By using Apprenticeforums services you agree to our Cookies Use and Data Transfer outside the EU.
We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters.

  • Join our UK Small business Forum

    Helping business owners with every day advice, tips and discussions with likeminded business owners. Become apart of a community surrounded by level headed business folk from around the UK


    Join us!

This is good - check it out! Free TV channel & movie content.

A

Anita

New Member
Hi All,

Free online TV Channel and Movie Content.

I just thought I'd share our recent experience with a Glasgow based company moviecom.tv. We were contacted by moviecom earlier this year and asked if we would like to have a free online tv channel and movie content for our business. Of course I wondered what the catch was - however I'm pleased to say there is none. It is FREE. We've just finished filming our welcome video at their studios in Bell St. Glasgow and I have to say the moviecom team are highly professional people and have produced a really good quality movie. Not only that, we get free filming sessions every month so we can continue to add new quality film to our site every month.
How do they make any money? Basically through advertising. You have the option to buy advertising space if you like, or not. You don't have to. They will populate your channel with advertisers who would like to reach your audience - but it's not intrusive - very well done.

I think this is a great medium for any business to have and we're really excited. We already have some customers who've agreed to be filmed and as we know we can create new movies each month, our imagination is the only limiting factor.
So whatever your business, if you have a website, I'd strongly urge you to check this out. The icing on the cake for me is that Gillian O'Neil the MD and the rest of the team are really friendly, positive people and great to work with - certainly help all those of us who are camera shy..or pretend to be:)!

moviecom.tv® is the website. Hope this post is useful.

Kindest regards

Anita
 
Here are a few more links that will help you promote your business online...

Webs - Make a free website, get free hosting

Free Web Hosting!

Free Web Hosting | Free web hosting from Heart Internet UK

FidoNet Free Web Hosting

And before anyone clicks on them no I'm NOT serious... :D

I'll leave it to our resident clutch of web designers and I.T. experts to explain why these really aren't viable options for your business website...

And it's very much a general 'heads up'that says in business, when you're presented with a gift horse, ALWAYS call for an equine dentist and order a full and thorough examination including x-rays. From the start I'm urging anyone considering a deal like this from ANY source (and this post really isn't taking a pop at any particular company) to do their own research and consider carefully the implications of getting involved...

Firstly; who provided me with a soapbox?

For those who don't know my own history in this business I started out on the 11th of June 1979, a few weeks away from my 17th Birthday, as a trainee with Strathclyde Uni's TV unit. Exactly a year later I joined Thames TV in London as the youngest cameraman (trainee or otherwise) in the history of the ITV network. After completing my training I returned to Glasgow to work; eventually, in October '86, setting up Clydeside TV; a corporate video production company tackling the then new and emerging market. CTV eventually became something that became more broadcast biased, and is now run very much as a separate business servicing a particular 'niche' group of broadcast clients...

TFGtv was set up in '97 as a return to roots in providing real, high quality corporate video aimed specifically at small businesses, community groups and other organisations that would otherwise struggle to access the medium. In 2000 I was invited to lecture in TV production with the Department of Creative Industries. Something I still do today on a part-time basis. I've also been invited to sit on SQA qualifications design teams, and this year am considering the opportunity of lecturing to UWS...

That's approaching 31 years experience in the TV industry and over 23 years making corporate video... Near on 350 programmes and more than a few bits of shiney brassware to my name! And recognition by scotland's leading academic body... SO I think I've just about earned the right to say I speak with some experience and authority on the subject...

Online TV has allegedly been the next big thing since at least 1997! I've long since embraced this, and predicted the near-death of traditional broadcasting with a move to 'narrowcasting'. That is to say Video-On-Demand and content-driven models such as YouTube or indeed ones like Moviecom will come to the fore...

However, as with all uncharted waters there are potential dangers ahead...


Firstly, it is absolutely the case that content is king in terms of creative economics. And its always been so. A single 3-minute interview with a particular film director last year netted us over 15K in broadcast sales. Likewise I personally receive regular income from material shot ten fifteen and even twenty years ago... And you'd be surpried how trivial some of that material is: shots of the SECC being built for instance! Old interviews with certain high-profile Scottish businessmen from the 80's...

Intellectual Property is where the money is here folks; and you should NEVER under-estimate the potential value of yours!

