From what i have seen and been there, i personally think ITV NC is utter **** and should be scrapped! The editor has been totally disillusioned and confused 2! Ahhrhrr
Despite what the ITV executives are saying, the reality is that when a sufficiently large number of viewers have multichannel television, ITV will just become another digital broadcaster, with no PSB commitments.
The sooner the other ITN shareholders realise this, the greater the likelihood of ITN's long-term survival. They will then hopefully refuse to sell the rest of ITN to ITV and do the following:
- Create two news channels sufficiently different to the competition to secure a niche and generate profit. One channel would be based on the Radio 4 model. Essentially, lots of analysis, no celebrity news, and little sport. The channel would also broadcast programmes focussed on specific issues. This would be branded simply as ITN.
- The second channel would be a headline news service consisting of 15 minute bulletins, and possibly funded by internet-like banner advertising. This channel would also be available as a subscription service for 3G users.
This would be branded as ITN headline news.
- Secure as many news contracts for ITN as possible. (e.g. for trains, airports, etc).
- Make winning the next five news contract a priority.
- Lose presenting staff demanding excessively large salaries.
- Create two news channels sufficiently different to the competition to secure a niche and generate profit. One channel would be based on the Radio 4 model. Essentially, lots of analysis, no celebrity news, and little sport. The channel would also broadcast programmes focussed on specific issues. This would be branded simply as ITN.
- The second channel would be a headline news service consisting of 15 minute bulletins, and possibly funded by internet-like banner advertising. This channel would also be available as a subscription service for 3G users.
This would be branded as ITN headline news.
Considering the costs involved with one channel, I wouldn't expect two - though completly get what your trying to say. There is a certain appeal of a news channel just offering news bulletins while all the others are live at some press conference! I'd suggest the best way forward is for the main channel to dip in briefly to press conferences, PMQs etc - but concentrate on news reports, having the live stuff on an interactive service.
Answering my own question about budgets - found an article on BBC News from a few years ago saying the ITN News Channel had an annual budget of £10m, Sky News was £35m and BBC News 24 was something like £48m.
That's a few years ago - but considering how much the ITN News Channel relied on reports from ITV, C4 and five, you could easily double that as a minimum budget for a new ITN News Channel, considering if ITV cut it links with ITN, it only other TV news output be C4 News.
- Create two news channels sufficiently different to the competition to secure a niche and generate profit. One channel would be based on the Radio 4 model. Essentially, lots of analysis, no celebrity news, and little sport. The channel would also broadcast programmes focussed on specific issues. This would be branded simply as ITN.
- The second channel would be a headline news service consisting of 15 minute bulletins, and possibly funded by internet-like banner advertising. This channel would also be available as a subscription service for 3G users.
This would be branded as ITN headline news.
Considering the costs involved with one channel, I wouldn't expect two - though completly get what your trying to say. There is a certain appeal of a news channel just offering news bulletins while all the others are live at some press conference! I'd suggest the best way forward is for the main channel to dip in briefly to press conferences, PMQs etc - but concentrate on news reports, having the live stuff on an interactive service.
Answering my own question about budgets - found an article on BBC News from a few years ago saying the ITN News Channel had an annual budget of £10m, Sky News was £35m and BBC News 24 was something like £48m.
That's a few years ago - but considering how much the ITN News Channel relied on reports from ITV, C4 and five, you could easily double that as a minimum budget for a new ITN News Channel, considering if ITV cut it links with ITN, it only other TV news output be C4 News.
There have always been questions about comparisons of costs between broadcasters - as different figures include different costs. Some include, some exclude stuff like office rent, transmission costs, presentation costs etc.
Despite what the ITV executives are saying, the reality is that when a sufficiently large number of viewers have multichannel television, ITV will just become another digital broadcaster, with no PSB commitments.
The sooner the other ITN shareholders realise this, the greater the likelihood of ITN's long-term survival. They will then hopefully refuse to sell the rest of ITN to ITV and do the following:
- Create two news channels sufficiently different to the competition to secure a niche and generate profit. One channel would be based on the Radio 4 model. Essentially, lots of analysis, no celebrity news, and little sport. The channel would also broadcast programmes focussed on specific issues. This would be branded simply as ITN.
