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

Penn · 04-07-2021 01:57PM

I've no doubt GB News' social media will continue to increase over the next year (eg. Youtube subscribers, twitter followers etc). These things rarely go down over time unless something significant happens to turn people away, as for the most part following/subscribing is fairly passive. People do it and forget about it.

However if their actual views for the station don't increase, if their average views for Youtube videos don't increase, if their social media interactions (like/share/retweet) don't increase significantly with it, its not going to matter. And that's the issue, because all of that stems from their TV content. For a new station that had so much build up and publicity surrounding it, its launch numbers have been fairly tragic imo, and its content seems unlikely to attract anyone who wasn't already prepared to tune in to the station.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-07-2021 02:30PM

Just been flicking through the channels and popped it on for five minutes to see what important issues they are discussing today.

To my surprise it isn't covid, it isn't the economy, it isn't even England's win last night, nope its that question on everyone's lips right now

ANCIENT ELEPHANTS....WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM!!

:pac:

mcmoustache · 04-07-2021 03:14PM

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.

If they grow by 100 persons per day, they'll never catch up to the other channels which are growing by 1000 per day. In fact, if they grow by 1000 per day, they still won't catch up.

If they wanted to grow into something comparable to Sky News with 3.6m subs, for example, they need 3.4m more subscribers. If they grew by 1000 per day consistently, it will take them 3.4k days or about 9 years to reach where sky news is today.

In that 9 years, though, Sky News is also growing by around the same number so assuming constant, linear growth, Sky news will have 7m subs by then but 7m versus 3.6m isn't bad. This all assumes that the growth in interest in this tv station remains constant for 9 years which will take some doing.

Muahahaha · 04-07-2021 03:46PM

Penn wrote: »

I've no doubt GB News' social media will continue to increase over the next year (eg. Youtube subscribers, twitter followers etc). These things rarely go down over time unless something significant happens to turn people away, as for the most part following/subscribing is fairly passive. People do it and forget about it.

However if their actual views for the station don't increase, if their average views for Youtube videos don't increase, if their social media interactions (like/share/retweet) don't increase significantly with it, its not going to matter. And that's the issue, because all of that stems from their TV content. For a new station that had so much build up and publicity surrounding it, its launch numbers have been fairly tragic imo, and its content seems unlikely to attract anyone who wasn't already prepared to tune in to the station.

This is the crux of it, Youtube subscribers is not that valuable of a metric because lots of people can subscribe to a channel but then never go back and watch anything there.

The metric that matters on Youtube is actual views of videos because that shows how engaged the audience are. You can see it here
https://www.youtube.com/c/GBNewsOnline/videos

They get the odd one with 20k or 30k views but for the large part most are under 10k views and many have only 2k-3k views. In a nation of 65 million people they are some really small numbers.

Tell me how · 04-07-2021 03:47PM

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.

I'd say a fairly reasonable definition of success would be one that didn't include the chief draw and face of the channel taking a break from it after 2 weeks.

In terms of subscription numbers? I'm not at all convinced they're not bloated by bots.

Penn · 04-07-2021 04:36PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd say a fairly reasonable definition of success would be one that didn't include the chief draw and face of the channel taking a break from it after 2 weeks.

That really is the most damning thing of all. If it was a health thing or other unforseen event, fair enough. But the chairman of the entire channel who was instrumental in getting the entire thing set up and touting it for months... takes a previously unscheduled break for no apparent reason 2 weeks after launch amid pretty dismal viewing figures, technical issues and lack of fanfare and attention.... Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

dublinman1990 · 04-07-2021 04:38PM

The Daily Telegraph was reporting recently in a paywall article that GB News would need an average daily viewership of 139,000 TV channel viewers for it to break even within a few years. How is that remotely possible for GB News to have those numbers right now when it may not be able to keep up with achieving those targets when the viewer numbers are much lower than expected when other news channels are present on the same platforms as them?

GB News would probably need to have a look and see which British linear TV platform has the most viewers tuning into it since it had it's opening night on the 13th of June up until the 13th of July to see where they are gaining proper audience numbers while they are trying to exploit the exposure of the TV channel.

Having, what appears to be, a healthy amount of subscribers on youtube & twitter is somewhat good exposure for them. But are they gaining any advertising revenue on these online platforms to fund the channel's existence? If they are not gaining any money from these services; do you think that they be able to survive in the short to medium term. To me; the only funds available to support these online platforms for GB News are either from the financial backers of the channel or it comes through from the ad revenue that comes from their linear TV channel.

VinLieger · 04-07-2021 04:48PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd say a fairly reasonable definition of success would be one that didn't include the chief draw and face of the channel taking a break from it after 2 weeks.

