Sky News International

As some of you know, Sky News has aired a special “Sky News International” feed for its non-UK viewers since the beginning of this year. Right now, it consists mostly of text headlines and a promo or two replacing the existing British commercials. However, this appears to me as a first step towards an international news service. Does anyone know if the network plans to start airing programming specifically produced for a global audience, perhaps featuring an international news team, once it moves into its new studios? Does it have plans to compete with the likes of CNNI? Should it? What approach would work best? What niche could it pursue in order to become a factor on the world news marketplace?

When CNNI was a young network internationally, the vast majority of its programming consisted of CNN(USA) and Headline News newscasts, with promos replacing US commercials, and a couple of international updates every day. It launched with a single European subscriber (a luxury hotel in London!), and remained essentially a hotel network for a few years after that. Now, of course, it is one of the most well-known and respected brands in television news -- and entirely separate from its American operation.

Could and will Sky News International become a vehicle for Rupert Murdoch to compete with the likes of CNNI and BBC World? What do you think?

I don't think that we're very likely to see any sort of Sky News International for some time, if at all.

Sky News is carried on many digital services around the world, many of whom sell the airtime to local advertisers. Previously when the local providers' adverts had finished the rest of the ad-break was filled with an incredibly boring loop of the Sky News logo and a spinning globe.

Sometimes, adbreaks could go on for two and a half minutes and if the local provider had not sold any airtime, watching two and a half minutes of a loop is exceptionally tedious. I think this new feed is to counter that.

After Sky's much-praised coverage of the war in the Iraq they were buoyed to launch in the States but I think the move was blocked by senior executives at Fox.
I understand that after the war there were plans to launch Sky News as a fully-fledged 24-hour operation with a full round-the-clock staff compliment, continuous double-head presenting etc. - but as we see, that has not come to pass.

I reckon that once Sky have launched Five News and moved into their new studios, the plans of which are certainly exceptionally ambitious, they may re-cast their eye on taking on CNN and BBC World.

Of course much of it is dependent on Sky News getting a platform to broadcast in the US. And I don't reckon Fox News would be too keen on that.

But do you think that Sky News would ever be able to be a competitive global service without launching a dedicated international service? In its early days, CNNI was often criticized for being "too American." That prompted the channel to drastically expand the proportion of programming produced especially for its international viewers in the early-to-mid-'90s; CNN(USA) simulcasts eventually became pretty rare. Also, the network hired on-air talent from around the world. Now, it is far more international in that respect than, say, the mostly British BBC World team.

Right now, Sky News, despite its relatively wide distribution, is fundamentally a British domestic service in its approach. Of course, it does cover international news and is opening new overseas bureaus, but it is also clearly evident that it is primarily concerned about its British audience, much like CNN always put its American viewers first -- before CNNI became a truly seperate service. This is perfectly understandable, but I cannot see it being a serious contenter with its strong focus on British weather, sports, crime news, politics, etc. In other words, the same image problem that hurt CNN years ago now, in my view, prevents Sky News from becoming a major international news player.

Considering Sky News' current international resources, I'm inclined to think that a global service could definitely be doable down the road, as long as the network can find a niche for itself. In other words, I don't think that the newsgathering part of such an expansion would be a major problem, as much of it is already in place, thereby elimianting the need for major investment in that area. Sky News could instead focus more on attractive international news packaging in order to steal at least some viewers away from CNNI, BBC World, etc.

its the shareholders at bskyb that are the only people that could prompt the creation of sky news international ... and their judgment would be based on (quite rightly as a commercial company)
a) will it make them any money directly or
b) will it make them any money indirectly by enhancing the standing of the sky brand as a channel provider

sky news is good at what it does - but whether they could (or would want to) try match the international news gathering operation that the bbc and cnn have is another matter.

the hotel room tv/inclusion on basic packages on cable platforms doesn't seem to be a particularly lucrative market - so what would be the point?

