Sky News

Ok, let me spell it out...

80,000 viewers on a good day.

With the goal posts shifting, and the emphasis on gaining viewers, what has Sky News done with the re-launch, to make it a must-see channel over other popular multichannel offerings?

But Sky News is never going to compete ratings wise with the likes of BBC1. The relaunch is about re-establishing it as the number one news channel in the UK (well thats my understanding anyway).

are why are you rushing to such judgements after one day?

I think that applies to lots of people here, holding both extremes of the opinion spectrum. Geez, give the paint some time to dry!

Because the re-launch is rubbish, style over substance, and the channel has next to no viewers.
Who cares if it is, is aspiring to, or will never be the best news channel on television? Most people get more in-depth, varied, and updated news online.
What we are judging here is not the success of the studio re-launch (which looks beautiful and graphics whiz-bang, etc..) but whether the channel, after the most significant re-launch in its history, has secured its multi-channel future?

From my point of view, I'm just jealous that I haven't got 40 million pounds to burn.
I'm not sure BSkyB will be so willing to sign checks for that amount when it loses the premiership rights and all that lucrative subscription money.

http://www.winsurfers.com/skynews/skynews.png

Well said.

It's just a nice big egotistical journey for Murdock and his consortium (Although it does look very good!). The average viewer doesn’t give a crap, they just want the news and if Sky does that everyone is happy.

There is up-side, I guess. They have installed this so called "state of the art facility" and presumably it's a great space for future development and advances in technology, so by spending now, they may save later.

Oh right. Did they sack you, is that why you're so bitter all the time?

As for ATV not working in the UK, well, it's not really be tried in any big way. News 24 has not, contrary to your suggestion, tried it. They do small-scale strand shows that are mostly courtesy of BBC World and fill up the weekends. News 24 haven't done a presenter-led schedule in the evenings. Ever. The only Sky efforts were in the early 90s (when hardly anybody could watch, let alone wanted to) and that was it.

CNN isn't a UK news channel, and CNN International (which I assume you're referencing) isn't either, and doesn't do much ATV. They have one ATV show - Insight, at 2230. The rest is World News and World Sport.

The service of breaking news has not gone. You really think that Sky are stupid enough to ditch their main asset? Pollard was also ready to admit that the ATV shows would be dropped in favour of rolling news if something 'big' went off.

I can't help but think that sitting here lambasting the thing for going down the pan after less than 48 hours of it being on air is just beyond the ridiculous. In six months or a year's time, you'll probably be saying ''oh, I quite like it now''.

As for your remarks about Sky having ditched channels in the past because they don't get enough viewers... well Sky 2 was primarily a money making venture from the start - getting cable companies to buy up the channel by shifting 50% of Sky One's stuff on there. Double the revenue for Sky, thanks very much. Cable companies didn't buy it, Sky lost money, Sky 2 closes. [.tv] shut down because it made no money and nobody important watched it. Sky News is watched by Government, newspapers, etc etc. Whilst the viewing figures matter to them, it's who is watching that they care about most. Your comments about how it makes no money and therefore should be shut down/Pollard needs to go/they're in crisis shows a starling lack of understanding.

What a pile of absolute twaddle.

First of all, ''most'' people don't get their news online.

What are you, a fortune teller? You're arguing that it's not secured its future based on 47 hours and 10 minutes of news coverage?

The channel has always had next to no viewers... what did you expect, that suddenly the world and his wife would turn on Sky News yesterday morning and never leave it again? If more than 2% of the UK population have actually heard that Sky News has relaunched I'd be amazed. Given that the average viewer sticks around for 3 minutes, even they probably haven't noticed either. The point of the relaunch is to change that... not overnight. If Sky wanted a huge relaunch with loads of people tuning in on the first day they'd have spent a **** load on advertising the thing, not just left it up the Guardian and the Independent (a combined audience of 600,000 out of 60 million, probably about 100,000 of which read the articles and 50,000 of them had access to Sky News, and 5,000 had ever watched it).

hi Cat,

When I put the post in about ratings, I made it very clear that it was Day 1 only. I agree that it'll be months before we can make firm judgements on whether it has "worked" or not. That was clear in the post. And ratings aren't everything anyway, are they? (I'm sorry if that makes you think I'm a BBC employee too....!)

And I like a lot of the things they're doing. I like the scale of their ambition. The set has the potential to look great - sometimes it already does. News24 wouldn't run pieces like the Robert Nisbet piece on a cult I mentioned earlier at 1915 - no way.

But that last point is part of the problem of the "bigger picture" of this relaunch. (And it may well be too soon to draw "broad brush" conclusions). Two weeks ago, you could turn on Sky News and know what you were getting. A competent news service at normal times that went big, big, big on breaking news. At seven in the morning, nine in the evening, two in the afternoon, it was there. Sure, there were subtle differences across the day, but the basic product was the same.

Today, what does Sky News stand for? What's the brand? Eight in the morning versus eight in the evening? At one end of the day you have red top trash (Wayne Rooney, Gavin Henson - who sh@gs Charlotte Church, you know!), at the other there are pieces that Newsnight would reject for being too obscure (mmmm, a sit-down interview with the President of Uganda. He says there'll be democratic elections next year!). Seven in the evening - which for a lot of the ABC1s that Sky has to target is home-time - doesn't have anything resembling a news service. The Sky Report is growing on me, but it's worse than Newsnight for letting you really know what's happened in the world that day. Sky had such a solid brand - still has a solid brand - but when people turn on before their evening meal for a catch-up and find one of the new shows, they'll be flipping to ITN or News24 within seconds. And when there's a big breaking story in the future, will they (and they generally won't know schedules the way we do) think of Sky as the place to get the NEWS first, or will they go to a rival channel? That - to me - seems like the biggest issue the new Sky has to deal with.

And Cat, you're right - audiences take time to build. But..... before this relaunch, Sky would probably have been very happy with an audience of 70,000 at 1900 in an average news time, 100,000 if it was a livelier time (excluding 7/7 and equivalents). So for this relaunch to work, you've got to think they're looking at low-to-mid 100,000s as a measure of success. Are they going to get there? With the best will in the world, I don't think there are that number of people out there who want to watch two or three long reports between 1900 - 1930. There is certainly a news audience out there - when it's lively, probably a quarter of a million or more (excluding the C4 news audience). But surely they want a wrap of the day's news? If they want long form pieces and analysis, C4's already got that sewn up. Who are Sky aiming at?

News24 will carry on doing what it does (and Cat - with customary respect suspended here for a moment - you're talking out of your feline @rse when you say " News 24 have been finding it hard to do anything professionally since 1997, let alone since their relaunch". Although I'll agree with you wholeheartedly before mid-1998!) and it'll mop up the audience draining away from Sky. And the BBC TV News management - with a new head installed weeks ago - is utterly determined to make News24 the centrepiece of the whole news operation (bleeding obvious, really). And it will make - and already is making - a noticeable on-air difference. And I wish that ITN/ITV would get its act together.

But squabbles and favourites aside, the Sky relaunch has kicked some life into the UK TV news market, and its influence will be felt. Surely all but the saddest ******* on this forum appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the various channels, and we're happy when something comes along that raises the overall game? Aren't we?

Right, bed now. I've got to be up in the morning to compare the way Eammon says "good morning" with the way Moira greets her public...........

what's ATV?

News channels hardly ever make any money. They are the one place on TV that drop adverts when they have the most people watching..during breaking news (CNN cut in to there first comercial break). I dont think sky are in a crisis- they are just setteling in..

Appointment to View