Sky News

The Live at Five blog this afternoon has the following:

“We made the deliberate decision to move the Sky News logo and clock to the bottom of the screen, to free up the rest of the picture for strong graphics and pictures. It was a problem of our previous design that we had “furniture” in several areas of the screen. We like the fact that it creates more space above the ticker bar. However, for people who are watching on non-widescreen TVs, the web address and Active promo does cut off awkwardly. We shall be rearranging the ticker bar to resolve this. ”

There are a few other questions answered on there. It's quite an interesting read.

It is an interesting read- and unusual too to get an explanation from a broadcaster of there changes..

I'm just wondering how they are going to rearrange the ticker?

I am liking the Sky Report - last night's report was great, but what's concerning me is that it seems the content is so thin on the channel that the focus of the Sky Report is being used as a news story throughout the day.
All day yesterday it was being reported as news that an extremist preacher wished millions died in the London attacks in July. That is not news. As a one-off report it's very interesting, but this guy and his drones have been around for a long time, and this extremist view in itself is no more newsworthy than the rest - it certainly does not belong in the 'top stories'.


Sounds like a job for the mock designs forum...

Do we know what the viewing figures for yesterday were?

Would be interesting to see if the 6000 extra Sunrise viewers were still watching this morning.

yes we do, although my memory isn't as clear as it was yesterday. Overall there weren't as many people watching the channels yesterday - down about 20 percent. Sunrise - usual lead for Sky with the usual caveat, don't remember the numbers. 0900 - 1200 News 24 was dominant, with a 20ish% lead on average. Lunchtime and afternoon, can't remember the detail, both were ahead at times, but think Sky shaded it. 1700 (the big hour) - News 24 ahead something like (very roughly) 70,000 - 40,000. 1900 - the Sky report did better than Monday, but still tens of thousands behind News24. The audience did hold well at 1915, which was when the cult report was on. 2100 - 0200 - News 24 generally ahead, not as emphatically as Monday, Sky had a few peaks above News 24. Over the course of the whole day (including Sunrise) News24 was about (help me, memory!) 3-4,000 ahead, and slightly ahead on share. Peak time (1900 - 0200) , News 24 were further ahead on reach and share.

Oh yes - World News Tonight. I do remember these numbers. First quarter 15,000, second quarter 1,000, third quarter 1,000, fourth quarter 7,000ish. News 24 was up in the 80,000s......



Usual caveats about multi-channel ratings. And it was an overall low viewing day, so they're even less accurate than normal. There's some encouragement for Sky there - especially with the Sky Report, but they're still a long way behind and underperforming. And yes, it'll take time for it all to shake out.

There you go. Sorry I can't be more detailed, but I can't take the numbers I see away with me, and anyone who's ever seen an overnights printout will know just how many bl**dy numbers there are on those sheets!

erm...... ??????? ??????????


??????????


?????????????????????????

My job often lets me see the two channels side by side. This afternoon was one of those times. Sky were woeful. Just appalling. News 24 were ahead of them on the break of the story, way ahead (20 minutes-ish) on the first pictures, had phone interviews with emergency services, a correspondent on camera in Jerusalem well ahead of Emma Hurd on Sky on the phone. And they did the thing that Sky used to be masters at - sticking with a breaking story. Sky scattered all over the place. It was an embarrassment.

News 24 had the eventual lead story of the day first too - the Smoking Bill. Sky followed it up about two minutes later, in such a way that makes you think they saw it on News 24 and took it from there.

I picked up some chatter/speculation that Sky might be handicapped by their new server system. News24 is on a dedicated (and old) server playout system, that has one function only. Sky's seems to be PC based (correct me if that's wrong) and they tend to be slower.

Whatever, it's what gets on screen that counts, and this afternoon Sky were dreadful.

It appears no one has updates the ticker- just seen about Tim Henman expected to beat Andrew Murry- which is now wrong as Murry won.

Oh and now the ticker has gone, replaced by a messy static version

Contrary to some of the opinions on this thread - I just can't get used to the three presenter line-ups during the day. I'd have thought their intention would be to have one reading the headlines, e-mails, stats etc. at the podium while the other two sit at the desk. Instead we have them crowded around a tiny area with one speaking and the other two not knowing where to look.

There's an interesting article about by the Sky News relaunch in tonight's Evening Standard by Nick Ferrari - LBC's outspoken breakfast presenter and launch editor of Sky News.

He says the channel seems to be heading in the right direction, but wants to "Fox-ify" the news saying that the O'Reilly Factor is a success for the US broadcaster that should be tried here.

He says on the whole the relaunch is good, but they need to "grab the headlines" and make something of them.

Not sure I can agree with that at all.

Might be an interesting test for Sky coming up, a train has derailed in Liverpool, packed with commuters.

Sky News has lost the plot - they had breaking news that a train packed with passengers has derailed, and did not break away from two idiots giggling away during a chatty story about sport. They then stumbled back to the main presenter, after a plug for The Sun, to deliver the news. I expect this sort of crap from News 24 (who also didn't leave sport) and ITV, who were simulcasting, but I expect more from Sky, who are making a mess of things. We're hitting dead air at the moment because they've not been able to do anything.