You lot are out of your minds if you think that the reason the ITN News Channel failed was because it didn't have a particularly nice studio.
You're amazingly short sighted. 99% of the population really don't give a toss about its presentation. The desk could cope with two people easily, and frankly there aren't all that many times when rivals have in-studio guests anyway.
Get a bit of perspective, please.
As for the previous comments about ITN should have launched earlier when Sky launched, or possibly producing Sky News. Sky looked for a supplier when they launched to help them with newsgathering, and ITN did put a bid together, but from memory it was too costly. Sky eventually went with Reuters, and got access to their newsgathering facilities (reporters, links, etc) until Sky ended the deal in about 1997 and went it alone.
Well, remember this is largely a "What if?" type thread!
cat posted:
As for the previous comments about ITN should have launched earlier when Sky launched, or possibly producing Sky News. Sky looked for a supplier when they launched to help them with newsgathering, and ITN did put a bid together, but from memory it was too costly. Sky eventually went with Reuters, and got access to their newsgathering facilities (reporters, links, etc) until Sky ended the deal in about 1997 and went it alone.
Now Reuters own 20% of ITN, so if ITN did go it alone in 24 hr news there should be the possibility of access to Reuters facilities.
To be honest, I think Reuters are more concerned with their own performance problems at the moment, let alone ITN's. If anyone is likely to sell their stake in the company, it's probably Reuters.
The fact of the matter is this: ITN know that they cannot produce a truly impressive looking news channel without spending at least 40 million quid on it a year. That is less than News 24 and Sky News spend on theirs, and still more than the whole ITV News contract is worth. ITN don't have that sort of money REGARDLESS of sponsorship, partnerships, etc etc. It just is not there.
ITV will buy up the rest of ITN, Channel 4 might clear off to Sky or someone else, and ITV Plc with then decide whether or not they have a serious commitment to news. Given their recent reputation, it would be a complete about face if they suddenly decided that investing in news programming was worthwhile, especially as by this point News 24 and Sky News are going to have upped their game significantly.
The future of ANY news channel come out of ITN depends on whether ITV Plc are prepared to spend money on news. ITN will not go it alone because they've tried and failed.
given the talk of the launch of cnn it prompted me to think - i wonder how different things would be now had itn launched a news channel earlier. i read somewhere that a pilot for an itn news channel was produced waaay back in 1983.
had it been given the go-ahead it seems pretty obvious itn would have had an easier time establishing a news channel than sky did. it seems conceivable that itn could have occupied the top spot today had they moved faster - and indeed, itv might have been less inclined to rename itn bulletins on itv if the itn news channel was in the position that sky news is now.
Interesting, though obviously carriage would have been an issue. Perhaps in this scenario ITN would have launched instead of Sky News as part of Sky's launch line up, or alternatively produced Sky News - or been part of the rival British Satellite Broadcasting line up, but really independent satellite networks didn't begin to emerge until the mid-90s.
this thread prompted me to have a quick look for more info on the pilot - all i can find is ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/861230.stm posted:
Chief executive Stewart Purvis said at the launch: "This is the first time in ITN's 45-year history we have broadcast news direct to the consumer as a broadcaster in our own right - and 17 years since I first put together a pilot for an ITN news channel.
Surely it first needs viewers, no-one is going to sponsor any of those slots if there's virtually no-one watching. And whatever they get would be a mere drop in the ocean
Well, BARB says the channel reaches 2 million viewers a week, out of 58 million, would you call that virtually no-one?
Well, BARB says the channel reaches 2 million viewers a week, out of 58 million, would you call that virtually no-one?
Yes, compared with the others. You can't take that figure in isolation - The weekly reach is about half that of Sky and News 24. But look at the shares and viewing minuteage, they're all a lot lower than their two rivals.
Even looking at the biggest news week of the year (W/E 10th July) their figures improved but had no-where near normal audience level of BBC and Sky
It's certainly not enough to attract any decent revenue - compare and contrast the advertising sold on ITV News Channel and Sky News for example
Well, BARB says the channel reaches 2 million viewers a week, out of 58 million, would you call that virtually no-one?
Yes, compared with the others. You can't take that figure in isolation - The weekly reach is about half that of Sky and News 24. But look at the shares and viewing minuteage, they're all a lot lower than their two rivals.
I don't place a lot of faith in the share and viewing minutage figures by themselves anymore. They don't tell anything like the whole story. By looking much more closely at the weekly reach figures, together with share figures, tells you much more about a channel, any channel.
Certainly I do not consider a channel getting 2 million viewers a week. virtually no-one. If you want channels that virtually no-one watches, look deeper in the BARB listings where you will find the following, which are station and how many viewers they reach a week.
Teletext Holidays: 45,000
Prem Plus: 49,000
Film Four +1: 61,000
London TV: 66,000
MUTV: 82,000
Majestic TV: 99,000
There are your channels, that virtually no-one watches. Next to these boys, ITV News Channel's 2 million viewers a week is positively popular.
I don't place a lot of faith in the share and viewing minutage figures by themselves anymore. They don't tell anything like the whole story. By looking much more closely at the weekly reach figures, together with share figures, tells you much more about a channel, any channel.
