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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262223#Comment_118262223

It's a long-term project to gain a very large, reliable audience. It takes time.

Having ads at this early stage of the process would be completely pointless. It would be the equivalent of adding Google Ads to a start-up project and then questioning why the income isn't flowing in on the millions.

In 2-3 years, once they've established a more significant foothold - both the TV channel and their digital output - ads become far more relevant. Indeed, they're already capitalizing on ads on YouTube at present. Social Blade estimates that they may be making upwards of 774,000 euros. We'll never know the true figure, of course, it could be lower, it could be higher. But it's an income and, after 5-months, that's pretty impressive for YouTube alone.

But long-term projects like this aren't always expected to generate a profit after 5-months.

It's completely normal to generate a loss for 2-3 years before establishing a profit.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262287#Comment_118262287

"Having ads at this early stage of the process would be completely pointless."

And yet they have ads (when they aren't pimping Trump). For absolute crap, as mainstream companies fled from them when they realised what the content was, but ads none the less.

774k is a drop in the ocean for a TV broadcaster. No news channel in the UK has ever made money, regardless. This is a vanity project / political project for specific people.

ancapailldorcha

Having ads at this early stage of the process would be completely pointless.

Making money is pointless apparently.

jamule

but the bbc didn't have ads either, so gbbbies is going to take over the world.

any sign of any news on it yet?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262307#Comment_118262307

...who said they've any plans to just stop at 774K?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262441#Comment_118262441

Whatever it ends up at, its still not going to be enough. Can't do sponsors on news content - unless they close down the TV broadcasts entirely - and Youtube ad revenue will never equal that that an equivalent audience would get on broadcast.

The second this stops being a worthwhile vanity project for the owners, they'll drop it.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262287#Comment_118262287

Once again, entirely false. They did have adverts when they started. Advertisers decided they didn't want to be associated with GB News, understandably imo, and they removed their advertising.

So your claim that they don't have advertising because this is "would be completely pointless" is untrue.

As usual, you lie in order to defend them. Why?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262498#Comment_118262498

Not so.

There was an advertising boycott campaign led by the cancel culture types, which ended up successful in the end.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262287#Comment_118262287

Having ads at this early stage of the process would be completely pointless.

It's a business. And this would have been their biggest, most important interview so-far. I'm sure you will agree. The object of a business is to make money. Not to push an agenda (left or right) unless the business believes there is money to be made by pushing this agenda. And likewise, a company will associate/not-associate with a particular agenda based on analyzed business impact. It has been some years since I saw fox news in the US but this is why their advertising (certainly at that time) skewed heavily towards retirement funds, releasing home equity, home security, medical. Their audience at the time tended to be older, more conservative, more fearful.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. Business is business. A business/company's main responsibility to its owners/shareholders is to make money.

So this was a chance to get as much revenue in as possible. I mean I hate ads as much as everyone (I always paused The Bake Off for 20 mins at the start and delayed watching so I could skip through the ads). I hate ads as much as everyone but this was the perfect, best opportunity to absolutely go MENTAL on ads. They had an interview that people believe would be soft and self-serving (For both parties) but could still be interesting. Loyal viewers would have watched. People curious about the station would have tuned in. Even "haters" would have watched, if only to hate. A potentially HUGE draw from an audience probably more wide-ranging than usual.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262506#Comment_118262506

Of course it's to make money. Nobody here has denied that.

But, at the end of the day, advertising only becomes significant when the audience share is at its highest. GB News is working on audience share over the coming years; nobody has argued that it expected to turn a profit from Day One.

So comparing it with Fox News is insufficient because they have been around donkey's years.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262505#Comment_118262505

so they did have ads at the start. and they still do but at a much lower end of the ad market than before. so why did they have ads if it was pointless?

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262505#Comment_118262505

You're ignoring the fact that they did have advertising at the start. Which would have been "completely pointless" according to you.

Deflect, ignore, lie. Why?

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262525#Comment_118262525

But then why have any ads at all? If you are going to advertise on your day-in-day-out shows then surely having such a big scoop as an in depth interview with one of the most famous and decisive people in the world would be a huge draw. You must agree that GBN core viewers would agree with a lot of Trump's viewpoints. Many would probably be angered by perceived bias against him on other stations. So, for many, this would be an opportunity to see a "Real, honest interview" with Trump. Others would think "OK, let's see how how much back-slapping/fawning goes on".