Does anyone know if CNN International is profitable? Of course, CNN News Group as a whole brings in a huge profit, and CNN(USA) has been in the black since the mid-'80s, but I've heard conflicting statements about CNNI. If CNNI is indeed profitable, could Sky News aim to follow its lead by adopting an agressive international approach? I have a feeling that Murdoch would love to threaten CNNI's global 24-hour news dominance (at the right moment), even if any potential profit was relatively far down the road.

Of course, BBC World is losing money, but being a public operation (despite its commercial nature), it's a different case in many respects.

Could someone explain this to me:

Since a month or so I've got digital TV via the cable and I'm able to watch Sky News. I live in The Netherlands. Now, when I watch it here at home there's this Sky News logo on the upper left side of the screen including a clock (which is in U.K. time). There's also this ticker on the bottom of the screen which displays EITHER the headlines OR the non moving text with Sky News' e-mailaddress, the website and "press red". And finally, during commercial breaks, I see the original British commercials from all those 'cheap loan' company's and so and that Sky Multiroom promo before the TOTH.

But when I was in Portugal two weeks ago, I watched Sky News in the hotel but things were different: no clock next to the Sky News logo on the upper left, no ticker or whatsoever (just a blue stripe on the bottom of the screen) and the commercial breaks were filled up with some sort of breakfiller which shows the news headlines, sports, etc.

Are these two different kinds of Sky News or what else is going on?

I am not sure how you can say that Sky News has the newsgathering infrastructure in place for a full international service when they have less than 10 international bureaux, compared with about 40 for CNN and about 50 for the BBC. Without significant investment I would have thought any international service would retain its UK domestic outlook.

In a nutshell, one is the British feed and the other the international feed.

Good point, but in addition to the bureaus, Sky News has access to the (esentially free) resources of Murdoch's other networks around the world -- and it could rely on companies that already have news-sharing agreements with his empire. Also, CNN didn't have nearly as many overseas bureaus when it first launched internationally; the number grew along with the network, when its improving fortunes made that less of a financial burden. It was the increasingly international news packaging and orientation, not nesessarily the sheer number of overseas correspondents, that really changed the network's image back in the early 1990s.

What a load of sh!t.

You seriously think that when Sky News wants to do anything that requires significant investment -- from building a multi-million pound news centre to covering a war to launching an international news service -- they go to shareholders (I am one, by the way) and say ''hey guys, would it be ok if...''?

I am baffled at the notion - continually found on these boards - that Sky News is an operation that Murdoch keeps alive because it makes him money. A) He doesn't keep it alive B) It doesn't make him money.

I think the argument with regards to Sky News enhancing the Sky brand might've been true 15 years ago, but now I think Sky Sports and Sky Movies do a hell of a lot more in that line than News ever could hope to.

And as for CNNI and international expansion -- CNN had more bureaux five years after launch than Sky News have fifteen years after theirs.

I�m not sure I entirely agree with that cat. I could be missing the point, but I think Sky News has done wonders for the Sky Brand these past couple of years. I don�t remember 3 years ago, Sky News having quite such an effect on popular culture for example as it seems to now. Most pubs I go into these days seem to have Sky News playing on the big screens when there is no major sport on. As I alluded to, that does not mean it has as much brand recognition as Sky Sports, but I don�t think it does badly for the brand.

And where as I agree with you on the point about the shareholders, you have to also remember that good Corporate Governance will not allow revenue to be ploughed into �loss makers� like Sky News without some kind of return. Mind you�BSkyB are hardly the leaders in the world of Corporate Governance. Not when the chairman appoints his own son as the Chief Exec!

Well, ok, I will grant you the idea that it has enhanced the state of the brand to a point at which it is possible to look at Sky and say ''they have produced television that has outperformed others, at home and abroad'' (Kosovo, Iraq, etc.)

BUT...

I don't think it has improved the brand to an extent that it has encouraged people to sign up for Sky. I'd be amazed if even 1% of Sky viewers took into consideration the quality of Sky News before they signed up. Maybe they would've done 10 years ago, when it was one of the few channels available, but today people care more about Sky One, Sky Sports, Sky Movies, E4, etc.

In terms of enhancing the quality of the Sky package and translating that into more viewers (as previous contributor was suggesting) I don't think it's really had an impact at all.