New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

ancapailldorcha

...

swampgas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255423#Comment_118255423

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump required the interview team to stay in his hotel at full cost, just like he did with the security service.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255792#Comment_118255792

Without doubt , if they stayed at Mar-a-Lago they were charged the full (wildly over-priced ) rate.

Having said that , they probably stayed at a nearby Super 8 instead.

Appears that the interview last night amassed 208,500 TV channel views and held consistent over a 2-hour period.

Of course, that figure excludes YouTube and GB News website live views, too. The actual figure is therefore more likely to be 300-400,000 total views across all platforms over the 2-hour period.

GB News beat the BBC’s average by 155,600 viewers to their 118,200, with Sky News some distance behind on 60,500.

https://twitter.com/MediaGuido/status/1466382767529287688

ancapailldorcha

The blog masquerading as a source again.

If it's true, what about the other 13.8 million?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256166#Comment_118256166

The "source" that gives a number 60% less than EH's effort at extrapolation and forecast too.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256166#Comment_118256166

Source = BARB figures.

Unless you are dismissing BARB as a source, then we can dismiss your post accordingly.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256154#Comment_118256154

Barb could post 5 million viewers and the naysayers would still be adamant that nobody is watching.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256154#Comment_118256154

"The actual figure is therefore more likely to be 300-400,000 total views across all platforms over the 2-hour period."

And not a single second of advertising revenue was made, why do you think that was?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256154#Comment_118256154

You estimated 500k, then said that could be a gross underestimate.

So you were wrong, by a factor of over two, in your original estimate and even more wrong in thinking it'd be higher.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256154#Comment_118256154

Appears that the interview last night amassed 208,500 TV channel views and held consistent over a 2-hour period.

Except that's not what the details actually say though..

Figures seen by Guido show the interview pulled in Farage’s highest ever viewer count, and the largest GB News viewership since its original opening night. For two whole hours between 7pm to 9pm, GB News beat the BBC’s average by 155,600 viewers to their 118,200, with Sky News some distance behind on 60,500. The interview reached 208,500 just after 7pm and held steady for the next hour. 

It hit a peak of 208k shortly after the broadcast started and ended the 2hr window with an average of 155k compared to a BBC News average of ~120k.

I assume people watched the actual 30 minute Interview and then switched off and didn't stay to watch the other 90 minutes of padding. because if the 208k number covered some/part of the 1st hour , the 2nd hour was well below 100k to give an overall average of 155k.

So , their biggest ever Interview , the "exclusive of the year" managed to garner an average of 30k viewers more than what the BBC News channel was showing.

For Reference - This is what was on BBC News

• 19:00 to 19:15 - Outside Source
• 19:15 to 20:00 - The Turner Prize (live coverage of the Turner Prize awards)
• 20:00 to 21:00 - Rolling News bulletins

Well, that's that then - GB News have arrived.....I mean, they crushed the Turner Prize presentation ffs.

All that and not a single penny of advertising revenue to show for it either.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256211#Comment_118256211

I was spot on, actually.

TV channel views we now know = 208,500 (unless you believe that BARB is now involved in conspiracy theories with numbers favourable to GB News).

Next, we have YouTube figures.

Here is the data from Social Blade on yesterday's performance:

Note the jump from an average of 900,000 to 1.8 million.

That jump is due to the interview last night.

So, when you factor that figure, with the TV channel views, with the as yet unknown figures of GB News Live viewers and so on, we find that my estimate of up to 500,000 was spot on. How many watched Live on Facebook, too? We haven't factored that in, either.

If the YouTube figures are anything to go by, it was in excess of 500,000.

So no, I wasn't wrong - not in the least.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256202#Comment_118256202

Clearly, I dismissed the blog.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256232#Comment_118256232

You were specifically talking about BARB figures. The BARB figures are less than half of what you had as your low end estimate.

Do you never get embarrassed by your blatant lying? Or your nonsense maths?

@L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253531#Comment_118253531

No @L1011, I didn't.

I clearly stated (see quote above) that I believed the interview will have attracted hundreds of thousands of live viewers. I also predicted it would break records.

Both of my claims turned out to be true.

Are you willing to show us, via quote, where I allegedly made that claim? Any evidence? Anything!?

To offer a quote:

Do you never get embarrassed by your blatant lying? Or your nonsense maths?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256286#Comment_118256286

You aren't convincing anyone here.

Your half a million estimate was comparing to other BARB figures. That is what you "clearly stated"

Your denials, obfuscations and nonsense maths don't unwrite history.

How are you not embarrassed by doing this, over and over and over again?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256298#Comment_118256298

You've just been proven wrong.

Provide us a single quote where I referred only to BARB figures for my prediction.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256286#Comment_118256286

Care to comment on why there was not a single advert for any products during this historic moment? Not a single penny of ad revenue created, why do you think that was? Why do you keep skipping past this question?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256302#Comment_118256302

Your nonsense maths have never proven anyone wrong, as they are always inherently wrong themselves. But anyway:

Post 7796

You were comparing your estimate to BARB figures - "TV channel viewers"

Please just stop trying to revise history. I know you're going to reply with some nonsensical attempt to explain this away, or simply ignore it though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256325#Comment_118256325

Just so everyone can clearly see the contents of the post quoted:

The Farage show typically attracts 150,000 viewers in recent days - with 2,000 watching on YouTube Live.