Where previously the notion of possession being 9/10th of the law and control over the original physical material acted to protect much intellectual property that isn't the case now nor has it been for quite some time...

Some readers will be painfully aware of the HUGE difficulties caused by the Getty/corbis fiasco. And of one of the higher profile cases JA Coles... If not do a little legwork! There's plenty been posted here and elsewhere so I won't drag through it all....

The Corbis/Getty fiasco and all the issues that arise from it serve as a bit of a 'ceremonial head on a stick'; a warning that ahead lies unforeseen danger... And it's really quite a wee head on a very tiny stick compared to what dangers actually do lie ahead...

The difficulties faced by those caught up in the C&G situation arise because for the most part people have not understood the gravity of what they've got into. Typical scenarios are where web designers acted either incompetently or dishonestly to leave clients exposed to worrying levels of litigation. Others arise from suppposedly 'free' sources catching people out via the small print...

Other dangers exist too... Entered any photo competitions lately? Submitted your writings to an online publisher? Perhaps passed your music to an online radio station or 'record company?

If so there's a very good change you've signed the rights to what you created to profiteers who could, in theory still be making shedloads of money from it in 20 years time.

Bay City Rollers fans can expect to hear soon (if they've not heard already that is) of some move towards a wee bit of justice for the boys that outsold the Beatles. It's only been 30-odd years coming after all... And in my opinion it's too little, very late but... and I can tell you that my favourite Associate Alan Rankine is only now recovering many of the rights to his life's work....

Lest you wonder how this can possibly affect little old you and your business video....

Under UK copyright law the video you commission does not belong to you, it belongs to the company that you commissioned. That means prima facie that the video company can take the footage and do what the hell it it likes with it! this poses a number of problems that mean the cheapest can often be a really REALLY BAD idea!...

One story did the 'rounds in the early '90's where a video company re-used externals and shots of a reception area they'd done for a corporate as establishing shots in a porn movie! :eek: In another shots of one industrial process were sold to a company making a video for a rival process. The former being shown in a negative light....

Now, before I go on I should say thet there are few features to look for in any legitimate video production company's way of operating; absence of which tends to indicate you might be dealing with either a cowbow or a chancer (and in either case should walk far and fast!).

1) A legitimate production company will be keen to promote and be seen to promote a strong project management process designed to mitigate all risks including those associated with managing and assigning I.P.

Expect to see a system where written approval is sought at the 'keystone' stages:

a) On acceptance of a programme proposal...
b) Approval of the primary script...
c) Approval of the developed production plans

Also expect the producers to stick tightly to the approved plan and expect any variation or deviation from it to require your written approval...

Also expect to see a FULL AUDIT TRAIL in respect of any third-party components such as music, graphics etc...

2) In respect of your programme, an exclusive licence, in perpetuilty, covering all territories and all platforms should be given to you in exchange for your final payment... That doesn't mean you can take your programme away and have someone else re-cut it or reincorporate bits of it. But it does mean the video company can't start claiming broadcast rights (other than moral rights in terms of attribution) or royalites should it go seriously viral...

3) The video company should automatically offer you non-disclosure terms covering not only the completed programme but any out-takes or unused footage...

Before he (or Alan Partridge) was famous Steve Coogan did a Walkers Crisps corporate... The latter weren't entirely delighted when said video (or rather out takes from it) were aired with Steve firmly in the vein of what we'd now instantly recognise as Alan Partridge...

DON'T expect to get 'owt for nowt'... and READ the fine print in any contract or T&Cs CAREFULLY.... Ideally run them past a lawyer!

Adverts don't mitigate the cost of video production on their own... Commercial TV companies such as ITV make a lot of money from ads; but much more comes from overseas sales and licensing of material. And such has always been the case!

Now I'll be up front about this. We DO shoot some programmes for free...

"Doorstoppers" the community safety film which opened the 2009 Stirling Film festival is an example. It was done using amateur actors with only a contribution for expenses coming from the primary client. Where it will mitigate its expense is in re-incorporating the footage into programmes for other districts who will be charged for the re-versioning of it...

The DVD we're doing for musician Elena Piras.. Again; we'll bear the cost of that because we're confident as a sell-thru product it'll make money; and additionally has broadcast potential...

Footage from the Glasgow Film Festival... No charge to them because it's vlauable stock footage that can be sold on elsewhere...

