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

Joe_ Public · 28-06-2021 04:52PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Subscriber count is meaningless if it doesn't translate to views for advertisements, currently they have 7 vids over 100k views and the majority of their vids are well under 50k.

To be considered successful and also able to support the level of investment they have put in they need to be doing far better than this already.

GBnews may transform into a successful YT channel once the TV side inevitably dies but it will be a shadow of its current self based on the current metrics.

I'll admit I'm not hugely up to speed on these things, but my understanding would be you'd need to be getting upwards of 1m hits on YT to be making a serious impact. GB News has a total of 145,000 subscribers so far. There's a little left wing outlet called Double Down News started up about a year ago that has over 160,000. GB News will likely overtake it soon but that's a £60m venture while DDN was started by two broke freelance journalists in their living rooms.

I suspect YT will always have a more youthful and liberal bias anyway and fact is, as polls remind us over and over again, the uk is at heart a more open and socially liberal society than the majority of its press likes to portray. It's possible the market for a station like GB News wasn't as significant as they believed.

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 04:53PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Could you tell me what channels these are?

no thank you, but you can do a search, then look them up one by one on YT, then list all their weaknesses and failures for us

L1011 · 28-06-2021 04:54PM

Is this the same "silent majority" that:

a: isn't silent but instead makes a hell of a lot of noise and
b: is actually a very small minority, smaller than the number of Welsh-speaking children watching TV at the same time?

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 04:56PM

L1011 wrote: »

Is this the same "silent majority" that:

a: isn't silent but instead makes a hell of a lot of noise and
b: is actually a very small minority, smaller than the number of Welsh-speaking children watching TV at the same time?

Brexit was theoretically evidence of a silent majority

28-06-2021 04:56PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

If they are so unsuccessful, why feeling so compelled to remind people about it? you might have the opposite effect

Cause there's comedy in the fact that they've failed so atrociously after posters lauded their opening night figures and have studiously ignored what happened after. Can you point to any posters that seem like their feathers are ruffled?

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-06-2021 04:58PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

because the silent majority is already following a lot of other YT channels, and now they have new one to follow ;-)

Ah yes, the "silent majority" who don't seem to care about this "news" channel :pac:

Quin_Dub · 28-06-2021 04:58PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

because the silent majority is already following a lot of other YT channels, and now they have new one to follow ;-)

I don't think you really understand how YouTube monetisation and Social media in general works.

~150k subscribers is utterly meaningless if they are the only ones watching the content and they aren't linking/discussing it elsewhere.

As another poster pointed out , they haven't even managed to have a single piece of content that even all of their actual subscribers have watched , let alone any casual viewers.

Inactive/Low use YouTube subscribers aren't like people who join a gym and never go (who are free money to the gym).

If they aren't watching/sharing they are a complete waste of time for all concerned.

The Raging Bile Duct · 28-06-2021 05:00PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

no thank you, but you can do a search, then look them up one by one on YT, then list all their weaknesses and failures for us

I'm just curious. If the silent majority are subscribing to YT channels, they should be easy enough to find based on the amount of people subscribing to them. Can you even point me in a general direction?

pjproby · 28-06-2021 05:01PM

I have never watched GB News and probably never will but I remember when Channel 4 news started, they used to joke that so few watched it, they could post it out instead!!

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 05:02PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think you really understand how YouTube monetisation and Social media in general works.

~150k subscribers is utterly meaningless if they are the only ones watching the content and they aren't linking/discussing it elsewhere.

As another poster pointed out , they haven't even managed to have a single piece of content that even all of their actual subscribers have watched , let alone any casual viewers.

Inactive/Low use YouTube subscribers aren't like people who join a gym and never go (who are free money to the gym).

If they aren't watching/sharing they are a complete waste of time for all concerned.

I'm not sure what you understand of YT either because the number of subscribers does not translate in guaranteed views, it applies to anyone.

VinLieger · 28-06-2021 05:05PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Brexit was theoretically evidence of a silent majority

17.4 million voters out of 46.5 million registered voters is not evidence of a majority for anything

ancapailldorcha · 28-06-2021 05:07PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Brexit was theoretically evidence of a silent majority

Except that it isn't.

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 05:08PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't.

well, it was big enough to win, that's a pretty definite majority to me

28-06-2021 05:09PM

VinLieger wrote: »

17.4 million voters out of 46.5 million registered voters is not a majority

It was the largest democratic exercise by the UK, most of whom opted to Brexit. If the others didn't bother to vote, why are you valuing their opinion?