Tonight, Farage attracted up to 14,000 watching live on YouTube; a 7x higher result - so it's not unreasonable to conclude that his TV channel viewers will experience a similar increase.

If anything, my 500,000 figure may turn out to be a gross underestimate.

You could not have quoted a better post - not because you're right, but because you're fantastically wrong.

Isn't this post exactly the same as what I analysed a few short posts above re: YouTube figures combined with TV channel viewers.

I also stated that I didn't know the BARB figures because "it's not unreasonable to conclude that the TV channel viewers will experience a similar increase".

They did increase, quite a lot - over a 2-hour period rather than a standard 1-hour period.

Your blatant misrepresentation and failure to back up your post with evidence is spectacular. You throw out an accusation and then expect it to stick. Well, it doesn't stick. It has fallen embarrassingly flat, and you know it.

The post you quoted is precisely the point I've been making.

And yes, my 500,000 figure was an underestimate (See my previous posts on the figures).

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256347#Comment_118256347

I quoted a post where you specifically referenced BARB figures, put forward the idea that the TV viewership could go up 7x due to the streaming increase (it didn't. Or anywhere close).

You were referencing BARB figures. You made a massive overestimate on those.

Even if we accept that you meant total viewership, just said it so cack-handedly that everyone reading it thinks you meant BARB figures, do you want to go to your even more comical estimate of a 7x increase in TV viewership? Because that was more wrong.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256286#Comment_118256286

First we got:

"Therefore, the TV channel viewership will also be much, much higher than the 150-175k Farage gets without Trump."

So you would say that 208,500 is "much, much higher" than 175,000? That seems a little disingenuous.

Then we got:

"The Farage show typically attracts 150,000 viewers in recent days - with 2,000 watching on YouTube Live.

Tonight, Farage attracted up to 14,000 watching live on YouTube; a 7x higher result - so it's not unreasonable to conclude that his TV channel viewers will experience a similar increase.

If anything, my 500,000 figure may turn out to be a gross underestimate."

Here you are clearly suggesting that there may be 7x more viewers, ie more than your 500,000 estimate.

Not only were your estimates wrong, you have lied about making them in the first place.

That is what you have to do to defend GB News, for whatever reason it is that you feel compelled to do that. Lie and deflect.

@Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256379#Comment_118256379

False.

Because you cannot translate 7x YouTube Live viewers with 7x TV Channel viewers. They are different media.

Hence why I argued that there would be a concomitant, similar increase. @Quin_Dub was right that perhaps 150k a day for Farage is too high, so we can revise that down. In this sense the TV channel viewership was probably 3-4 times normal, which is reasonably similar to a higher 7x turnout for YouTube Live.

And further, I repeatedly stated that my 500,000 figure was the cumulative figure, not the total number of viewers - all from TV alone.

Also worth reminding how convenient everyone is ignoring the below statistic.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256403#Comment_118256403

"you cannot translate 7x YouTube Live viewers with 7x TV Channel viewers."

And yet, you did.

"so it's not unreasonable to conclude that his TV channel viewers will experience a similar increase."

The rest of the post is your good old nonsense maths again

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256347#Comment_118256347

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256325#Comment_118256325

I know you're going to reply with some nonsensical attempt to explain this away, or simply ignore it though.

Almost Prescient....;-)

The Broadcast numbers did not "experience a similar increase" to the 7X increase you claim for YouTube live.

The increased by maybe 25-30% from his previous best. (150/160k to ~210k) which is mediocre at best.

Let's look at this in context.

An Interview with Donald Trump who is undeniably one of the most recognisable faces in the world. His first sit-down interview since he left office with an "International" broadcaster, on a Free to air channel that every single TV in the UK can receive without any expense or effort and it generates barely a ripple in the viewing numbers for the evening.

A peak of 210k viewers with an average of 155k is frankly barely background noise for Prime-time mid week viewing.

Yes , it got them their highest numbers so far but that is coming from a shockingly low baseline.

The Trump interview will have hardly any impact to the 4 week total BARB numbers and even if they managed to win over 25% of the new "Trump viewers" and convert them to full time viewers it hardly makes a difference.

The fact that they couldn't find a single advertiser willing to part with money for a slot during the show further reinforces how badly this went for GB News.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256410#Comment_118256410

I'm not responsible for your misinterpretations. If I were you, I'd question whether my motivations were in good faith and ask whether I'm perhaps inadvertently seeing something in the other poster's words that doesn't actually exist in reality.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255249#Comment_118255249

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256305#Comment_118256305

There wouldn 't be any ads on the Youtube version, obviously.

Cody montana

Lads, 1 trillion people watched the interview!

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256460#Comment_118256460

In this case, there is nothing to misrepresent. You predicted a 7x increase in TV channel viewers and we had nothing of the sort.

You attempting to claim that 7=4, or even 3; and restate the starting figures to try bend them to match the output is the misrepresentation here. And its absolutely in bad faith.

techman1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253565#Comment_118253565

Maybe but he is also entertainment and box office aswell . He had the largest Twitter following ever, not because everyone loved him but because all his haters couldn't resist following him.

The whole format was a copy of the sky news antics, with all the graphics and dramatic music