We've even been known to make programmes a 'samplers' simply to yield footage that we can use as well as the client...

...But these are exceptions rather than anything we could viably base a business model on; and trust me, I've been keeping an eye on this for well over a dozen years now!

There's no such thing as a free lunch,or a free video!!
 
Part 2....

Online video is about to break out of the box for sure... But just as a dozen years ago there were smart ways and not-so-smart ways of getting your business online there are pitfalls today for those looking for the quick and slick answer...

Those free web hosting links I put in my first post are still live... There are still £50 bedroom web jockeys out there... And still about a dozen spam emails in most people's inboxes every morning trying to flog them a Rolex for $100!

Back in the mid-80's we were quoting roughly £1K per finished minute of video... Which when a decent camera, recorder and edit suite was the price of two nice semis was fair enough...

Things HAVE changed; but you still need to pay for what you get if you expect to get anything of susbtance...

Many good production companies will offer you basic production packages from around the £500 mark that tick all the boxes above...

For that you should get a bespoke programme, the IP of which you have full control once your bill's settled. You should also get it on a number of different formats so as it can be used for various purposes... Exhibition, Point of Sale,Multimedia As well as the very simple and well understood expedient of putting it on YouTube or Vimeo...

You should walk away with your finished video (and the legal rights to use it!) on a number of different formats. And you should expect your video company to work closely with your web designer to ensure that it's presented on your site in the best possible light....

And of course you should expect your video, and all the stray leftovers from its production, to be fully protected from popping up just where you don't want them....

Now imagine if that stray Steve Coogan footage had popped up in a porn film! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Incidentally, Forum members who have been here since day one might remember this unseemly debacle...

http://www.scottishbusinessforums.c...ing-e-business/626-hirer-came-across-yet.html

....worth reading. Especially the bit where both (the owner of this forum) and myself received threats of violence from certain individuals merely for criticising the project...

A very 'old fashioned' way to 'do business'....

Reading some of the following links it appears Moviecom were linked really quite closely with that particular project... Closely enough for "The Herald" to quote them as source...

thehirer.tv

Online Recruitment - Moviecom Hired to produce online recruitment series for Sandra McClumpha

ON THE AGENDA - Herald Scotland

...I'll leave forum members to make their own judgements from the available information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scottish Business Owner

Scottish Business Owner

New Member
Matt you've probably saved me from a quite embarassing situation as I was actually looking at this very recently. I hadn't initially made any connection to events in the past (although i'm not attributing any blame or definite connection here)

I've read your post quite carefully and as always your points are very well put across, it's very direct but I personally dont mind that.

I would also say that I realise this area is a passion of yours and I think it's more than fair to say that you are indeed an expert in this field so I for one take note of comments in order to reassess this situation.

I hope you dont mind me asking a few questions here and also making a few comments and before I go into that i'm coming at this as someone who's trying to get a balanced view of things.

OK I read all of your posts and I think in a few places you've said that a typical 2-3 minute video will cost in the region of £500. For a small business (and i'm also including SBB in this) how do you justify spending that amount on one video? I would love to do my own videos on SBB but a part of me thinks to do it right would cost an amount of money that makes it massively restrictive. At that level it's not clear where the return on investment is.

I watch lots of videos online and recently as you know started putting a few on the blog. When I assess which videos to put up i have a few things I look at. The main thing for me is that the video has some sort of message or education behind it that I think users would enjot and also hopefully comment on. The quality of the video would only really become a concern if it became very distorted. I guess what i'm saying here is I totally appreciate there is a right way to do things but how many people will actually appreciate it for what it is?

I've got lots more I want to add to this and I really hope that we can get a discussion going on this that does the subject matter justice.
 
Take a look at these two videos...

YouTube - Woodhorn Mining Museum--Ashington, Northumberland

YouTube - Woodhorn Museum Promo - college project

It has to be said neither is well executed... But tell me which one is more engaging? And which is the most informative?

...And if you're struggling with that the answer is that neither video is both things! The guy in the first video has a lot of relevant information to give... But I can guarantee you the only people who are likely to sit through that video are him, his mammy, and a few other folk who are already well connected to the subject and keen to glean any little tiny wee bits of information they can...

There's absolutely no good reason at all for that to be on video! The information presented there would actually be better as text supported by a few photographs...