If you are selling advertisement space at all, on your regular shows, you are going to have a very distinct audience with a very distinct advertisment client-base. This was an opportunity to say "OK, we have this group. But look at all the other demographics we can get"

L1011

I seem to remember a "look! there's new advertisers" distraction post (the details of these new advertisers were never provided) a week or so ago, and yet now we're being told that having advertisers at this stage is pointless.

The amount of U-turns on this thread would make Johnson look normal.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262599#Comment_118262599

It's financially pointless, because it won't generate any significant revenue until TV channel viewers rise.

It's only significance, if you could call it that, is that it fills the gaps between breaks / programs; to make it more legitimate looking etc. That said, they did have new ads the other week, but they've not been repeated as far as I've seen anyway.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262666#Comment_118262666

The entire operation is financially pointless. It will never cover its costs let alone make money.

I'm sure you'll be on here celebrating whenever they manage to find another advertiser, regardless of what you're saying now.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262529#Comment_118262529

We were always at war with Eastasia...

Of course it had ads but nobody was watching so companies decided to stop burning their money. The narrative is now being rewritten to make it look as if a new channel dependent on ad revenue actually having ads is a bad thing.

The mental gymnastics is quite astonishing really.....EH, you are tying yourself up in knots trying to paint as positive a picture as possible, whether that's actually true or not. It's almost Comical Ali levels of bluster at this stage.

Not that long ago you were championing the fact that they had a load of new adverts and advertisers, all new ones which you had never seen before but, when pressed, couldn't remember what products or even companies were being advertised. This was a sure sign that the station was on the up, and evidence that it was no longer doomed to fail.

Now you're claiming adverts are pointless? Does this mean it IS doomed to fail?

I thought you wanted more ads?

Weren't you hopeful that the number of advertisers would increase, less than a month ago?

What has changed since then? Oh right, there aren't any ads these days, so apparently they're pointless and that's what we always wanted/predicted/expected....after all, we were ALWAYS at war with Eurasia.

Your outlook and spin on everything to do with the station is not based in reality and changes on a whim, depending on the current climate. If X is happening, then you're quick to say that X is actually a positive and good for the station. Then when Y happens, that's actually a positive and X was never really all that good anyway.....oh wait, we're back to X happening and didn't I always say X was a positive?

Your argument is in the gutter.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262505#Comment_118262505

"Cancel culture types" like the GBNews fanatics that cancelled Harri?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262672#Comment_118262672

You aren't involved in the business or finance team, yet you speak with certainty on matters about which you have no evidence.

The bias against the channel is so extreme that people are willing to make up conclusions without a shred of inside knowledge or evidence - just so they can all cosily agree with one another.

• Once upon a time, it was argued the channel wouldn't make 6-months - proven wrong.
• Once upon a time, it was argued no experienced presenter would move to GB News after the "shambles" launch - proven wrong.
• Once upon a time, it was argued that social media was irrelevant to the income potential of a TV channel - proven wrong.
• Once upon a time, it was argued that "nobody watches GB News" - proven wrong (18 million YouTube hits per month + 1.8 million TV channel viewers; 76 million YouTube views; 1 billion social media hits; 317,000 YouTube subscribers; burgeoning youth wing on TikTok).

When we review the predictions of said posters, all their predictions have proven wrong. The only thing they guessed right was that Andrew Neil was going to leave - and even then, they had a 50:50 chance of being right.

Whereas consistently I have been shown to be right.

And I will again, on this front, predict that the channel will be here for many years to come and, yes, it will generate a substantial profit - with advertising, at the appropriate moment.

Quin_Dub

A quick look at YouTube would suggest that the Trump Interview has topped out in terms of interest

The 2 Copies of the Interview available on YT have a cumulative total of just over 200k along with another 25/30k or views from the multitude of shorter clips they have extracted. That's up from about 150k the day after the interview.

So all in after 2+ days they have made about $1000 from the Trump Interview as YT is the only source of revenue for it because "TV Advertising is pointless" apparently.