This is despite the entire media organism and associated political bodies terrifying the population into voting to remain.

This indeed does point to something going on in the UK underbelly - that nobody predicted and that nobody wanted.

Yet it still happened.

And, to this day, Remainers cannot understand why the result took place.

And that's a large part of why Labour lost the election to Boris Johnson - and much of the Old Labour vote, too.

Quin_Dub · 28-06-2021 05:09PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you understand of YT either because the number of subscribers does not translate in guaranteed views, it applies to anyone.

Well exactly - That what I just said.

Touting the number of subscribers as a measure of success as some have here is meaningless - It's views/comments/engagements that matter.

And for those metrics , the GBNews YouTube channel is thus far decidedly mediocre.

ancapailldorcha · 28-06-2021 05:10PM

eskimohunt wrote: »

This is despite the entire media organism and associated political bodies terrifying the population into voting to remain.

Can you provide evidence for this please? I don't recall the Mail and the Express canvassing for remain.

Repo101 · 28-06-2021 05:11PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

The model sort of works in the US because the "news channels" have created their own eco system where Fox talk about stuff that CNN said/did and vice versa and then the stories just go round and round supported by users commenting and tweeting about the clips from these same shows on Social Media.

That eco-system simply doesn't exist anywhere else - Without actual "news" the channel is simply set up for failure.

A YT channel where the same people that watch the TV channel subscribe to the YT channel to rewatch "highlights" is a waste of time.

Look at Twitter and see what #GBNews brings up - only one of the 1st 50 or so tweets that shows up is a tweet about an item/topic they actually broadcast.

The rest are tweets about the horrible ratings.

Do the same with #SkyNews or #BBCNews and 95%+ are links/comments about their actual content with clips etc.

They are simply not generating the kind of conversation or discussion that might make them money or build them market share.

I think it's fundamentally flawed to judge a channel by what is happening on Twitter and what you think their model of generating Revenue is. The initial plan for GB news is to set up a subscription based service under the Discovery umbrella @ £5-6 per month.

The US model you're referring to is simply because YouTube changed their algorithms to push "trusted" sources in the 'Up next' feature which means that when you're watching a random video on current events, your next video is likely to be from a big US network as opposed to independent content. It's not an eco-system that has been created, it's simply Alphabet trying to crack down on pushing conspiracy/unverifiable content which has massively benefitted the big US broadcasters particularly as people all over the world have a morbid obsession with US politics.

I'm not sure if you're aware but most news channels lose money anyway. I think with the people involved, the message and reach are more important than the money. It's far too early to be writing it's obituary anyway.

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 05:12PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well exactly - That what I just said.

Touting the number of subscribers as a measure of success as some have here is meaningless - It's views/comments/engagements that matter.

And for those metrics , the GBNews YouTube channel is thus far decidedly mediocre.

The point i was making is that the number of subscribers has been growing, the channel has only been active for a month. It may very well fail in the end but as a YT channel that is not too shabby

The Raging Bile Duct · 28-06-2021 05:14PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can you provide evidence for this please? I don't recall the Mail and the Express canvassing for remain.

The Sun, The Daily Star, The Sunday Times and the Telegraph as well.

ancapailldorcha · 28-06-2021 05:15PM

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

The Sun, The Daily Star, The Sunday Times and the Telegraph as well.

True but I typed that quickly. I'm anxiously waiting for this unassailable proof that 100% of the British media with no exceptions whatsoever were pro-Remain despite my knowing that almost the opposite was true.

Larbre34 · 28-06-2021 05:19PM

Quite the opposite in fact.

The rump of the British print media extolled the virtues of 'Leave', when like everyone else, they had no actual notion of the consequences.

I'd go so far as to say that the lies told by the British newspapers are almost entirely to blame for the situation in which the UK finds itself today. If I were British, no matter what my political persuasion, I'd be very deeply concerned by that.

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 05:20PM

VinLieger wrote: »

17.4 million voters out of 46.5 million registered voters is not evidence of a majority for anything

it's the majority of voters, people who didn't bother voting are not relevant

Joe_ Public · 28-06-2021 05:21PM

Not to mention the "associated political bodies" who claimed there'd be hundreds of millions for the nhs and the easiest trade deals in history among sundry other whoppers.