As for the second video.... well it's nothing more than electronic wallpaper; not quite useless, maybe useful as a rolling display but.... Why bother?

Another couple of examples... And this is fairly typical of a lot of what I see being passed off as 'online video'....

YouTube - Be Careful of Tylenol (safety for parents and kids!)

Compared to...

YouTube - Narcotics: Tylenol with Codeine

Again, the question is what was the most important message; and which one actually got through? DID you actually make it to the end of the first guy's 7-minute-odd speech?


...which of these two are you inclined to take more seriously?

YouTube - Health & Safety for Computer Operators DVD

YouTube - STS Occupational Health and Safety


.....And just to round it all off, a typical example of video being used competently...

YouTube - How to put up scaffolding correctly

....and one of a really low cost but competent video.

YouTube - scaffolding tool. scaffwell.ltd

The quality of the video would only really become a concern if it became very distorted.

You're actually making the classic mistake of confusing picture and sound quality (which is important) with the quality and competence of the presentation. The Asian chap with the warnings about Tylenol has some very serious and well considered points to make... But do you really think anyone stumbling upon this is likely to take this information in?

Again, the only people who are going to watch this are those who already have an interest in the subject and are looking to glean tiny snippets of information. It's unlikely that anyone is going to stumble upon this and be 'educated' in a new field...

There is the secondary point too that you're thinking too tightly 'in the box'... Everything we (and most others) shoot is done in 1080i HD... Which means it'll stand showing on anything up to an including cinema screens...

That means it's useful for exhibitions, point of sale/reception use, sales and training presentations etc...

Cost... Well we start from about £500 The second Scaffolding video above would probably cost about £800 for a local firm whilst the first Scaffolding one (with the presenter) would be closer to £1800 because of the presenter and the working at height....

But actually we have a package at £399 which (assuming you can present as well as Ali) would give you results similar to those seen on the main page here... iBall | The City without a suit

The return on investment (assuming you use the medium correctly) emerges in terms of.....

1) Enhanced credibility...

2) Clearer and more controlled communication of ideas..

3) More accessible communication of ideas...

Leading to the typical benefits that are cited for online video including increased site traffic etc. It's important to realise that the major stats quoted for online video relate to sites where the production values used are high... The quadrupling of site traffic once BBC News went online for instance; Yup! BBC news... NOT some guy sitting in an echoey room lit by a 40w bulb talking into a shitty camcorder...

The Asian guy's video went online in April 2007 and has had about 6400 views... The other one went online five months later and has had TEN TIMES that viewing figure!

It's like any other medium ; you get out of it what you're prepared to invest. If you ran a Chinese Takeaway and still produced flyers using a Sharpie, a typewriter and the office photocopier (as was done in years past) ...Meanwhile your competitors were producing slick glossy full-colour ; well expect your potential clients to loose confidence, vote with their feet and, well.. :( ...Frankly you'd be kiddin' yourself; but no-one else!

Like any other medium you need to put the ROI into perspective and consider if the message (however valuable) is indeed being put across properly and that the medium is being used correctly...

Online video needs to be compared with more traditional media such as print... I've a "Sunday Times" ratecard sitting here. A single 45mmx50mm display insertion is £1250. Sensibly you'd need to budget for a 13 week run... NOW that's getting scary!

A better example? How about the Daily Horror/Sunday Maul? ..Inserts; they're aye good. Minimum quantity 50,000 @ 32.80 per thousand... £1640.. THEN there's the cost of printing 50,000 inserts, delivering them, designing them... And you're going to need to do that more than once over a year... Sensibly you're going to need to do that a minimum of once a month....

....anybody got the ratecard for their local paper handy? Or even some figures to do a solitary 5000 leafle drop including design, print, delivery?

Suddenly that £500 basic video which, bear in mind works for you 24/7 360 days a year starts to look like a very sound investment. Even the more complex programmes (and the average video is we do is closer to £1500 to be fair) starts to look very affordable....

Then there is the fact that as you go you build up a 'library' of material that can be used for a wide range of purposes. Footage gathered for one purpose can very often be re-versioned for a quite different one at minimal cost. H&S footage used to create and exhibition display for instance...

