LJ
I agree skyfan. They seem to be content with the figures they are getting. They should be more ruthless and try some new techniques. If they are going to contend for rating figures for the election next year they are going to have to start the hard work now and gradually increase their viewership.
It's about time Sky's bosses came up with a plan to regain its position at the top. A big shake up of the schedule and presenters is what is needed. Everything has become too stagnant.
I agree skyfan. They seem to be content with the figures they are getting. They should be more ruthless and try some new techniques. If they are going to contend for rating figures for the election next year they are going to have to start the hard work now and gradually increase their viewership.
IS
Maybe improving the journalism might be a better plan.
It's about time Sky's bosses came up with a plan to regain its position at the top. A big shake up of the schedule and presenters is what is needed. Everything has become too stagnant.
Maybe improving the journalism might be a better plan.
JW
I still can't get used to the on-screen graphics clutter. It's just a mess. The 2005 launch was very tasteful and discreet in comparison.
NG
noggin
Founding member
Haven't Sky significantly reduced the budget of Sky News (which has never made a profit in standalone terms) to reduce the losses it generates? I imagine that the people who run Sky (not the people working on Sky News) accept a cost/benefit ratio - that a reduced budget may cause a ratings drop - but the purpose of Sky News has never been to make money, or get the most ratings.
It is there to support an argument that commercial suppliers can produce a news service that competes with the BBC (and thus to question whether the BBC needs to exist), and to demonstrate that Sky isn't just about profit. (And also to ensure MPs can get on the telly...)
It has always been a core public service fig-leaf for the massively commercial pay-TV operation that Sky run. Whenever anyone questions their monopoly position - running the platform AND the channels (which in some countries wouldn't be allowed), and restricting other platforms access to their channels, they always point to Sky News as "a good thing", to try to divert attention away from some less good things...
I'm not criticising the service though - it does a very good job and DOES compete very effectively with the BBC News Channel, and without it the News Channel would have no competition to keep it on its toes.
It is there to support an argument that commercial suppliers can produce a news service that competes with the BBC (and thus to question whether the BBC needs to exist), and to demonstrate that Sky isn't just about profit. (And also to ensure MPs can get on the telly...)
It has always been a core public service fig-leaf for the massively commercial pay-TV operation that Sky run. Whenever anyone questions their monopoly position - running the platform AND the channels (which in some countries wouldn't be allowed), and restricting other platforms access to their channels, they always point to Sky News as "a good thing", to try to divert attention away from some less good things...
I'm not criticising the service though - it does a very good job and DOES compete very effectively with the BBC News Channel, and without it the News Channel would have no competition to keep it on its toes.
JW
Do Tim Marshall and Cloin Brazier dislike each other, perchance? The recent on-set discussion between the pair (regarding Obama's Nobel Peace Laureate prize) was awkward and Marshall gave the impression a couple of times that he wanted to answer a different question to the one that Brazier was urging him to comment on.
SK
skyfan
I still can't get used to the on-screen graphics clutter. It's just a mess. The 2005 launch was very tasteful and discreet in comparison.
I know the latest graphics relaunch was an attempt to have less clutter, but in fact I think it looks more cluttered, because everything is dotted around the screen. I dislike the plastic/glass effect and hate how the ticker is floating.
I just find the graphics very cheap looking. There is nothing to the TOTH background, very bland.
As the reporting goes, I don't see much problem with it.
I think it would be better if they removed the walls around the Sunrise set, and just leave the platform there, so it would open it up a bit, and have the full newsroom on view.
LJ
If that is the case, why do sky news continuously lead on stories such as michael jackson etc like the tabloid newspapers do. If they were there to just be a non profit news service they would be more formal and lead with more serious stories
Haven't Sky significantly reduced the budget of Sky News (which has never made a profit in standalone terms) to reduce the losses it generates? I imagine that the people who run Sky (not the people working on Sky News) accept a cost/benefit ratio - that a reduced budget may cause a ratings drop - but the purpose of Sky News has never been to make money, or get the most ratings.
It is there to support an argument that commercial suppliers can produce a news service that competes with the BBC (and thus to question whether the BBC needs to exist), and to demonstrate that Sky isn't just about profit. (And also to ensure MPs can get on the telly...)