Neither clip has made it into the Top 50 GB News clips yet - Which mostly seem to be Neil Oliver whinging (certainly he's most of the top 20)

Their most popular video is 7 days old and has 1M views (the same as it had 2 days ago) which based on the title is a thinly veiled Anti-Vax screed (I'm not watching it) and the comments are all in that vein also.

The term damp squib comes to mind for the impact the Trump interview is having for GB News.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262749#Comment_118262749

And even with the might of Good Morning Britain and Piers Morgan, they amassed 650,000 views on their Trump interview (and that was when Trump was relevant).

From this angle, we can see that GB News YouTube views for their Trump interview is very respectable in comparison.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262735#Comment_118262735

How do you propose it does something that Sky and ITN/ITV proved entirely unable to do in the UK, when it specifically targets a niche audience?

You only think you haven't been proven wrong again and again and again as you redefine, deflect and ignore when this is pointed out to you

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262749#Comment_118262749

Yep. The whole 18m watchers on youtube shtick is just for the utterly naive to lap up. I'm amazed anyone could fall for that.

I'm genuinely surprised the Trump market has evaporated so quickly. I thought he had more diehard followers.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262690#Comment_118262690

You posted while I was typing, but .....SNAP!

Edit: I now see we've changed the rhetoric from "It's pointless" to "It's FINANCIALLY pointless".

Quelle surprise!

Penn

Folks, I think you're all missing the point eskimohunt is making.

They had ads, but cancel culture made their advertisers pull the ads, but they don't want ads anyway because it'd be pointless this early, except to fill their ad breaks which they still have to give them an air of legitimacy, and they had new ads a few weeks ago even though they don't need ads, but when they have more viewers they will have more advertisers even though they won't really need them then because they're financially stable without many ads now but also they don't need ads.

I mean it just couldn't be any simpler. And also, Youtube views, which aren't relevant but also extremely relevant.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118262767#Comment_118262767

Spin spin spin - GMB would have had multiple millions watch the actual interview on their actual TV Channel, whereas GB News barely made a ripple. Also they would have made actual money because they were able to sell advertising

An extra 30/40k viewers for 1 hour in 1 week isn't going to change anything for the overall trend for GB News.

They are losing money hand over fist and all of the performance markers are moving in the wrong direction.

Start-ups all take time to turn a profit , that's a given - sometimes because they are still growing the business, other times because they are investing heavily in the business so costs outweigh incomes.

Neither of those apply to GB News , they are just losing money and not growing.

Even if their YouTube channel was ten times bigger than it is they still wouldn't be making enough money to cover their costs.

As I said in one of my first posts in this thread back in June - GB News exists at the whims of their financial backers , the second they are no longer prepared to flush wads of cash down the toilet , the channel is done.

How long before that day arrives is anyones guess - Could be days, weeks, months or even years.

But they will never be a significant media force in the UK and they will never be profitable - Those are just to cold hard facts.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118261675#Comment_118261675

I was on a train journey so bit the bullet to kill time.

It was a 30 minute "interview" that they split into 2 halves, they had other guests on chatting with Farage telling him what a great job he had done and then he made the mistake of having a chap on (his name escapes me) to talk about wind farms and sustainable energy.

The man proceeded to take Farages BS and feed it back to him one spoonful at a time, Farage looked extremely uncomfortable at the end of it and quickly shut the discussion down.

Farage usually posts these little chats on his twitter feed but this one seems to have been left out, I wonder why? 🤣

During the full 2 hour segment there was not a single advert for a single product or service, every ad break was filled with GBEEBIES presenters hawking thier own shows and telling everyone how great the station is.

If I'm honest it was quite pathetic to see.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118261839#Comment_118261839

And even thier ads were not shown during the 2 hour segment, make of that what you will. For some reason EH keeps skipping over the question as to why there were no paying ads, maybe he is embarrassed by it all? 🤷‍♂️

Penn

Also, don't know if it's been mentioned here, but Farage's Anti-Cancel Culture Conference has been cancelled. Was due to feature Laurence Fox, ex-Trump aide Jason Miller, and Ben Carson (who was in Trump's cabinet).

Cancelled partly due to Covid and rules on isolation after entering the UK, but also being reported out of 3,000 seats, they'd only sold about 400 tickets so far.

So at least there'll be about 400 extra viewers available for GB News that night.