I've always said it's better not to use video at all rather than do it badly... and I'd say the same for any medium... If we were discussing a press campaign I'd be advising against a solitary display ad in the Sunday Times... Or for that matter 50,000 photocopied flyers shoved in the "Record" one Tuesday afternoon...

Imagining that anything close to the sort of increases in traffic, enquiries and conversions you hear about from certain sources can be achieved using video techniques that are the equivalent of putting an handwritten postcard in a newsagent's window is just naive... The snake-oilers do promise this it's true; but then they promise many things!

It's the old story.. speculate to accumulate!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anita

New Member
Hi Matt,

I think you make many valid points about IP etc. and I certainly would not have thought to write at such a level in this forum. I suppose my suggestion to 'check it out' covers what I would expect most businesses to do when dealing with any contractual situation, but your explicit descriptions and warnings are I'm sure very valid, welcome and could apply to many business proposals. I am certainly not an expert in this field, but see the value in video as I'm sure most people do. We're a new business and whilst I know if we spent £500 or more we would get a really good movie, we would be hard pressed to do this on a regular basis and indeed you may argue "then don't do it". Up until recently our good old camera and You Tube have been the best we could do, and I know it's not brilliant by your standards, but it is free and we have had positive feedback (and no, not just from my mum:)) so has been effective to a degree.
I've followed the links you posted, and see you were threatened as a result of a post, but the callers were unidentified. I'm not sure if you are alleging these threats were made by moviecom(?) or if you're inferring moviecom are linked to the threats, or the issue is in your opinion that moviecom.tv's camera tripod was not straight, lighting wrong etc.
I don't wish to have a debate with an expert about something I know absolutely nothing about so it's rather pointless me commenting from any technical or creative aspect, nor can I fully understand the events surrounding your threats. Perhaps moviecom.tv would be best placed to join the forum to have that discussion. All I can say is that my post was based off our recent business experience with moviecom - (a post I have to say they knew nothing about at the time. I had seen a tweet from SBF that prompted me to write.) Our experience was pleasant, professional and we can use the material in whatever form we like - you tube etc. I have found Gillian O'Neil to be very ethical and professional and so in the same way, the rest of her team. How good the video material and content is of course matters, and I have to say doing this kind of thing is quite nerve wrecking especially when you've never done anything like this before- everyone's a critic but like most businesses we're learning all the time.

Ok, now I'm off for a cup of tea,

kindest regards

Anita
 
Ok: I'll start, in the hope of laying the matter to rest for the moment, with the other thread first and the threats associated with it...

Firstly there's no doubt that Moviecom were closely associated with that project; and I believe the proof of that has been shown. Is there a direct link between them and the threats? That's something I can't prove so won't infer... However from my perspective there are certain 'matters' surrounding this incident that people should, in my view, be aware of...

Moviecom were close to this one... So close in fact that when jounalists from "The Herald" sought a quote they did so through Moviecom. Not through Fake Bake or Greta Hill-Lyons or through some other PR firm; but though Moviecom...

That fact places them very much at the scene... Whether they were mere service providers or an integral part of the project team isn't quite clear...

However the fact is, for the simple 'sin' of criticising the project, two completely independent members of this forum each seperately recieved threats of violence (which in my own case at least were reported to the police at the time). There is also a record of the I.P. address of people calling themselves things like "Attitude Adjuster" who's agenda... Well it's all a matter of record; read it for yourself...

In my view it's fairly telling that within a mere thirteen hours of my pointing out the (fairly serious given the level to which it aspires) technical shortcomings of that video at 21:03 on the 8th of September 2008 I was receiving threatening phonecalls. Telling because up to that point I had kept well out of the thread which had been runing since the 17th of August...

I wrote:
For one if this were the world-class project it’s supposed to be a little more time should have been taken and money spent with regard to the presentation of the characters and making the video....

Why me? Did I hit a particularly raw nerve perhaps? Personally I suspect so..

The video was not promoted as part of some community project or a lightweight 'throwaway' but a world-class business project to rival that which we most typically see from the 'Blue chip' world... And at that level it was grossly incompetent with some very elemetary mistakes being made...

There were a group of individuals and associated companies linked to this particular project. And my point with regard to the threats is that those threats brought the project, and everyone asssociated with it into really quite serious disrepute.

