Sky News - Affordability?

This is getting to me but how is Sky News able to afford multi-million pound sets and redesignes. Where is it getting its money coming from? Running a news channel in the first place is a high cost running business. How is that striving when the ITV News Channel is struggling so badly?
Many questions, no doubt some simpleton will have simple answers (Nick Harvey).

Because you CAN buy credibility with people in government.

There's a good piece on this in Press Gazette this week:
So just what is the point of Sky News?

[For reference, this should be in the Newsroom section. I'm sure Charlie will move it shortly]

Probably to do with the depths of News International's pockets, and also realising they can bring themselves a lot of credibility by having a decent news channel under their belts - something ITV don't seem to have grasped.

I agree JB. The motivation for BSkyB spending so much on Sky News is similar to Sainsburys/Tesco etc having their "loss leaders" on the shelves. You basically sell a product (or give it away in Sky News' case) to attract people to your brand.

BSkyB took this thought on board very early on. They boosted the take-up of subscription to sports channels by purchasing Premiership rights. It was a gamble that paid off - BIG TIME . ITVDigital tried the same stunt, but forgot that you have to have a reliable transmission service before you can charge for it - and of course Rupert & Co were gunning for them by then

Sky One used to be FTA, but once they bought up US imports (on the cheap no doubt from FOX via NewsCorp) they made it an attractive option for pay-tv customers and so encrypted it.

Sky News is basically their flagship channel, it's on all platforms, everyone can see it, everyone has heard of it, and it has considerable prestige from a political viewpoint. The millions they have spent on the new News Centre will be repaid many times from a marketing standpoint. (.........and of course the cost is tax deductable!)

Talking Sky News, are Sky breaking rules in their advertising of it's six programming packages.

Pricing is something like £15 for 2 packages, £18 for 4, £21 for 6 (though all half price at the moment!) - but to advertise the "News and Events" package they use images of Sky News - yet isn't Sky News free to air!

There is a little asterisk beside Sky News (prominently top of the bill in the News and Events package) leading you to a note that states that "Sky News is a free-to-air channel". So technically they are covering their arses, though I think it still counts as misleading and I would expect any complaint to be upheld by the ASA, should you wish to pursue it. I know of someone who, when downgrading their package was told they would lose Sky News and Sky News Interactive. That is obviously misleading but of course there is no proof they said it.

ITV News Channel is struggling because its:

a) underfunded
b) It's now forced to timeshare on Freeview with ITV4 pushing its overall reach down (and may disappear from Freeview altogether next year)
c) Is too focused towards breaking even and into profit hence point a) above and preferring commercials over content
d) It's owners (ITV plc) don't seem to give a stuff about it considering its treatment on Freeview as of late.

Sky News on the other hand, in light of the above comments re: ITV News:

a) Is allocated a budget but quite often goes over it and the channel has never recouped its costs.
b) Is available internationally and on every transmission medium going (bar analogue terrestrial for obvious reasons)
c) Is quite happy to drop everything, including the adverts, for anything even slightly major for the whole day if needs be.
d) Its parent company is quite happy to run it as a loss making venture, as the subscription takings alone are sufficient to prop the channel and the company's profits up.

Don't forget that Sky News has been going for almost 17 years, and has had time to build themselves up into the position they are today. When they first started, they did look a bit creaky and cheap (the set had bizarre latticed wooden panels which look liked B&Q trellising, whilst the music was a low cost bought in package intended for American local stations). The ITVNC on the other hand has only existed in it's present form for 3 years (and struggled even more it it's previous guise as the ITN News Channel).

As others have said of course, Sky realised from the start that they can build credibility by having a good news service - Sky News aside, Sky's programming at launch was diabolical and are prepared to pay for it. ITV did appear to have adopted a similar stance, but since launching ITV3 last year appear to have given up on it. I personally doubt the ITVNC will survive that much longer.