In terms of subscription numbers? I'm not at all convinced they're not bloated by bots.

But again subscribers ultimately means nothing bar being an arbitrary number you can puff your chest out about, views is the key metric mainly cus its how you make money via adverts.

Galwayguy35 · 04-07-2021 08:13PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

Not bad looking, I must tune in.

hirondelle · 05-07-2021 09:43AM

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.

Considering the population of GB is 64 million that is an hilariously low definition of success.

If it was an artisan goats cheese being marketed, it would be a very impressive figure, but a national opinion-reflector for the self-perceived ignored conservative/right, not so much.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2021 09:45AM

hirondelle wrote: »

Considering the population of GB is 64 million that is an hilariously low definition of success.

If it was an artisan goats cheese being marketed, it would be a very impressive figure, but a national opinion-reflector for the self-perceived ignored conservative/right, not so much.

especially one they have spent £60M on.

hirondelle · 05-07-2021 10:39AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

especially one they have spent £60M on.

Yikes, I didn't think it would be cheap but that is an expensive youtube channel so.

AllForIt · 05-07-2021 05:04PM

Penn wrote: »

That really is the most damning thing of all. If it was a health thing or other unforseen event, fair enough. But the chairman of the entire channel who was instrumental in getting the entire thing set up and touting it for months... takes a previously unscheduled break for no apparent reason 2 weeks after launch amid pretty dismal viewing figures, technical issues and lack of fanfare and attention.... Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Do you not think it's a bit much to be chairman and do his own show every night? Especially since it's not a big organization like the BBC with loads of departments and loads of employees.

I was quite surprised to see Neil have his own show at all, least of all every day. Maybe 1 night a week or something like that. He's 72 you know.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2021 05:22PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Do you not think it's a bit much to be chairman and do his own show every night? Especially since it's not a big organization like the BBC with loads of departments and loads of employees.

I was quite surprised to see Neil have his own show at all, least of all every day. Maybe 1 night a week or something like that. He's 72 you know.

I'm pretty sure he knew what he was letting himself in for and that the break was unscheduled as in pretty sure he could have adjusted his workload without stepping back completely.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2021 05:23PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Do you not think it's a bit much to be chairman and do his own show every night? Especially since it's not a big organization like the BBC with loads of departments and loads of employees.

I was quite surprised to see Neil have his own show at all, least of all every day. Maybe 1 night a week or something like that. He's 72 you know.

He was the big draw for the channel. The only one with gravitas. Without him appearing there was no channel.

Quin_Dub · 05-07-2021 05:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He was the big draw for the channel. The only one with gravitas. Without him appearing there was no channel.

I think this is the key point.

Given that the whole angle for the channel was for it not to be "news" but to be opinion, interviews and chat , the loss of Andrew Neil is huge.

The rest of the presenters are all fairly lightweight and even those with a bit of experience and name recognition were coming from roles where they were largely News Readers or hosts of Hard News shows.

For him to take this "step back" is a massive blow to the Channel.

Penn · 05-07-2021 06:57PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Do you not think it's a bit much to be chairman and do his own show every night? Especially since it's not a big organization like the BBC with loads of departments and loads of employees.

I was quite surprised to see Neil have his own show at all, least of all every day. Maybe 1 night a week or something like that. He's 72 you know.

It's all entirely the role and schedule he set himself. I'm sure he would have set his schedule to do all necessary prep and filming for his own show as well as chairman duties (and delegating as much as necessary).

If after a few months he felt it was too much, fair enough. Taking a break from being on-air after just two weeks without any kind of return date, at the same time as the lacklustre launch and technical issues, doesn't give any kind of good impression.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2021 07:21PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think this is the key point.

Given that the whole angle for the channel was for it not to be "news" but to be opinion, interviews and chat , the loss of Andrew Neil is huge.

The rest of the presenters are all fairly lightweight and even those with a bit of experience and name recognition were coming from roles where they were largely News Readers or hosts of Hard News shows.

For him to take this "step back" is a massive blow to the Channel.

They have Dan Wooton. Dan feckin Wooton. Not really one of the greatest minds of our time.

ancapailldorcha · 05-07-2021 07:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They have Dan Wooton. Dan feckin Wooton. Not really one of the greatest minds of our time.

Neil was the man who'd grill party leaders before elections. He was the BBC's attack dog. He lent the show at least some credibility so without him it's just edgy snowflakes moaning about woke.

It comes across like he's seen the ship sinking and is bailing out while leaving the option of a return in place in case the channel picks up.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2021 07:26PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Neil was the man who'd grill party leaders before elections. He was the BBC's attack dog. He lent the show at least some credibility so without him it's just edgy snowflakes moaning about woke.