It has always been a core public service fig-leaf for the massively commercial pay-TV operation that Sky run. Whenever anyone questions their monopoly position - running the platform AND the channels (which in some countries wouldn't be allowed), and restricting other platforms access to their channels, they always point to Sky News as "a good thing", to try to divert attention away from some less good things...
I'm not criticising the service though - it does a very good job and DOES compete very effectively with the BBC News Channel, and without it the News Channel would have no competition to keep it on its toes.
It is there to support an argument that commercial suppliers can produce a news service that competes with the BBC (and thus to question whether the BBC needs to exist), and to demonstrate that Sky isn't just about profit. (And also to ensure MPs can get on the telly...)
It has always been a core public service fig-leaf for the massively commercial pay-TV operation that Sky run. Whenever anyone questions their monopoly position - running the platform AND the channels (which in some countries wouldn't be allowed), and restricting other platforms access to their channels, they always point to Sky News as "a good thing", to try to divert attention away from some less good things...
I'm not criticising the service though - it does a very good job and DOES compete very effectively with the BBC News Channel, and without it the News Channel would have no competition to keep it on its toes.
If that is the case, why do sky news continuously lead on stories such as michael jackson etc like the tabloid newspapers do. If they were there to just be a non profit news service they would be more formal and lead with more serious stories
SK
skyfan
I think Sky News would be in a much stronger position today, if they hadn't moved into the new news centre. Its been disasterous for them.
MT
And by what realms of logic do you come to thing that?
Sky News (as has been said above) has never made a profit, and nor is it designed to. Its there so Sky (the satellite service) can sell Sky News as a look what awesome stuff you get when you join Sky, as with Sky 3 on freeview it serves as a constant ad for Sky itself into tempting people to get it, promos for Sky 1 or Sky Sports content as enough to warrant its existence.
With regards to moving into their current home, how on earth does visual aesthetic effect have any bearing on “being a disaster” it allows them to keep all the content producers and production in one area and looks snazzy and serves its purpose as a newsroom and studio. The recent technical problems could happen on any channel to any broadcaster.
I think Sky News would be in a much stronger position today, if they hadn't moved into the new news centre. Its been disasterous for them.
And by what realms of logic do you come to thing that?
Sky News (as has been said above) has never made a profit, and nor is it designed to. Its there so Sky (the satellite service) can sell Sky News as a look what awesome stuff you get when you join Sky, as with Sky 3 on freeview it serves as a constant ad for Sky itself into tempting people to get it, promos for Sky 1 or Sky Sports content as enough to warrant its existence.
With regards to moving into their current home, how on earth does visual aesthetic effect have any bearing on “being a disaster” it allows them to keep all the content producers and production in one area and looks snazzy and serves its purpose as a newsroom and studio. The recent technical problems could happen on any channel to any broadcaster.
Last edited by MrTelevision on 9 October 2009 3:04pm
SK
skyfan
I think Sky News would be in a much stronger position today, if they hadn't moved into the new news centre. Its been disasterous for them.
And by what realms of logic do you come to thing that?
Sky News (as has been said above) has never made a profit, and nor is it designed to. Its there so Sky (the satellite service) can sell Sky News as a look what awesome stuff you get when you join Sky, as with Sky 3 on freeview it serves as a constant ad for Sky itself into tempting people to get it, promos for Sky 1 or Sky Sports content as enough to warrant its existence.
With regards to moving into their current home, how on earth does visual aesthetic effect have any bearing on “being a disaster” it allows them to keep all the content producers and production in one area and looks snazzy and serves its purpose as a newsroom and studio. The recent technical problems could happen on any channel to any broadcaster.
I was never referring to profits. In case you didn't know, the 2005 relaunch was a disaster in terms of ratings, then that resulted in programming changes later, and the job losses. The schedule has been changed numerous times since, and if you watch Sky News now, its not a patch on what it used to be.
So in that case then, yeah it did it no harm, my mistake.
JO
I think the only downfall of the 2005 relaunch was the schedule. The ratings went down because people didn't like a number of things and weren't ready for these 'appointment to view' shows, also the three presenters on SNT (although I liked that) and also programmes such as WNT which just failed because of the presenter.