LL
London Lite
Founding member
I would have thought a Disney takeover of Sky would allow Sky News to stay as part of the company directly without going into an independent trust?
Question is would they want to spend £75m per annum on a loss making news channel?
Question is would they want to spend £75m per annum on a loss making news channel?
BS
Sky News is definitely not the channel it once was.
Maybe ITN could buy it and a new combined ITN/Sky News Channel be Formed which ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could have access to and be a major alternative to BBC News.
I would have thought a Disney takeover of Sky would allow Sky News to stay as part of the company directly without going into an independent trust?
Question is would they want to spend £75m per annum on a loss making news channel?
Question is would they want to spend £75m per annum on a loss making news channel?
Sky News is definitely not the channel it once was.
Maybe ITN could buy it and a new combined ITN/Sky News Channel be Formed which ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could have access to and be a major alternative to BBC News.
MQ
It is obviously an uncomfortable prospect for those working at Sky News. Even if it were just an idle threat, I don't think anyone wants to hear such talk about their employer.
Quite honestly, I don't think it's an idle threat.
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
My sense is that the average person is now less likely than they once were to turn to a news channel to get an update on what's happening -- people have far more choices across a range of platforms, including social media. Sky News is obviously competing for those eyeballs too -- but it's also much harder to make money that way (I'm pretty sure Sky doesn't get revenue from people reading Adam Boulton's tweets). Regardless of what happens with Sky and 21CFox, I find it hard to imagine the 24-hour news channel will still exist in 10 years time -- at least not with live programming around the clock as we see it today.
Quite honestly, I don't think it's an idle threat.
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
My sense is that the average person is now less likely than they once were to turn to a news channel to get an update on what's happening -- people have far more choices across a range of platforms, including social media. Sky News is obviously competing for those eyeballs too -- but it's also much harder to make money that way (I'm pretty sure Sky doesn't get revenue from people reading Adam Boulton's tweets). Regardless of what happens with Sky and 21CFox, I find it hard to imagine the 24-hour news channel will still exist in 10 years time -- at least not with live programming around the clock as we see it today.
BL
The Fox/Sky takeover should be viewed entirely on it's merits, not subtle threats which this is in anyone's language.
CI
These threats have all the subtlety of a brick through a plate glass window. It’s give us what we want or we’ll cut off our own nose to spite our face, and frankly, the government should say to them “Oh yeah? You go do that then and see if we care!”
The Fox/Sky takeover should be viewed entirely on it's merits, not subtle threats which this is in anyone's language.
These threats have all the subtlety of a brick through a plate glass window. It’s give us what we want or we’ll cut off our own nose to spite our face, and frankly, the government should say to them “Oh yeah? You go do that then and see if we care!”
IS
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
No I don't think they would, after all the company itself is gradually migrating away from broadcast. Although that's not to say that no one's launching 24 hour news channels any more,though they're few and far between.
The value that Sky News has isn't just financial of course. It's less so now but it gave the company a respectable image in the days it was just football and films. It's better established as a company now but there is still tremendous value in having the influencial and the powerful and the famous coming through the doors of your building or having your employees interview them.
Having Sky News also gets the Sky name out there - most commercial radio stations take their news service for example
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
No I don't think they would, after all the company itself is gradually migrating away from broadcast. Although that's not to say that no one's launching 24 hour news channels any more,though they're few and far between.
The value that Sky News has isn't just financial of course. It's less so now but it gave the company a respectable image in the days it was just football and films. It's better established as a company now but there is still tremendous value in having the influencial and the powerful and the famous coming through the doors of your building or having your employees interview them.
Having Sky News also gets the Sky name out there - most commercial radio stations take their news service for example
MQ
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
No I don't think they would, after all the company itself is gradually migrating away from broadcast. Although that's not to say that no one's launching 24 hour news channels any more,though they're few and far between.
The value that Sky News has isn't just financial of course. It's less so now but it gave the company a respectable image in the days it was just football and films. It's better established as a company now but there is still tremendous value in having the influencial and the powerful and the famous coming through the doors of your building or having your employees interview them.
Having Sky News also gets the Sky name out there - most commercial radio stations take their news service for example
I agree there are still benefits to Sky from having a news channel. My point is, I suspect those benefits are falling over time. At some point -- and if it isn't the case today, it could be in 2, 5, 10 years time -- those benefits will not be sufficient to justify the financial cost.
As I say, I don't think this is an idle threat. But it is definitely an attempt to exert pressure on decision makers. The fact that Sky is preparing to use its news channel as a bargaining chip in this way reveals there is still material political value in Sky News. Politicians (who rely on the media to get their messages out) probably value news channels more than most people!
Thinking about this from shareholders' perspective, I could absolutely understand the logic of shutting down the channel. There was a time you might consider a TV news channel as part of the overall brand of a subscription platform. But I don't know that's as important today as, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If Sky News did not exist today, I doubt anyone would be proposing to create it (ie. a commercial rival to BBC News Channel).
No I don't think they would, after all the company itself is gradually migrating away from broadcast. Although that's not to say that no one's launching 24 hour news channels any more,though they're few and far between.
The value that Sky News has isn't just financial of course. It's less so now but it gave the company a respectable image in the days it was just football and films. It's better established as a company now but there is still tremendous value in having the influencial and the powerful and the famous coming through the doors of your building or having your employees interview them.
Having Sky News also gets the Sky name out there - most commercial radio stations take their news service for example
I agree there are still benefits to Sky from having a news channel. My point is, I suspect those benefits are falling over time. At some point -- and if it isn't the case today, it could be in 2, 5, 10 years time -- those benefits will not be sufficient to justify the financial cost.
As I say, I don't think this is an idle threat. But it is definitely an attempt to exert pressure on decision makers. The fact that Sky is preparing to use its news channel as a bargaining chip in this way reveals there is still material political value in Sky News. Politicians (who rely on the media to get their messages out) probably value news channels more than most people!
RO
An ITN takeover of Sky News may seem logical, but the staff would want assurances on jobs, understandably. Also, would the existing presenting team be kept on? And there is also the question of whether ITN would want to buy it.
BL
Indeed, why would ITN, or rather it's shareholders, want to buy a heavily loss making entity? Much better to see it closed down to decrease competition.
An ITN takeover of Sky News may seem logical, but the staff would want assurances on jobs, understandably. Also, would the existing presenting team be kept on? And there is also the question of whether ITN would want to buy it.
Indeed, why would ITN, or rather it's shareholders, want to buy a heavily loss making entity? Much better to see it closed down to decrease competition.
MO
Its likely not to happen. And to me it sounds silly. But having said, SkyNews still hasnt figured out how to make a profit. They dont know or havent been able to properly monetize their assets, unlike other commercial news channels of its ilk. And unfortunately ITN couldnt run their own channel and make a profit or ratings. Would they be too shy to make a run at it again? But seeing as there are currently 2 news channels in the country, SkyNews still is a big loss maker. Might not be a good investment for ITN. SkyNews needs to be part of a larger organization, with channels such as FNC propping it up. In an indirect way.
SP
That seems to be how the Government conducts its own negotiations these days, so why not?
It’s give us what we want or we’ll cut off our own nose to spite our face, and frankly, the government should say to them “Oh yeah? You go do that then and see if we care!”
That seems to be how the Government conducts its own negotiations these days, so why not?