If there isn't a long newspaper feature on this channel in about a year's time, featuring anonymous quotes from young staffers who didn't know what they were getting themselves into, I will be surprised.
MrUdagawa post_id=20381 time= user_id=1184 Wrote:The weather forecasts without presenters take so long to animate before showing any temperatures. Watching one last night it only showed what the weather was like up until 9am this morning.
They seem to be alternating between full in-vision forecast and flyover, at ~ 20" and 50" each hour. But yes, I'd prefer a straight-on view of the British isles with a few temperatures and animated wind/rain. Still, nice to see Met Office forecasts on air (their YouTube channel is excellent, although the time and format of the forecasts has been a little erratic during the pandemic. Also they often record the following day's forecast the afternoon/evening before.)
I know it's only Day 2, but Muroki just isn't working for me.
I'm not quite across shifts for the existing News Channels... but could they extend stuff out so each 'show' is on air for 4 hours? Breakfast till 10am, pairing Colin with Gloria till 2pm & then Simon with Alex till 6pm?
Mercy & Liam should then be around 10-6pm to add context & their own commentary to stories being covered.
Colin Brazier having quite a big dig at Merci just before the weather and at the end saying something about it being a training programme?!
AllWillBeWell post_id=20389 time= user_id=773 Wrote:Inspector Sands post_id=20377 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:TIGHazard post_id=20349 time= user_id=904 Wrote:That reply tweet makes it seem like companies didn't even know they were on at all - like Sky Media didn't tell them
I'm pretty sure that when companies buy advertising they don't buy space on specific outlets, they buy a package that targets a specific audience. Obviously if they have ethical concerns they can insist their ad buyers can pull from certain outlets.
The problem with any campaigning to pull ads from GBN or anywhere is it just builds up the channels victim mentality, that everyone's out to get them. And if it fails it'll be the campaigners who get the blame rather than any failings on behalf of the company
Though any quibbles by advertisers are more likely to be about quality rather than ideology
Plus it is just a bit childish as where does it end. Lots of companies have unsavoury links in their past or even currently. At the end of the day it is all PR spin. Companies don't care about anyone, just profit. In worst case scenario, GB News would have to try and go subscription model. No idea if that would work, or the channel would be full of those horrible type cheap late night adverts normally shown in the graveyard shift.
Not sure what the issue is here, if the channel doesn't fit in with their brand's target audience what's the point in them wasting their money advertising on there? I'd take a guess that people interested in the sort of conspiracies and misinformation related to Covid we've seen on the channel are unlikely to buy £5 ciders.
It's amusing looking at social media, the channel's (few) fans keep popping up on any critisism of the channel to say that the channel must we working as it's clearly got all the "leftie woke snowflakes" rattled. Because it's not like people are critisising the channel because it's inept, but because we're all scared of it...
VMPhil post_id=20394 time= user_id=1043 Wrote:If there isn't a long newspaper feature on this channel in about a year's time, featuring anonymous quotes from young staffers who didn't know what they were getting themselves into, I will be surprised.
I'm expecting a long form interview with Alastair Stewart in The Sunday Telegraph sometime in 2022/2023 with his take on his time at GB News
I am wondering if they are going to run out of content fairly soon, as they are ticking off all the obvious topics one by one (taking a knee, flags...)
Advertisers boycotting the channel is ridiculous though, and with it being lead from a Twitter pile on, it kind of justifies half the reason why this channel exists in the first place. Nobody in the real world is going to stop buying Corn Flakes because Kelloggs have an advert in the middle of 'Dan Wootten' or even thinks they are anyway connected with the broadcast.
gottago post_id=20398 time= user_id=900 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=20389 time= user_id=773 Wrote:Inspector Sands post_id=20377 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:I'm pretty sure that when companies buy advertising they don't buy space on specific outlets, they buy a package that targets a specific audience. Obviously if they have ethical concerns they can insist their ad buyers can pull from certain outlets.