Quin_Dub · 28-06-2021 05:23PM

Repo101 wrote: »

I think it's fundamentally flawed to judge a channel by what is happening on Twitter and what you think their model of generating Revenue is. The initial plan for GB news is to set up a subscription based service under the Discovery umbrella @ £5-6 per month.

The US model you're referring to is simply because YouTube changed their algorithms to push "trusted" sources in the 'Up next' feature which means that when you're watching a random video on current events, your next video is likely to be from a big US network as opposed to independent content. It's not an eco-system that has been created, it's simply Alphabet trying to crack down on pushing conspiracy/unverifiable content which has massively benefitted the big US broadcasters particularly as people all over the world have a morbid obsession with US politics.

I'm not sure if you're aware but most news channels lose money anyway. I think with the people involved, the message and reach are more important than the money. It's far too early to be writing it's obituary anyway.

Oh I'm well aware - Multiple posts from me earlier in the thread on the News Channel cost model.

In fact in Europe none of the news channels are profitable , they are all either state subsidised (BBC , RTE etc.) or they are a part of a much larger media organisation and serve to lend a kind of gravitas if you will for those entities.

GBNews is neither of those things , so it's a largely political exercise and will last only for as long as it's financial backers wish to continue to pay for it.

It will never be self-sufficient , that's just a basic fact. Nothing to do with it's political viewpoint etc. it's simply the economics of News Media in Europe.

What's unclear to me though is what the criteria for "success" are for those backers.

It's not making money or even managing to be self-sustaining , it can't be.

When the money men are sitting down in 6/12 months time and doing a review , what are the things that will have to have happened for them sign up to keep paying for it?

VinLieger · 28-06-2021 05:24PM

eskimohunt wrote: »

It was the largest democratic exercise by the UK, most of whom opted to Brexit. If the others didn't bother to vote, why are you valuing their opinion?

Ahhh Fascism ive missed you.

Simply put the claim is there is a silent majority that wanted GB news, that claim taken at face value is saying theres a majority of the population, the claim that brexit result proves this majority exists makes no sense if only 1/3 of the registered voters could be arsed voting for it.

28-06-2021 05:25PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The point i was making is that the number of subscribers has been growing, the channel has only been active for a month. It may very well fail in the end but as a YT channel that is not too shabby

The fact that they're actively trying to create some controversy but struggling to generate views of either the channel or YouTube channel... The fact there's supposedly a big audience for this content but it doesn't manifest in views indicates it's never gonna end up as popular as you think it will. Like so far, there's no indication there's even a demand for a TV channel. The YouTube numbers aren't particularly great either....

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 05:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that they're actively trying to create some controversy but struggling to generate views of either the channel or YouTube channel... The fact there's supposedly a big audience for this content but it doesn't manifest in views indicates it's never gonna end up as popular as you think it will. Like so far, there's no indication there's even a demand for a TV channel. The YouTube numbers aren't particularly great either....

The fact that you spent all day trying to convince people of this, is enough evidence that they are on the right track.

corkonion · 28-06-2021 05:53PM

With GB news current viewing figures, no money will attract journalists/reporters/presenters of any quality to work there, and with their continuous technical faults and errors I can’t see the station surviving for long. I’ve seen the figure of 60 million being banded about as it’s investment for launch and I call bs on it, they have spent no more than a few million on this, I’d imagine the 60 million was dreamt up to impress people and probably included future contracts and future expenses over the next 3/5 years, no news Chanel is profitable in the uk, what lunatic would invest 60 million to slice the loss making cake even thinner?

28-06-2021 05:57PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The fact that you spent all day trying to convince people of this, is enough evidence that they are on the right track.

I've given you facts, that's all I've done. You've claimed feathers are being ruffled but the only people who seem upset are those annoyed by people laughing at the fact they're getting on particularly badly. The fact a key figure seemed to jump ship within two weeks, the fact that Paw Patrol in Welsh surpassed them in viewing figures. This all adds to the comedy of the fiasco.

But yes, I really do agree with you. They should keep doing exactly what they are doing.

Mic 1972 · 28-06-2021 06:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've given you facts, that's all I've done. You've claimed feathers are being ruffled but the only people who seem upset are those annoyed by people laughing at the fact they're getting on particularly badly. The fact a key figure seemed to jump ship within two weeks, the fact that Paw Patrol in Welsh surpassed them in viewing figures. This all adds to the comedy of the fiasco.

But yes, I really do agree with you. They should keep doing exactly what they are doing.

keep talking about it, we appreciate your effort

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

Comments