(Moderator note: Discussion of media promotion of zoos moved from this thread) To avoid taking the Chester Zoo car parking thread further off-topic a thread to discuss all aspects of media coverage of collections. Just to get things started a general observation on TV coverage in my lifetime. In the 1960s/70s coverage was largely child-oriented Zoo Time, Animal Magic Coverage for adults was pretty thin, though I do recall a series "Great Zoos of the World" which introduced me to the likes of San Diego. (There was also, of course, the series based on the zoo vet books) In the 1990s coverage - such as it was - seemed more anti-zoo. In recent years, perhaps linked to the explosion of digital channels, fly-on-the-wall portrayals of zoo life seem to have become a staple.
Due at least in part to the relentless publicity given by the BBC, our 'national broadcaster. Some of the smaller 'half-day' zoos cited, might be rather larger if they had even a share of the coverage - let alone half of it...
It's current TV show is on Channel 4 and it was doing pretty well for itself before the it started, or the BBC series a few years ago.
I am surprised that anyone would argue that such TV coverage has not had a massive effect on the featured zoo's attendance figures...
Apart from the “Our Zoo” series a few years ago I didn’t realise there was anything else on BBC specifically about Chester, but I’m more than happy to be pointed in the direction of other programs I’ve not viewed.
BBC formerly, Channel 4 latterly, and other series continuously featuring a very limited number of major collections with almost saturation coverage - my point remains, that this is a very likely reason why the 'public keep turning up in - it appears - ever increasing numbers'. Desmond Morris, Philip Wayre, Peter Scott and Johnny Morris did the same on a lesser scale, for 'their' zoos before many zoo-chatters were born, but without such obvious and successful advertising of the 'product'.
Just “Our Zoo” then. I’m not sure that could be considered relentless by our national broadcaster & I don’t turn on my tv & feel saturated by documentaries about the countries ‘big’ Zoos. I also can’t see how; by taking such a negative approach you expect to receive any sort of positive outcome.
A minor sidenote, but I have long thought that it is a great shame on historical grounds that many of these television shows and documentaries to which you refer are either lost or partially so, or largely unavailable to the interested enthusiast; a small handful were available on VHS (a format which is nigh-inaccessible these days) but even more were never even available in this format - even those as relatively-recent as, for instance, the 1999 Molly's Zoo.
I hesitate, in case this is too off-topic and ends up with another split; but you a quite right. In the same way that current TV coverage influences the modern visitor, people of a 'certain age' grew up with TV programmes which influenced our child-hoods. Most footage seems to have been lost (or not kept) presumably because it was either not recorded at the time or not considered important enough since. Natural history series like 'Survival' and 'Look' featured Peter Scott, and the zoo programmes I can remember were 'ZooTime' with Desmond Morris, and Johnny Morris of course with 'Animal Magic' from Bristol. Before them George Cansdale presented London Zoos animals, but I am not quite old enough... Locally on Anglia TV, Philip Wayre presented 'The Survival Game' a children's quiz show. It featured Norfolk Wildlife Park animals and doubtless contributed to the latter's heydays. I cant find any footage, but have managed to find the odd TV Times from the era to prove I didn't dream it all! - and have had confirmation from Anglia TV of its running dates and even a follow up series called 'On Safari' (which I dont remember) where the winners from the main series were filmed on their 'prize', an African safari holiday. An archive of what is left, (as there must be more out-there) would be a very worthwhile venture - even if the broadcasters themselves are not interested.
PS - somewhere I have a recording of the Jeremy Cherfas series ZOO-2000 which documented what the zoo of the future (2000!) might look like. You can find his book on eBay occasionally. My recording is on Betamax videotape, made on a friends machine in the days when the hire of a top-loading VHS machine was prohibitive..!
The (natural history, rather than zoo) documentary I recall from my youth which I wish was still readily available - beyond ever-dwindling numbers of secondhand VHS tapes and occasional clips on Youtube - is the 1992 series The Velvet Claw, focusing on the evolution of the Carnivora - I can still remember being allowed to stay up late whilst in a hospital bed after being rushed to A&E with a severe asthma attack and resulting chest infection, and watching it with rapt attention.
