Sky News, was once the unquestioned king of 24 hour news in the UK, however after being caught up by News 24 in ratings and several pain staking months where the news channels were practically neck and neck in the ratings war, News 24 has finally over taken Sky. In the run up to Christmas News 24 (0.6%) had a 0.2% lead of sky (0.4), a massive ammount in terms of news channels. Even Skys coverage of the Ipswich murders failed to beat News 24 in terms of views, dispite Skys reputatation as being the channel people turn to for Breaking News.
Pollard has left and been replaced with Ryley, but despite his Ryleys back to basics approach of rolling news and sitting behind a desk and debates so that viewers here informed opinions, ratings have not improved.
What can Sky do, to bridge the gap between themselves and News 24? Or is the ratings gap an inevitablity as new Freeview viewers as Pollard argued pick News 24 because they respect the BBC.
Personally I feel that the channel lost it's unique feel during the relaunch. The previous studio made the view feel as if they were involved in the News because the Sky News Today strands, were broadcast from the Newsroom. Whilst an office area is in view in the new set, it is largely empty and it lacks the atmosphere of the new newsroom. To prevent this problem I would scrap the soft studio area infront of the main desk and move the main desk foward, allowing for a few more rows of desks between the news wall and the main desk. I would then make sure that these desks were occupied at all times. Rather than having the Presenter stood, at the pod (not newswall pod, but one behing main desk), I would scrap that pod and have them stood in the desk area behind the main desk.
In terms of Presentation - Sky News Today, should go back to it's pre-relaunch format, with as little of the desk as possible. Lunchtime Live and Live at Five Should remain unchnaged.
I believe this needed a new thread because I thought the Sky News thread looked more at day to day coverage, rather than looking at the channel as a whole. Sorry if you disagree.
In the run up to Christmas News 24 had a 0.2% lead of sky, a massive ammount in terms of news channels.
I think you need to clarify this statement. If News 24 has a 0.2%
share of the total audience
advantage over Sky News then that is indeed a significant margin in the world of miniscule news channel ratings. But if Sky rates 99.8% of the News 24 audience (0.2%
difference
) then that is a very close run thing whether you have 10 viewers or 100,000!
For me, Sky completely lost its way. I shall always remember the hype and tension built up before the relaunch and then the spectacular fall from grace.
Sky certainly seemed innovative and 'edgy', hosting programmes from the newsroom and seeming to take a more relaxed yet informative approach (compared with News 24 who seemed to have Hayton and others firmly behind a desk). Even Sky's graphics seemed suitable - having a ticker (and for a long time News 24 didn't) and generally seeming to be a 24 hour operation.
It's often said that opposition parties don't win elections and I think much of that is applicable here. News 24 caught onto a number of features, the standing up, the ticker, the graphics etc but Sky seemed to revert to a style which News 24 had proved to be unpopular. Having fixed programmes seemed a turn off when all a viewer wants is a channel devoted to breaking news and reporting it. World News seemed another, albeit honourable, but unfounded idea. Having World News Tonight with a presenter who could hardly read an autocue seemed one of the years biggest bloppers.
Appointment to view simply didn't have a following. Sky are good at developing a story from its breaking point to its review. They have proved time and time again that is what they are good at and that it proves popular. And yet they simply seemed to have abandoned this with the relaunch, adopting a more American style which simply doesn't convey the atmosphere Sky once did.
You also have to couple this with News 24. With the demise of the ITV News Channel, which had never really been a serious player, the BBC literally took the bull by the horns. More personal affairs stories appeared as did suitable programming such as Huw's 5'o clock news hour. Programmes seemed innovative such as StoryFix and Your News and now Sky merely seem to be following News 24's trend, 'Tomorrows News' and 'Video messages'.
But I don't think it's all doom and gloom. The warehouse look of Sky is certainly something which can do with improvement as is the graphics. The announcement of a back to basics approach wields some hope but whilst News 24 continues to take leaps and bounds Sky can only hope N24's relaunch is as bad as theirs.
I think Sky's coverage looks too tabloidy - They have to stop using "
News FLASH
", "
News ALERT
" and "
BREAKING NEWS
" every time Michael Jackson steps out his front door to pick up a bottle of milk.
I notice that Sky News managed to achieve 107,000 viewers for
Live at Five
last Thursday. It seems to be quite a rarity for Sky to get above 100,000. Does anyone know why BBC News 24 doesn't appear on the weekly multi-channel ratings pages of BARB?
Need to clarify what you mean by relaunch - are you referring to last October, or the relaunch when they undid that relaunch.
I guess from what you've written you're referring to the latter - and agree with you there. For me as someone new to Sky News I hated the old desk style with random partnerships and introducing more presenter led programmes was a way of bridging that gap.
IMO there were only a few major problems with the Oct 05 relaunch, the biggest being James Rubin - while the others being three presenters on Sky News Today and the scheduling of the Sky Report - which stood no change against C4 News.
In simple terms all they have to do is take advantage of their space and use the newswall, podiums and other areas more - certainly at the top of the hour.
Elsewhere it's about getting viewers familiar with presenters - it works with Lunchtime Live and Live at Five, so they need to estabhlish regular pairings on both the morning and afternoon editions of Sky News Today (and perhaps rebrand them), and also do something about the weekends.
I'd reinstate the early evening edition of Sportsline at 6.30pm, put Martin Stanford on an hour earlier at 7pm and bring back the Sky Report at 9pm. The Sky Report would be more in-depth, with Sky News at Ten being more of a quick round up of the day's news.
Also, it goes without saying but how they treat breaking news needs to change - unless it's a major story it should just be covered when it comes in and then integrated into the natural running order if it warrants it.