Now; in PR terms any true professional would see an urgent and pressing need to actively distance and disassociate themselves from that sort of behaviour. Particulary since it related to a PR project designed to raise the profile of all concerned... Much like a nightclub who's patrons are known for drug dealing or violence, or a football club who's fans have a reputation for thuggery; it's up to the professional organisation to ACTIVELY and vociferously distance themselves from disorder....

This just didn't happen in fact matters were compounded...

DID Moviecom, or anyone else associated with the project try to distance themselves from the threats made in response to criticism? No! Instead 'mysterious' posters started to come out of the woodwork... 'Scotsboy' for instance...

Certainly the need to threaten people is out of order, however surely if individuals decide to spout rubbish and riddicule others then stupid things happen.

On that point the supposed person threatened has made a number of threats back, who is in the wrong?

Before I go on let me be clear that I stand by my comments on that video... And do bear in mind my background, the level of training and experience have and the weight that's given to this by credible national bodies...

I saw and heard a lot of Scotsboy's mentality growing up in the Red Road... Apparently threats of violence are an 'expected response' to valid criticism and stating that one will respond responsibly with the full weight of the law behind them is a threat in itself...

Now; if we take it as read that these threats and 'mystery posters' condoning them have nothing to do with either Moviecom, McClumpha or anyone else involved in the project, at this point they have a PR disaster on their hands! It's farly clear that the thread WAS being monitored as at least one senior member of the team involved posted... What did they do to mitigate the problem? To disassociate and distance themselves with it? Nothing...

Bear in mind here that some very serious physical threats were made not just against me but my family; my children in particular... Hollow they may be; but I don't know that. However the mentality of the person who made those threats and those who tacitly endorse them says much about their level of integrity. As I say; Like the nightclub owner who stands at the side of the road, arms folded while his patrons run amock on the street they are as much a part of 'the problem' in my view as those directly involved...

In PR terms it's a really bad idea to call anyone up and threaten them and their kids... It's a particularly bad idea to phone up a card-carrying journalist who also happens to be an acknowledged expert in their field and an ex-cop!

Readers may like to note that Forth Valley Jobs, which was run by Greta Hill-Lyons, appears to have shut down. Hill-Lyon is now apparently the self-styled editor of "The Hirer" magazine...

The Hirer Magazine - SOLD OUT - Online business networking, find new business leads and promote your business services!

thehirermagazine.co.uk

First Issue of Revamped Hirer Magazine Now Available in Borders | THE DRUM - Advertising, Design, Media, Marketing, Digital, PR - News, Information & Jobs

Readers might like to equip themselves with some salt when considering their claimed circulation figures... As the Americans put it; just to the math(s)!

Next to the issue of cost and competence...

As I said; there really is no such thing as a free lunch, though it's a pattern in business as old as the hills to try and persuade people otherwise...

Go online and you'll find a shedload of people offering to sell you weigh loss tablets that will cause you to loose a stone a month! Go on to any 'health' forum and you'll find glowing testimonies to everything from Chitosan to Hoodia to baking your socks in a biscuit-tin oven and eating them...

Have a look online for so-called 'Mountain Bikes' that will fall to pieces in six months or so; three if taken off-road. Try the local Sunday Market for 'Prata' handbags, waxed jackets that leak and 'Submariner'-type watches that go tick..tickk..tickkk and cause a nasty green semi-permanent band to appear 'round the wearer's wrist...

And try the local pub for people determined to tell you what a terrifc bargain all these things are... TRULY the spirit of Dell Boy walks among us!

Likewise, as I said, you'll find loads of cowboys offering free web hosting, sites designed for button, free graphics... And you'll find loads of 'home made' offerings too... Here's my favourite...

Lee's Cameras supply an exciting range of Super 8mm, Standard 8mm, 16mm, 9.5mm and 35mm Equipment and Movies and many 6x6 and 35mm Slide Projectors (put on sunglasses before clicking on the 'prices' link!)

They get away with this because they're very niche... One of maybe half-a-dozen suppliers of such equipment. And they would probably tell you all sorts of positive things about how this site works for them...

If you're the only shop in town then you'll get away with 'special offers' written up in 'inky' on patches of dayglo cardboard... You'll get a way with being a bit dingey, a bit shabby, a bit well... a bit 'corner shop'...

