Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

Remind me again what appears in the studio behind Anna Botting...?

That is my point. If the product is superior to the rival's, then why nick their branding? It's laughable. I'd be just as aghast if the BBC were moving from ten o'clock and Sky suddenly went all beepy with globes everywhere.

I know Sky News branding has been heading in something of questionable direction lately, but this...

I think that - anywhere else but here - any sense of righteous indignation would be confined to those who wouldn't choose to watch the programme anyway, so it MUST stand on its own two feet editorially, and if I have anything to do with it - and I do - it will.

Who's laughing? Because they also want to nick some of their viewers? If there is a couple of million new viewers in the market due to the lack of a programme your best way of grabbing them is by making your programme seem a bit like it. Meaning some of the pissed off ITV viewers may be interested and get to see the quality journalism. They're shouting to that new pool of viewers that's become available "we've got the programme for you". Because the quality of journalism might not be enough of a hook.

The BBC News branding imagery thing is much complex than News at Ten and it would be much harder for another broadcaster to get away with doing something derivative of it.

... but, on that last point, we'll do our damndest!

Let's say a proportion of News at Ten viewers choose that programme because they like the idea of Big Ben and the feel to that programme.

A proportion of News at Ten viewers will go to the Beeb by default a smaller proportion will find Sky News at 10.

Let's say 50,000 extra viewers will tune in to Sky News as their default replacement. If we were making the programme, would any of us turn down an extra 50,000 tuning in just because they like tone of the programme and tradition of dark look and use of the clock face at night? Just because a few people on the internet are unimpressed and we might feel unoriginal.

You've got to think about what you'd do if you'd been presented with the chance Sky have been presented with.

While we put a lot of effort into our pres elements, the more-realistic scenario is that people (many of whom will have already decided they don't care for the BBC's product) will be looking for alternatives to Gordon Ramsay and then who-knows-who doing a shoddy impersonation of James Corden and will want news. Sky is the most-obvious and highest-quality alternative to the BBC in that slot.

This looks quite good if it is going to be the actual setting for News at ten, however the Big Ben in the background looks lost in the glass box, hopefully it will turn out alright, maybe this look will be successful.

The fault here lies with ITV, Sky are just seizing on the opportunity given to them by ITV abandoning NAT once again.

Sky seems to think it's 1999 and have ignored the main factor in all this. The reason ITV aren't fussed about moving News at ten is because it gets substantially beaten by the BBC 10 and the days of it being that major iconic brand are long gone.

The fact that basically nobody cares that ITV are moving the news shows this clearly, it's just mentioned as a footnote in articles about The Nightly Show, so Sky are riding in to save the day rescuing a brand that nobody cares much about. In 1999 it was comparable to axing Coronation Street

The ITN-produced ITV national news service still has the rights to the Bongs.

The following article is from way back in 1999 - just before the term "Sky News at Ten" appeared on screen.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/You're+wrong+to+bong,+ITN+tells+Sky+news.-a060427105

Really? According to recent BARB figures, Press Preview at 10:30pm beats News at 10 often and Sunrise appears the highest rated slot. Going back months and I can't find any occasion when News at 10 was either the top rated slot nor when it ever achieved 300k. Most weeks it's not even in the top 10 which would give it no more than around 150k viewers... if it was 11th most watched.

It's possible but not probable that I may have my information slightly wrong on the exact numbers. However, even if that is the case, you rightly mention that the papers do good numbers, so it therefore makes sense to seize the opportunity to snare non-BBC news viewers to its lead-in at 10pm.

As to the person who made the 1999 observation, I'll say it again... the key difference is reach. Freeview, Sky itself, and their various rivals, plus online and mobile platforms mean the potential number of eyeballs is exponentially higher.