LO
Well ITN only gets as much money as the broadcasters they are serving are willing to spend on news.
If Sky News wishes to spend more on Five News than Five is paying them to provide the service, then that's their problem.
I T V 1 posted:
So why are ITN so low on resources? is it because they havnt got the money like Sky News, as A Sky has subscription money and that...
Well ITN only gets as much money as the broadcasters they are serving are willing to spend on news.
If Sky News wishes to spend more on Five News than Five is paying them to provide the service, then that's their problem.
NW
Money. Or rather lack of it. ITN's 5/five News was never the most resourced contract.
Remember a few years ago when ITN had to cut back and to save alot of money. Also remember that 5 News Early was never a ratings winner, I don't think the ratings ever exceeded about 50,000 or so and was probably a loss for ITN and Five, but towards the end of it remember they axed the programme and replaced it with a simulcast of the ITN News Channel and then Sky took over the contract.
For Five it has proved that showing kids programmes is more profitable than showing the News in the morning, as they can average out at about 200,000-300,000 (usually beating Channel 4) whilst the Sunrise simulcast gets about 20,000. (<- That figure may have changed I remember reading that some time ago)
freddy posted:
fanoftv posted:
What were the reasons for stopping the Five News (well 5 News) Early service anyway?
Money. Or rather lack of it. ITN's 5/five News was never the most resourced contract.
Remember a few years ago when ITN had to cut back and to save alot of money. Also remember that 5 News Early was never a ratings winner, I don't think the ratings ever exceeded about 50,000 or so and was probably a loss for ITN and Five, but towards the end of it remember they axed the programme and replaced it with a simulcast of the ITN News Channel and then Sky took over the contract.
For Five it has proved that showing kids programmes is more profitable than showing the News in the morning, as they can average out at about 200,000-300,000 (usually beating Channel 4) whilst the Sunrise simulcast gets about 20,000. (<- That figure may have changed I remember reading that some time ago)
TV
i thought it was more to do with the itn news channel changing its name and being bought by carlton and granada?
sky took over the contract on 01/01/05, whilst ch5 have been showing sunrise for months.
tvmercia
Founding member
nwtv2003 posted:
towards the end of it remember they axed the programme and replaced it with a simulcast of the ITN News Channel and then Sky took over the contract.
i thought it was more to do with the itn news channel changing its name and being bought by carlton and granada?
sky took over the contract on 01/01/05, whilst ch5 have been showing sunrise for months.
NW
i thought it was more to do with the itn news channel changing its name and being bought by carlton and granada?
sky took over the contract on 01/01/05, whilst ch5 have been showing sunrise for months.
I was talking about the Breakfast contract, as that is done seperately I believe, as Sky News have been simulcasting on Five at Breakfast since 2002.
tvmercia posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
towards the end of it remember they axed the programme and replaced it with a simulcast of the ITN News Channel and then Sky took over the contract.
i thought it was more to do with the itn news channel changing its name and being bought by carlton and granada?
sky took over the contract on 01/01/05, whilst ch5 have been showing sunrise for months.
I was talking about the Breakfast contract, as that is done seperately I believe, as Sky News have been simulcasting on Five at Breakfast since 2002.
JH
As has been said, I don't think ITN are low on resources per se. But to make a business work a contract can only be served by resources matching what the client agrees to pay. From that it's fair to assume that Five didn't pay much for the ITN news contract. You gets what you pay for. On the other hand, look at Channel 4 News. That contract is reportedly not nearly as big as the ITV deal (both produced by ITN) but many might argue that Channel 4 News is a far better product than ITV News...
And as Londoner says...
Indeed so! It might be wildly speculated that Sky may have done precisely that. Then again, perhaps that actually does make good long-term business sense, as they'll gain a higher initial profile for their product.
I T V 1 posted:
So why are ITN so low on resources? is it because they havnt got the money like Sky News, as A Sky has subscription money and that...
As has been said, I don't think ITN are low on resources per se. But to make a business work a contract can only be served by resources matching what the client agrees to pay. From that it's fair to assume that Five didn't pay much for the ITN news contract. You gets what you pay for. On the other hand, look at Channel 4 News. That contract is reportedly not nearly as big as the ITV deal (both produced by ITN) but many might argue that Channel 4 News is a far better product than ITV News...
And as Londoner says...
Londoner posted:
If Sky News wishes to spend more on Five News than Five is paying them to provide the service, then that's their problem.
Indeed so! It might be wildly speculated that Sky may have done precisely that. Then again, perhaps that actually does make good long-term business sense, as they'll gain a higher initial profile for their product.
NG
To be fair, I don't know if it went out like that at 12 noon - that cap was from the headline recap at the end of the programme.
Yep - and 16:9 is not as easy as many people think. News 24 has been widescreen since 1997 (over 7 years) and you still see mistakes on-air with aspect ratios - as you do with BBC One news. (Some people are far more sensitive to "wrong shape" pictures than others as well - though the Big Ben one is a classic)
noggin
Founding member
Londoner posted:
noggin posted:
Ouch.
To be fair, I don't know if it went out like that at 12 noon - that cap was from the headline recap at the end of the programme.
Yep - and 16:9 is not as easy as many people think. News 24 has been widescreen since 1997 (over 7 years) and you still see mistakes on-air with aspect ratios - as you do with BBC One news. (Some people are far more sensitive to "wrong shape" pictures than others as well - though the Big Ben one is a classic)
AL
Indeed so! It might be wildly speculated that Sky may have done precisely that. Then again, perhaps that actually does make good long-term business sense, as they'll gain a higher initial profile for their product.
That's reminiscent of a well-known business practice which I thought was illegal:
Sell a product/service at a loss, drive the [smaller] competition out of business then gouge all you can from the short-sighted 'consumers' who put you in that monopolistic position.
Obviously I'm not aware of anything which would suggest that this is what Sky is doing and I'm sure that their accounts for the Channel 5 news contract would stand up to scrutiny.
Factoring in the intagible benefits of advertising, however subtle, may well legitimize the aforementioned revenue model (if that's what is happening). Either way I'm willing to bet that Sky's lawyers are far smarter than me and that they're not breaking any laws.
Jonathan H posted:
Londoner posted:
If Sky News wishes to spend more on Five News than Five is paying them to provide the service, then that's their problem.
Indeed so! It might be wildly speculated that Sky may have done precisely that. Then again, perhaps that actually does make good long-term business sense, as they'll gain a higher initial profile for their product.
That's reminiscent of a well-known business practice which I thought was illegal:
Sell a product/service at a loss, drive the [smaller] competition out of business then gouge all you can from the short-sighted 'consumers' who put you in that monopolistic position.
Obviously I'm not aware of anything which would suggest that this is what Sky is doing and I'm sure that their accounts for the Channel 5 news contract would stand up to scrutiny.
Factoring in the intagible benefits of advertising, however subtle, may well legitimize the aforementioned revenue model (if that's what is happening). Either way I'm willing to bet that Sky's lawyers are far smarter than me and that they're not breaking any laws.