Been on the BBC this morning nothing about the zoo? Where is the relentless publicity? Also one may argue that as a registered charity that also has more in-situ conservation projects than many smaller privately owned zoos combined then TV coverage is better directed at the somewhere that can offer the most help to species in the wild with the boost in visitor numbers.
I have to concede that little might being actually be showing this Sunday morning. My point was a general and comparative one, that general TV coverage is continuous and repetitive now with positive series being aired again and again, featuring a limited number of large zoos. Despite claims to the contrary, this must positively affect visitation. As I said, this repeats and extends the pro-zoo position of the medias TV programmes from a couple of generations ago or more, when there was much coverage; even though most of it was then educational and entertainment programmes aimed at children, which often did not mention the zoo itself until the credits rolled (quickly) at the end. In between, the position was very much the opposite, with the media (which has always been led by the BBC from its subsidised position as 'national' broadcaster) highly influenced by anti-zoo groups and individuals, and much of its output both on screen and in print was negative.
Presumably the reason there is a long-running series about Chester (not, incidentally, broadcast "by the BBC, our national broadcaster") is that the scale and quality of the collection provides sufficient material for broadcast. If other collections feel they could merit coverage it's for them to pitch an idea to a production company.
My post certainly seems to have provoked a variety of responses! It is not just a long running series, but many, many repeats too - even though other responders cant find any coverage at all apparently! I had been told that other series being aired and previous ones about Chester were on the BBC; but I do apologise if I am wrong - and the comment about Chester doing as well before the coverage started, I just disagree with. It remains my opinion that the level of positive media coverage must have an influence on footfall - and that further than this, it lifts the positive profile and thus attendance of all zoos - just as it did in the days of Brumas and Pipaluk. The comment about pitching is somewhat simplistic and naive, as the media and its production companies will always stay with a trusted formula and go back to the same source. Smaller collections cannot get a foothold. I can give you an example - we received the entire collection of animals (save the armadillos) when the Zoological Trust of Guernsey closed Guernsey Zoo in 1990 by a specially chartered plane into Cambridge airport. The arrival was featured on Anglia TV who came here to film. Since that day, and despite some quite interesting and important arrivals and departures, no TV station has ever opened one of our press releases....
If the tv stations aren’t opening your press releases despite their being hundreds of channels these days then shame on them I guess. I’m 52 myself but these days most of my viewing / listening comes through YouTube or podcasts, maybe you should head down that route for more publicity; I’m sure there are plenty of budding documentary film makers in your area. I work in the music business myself & many musicians I represent peddle their wares (so to speak) in this way & live DJ feeds on FB etc. I’m sure you could modify this idea to meet your Zoos needs.
Yes indeed, we quite agree that modern communication is by way of social media. I simply put in the 'story' about the mainstream TV media to illustrate the point that they are only really interested in the big players they already have contacts with.
I’m glad we agree on modern communication; I’ll look forward to seeing what use zoos of all sizes make of it. I also agree that mainstream media will ‘usually’ & naturally head for the ‘big players’ as you put it, but not always. If my memory serves me correctly wasn’t there a 5 weeks series, hour long episodes based from YWP (I’m not sure if you’d class them as ‘big players’ or not; a place I’ve never visited but hopefully will), that featured numerous smaller collections each week? The only reason I responded to your post initially was because it was factually incorrect & you seemed to have another agenda which you attempted to back up with outrage from the license fee payer (I’m not sure but this could fall into modern day society’s “fake news” category). Anyway back on topic being a begrudging license fee payer I duly responded; as I’d rather when the evidence is put forward & good reason is given to abolish the fee altogether, would like it to be correct
If you want a shortened version, IMO complaining that someone else has more than you is rarely a successful way of getting the same as they have. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong by the way it’s purely my opinion.