The problem with any campaigning to pull ads from GBN or anywhere is it just builds up the channels victim mentality, that everyone's out to get them. And if it fails it'll be the campaigners who get the blame rather than any failings on behalf of the company
Though any quibbles by advertisers are more likely to be about quality rather than ideology
Plus it is just a bit childish as where does it end. Lots of companies have unsavoury links in their past or even currently. At the end of the day it is all PR spin. Companies don't care about anyone, just profit. In worst case scenario, GB News would have to try and go subscription model. No idea if that would work, or the channel would be full of those horrible type cheap late night adverts normally shown in the graveyard shift.
Not sure what the issue is here, if the channel doesn't fit in with their brand's target audience what's the point in them wasting their money advertising on there? I'd take a guess that people interested in the sort of conspiracies and misinformation related to Covid we've seen on the channel are unlikely to buy £5 ciders.
But that isn't the reason they gave for pulling the ads......
If we accept that companies are going to pull ads because they don't like the content (not because their target audience doesn't watch), then where does it end? does the company check everyone working on the advert to make sure they think correctly, do they check the men digging the cables to broadcast the signal, do they check their customers who consume the drink to make sure they think correctly. It is all a bit of the night if you ask me.
Has the channel broadcast conspiracy theories and misinformation related to covid? if so I am sure Ofcom will take action in due course.
Ash101 post_id=20396 time= user_id=936 Wrote:I'm not quite across shifts for the existing News Channels... but could they extend stuff out so each 'show' is on air for 4 hours? Breakfast till 10am, pairing Colin with Gloria till 2pm & then Simon with Alex till 6pm?
Here's how the shift is allocated.
On BBC, the morning hours (9am-1pm) is divided equally into two shifts. Then there's 2-5pm and 10:30pm-downtime. This is just among the generic "BBC News" hours. On weekends, the 16-hour broadcast day is divided into two five-hour and one six-hour stretches.
On Sky, the weekend hours are divided into 10am-2pm, then until 5pm, 8pm, and finally midnight. Weekdays are as what EPG says.
Companies are well within their rights to pull their advertising if they want. This channel is supposedly based around "free speech" after all, and these companies are expressing theirs. It feels like for some it's only "free speech" when it matches their own views and beliefs and "woke cancel culture", a"baying mob" or similar when it's someone else.
I imagine if for example advertisers were pulling adverts from England matches because of their taking of the knee, both sides would be acting very differently.
Have to say I'm actually quite enjoying this mornings Brazier & Muroki (didn't see GBB). As others have said, Muroki isn't working, but I feel that there's been some interesting topics covered.
AllWillBeWell post_id=20389 time= user_id=773 Wrote:Plus it is just a bit childish as where does it end. Lots of companies have unsavoury links in their past or even currently. At the end of the day it is all PR spin. Companies don't care about anyone, just profit.
True, although they do care for their own reputation. If GBN was embroiled in a massive controversy then it could become too risky for advertisers who don't want to be tarred with the same brush
Quote:In worst case scenario, GB News would have to try and go subscription model. No idea if that would work,
You have to have a seriously premium and well produced product to go subscription and the demographic that's got the money to want to buy it. The Times and Telegraph have pulled it off but that's fairly rare.
Plus if you look over at the US where the media is more polarised it's become evident that the rise in right wing media influence is largely because it is all free, whereas the well produced, quality, neutral, what some would call 'liberal' media is increasingly behind paywalls. So those without money miss out on plurality of views.
GBN doesn't exist purely to make money, it's first and foremost an influencer. It's not gonna do that from behind a paywall
I notice that GB News is not covering the BBC enquiry which is live at the moment on Sky, the ex BBC DG is being questioned by MPs, very surprised seeing as GB News and the BBC are not best of friends.
From my albeit limited experience of TV advertising, for digital channels companies don't buy specific slots or channels, they just by a package, say 100 slots in daytime targetting females or ABC1s or housewives etc
The company I worked for ran TV adverts a few years ago and the list of spots we had was very random, we didn't specifically select we wanted 6:15am in the middle of a repeat of Homes under the Hammer on UKTV Style and Gardens Plus One, but its one of the ones we got.
Therefore companies won't be specifically buying GB News, they'll just be getting it based on the demographics and daypart
Also with GB news's obsession with England players taking the knee, surely that's their "free speech" and the way GB News are acting about it is a textbook example of "cancel culture".
It seems like it's only "free speech" when it's their side doing it, and only "cancel culture" when it's the other side.