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

I had assumed Paw Patrol was some sort of reality TV show about a police canine division or something but no, it's an actual cartoon. Hammered in the ratings by a cartoon

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The thing is though that GMB would have a pretty broad range of viewers from all points of the political and social spectrum in the UK . So when Piers Morgan says something "controversial" on that show there were viewers watching that would actually find it controversial or offensive etc. and generate discussion.

And it was Piers they were there for, he dragged new viewers in in and they stayed for his manufactured controversies. I dont think people realise the effect he had on GMB, when he joined in 2015 their viewership was hovering around 500,000. Then this

Good Morning Britain’s ratings have plunged, with just 451,000 viewers watching yesterday’s episode (2 June). Viewing figures for the ITV breakfast show have been declining since Piers Morgan’s dramatic exit in March. Ratings had hit a record high at 1.9m viewers the day before he quit over the backlash to his comments about Meghan Markle.

Morgan has claimed that he’s been asked to return to the show, which was hosted on Tuesday by Adil Ray and Ranvir Singh.

So Piers built it up from 500k to 1.9 million and now he is gone its back down to under 500k again. Thats a difference of 1.4m people who are now watchng something else or not watching anything at all. They were there for Piers and once he departed so did the viewers.

On GB News , that variety of viewer isn't going to be there so when he says something "edgy" half won't even notice that it was supposed to be edgy and the other half will think "You're spot on there Piers" and so absolutely Zero controversy is generated with no associated Tweets and Facebook posts etc. etc.

He thrives on the reaction and the outrage (as do all Media edge-lords , regardless of political persuasion) so if he's not getting those reactions and the "You can't say THAT Piers!!!!" from Guests or fellow presenters he's pointless and he knows it, hence he won't go near GB News with a barge-pole.

When Piers was on GMB it was the most tweeted about show. Now he is gone it isnt. A singe interview he did with Matt Hancock went viral and has over 20 million views on Youtube. Thats what he delivers and it wouldnt matter what channel he is on because he's already more than proved he can drag in an audience and increase it substantially. Theres no reason why Piers couldnt replicate his success at another channel like GB News.

With the other presenters Piers' whole routine was him playing good cop, bad cop with Suzanna Reid who would faithfully shout out the "You cant say THAT Piers" line. GB News could easily replicate this by matching Piers with a good cop for him to bounce off. If Piers was doing 1.9 million viewers on a morning tv show when most people are at work anyway then he could top that even more with a prime time 8pm slot on GB News when most people are home from work and the potential audience is much bigger. He is hugely influential in the UKs tv landscape and he has something other presenters dont- people who hate him tune in to see what he is going to say and people who agree with him are still shocked he actually said it. That kind of broadcasting is literally what GB News should be all about.

The cock ups continue on, this from just yesterday https://twitter.com/MrSimonz/status/1410294821168766979

eskimohunt wrote: »

Their YouTube channel is booming. In the past two weeks, it has rocketed to almost 140,000 subscribers - doubling in fact over that period, and growing rapidly.

Now, a week after this quote, it's 152K subscribers.
307.4K Followers on Twitter.

I'll give it 3 months


Week 2 figures


Great British Breakfast on GB News: 32,000
Andrew Neil: 31,000
GB News DePerio & Halligan 16,000
GB News Brazier & Muroki: 11,000

biko wrote: »

We'll see how it goes.
Since neither you nor I have a definition of success stated yet, I will make that definition now - if their channels grow by 100 persons a day they are growing an audience = success.

Of course you are free to make your own definitions, but do that, and measure against it, before you say the channel is doing badly.

How did you arrive at that number?

Smee_Again wrote: »

How did you arrive at that number?

As you hopefully read in my post I made the definition myself.
You can do it too. I suggest you try it in your next post.

biko wrote: »

As you hopefully read in my post I made the definition myself.
You can do it too. I suggest you try it in your next post.

I know. That’s why I asked you how you arrived at that number.

Having made the definition yourself it should be easy to explain your rationale for it.

Because, it appears you’ve picked a number out of your arse that you think GB News might achieve rather than a number that would make the channel commercially viable.

My own definition of success is quite simple; if it’s still on the air in 18 months then I’d consider that a success given its less than stellar viewing figures.

Smee_Again wrote: »

I know. That’s why I asked you how you arrived at that number.

Having made the definition yourself it should be easy to explain your rationale for it.

Because, it appears you’ve picked a number out of your arse that you think GB News might achieve rather than a number that would make the channel commercially viable.

My own definition of success is quite simple; if it’s still on the air in 18 months then I’d consider that a success given its less than stellar viewing figures.

Good, you have a definition made. If GB news is still active at the end of 2022 you concede it's a success.

It differs from mine, but since it's your personal one you pulled out of your arse I won't oppose it, it's yours.

I said in my post I made it myself. You really need to pay better attention.

biko wrote: »

I said in my post I made it myself. You really need to pay better attention.

So, yeah - out of your arse.