DU
What a bizarre discussion.
Five and Sky are not the same organisation- Five pay Sky to produce a news bulletin.
Telling viewers to tune to Sky News for more would be akin to Sky News telling its viewers that Neighbours is about to start on Five so change over now.
Bizarre.
If Sky News want to increase their "presence" on Five beyond an endcap on the news programme they are paid to produce, then they simply have to pay for adverts like everyone else.
Five and Sky are not the same organisation- Five pay Sky to produce a news bulletin.
Telling viewers to tune to Sky News for more would be akin to Sky News telling its viewers that Neighbours is about to start on Five so change over now.
Bizarre.
If Sky News want to increase their "presence" on Five beyond an endcap on the news programme they are paid to produce, then they simply have to pay for adverts like everyone else.
NG
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
noggin
Founding member
SN2005 posted:
Stitch08 posted:
But the fact remains that even if Sky want to make a big thing of producing Five News, those in charge of Five won't let them because that would be advertising a rival broadcaster and giving them the oppurtunity to gain viewers -
If you were in charge of Five why would you let that happen?
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
BB
Is there a reason why Martin Stanford has been relegated to two hours a week?
It just feels like there is another reason, and not just that he likes the 'techy' side of things.
Martin and Julie on Sky News Today were in my opinion the best presenting duo, and it made their show the best on the channel. It all looks a bit lost at the moment!
It just feels like there is another reason, and not just that he likes the 'techy' side of things.
Martin and Julie on Sky News Today were in my opinion the best presenting duo, and it made their show the best on the channel. It all looks a bit lost at the moment!
SN
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
Excuse me, but there will be some revenue that comes through the website in the form of adverts, surely direction to sky means they will 'lose' some of this advert clout if you will.
And anyway, NOBODY that watches five news is going to want to watch MORE news on a geeky dedicated news channel, can you not accept this?
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers. If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
noggin posted:
SN2005 posted:
Stitch08 posted:
But the fact remains that even if Sky want to make a big thing of producing Five News, those in charge of Five won't let them because that would be advertising a rival broadcaster and giving them the oppurtunity to gain viewers -
If you were in charge of Five why would you let that happen?
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
Excuse me, but there will be some revenue that comes through the website in the form of adverts, surely direction to sky means they will 'lose' some of this advert clout if you will.
And anyway, NOBODY that watches five news is going to want to watch MORE news on a geeky dedicated news channel, can you not accept this?
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers. If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
NG
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
Excuse me, but there will be some revenue that comes through the website in the form of adverts, surely direction to sky means they will 'lose' some of this advert clout if you will.
Yes - but in the scheme of things it is a different league to that of TV advertising currently. It will become more and more significant of course, but at the moment sending viewers away to another TV service is a different ball game to sending the odd blog-reader off. There may also be different contractual agreements relating to online vs tv between Sky and five.
And anyway, NOBODY that watches five news is going to want to watch MORE news on a geeky dedicated news channel, can you not accept this?
Don't think I suggested that they were... Or are you aiming this comment at someone else but quoting me?
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers.
Yes - the Natasha signing will no doubt be part of this, as will on-screen promotion of the bulletins - which is something ITV and the BBC are doing increasingly currently - with end credit promos and daily topical bumpers (rather than generic "Our news service is great" trails).
If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
There is a difference between associating your news provider as being Sky News, and prompting people to turn over with a direct "call to action". You don't have to urge your audience to change channel to let them know that Sky made the show...
noggin
Founding member
SN2005 posted:
noggin posted:
SN2005 posted:
Stitch08 posted:
But the fact remains that even if Sky want to make a big thing of producing Five News, those in charge of Five won't let them because that would be advertising a rival broadcaster and giving them the oppurtunity to gain viewers -
If you were in charge of Five why would you let that happen?
They are doing it on the five news website with the Boulton&co blog, why can't they do it on tv?
Because eyeballs on a web page are not the same as people watching adverts on a TV channel.
Five pay Sky to make their news programmes. Just like Five pay other people to make other programmes for them. Five is funded by viewers watching the adverts on Five. If people stop watching Five, fewer people watch their adverts, they make less money. If people switch from Five to Sky News - Five loses money. Not in Five's interest.
Other independent production companies might make shows for Five, ITV and the BBC. They don't say "Turn over to BBC One now for our great new show" during a show on Five do they? There is no difference between this and Sky plugging their own news channel on-air...
The bottom line for any commercial broadcaster is how many eyeballs see their adverts. The programmes in between only serve to keep people watching between the adverts after all...
Excuse me, but there will be some revenue that comes through the website in the form of adverts, surely direction to sky means they will 'lose' some of this advert clout if you will.
Yes - but in the scheme of things it is a different league to that of TV advertising currently. It will become more and more significant of course, but at the moment sending viewers away to another TV service is a different ball game to sending the odd blog-reader off. There may also be different contractual agreements relating to online vs tv between Sky and five.
Quote:
And anyway, NOBODY that watches five news is going to want to watch MORE news on a geeky dedicated news channel, can you not accept this?
Don't think I suggested that they were... Or are you aiming this comment at someone else but quoting me?
Quote:
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers.
Yes - the Natasha signing will no doubt be part of this, as will on-screen promotion of the bulletins - which is something ITV and the BBC are doing increasingly currently - with end credit promos and daily topical bumpers (rather than generic "Our news service is great" trails).
Quote:
If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
There is a difference between associating your news provider as being Sky News, and prompting people to turn over with a direct "call to action". You don't have to urge your audience to change channel to let them know that Sky made the show...
SP
If nobody who watches Five News is going to be interested in watching more news on a geeky news channel then it's utterly pointless in suggesting that they should switch to Sky News for more.
Plus if they care so little about Sky News, they're not going to be in any way, shape or form, impressed that Sky News produces Five News.
SN2005 posted:
And anyway, NOBODY that watches five news is going to want to watch MORE news on a geeky dedicated news channel, can you not accept this?
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers. If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
It is in five's interest though to boost the profile of it's news service, which has been commended for about one great thing that everyone remembers. If advertising the fact that sky news produces the bulletins more clearly is a way of doing this then it is in their interests.
If nobody who watches Five News is going to be interested in watching more news on a geeky news channel then it's utterly pointless in suggesting that they should switch to Sky News for more.
Plus if they care so little about Sky News, they're not going to be in any way, shape or form, impressed that Sky News produces Five News.
BC
Blake Connolly
Founding member
What a bizarre discussion! It'd be like Granada putting at the end of the Royale Family "For another programme set in Manchester, watch Coronation Street on ITV1"!
It's entirely up to Five whether or not Sky can publicise themselves on Five News, as they're the customer, and they're hardly likely to be keen on the idea, are they?
It's entirely up to Five whether or not Sky can publicise themselves on Five News, as they're the customer, and they're hardly likely to be keen on the idea, are they?
BR
I think the fire alarm went off when Anna Botting was presenting about 20 minutes ago, she just apologised for the noise and then when the next report ended,the noise was gone.