper paddock person there - one whose sole job it was to go racing every day of the week and therefore who knows the animals inside out, and who can offer some sort of eloquent insight into the horses' condition. Similarly, a betting / odds guru who can talk about percentages and probabilities in a reasonably user friendly and clear way. Tanya is the loveliest person you could ever meet but has never been a broadcaster and never will be. Jim McGrath has never been able to communicate any passion or insight - that's not the same as saying he lacks either. He's solid but his time has come - and his 'mother-in-law reference surely sums it all up for him. Whoever thought Jim and Graham would be a good double act needs to be sacked. They break a fundamental rule of broadcasting - they are basically the same person, the same thing: white, middle class, middle aged Northerners, ex Timeform. It's utterly illogical to have them both on - they have the same approach to form, conservative, conventional, common sense, no creativity or insight. Fitzgerald offers no insight whatsoever into flat racing. He's only there in the summer because they have to pay him all year round. Nick Luck is class but they need someone irreverent who's prepared to criticise the jockeys and the horses, who would say things to upset the establishment; if necessary have someone in tandem to oppose that attitude, to appease the establishment. It's time to experiment, to try new things, to take some risks. It can't get any less inspiring.
|
|
By:
howellsy......great post
|
|
By:
I agree good post Howellsy apart from Chapman. The man is obnoxious and only interested in one thing, himself. The racing industry as far as broadcasting is concerned and what the public want is clueless. I am primarily a greyhound man and can't watch Sky coverage of the dogs simply because Chapman is on it and doesn't have a clue about the game. Running around being a dick and raising his voice as he does is a true reflection of how awful he really is and by the way who hosts Sky dogs Tony Ennis a horse commentator and presenter on ATR.! at least CH 4 had Tom Segal (pricewise) on and why not he's been in fantastic form lately! Bring back the ITV 7, show the race and then sod off.
|
|
By:
CHapman is certainly very interested in himself, but I also feel he has substance - his ability to read a race is pretty good and he's relatively bright. He is also fully prepared to laugh at himself. I can see why he alienates some but I like him and think he deserves a chance at cracking the C4 gig.
|
|
By:
This was a good read until it mentioned Chapman being on CH4 Racing
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
How far is Channel 4 behind live considering they are a terrestrial broadcaster? If you could compare a BBC broadcast against a channel 4 broadcast you would find that C4 is just an old recording!
|
|
By:
Howellsy
23 Jun 15 19:17 CHapman is certainly very interested in himself, but I also feel he has substance - his ability to read a race is pretty good Yeah, right up there with Zoe and Luke Harvey |
|
By:
duncan.......i agree......he flags up his successes but when he gets it wrong which just about all the time he glosses over....he is a character but theres no chance of a job on ch4 he is too much of a loose cannon
|
|
By:
Just watch R U K.....C 4 is for dimwits
|
|
By:
What is being forgotten is looking at the whole spectrum regarding viewing market.The responses on the forum are from racing aficionados who want to watch live racing,be it at Royal Ascot or Worcester.
What Channel 4 is trying to do is increase the "outside " market,which unfortunately has to include fashion slots with the likes of Gok whatever.There are many people sitting in their homes watching Royal Ascot not just for the racing,it is an annual spectacle too. Increased viewers would be made up by these non racing people,as us hard core punters will watch anyway.Assessing the market is never easy to do,and trying to please everyone is a thankless task. Try this presenter,try that presenter,does it make that much difference to the add-ons.It makes a difference to us,as we have our likes and dislikes of various presenters,but still watch. |
|
By:
@unbiased is right that Royal Ascot is a special case, and so are the Derby and Grand National. Really it is pointless complaining about fashion and the Queen at Royal Ascot.
|
|
By:
Just sack the lot and let the cameras roll for the racing only.
Save alot of money to improve the shots in paddock and down at the start. |
|
By:
Gok Wan = Go Wank! Says it all really.
 |
|
By:
Chapman would make zero difference, if you're not interested in the racing that's the be all and end all.
I'd imagine the vast majority who may be in the market to watch the show do so for the racing itself, that is all that matters, it matters not one jot who's presenting it as far as bringing in the crowd....presenters and pundits from RUK and ATR are slated day on day but all that matters is the racing so we are all still here....if you're a horse racing enthusiast, you'll desert channel 4 for either RUK or ATR, depending on which is covering the meet...if you're not into racing then you're not watching anyway and couldn't care less who's presenting. |
|
By:
They should have a much more gambling focused programme in my view. They could have a speed ratings man for the flat and a handicapper for the jumps.
They could have more video form review, with analysis. They could focus on collateral form & stats more They could have some punters or forumites! on as guests. I'm sure that people like koo and Simon Rowlands would make good guests too. (and ppking, if they could afford him!) |
|
By:
Give up trying to educate the public, they're not interested. They should go down market. Turn it into a TV version of a betting shop.
|