Start by naming what keeps going wrong
A workflow review is most useful when it is aimed at a specific difficulty. Before anyone writes to us, sit down with the producer, the director and the sound lead and ask a plain question: what are the three moments in a live show that make people tense? It might be the handover after the opening titles, a late package that arrives with seconds to spare, or a guest whose microphone is never quite ready. Write those moments down in the order they happen. A reviewer reading a written account of real trouble spots can look for the cause behind each one, whether that is a rundown habit, a missing cue or a talkback line that is too crowded. Without that list, a review tends to describe the gallery in general terms, and general terms rarely change a Friday night broadcast.
Be honest about whether the trouble is new or old. A problem that appeared after a new presenter, a new vision mixer or a move to a different studio points somewhere different from one that has been tolerated for years. Both are worth reviewing, but they call for different questions. Note when each problem last happened and what was on air at the time, because a pattern across several shows says more than one bad evening ever could.
- Three moments that cause tension on air
- When each problem last occurred
- Whether it began after a change of kit or crew
Gather the paperwork the reviewer will ask for
A written review of a rundown cannot be done without seeing rundowns. Collect the last handful of running orders as they were actually used, including the pencilled changes, not the tidy versions produced before the show. Add the crew list for those shows and any call sheet that tells people when to arrive. If your team keeps a gallery log or a note of faults, include it. It also helps to have a simple sketch of the gallery layout: who sits where, who can hear whom, and which screens each person watches. It does not need to be drawn to scale. A photograph of the desk positions and the monitor wall often tells a reviewer more than a page of description, and it saves a good part of the first conversation.
Think about what you are comfortable sharing. A review involves looking closely at how people talk to each other during a live show, so tell the crew it is happening and why. The aim is to smooth the output, not to grade individuals. Crews who understand that tend to describe their real habits, including the workarounds they have quietly invented, and those workarounds are frequently where the best practical changes come from.
- Recent rundowns with handwritten changes
- Crew lists and call times
- A rough sketch or photo of the gallery layout
Decide who will be in the room and who will decide
Reviews stall when nobody owns the outcome. Before you commission one, agree who will receive the written report and who has the authority to change how the show is run. In many studios that is the executive producer, but in a venue that hires crew for each event it may be the studio manager. If the person who can approve changes is not the person who reads the report, the recommendations can sit unread for weeks. Agree, too, who will be available to talk to the reviewer. The director and the producer are the obvious choices, yet the person running the autocue, the floor manager and the sound assistant often see friction that the senior crew have stopped noticing. A short conversation with each of them is usually worth more than a long one with the most senior person.
Consider the timing of the visit. Mid autumn is a busy stretch for many studios, with election coverage, seasonal programmes and early preparations for winter schedules. If possible, arrange for the reviewer to watch a normal show rather than a special one, and a rehearsal as well if you hold them. Observing an ordinary week gives a truer picture than watching a day when everyone is on their best behaviour.
- One named person who can approve changes
- Two or three crew members available for short interviews
- A normal show, not a special occasion, if possible
Be clear about what the review will and will not cover
A live show workflow review looks at three things: the gallery, the rundown and the way the crew communicates. It results in a written report with practical changes. It is not an equipment installation, a coaching session for camera operators or a new lighting plan, although a review may point out where one of those would help. Knowing the boundary in advance avoids disappointment and keeps the report focused. Ask what form the report will take and how long it is likely to be. A useful review is specific enough that a producer can act on it the following week: it names the point in the rundown where a cue is missing, suggests how talkback groups could be split, and explains the reasoning. A report that only says communication should improve has not done its job, and you are entitled to ask for examples.
Think about what you will do with the findings. Some changes cost nothing, such as reordering how items are called or agreeing a short phrase for a standby. Others need time, kit or retraining. Decide beforehand how much of your own time you can give to trying changes over the following weeks, because a good report does little if nobody has room to test its suggestions on a real show.
- Gallery, rundown and crew communication are in scope
- Installation, coaching and lighting design are separate work
- Ask what the written report will actually contain
Ask about cost and practicalities before you commit
Price is a fair question to settle early. The costs of a review depend on how many shows the reviewer needs to watch, how large the gallery crew is and how much material has to be read beforehand. Our prices page sets out what is included and what changes the figure, and any work is confirmed in a written quotation before it begins. Payment is by invoice, and the payment and refund policy covers cancellations. Also ask about the practical side of the visit. Will the reviewer need a seat in the gallery during transmission, headphones on the talkback channel or access to the rundown software as the show runs? Will they need to be on site for rehearsal as well as the show? Clarifying this with your studio manager and your facilities team avoids awkward last-minute requests on the day.
Finally, think about confidentiality. Rundowns and gallery recordings can contain unreleased material, guest details and internal opinions about the programme. Agree how documents will be shared, who will see the report and how long it is kept. A sensible reviewer will not mind these questions, and answering them early makes the whole process calmer for everyone involved.
- What drives the price: shows observed, crew size, reading time
- What the reviewer needs on the day
- How documents and the report will be handled
A last pass before you get in touch
Read your list once more with a producer's eye. Do you have your three trouble spots, a handful of real rundowns, a rough layout of the gallery and a named person to approve changes? Have you told the crew what is happening and why? Have you decided what you can realistically try in the weeks after the report arrives? If the answer to most of these is yes, you are ready to describe the job properly.
When you do write through the contact page, say which shows you want reviewed, how often you go live and what you most want to be different. A short, specific message lets us reply with a sensible plan and a written quotation, rather than a round of general questions. Clear preparation on your side makes for a more useful review on ours.
A workflow review pays off when it begins with honest preparation. Name the moments that cause tension, gather real rundowns, agree who decides, understand what the review covers and settle cost and handling in advance. With those answers in hand, the written report becomes a set of changes your crew can try on the next show, rather than another document that sits in a shared folder while the same problems return.