So weekdays are like this:
6.00am Sunrise
9.00am Sky News AM
12.00noon Lunchtime Live with Kay Burley
2.00pm Sky News PM
5.00pm Live at Five with Jeremy Thompson
6.30pm Sportsline
7.00pm Sky News Tonight with Martin Stanford
9.00pm The Sky Report with either Anna or Julia
10.00pm Sky News at Ten
10.30pm Sportsline
11.00pm Sky News
12.30am CBS News
1.00am Sky News
4.00am Sky World News
There would then be a tighter structure to the weekend schedule, with weekend versions of some of the flagship programmes. The hosts of these would regularly be stand ins on the weekday editions.
6.00am Sunrise
9.00am Saturday Live / Sunday with Adam Bolton
12.00noon Lunchtime Live
2.00pm Sky News Weekend (news and sport programme)
5.00pm Live at Five
6.30pm Sportsline
7.00pm Sky News (special reports could be shown at 7.30pm)
8.30pm Sportsline
9.00pm Sky News (special reports could be shown at 9.30pm)
10.00pm Sky News at Ten
10.30pm Sportsline
11.00pm Sky News (special reports could be shown at 11.30pm)
12.30am CBS News
1.00am Sky News
4.00am Sky World News
I think Sky's coverage looks too tabloidy - They have to stop using "
News FLASH
", "
News ALERT
" and "
BREAKING NEWS
" every time Michael Jackson steps out his front door to pick up a bottle of milk.
Albeit a bit dramatic, I quite like the Sky News Alerts. Often when watching the news out the corner of your eye they efficiently remind you of a particular press conference or statement that is coming up shortly or something to keep an out for.
People are always going to have different views when it comes to what is Breaking News or not. But I certainly haven't seen News Flash or anything too Fox News like on Sky, so I think you are mistaken there.
I agree with most of the points raised here. They also need to get their graphics fixed - bright red and white astons should really only be used for Breaking News. They seem to use it even without Breaking News now.
The key characteristics of Sky News pre 2005 relaunch were that there were good pairings of anchors throughout the day - and this is something that has been lost with the relaunch.
Why is Colin Brazier on for 6 hours a day? I have never been able to warm to his presenting style, and I do think it's a bit of overkill having the same presenter on for 1/4 of the day.
I think that Martin Stanford and Julie Etchingham need to be put back together - perhaps stick them on together for Martin's evening programme and have both of them presenting it for 3 hours, instead of 2.
0600: Sky NewsBrief (Summary of the overnight headlines with Gillian Joseph)
0630: Sunrise (Eamonn Holmes and Kay Burley (who IMO is quite good) with Gillian)
This would use the balcony area- although a pan up to the balcony is in order.
0900: Sky News Today (Colin Brazier and Anna Botting)
Not restricted to the desk, but not over the top.
1200: Lunchtime Live (Anna Jones- the best of Kay's replacement presenters)
1400: Sky Afternoon Edition (Mark Longhurst, Paula Middlehurst and Helen Fospero)
Because of the busy time of the day, I gave this 3 presenters. This would be presented from all over the place.
1700: Live at Five (Jeremy Thompson)
Plain news from the desk with Jeremy. None of the old gimmicks (Lets go worldwide and so on).
1830: Sportsline
1900: International Editon (Faye Barker)
Nowhere near World News Tonight, International Edition is a world news bulletin without the analysis and so on.
1930: Sky Business Report (Juliette Foster)
Business news is something sky news currently lacks. And of course, sacking Juliette was the biggest mistake since the relaunch.
2000: Sky News with Martin Stanford
I actually really like this programme. Martin is popular with the viewers, and the whole interactivity thing isn't over the top. Just right.
2200: Sky News at Ten (Martin and Julie)
Desk-based news bulletin done differently and more prestigiously like the original news at ten.
2230: Sportsline
2300: Late Edition
Julie Etchingham presents a review of the days news, and a preview of the next days'.
0100: Second Edition
All the news that didn't make the main bulletins. Cheerily presented by none other than Lukweska Burak, from the soft area.
0130: Sky News Night (Includes CBS News and Sky News Australia bulletin)
0400: Sky World News (Lukweska)
In terms of presentation, I would bring back the studio shot to the TOTH ident, and simplify the amount of straps used. What is the difference between news flash, news alert and breaking news?
It is interesting that people say appointment to view did not work, but yet the 2 strands of Sky News that people seem united in saying are good, Lunchtime Live and Live at 5 are surely appointment to view? Meantime Alistair Stewarts show on ITV News channel was deemed it's most successful show was it not. Whilst Rubins show was wrong for the Channel, and Sky Report was not perfect, I don't think the channels slump can be blamed on 10 hours a week out of 168.
The point about Presenters being in regular slots is a good point, but I feel since Ryley has taken over the rota has been pretty strict. How many day has Colin had off? And Anna Jones and Julie are rarely seen out of their slots. The fact is the pairings they have do not work and Sky are short of one more outstanding male presenter. Kay and Mark and Martin and Julie should do the Sky News Todays. and Anna Jones, who is outstanding, but has failed to create chemistry with any of the males would have to move to lunchtime live. That would leave the 8pm strand without a presenter and there is no outstanding male who could carry the show. Anna Botting could fill the slot, but I don't think that she would fit in with the type of show Martins is.
I feel the channel has lost it's punch in the todat format. Each hour runs the same structure during both editions of Sky News Today, news update, interview, sport. Whilst I admit there has to be structure. it would be more interesting if there was more vareity, they could do this by reducing the ammount of time spend on sport. Also during the NEws Updates, on Sky News pre the 2005 relauch it was fast pased because for virtually every story they would have a live at the scene reporter. That is not the case now, they may discuss the top story, but then it is just the newsreader with a picture on the newswall and perhaps a Video clip.