- The second channel would be a headline news service consisting of 15 minute bulletins, and possibly funded by internet-like banner advertising. This channel would also be available as a subscription service for 3G users.
This would be branded as ITN headline news.
- Secure as many news contracts for ITN as possible. (e.g. for trains, airports, etc).
- Make winning the next five news contract a priority.
- Lose presenting staff demanding excessively large salaries.
Are you insane? How are ITN (desperately underfunded as it is) going to fund TWO news channels when 24-hour news never makes money in this country?
Are you insane? How are ITN (desperately underfunded as it is) going to fund TWO news channels when 24-hour news never makes money in this country?
Consider this. Nobody knew when CNN launched in the US back in 1980 whether there was any demand for 24 hour TV news, yet 1 year later, they were already launching a second news channel, CNN2, which became Headline News.
That took some guts, and at the moment, any forays into 24 hour news by ITN or indeed anybody else, is going to take guts by the ton.
The News Channel needs to distinguish itself from other news channels. And there's a really cheap option. There's nothing more annoying than tuning in to get a news bulletin and everyone is on a live event. The NC should stop trying to compete and give something completely new... anytime you tune in to the channel, you get a fifteen minute bulletin of news, business and weather. You wouldn't need expensive presenters or even many resources, just a solid fifteen minute bulletin which is then adapted every fifteen minutes. It would be boring to watch for more than fifteen minutes, but who really tunes in for a long time? It would give people just what they want, the news, with no bells and whistles.
CNN2 launched mostly because Turner was worried about the ABC-backed SNC (Satellite News Channel), and went with the theory that saturating the market with CNN news channels would minimise the impact. His argument at the time was ''better to be your own competition''.
There wasn't much bravery about it, it was really just a business decision, and the market was very different then.
I agree that a Headline News-esq/original ITN News Channel format could actually be very successful in the UK, and I believe that the original NC was ahead of its time for our market. They started to look weak against the opposition, and worried about whether or not they should cover minor breaking news long-form, as Sky did, and so the point of the 15 minute updates was lost a little.
Are you insane? How are ITN (desperately underfunded as it is) going to fund TWO news channels when 24-hour news never makes money in this country?
Consider this. Nobody knew when CNN launched in the US back in 1980 whether there was any demand for 24 hour TV news, yet 1 year later, they were already launching a second news channel, CNN2, which became Headline News.
That took some guts, and at the moment, any forays into 24 hour news by ITN or indeed anybody else, is going to take guts by the ton.
Firstly CNN were first kid on the block - and therefore had market opportunities that no one would ever have now in a completely different broadcasting environment.
And CNN only really became successful after the first Gulf War - they had correspondents in Baghdad and no one else did. Perhaps Gray's Inn Road could rustle up some convenient war to boost ratings?
Britain is not America. 24-hour news simply doesn't make money over here. Sky's never made a dime in the more than 15 years it's been on air. Murdoch subsidises it for political prestige and influence. The Beeb is exempt from market pressures.
Planning long-term requires money to cover losses in the short-term. ITN simply can't afford to run a news-channel - let alone two - for any significant time if it makes a loss.
As laudable as it may be - the basic premise is deluded.
CNN2 launched mostly because Turner was worried about the ABC-backed SNC (Satellite News Channel).
SNC never actually launched. It was planned, but never made it to air. Still, it took guts by Ted Turner to actually launch CNN2, whilst the market was still wondering if CNN had a future. He could easily have shelved CNN2, or waited until CNN's future was more secure, but he took on the gamble, and let's face it, if launching CNN was a gamble, then CNN2 was effectively a double gamble, squared. It could very easily have backfired on Ted Turner.