Yes, that's what I said you have to look at the whole picture - you seemed to place a lot of faith in just the weekly reach earlier!
Quote:
Certainly I do not consider a channel getting 2 million viewers a week. virtually no-one. If you want channels that virtually no-one watches, look deeper in the BARB listings where you will find the following, which are station and how many viewers they reach a week.
Teletext Holidays: 45,000
Prem Plus: 49,000
Film Four +1: 61,000
London TV: 66,000
MUTV: 82,000
Majestic TV: 99,000
There are your channels, that virtually no-one watches. Next to these boys, ITV News Channel's 2 million viewers a week is positively popular.
I stand by it that the ITV News Channel gets *virtually* no viewers..... compared with the above that get *actually* no viewers!*
Interesting to note of course that all of the above channels don't rely on advertising - being funded by subscriptions, sales commission, a tourist board, football club, holiday firm. They can have small audiences because they are niche and have alternative funding.... ITV News Channel has neither
*Although the audience figures for London TV are unreliable because it is aimed at tourists, and they don't put Barb boxes in hotel rooms!
I know it's a long shoot, but maybe the impending redesign could save ITVNC. If they're spending all that money making changes albeit cosmetic ones, surely they'll stick with it long enough to see if it has any impact. We should never underestimate the power of presentation to retain/gain viewers.
If people see something that interests them visually whilst chanel surfing, maybe they stay for a closer look?
I know it's a long shoot, but maybe the impending redesign could save ITVNC. If they're spending all that money making changes albeit cosmetic ones, surely they'll stick with it long enough to see if it has any impact. We should never underestimate the power of presentation to retain/gain viewers.
If people see something that interests them visually whilst chanel surfing, maybe they stay for a closer look?
Well it was worth a try
The impending re-design is merely to bring the ITVNC in-line with the new ITV branding - not an attempt to boost it's appeal. After all, the ITVNC is probably just an excuse to use the facilities which exist for the main ITV1 bulletins for other parts of the day.
Yes, that's what I said you have to look at the whole picture - you seemed to place a lot of faith in just the weekly reach earlier!
Quote:
Certainly I do not consider a channel getting 2 million viewers a week. virtually no-one. If you want channels that virtually no-one watches, look deeper in the BARB listings where you will find the following, which are station and how many viewers they reach a week.
Teletext Holidays: 45,000
Prem Plus: 49,000
Film Four +1: 61,000
London TV: 66,000
MUTV: 82,000
Majestic TV: 99,000
There are your channels, that virtually no-one watches. Next to these boys, ITV News Channel's 2 million viewers a week is positively popular.
I stand by it that the ITV News Channel gets *virtually* no viewers..... compared with the above that get *actually* no viewers!*
Interesting to note of course that all of the above channels don't rely on advertising - being funded by subscriptions, sales commission, a tourist board, football club, holiday firm. They can have small audiences because they are niche and have alternative funding.... ITV News Channel has neither
I put a lot more faith in weekly reach figures, because it is your basic 'bums on seats' figure when it comes to television and indeed radio ratings.
Weekly reach, as defined by BARB, is "The percentage, or number in thousands or millions, of Uk population in private households (excluding guest viewing) who viewed each channel for 3 consecutive minutes or more during the week."
If you are watching a channel for at least 3 consecutive minutes, then there has to be something about the channel you like to be watching it for that lenght of time.
As for your insistence that ITV News Channel gets virtually no viewers, and that the channels I quoted get "...*actually* no viewers!", here, I must point out a fatal flaw in your argument. For a channel to get actually no viewers, BARB would be reporting it having 0 viewers. If you want a news channel that truly has virtually no viewers, well, Fox News is the one at the bottom of the list currently with 332.000 viewers weekly reach.
Now, whilst most of the programmes on the channel I mentioned probably do get zero ratings, it is not correct or even fair to them, to say they have no viewers. They have virtually no viewers, but they do have a very samll number , albeit less than 100,000.
I will also take issue with your last point...
Quote:
Interesting to note of course that all of the above channels don't rely on advertising - being funded by subscriptions, sales commission, a tourist board, football club, holiday firm. They can have small audiences because they are niche and have alternative funding.... ITV News Channel has neither
I do not agree with you in saying that because they are niche and have alternative funding, they can have small audiences. Prem Plus certainly cannot afford to think that way. Neither can Film Four. Their channels are very much below par in that sense. Sky's subscription movie channels get around 2-3 million viewers a week, even the FTA film channels are decent performers. In the most recently reported week, TCM got around 2.7 million, True Movies around 1.6 million, The Horror Channel about 1.3 million, and even Matinee Movies scored 299,000. What do the Film Four channels get?
Film Four: 108,000
Film Four +1: 61,000
Film Four Weekly: 129,000.
I would say no channel can ever afford to think that just because they have alternative funding arrangements and are niche, that they can afford to get away with a small audience. They should be trying to attract as many people as possible to their channel, and once there, keep them there. No channel should ever think that it can afford to be satisfied with second best.