When I moved to this village there were two little shops. Both quite similar, like relics from 1972... Or possibly '62... I lked one, didn't like the other. Didn't like the slightly snooty attitude of one shop's staff. Wasn't impressed by their stock, their prices their attitude... The other was run by a nice lady from the top of the street and though there were nowt' fancy about the place you got what you needed at a reasonable price...

Shop 'A' branches out... Builds a modern 'mini market' with proper signage, electronic tills.. All laid out in modern 'gondolas', proper 'supermarket type' lighting.. Staff all in uniform... STILL a bunch of miserable money-grubbing ****** and not good value at all but... it looked good.

Shop 'B' remains as was... She woulnd't spend the money on upgrading what were at the end of the day 'superficial' aspects of her business... Slowly people dwindled away... Why? Because they couldn't have confidence in that old fashioned corner-shop mentality. Doubts set in about the cleanliness of the place (there was now't wrong in this respect; the place was just 'basic')... Unfounded rumours started circulating...

It was a black black day the last time I walked up there at 9:45pm to pick up what had become my customary nightcap; a solitary bottle of beer and a wee quick natter about the day just past...
 
Part two...

There's but one shop in the village now. Personally I don't use it, I drive to the Supermarket in Livingston a few times a week and buy my beer there... You see; I could tell the lady who ran shop 'B' many positive things about the service she provided. I could even try and pass this positive experience on to to others...

But at the end of the day it's not 1972 anymore, nor was she running the only shop in town... Things have moved on a pace... As much as she would have struggled to afford a re-fit and to compete head-on with her rivals; in the end it emerged she couldn't really afford not to...

Bottom line is that corner-shop-mentality doesn't even work for corner shops anymore! You pays your money (or picks up your freebie) and makes your choice... You also take your chances!!!

As I've suggested before there are people out there who will try to convinvce you that the $100 Rolex copy they want to sell you is just as good as the real thing and that even a jeweller can't telll it apart...

But trust me.. These things are what they are. And far from building credibility with they merely undermine it...

I think I'll have some tea now too... The Mrs got a brand new Al-Assi kettle from the market for only £15! ....funny lookin' plug on it though ;)
 
And so their true colours are revealed...

Got this a few moments ago from Moviecom....

I post this because I think it reflects the 'mettle' of who we're dealing with here. Rather than come out in public and defend their corner the first move is to start throwing 'round intimidatory language about lawyers... :D:D

Now WHERE have we heard THAT one before!

From: gillian@moviecom.tv
To: admin@tfgtv.com
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 11:36 AM
Subject: Scottish Business Forum.co.uk

Hi Matt,

It has been brought to my attention various posts you have made on the Scottish Business Forum.co.uk website regarding Moviecom.tv

The comments you have made are potentially libelous. In the meantime you should consider carefully about making further derogatory and factually incorrect comments. We will be speaking with our Lawyers on Monday.

Regards
Gillian O'Neil

Your 'Lawyers', Gillian can expect an Arkell Vs Pressdram type response from me. And let me be VERY clear that I am as unitimidated by your threats of legal action as I was by the thug who 'phoned me up and threatend me and my family...

As you, I'm sure, very well know there is precisely nothing I have written here that is, as you claim, "factually incorrect" ... If the facts shine an unfavourable light on Moviecom then that is not of my doing and it is up to you to defend yourself....

FACTS....

1) Moviecom were involved in and played a major role in "The Hirer" project...

2) The film associated with that project was in my professional opinion technically incompetent in terms of lighting and camerawork and was criticised as such. There were major technical gaffes of a level that would cause a 1st year TV student to fail to meet examination level criteria...

I'm happy to justify that criticism and lend both professional weight and standing to it!

3) Threats of violence were issued to both myself and as the direct result of that thread being published and that perfectly valid criticism being made

4) No-one associated with that project sought to distance themselves or the project from those threats.

5) We have good reason to believe that the thread in question was being monitored at the time by senior members of the project team. It has merely been highlighted that, at no time, did anyone associated with "The Hirer" project seek to distance themselves or the project from those threats...

Kindly highlight Gillian what is "factually incorrect" here...

You have an open platform and I feel sure the forum owners would encourage you to be as full and frank and vigourous in defending your position as you see fit...