The situation with ITN is different in the sense that, there is already two market leaders in close competition. I felt the original ITN News Channel was a very good package, only let down in my view by a badly designed studio set which undermined the rest of the channel. If ITN were to launch another news channel, they absolutely need sponsorship deals for Sports, Business, Weather, Travel and Entertainment News segments, and fairly big money deals at that. They will also need to get on Sky's News Mix package, as well as the various basic cable packages. All that, plus adverts to help bring in the money to run this venture. Even then, they can use their aubstantial connections with CNN, NBC and Nine Network Australia, to get programming, and indeed reports, for use on the channel. ITN have the resources available to them, if they choose to use them.
The situation with ITN is different in the sense that, there is already two market leaders in close competition. I felt the original ITN News Channel was a very good package, only let down in my view by a badly designed studio set which undermined the rest of the channel.
Agree with most of what you say. It was the studio that let them down, but the concept of continuous news bulletins was good. I find it really annoying when with three "24 hour" news channels you often turn them on during the day to catch the latest on something, and they are all broadcasting the same press conference or PMQs etc.
I also don't know for certain if the ITN News Channel would have changed it's format if ITV hadn't bought it. From a couple of the articles I've read in the last few week it did quite well on cable, and I'm sure it would have done on Freeview if it got a 24 hour slot (it broadcast 5.30-9am). IIRC ITV continued the 30 minute bulletin style for a while after they bought it before introducing the News on the hour style schedule.
As I said in my intro the only way I could ITN launching their own news channel once again is if it does lose the ITV contract, under the principle that though a 24 hr channel would lose money, ITN would possibly lose more money without it!
It's one of those "What if?" questions, but it is interesting to think about how the ITN News Channel would be today if ITV hadn't took it over. Perhaps they might have moved into the Five News studio after ITN lost the contract.
As for the schedule - though I think the concept would have remained essentially the same, I'm sure there would have been some interuptions to the rolling news schedule, perhaps with a couple of appointment to view programmes such as Live with Alistair Stewart and a nightly flagship news bulletin.
Also one for the Mock forum, but how would it have developed graphically, keeping the arrow theme!
CNN2 launched mostly because Turner was worried about the ABC-backed SNC (Satellite News Channel).
SNC never actually launched. It was planned, but never made it to air. Still, it took guts by Ted Turner to actually launch CNN2, whilst the market was still wondering if CNN had a future. He could easily have shelved CNN2, or waited until CNN's future was more secure, but he took on the gamble, and let's face it, if launching CNN was a gamble, then CNN2 was effectively a double gamble, squared. It could very easily have backfired on Ted Turner.
The situation with ITN is different in the sense that, there is already two market leaders in close competition. I felt the original ITN News Channel was a very good package, only let down in my view by a badly designed studio set which undermined the rest of the channel. If ITN were to launch another news channel, they absolutely need sponsorship deals for Sports, Business, Weather, Travel and Entertainment News segments, and fairly big money deals at that. They will also need to get on Sky's News Mix package, as well as the various basic cable packages. All that, plus adverts to help bring in the money to run this venture. Even then, they can use their aubstantial connections with CNN, NBC and Nine Network Australia, to get programming, and indeed reports, for use on the channel. ITN have the resources available to them, if they choose to use them.
Erm, SNC did launch, and CNN bought the thing about 12 months later and shut it down. It really wasn't guts... he launched CNN2 to limit the success of SNC, not because he wanted to expand CNN significantly. It would have been a risk not to launch it... CNN might not have had a future if it hadn't launched CNN2, not the other way round.
How on earth are you proposing ITN get ''big money deals'' for sponsoring their news segments? Aside from the fact that OFCOM doesn't allow sponsorship of news programming, who on earth is going to want to pay big money for a spot on a channel nobody watches?
And what would their deals with CNN et al have to do with it? It's hardly going to attract a significant audience if they're just pumping out stuff from other networks.
Finally, it wasn't let down by its studio, it was let down by the fact that it was not a particularly sharp service, and got confused about what it wanted to be. They were doing 15 minute headline summaries, then launching into breaking news coverage because they seemed to think they should cover that too; the audience got confused. They knew they could get headlines from Sky/BBC anyway, as well as breaking news, so why go to a startup service that offered something second rate?