It comes across like he's seen the ship sinking and is bailing out while leaving the option of a return in place in case the channel picks up.

100% this.

L1011 · 05-07-2021 07:29PM

Neil had credibility. The rest of their lineup is exceptionally weak - a gossip columnist (Wooton), a history show presenter (Oliver) a fifth-of-a-term MEP (Phillips), an Apprentice candidate (Dewberry) and a former sports and light entertainment presenter (Gallacher) being some of the bigger names

There are two serious news presenters - McCoy and Stewart, but for news - not opinion.

Tony EH · 05-07-2021 08:52PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Neil was the man who'd grill party leaders before elections. He was the BBC's attack dog. He lent the show at least some credibility so without him it's just edgy snowflakes moaning about woke.

It comes across like he's seen the ship sinking and is bailing out while leaving the option of a return in place in case the channel picks up.

I'm of the mind that this is closer to the truth than the "he's just taking a break" angle. It's clear that the channel, so far, has been a fat disaster, to put it politely, and I've no doubt that Neil is now wondering just what it is that he's sunk his money, time and reputation into.

Have to say I'm very surprised at Andrew Neil. Just why he chose to go down this route is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps he had a few chancers telling him that there was an audience and some kaching involved with all of this faux fox baloney. But he's found out that that's kinda crap. The audience is tiny and the kaching is minimal at best.

I thought he was a smarter cookie than that.

06-07-2021 10:34AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It comes across like he's seen the ship sinking and is bailing out while leaving the option of a return in place in case the channel picks up.

No evidence of this whatsoever. Pure conjecture.

Given the number of months he's been working on this project, it's safe to assume that a few weeks off is exactly what he said he wants.

ohnonotgmail · 06-07-2021 10:37AM

eskimohunt wrote: »

No evidence of this whatsoever. Pure conjecture.

Given the number of months he's been working on this project, it's safe to assume that a few weeks off is exactly what he said he wants.

People would place more credence in what you say if it had been a planned break. It wasn't. Ratings have been **** and Neil suddenly decides he is off. It doesn't look good.

06-07-2021 10:37AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No evidence of this whatsoever. Pure conjecture.

Given the number of months he's been working on this project, it's safe to assume that a few weeks off is exactly what he said he wants.

The tanking viewing figures including on his show and every other one is a pretty big sign of it.

ancapailldorcha · 06-07-2021 11:30AM

eskimohunt wrote: »

No evidence of this whatsoever. Pure conjecture.

Given the number of months he's been working on this project, it's safe to assume that a few weeks off is exactly what he said he wants.

No evidence the other way either so speculation is all we have. Neil's been in the game for a very long time. He knows how making political content for TV works better than virtually everyone else.

Given the pathetic performance of GB News, this is the most logical explanation for his scurrying away while keeping a return option on the table.

hirondelle · 06-07-2021 11:32AM

eskimohunt wrote: »

No evidence of this whatsoever. Pure conjecture.

Given the number of months he's been working on this project, it's safe to assume that a few weeks off is exactly what he said he wants.

So conjecture on both sides then?

I get that you want the channel to work, but a rational view would be that the channel was talking itself up on opening and now with it not getting traction, the headline act is compounding it's loss of viewers by taking a break (for an unspecified reason and duration) just when he should be trying to build the viewing base.

Muahahaha · 06-07-2021 04:52PM

Plus what about the investors, they pumped £60m into this on the basis that Andrew Neil was leading the project as both the Chairman of GB News and the main anchor. Now he has walked off the pitch the investors have been left high and dry, the investment they were sold back then is not the same investment now when the main man has walked out the door. Id say they are fuming with Andrew Neil, his credibility on this project is shot because he sold them a pup.

AllForIt · 06-07-2021 06:15PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Plus what about the investors, they pumped £60m into this on the basis that Andrew Neil was leading the project as both the Chairman of GB News and the main anchor. Now he has walked off the pitch the investors have been left high and dry, the investment they were sold back then is not the same investment now when the main man has walked out the door. Id say they are fuming with Andrew Neil, his credibility on this project is shot because he sold them a pup.

How was it you learned that Neil promised his investors he was going to be the main anchor of the show indefinitely?

And I'm sure his investors would be much happier to see him scrabbling behind the screes to keep the channel going than presenting a daily show.

Tell me how · 06-07-2021 06:28PM

AllForIt wrote: »

How was it you learned that Neil promised his investors he was going to be the main anchor of the show indefinitely?

And I'm sure his investors would be much happier to see him scrabbling behind the screes to keep the channel going than presenting a daily show.

That'd be like hiring Messi to sort Barcelona's dire financial situation or to improve their strength and conditioning.

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

Comments