Or are legal threats the preferred style. As you know, a libel action would be somewhere north of £15K-£25K to get moving... And there is nothing in my writing that couldn't be met with a defence of Veritas...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scottish Business Owner

Scottish Business Owner

New Member
I've been asked by Gillian O'Neil to post the below which is an email sent to me today. This is word for word what she sent

,
Moviecom.tv remains very concerned by the posts made on this topic.
For the sake of clarity, I would like it made clear that Moviecom.tv did not make any threats, of whatever nature, to you, Mr Quinn or anyone else in relation to ”The Hirer” project, in which it provided filming services.
It has been suggested that "No one from The Hirer project team distanced themselves from the threats". We were unaware of the allegation that threats had been made until reading the threads, for the first time, on 30 January. Moviecom.tv did not make threats to you, your family or anyone else.
I trust that this makes Moviecom.tv’s position clear and that that will be an end to the matter.
I trust you will post this on your forum.
Kind Regards
Gillian O'Neil
Managing Director, Moviecom.tv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ms O'Neil's comments are certainly noted and her (and Moviecom's) position on the matter duly acknowledged, but for the sake of clarity I'd make the following observations....

1) I too remain deeply 'concerned' by this issue... I don't take threats made against my kids lightly. Not at all lightly! Nor will I forget them easily; not as journalist, not as a long-standing member of the Scottish media community, and certainly not as a Father.

It is not an 'allegation' but a reported fact that threats were made against myself, my family and quite independently of that against the owner of this forum. The fact that two people, who are completely unconnected other than via this forum received such threats tends to corroborate these occurrences.

I stress that for my own part these matters were reported to the Police at the time and I personally have every confidence and faith in the Police that the issue was fully investigated.

Who issued those threats remains a mystery; and no comment has been made asserting opinions as to their identity... The facts as known are presented explicitly and no other inference should be read into what is written. However these facts are presented in the public interest and individuals are free to form whatever opinions they will based on those facts.

2) The fact remains that those threats were issued (by a person or persons as yet unknown) as a direct to criticism made of "The Hirer" project. A number of individuals and companies played pivotal roles in that project. And it has been pointed out as fact (not suggested) that (until today at least) none of those people or companies sought to distance themselves from the threats.

There is some evidence to suggest that senior members of the project team were monitoring that thread with at least one posting from a person claiming to be a senior project team member.

Respected newspaper "The Herald" quote Moviecom as source on this project with their story suggesting quite an active role in the project beyond merely providing a 'filming service'... My opinion is that given Moviecom's position one can only express surprise that communication channels across that project team seem to have been somewhat 'limited'.

Again; the facts as known are presented explicitly and no other inference should be read into what is written.

3) I would draw reader's attention to the timeline here which in my opinion is significant....

Within 13 hours of making legitimate criticism of "The Hirer" video I and my family were threatened. I stress that by whom we do not know, but threats were very definitely made...

Moviecom's name is not mentioned anywhere in that (The Hirer) thread....

Post number 4 in this thread refers to "The Hirer" thread and, quite factually, highlights Moviecom's involvement in that project... That post was made at 19:25 on the 29th of January 2010....

Ms O'Neil's immediate reaction to that, a mere sixteen hours and eleven minutes later, is what exactly?

To express concern at unwittingly being implicated in what is a deeply unsavoury matter? To immediately actively and publicly distance her company from these threats? To be naturally horrified at such goings on? To perhaps express willingness to assist and support any lawful investigation into these troubling events?

No; her email to me is reproduced exactly and entirely here complete with barely veiled threat of legal action in respect of supposedly "potentially libelous"[sic] and "factually incorrect" comments spread across "various posts"...

In fact, at that point in time Moviecom had been mention twice on the whole of SBF... Once by the OP and once by myself pointing out their link to the unseemly "The Hirer" thread.... "Various Posts"? "Factually incorrect"?

I note with interest that Ms O'Neill fails to respond to the challenge of justifying this charge of factual inaccuracy...

...And there are two Ls in libellous!

It is, in fact, only now, after several days have passed, that we see Ms O'Neill now at pains to actively distance her company from the threats that were made, not just against me and my family, but against the owner of this forum.

And for clarity Ms O'Neill, no-one has ever suggested that you or anyone at Movicom did make these threats...

One is tempted at this point towards the classic misquote of Queen Gertrude... :001_rolleyes:

The matter will end finally with information coming to light that facilitates the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for this disgusting behaviour.
 
Top