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

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256403#Comment_118256403

"you cannot translate 7x YouTube Live viewers with 7x TV Channel viewers."

And yet, you did.

"so it's not unreasonable to conclude that his TV channel viewers will experience a similar increase."

The rest of the post is your good old nonsense maths again

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256347#Comment_118256347

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256325#Comment_118256325

I know you're going to reply with some nonsensical attempt to explain this away, or simply ignore it though.

Almost Prescient....;-)

The Broadcast numbers did not "experience a similar increase" to the 7X increase you claim for YouTube live.

The increased by maybe 25-30% from his previous best. (150/160k to ~210k) which is mediocre at best.

Let's look at this in context.

An Interview with Donald Trump who is undeniably one of the most recognisable faces in the world. His first sit-down interview since he left office with an "International" broadcaster, on a Free to air channel that every single TV in the UK can receive without any expense or effort and it generates barely a ripple in the viewing numbers for the evening.

A peak of 210k viewers with an average of 155k is frankly barely background noise for Prime-time mid week viewing.

Yes , it got them their highest numbers so far but that is coming from a shockingly low baseline.

The Trump interview will have hardly any impact to the 4 week total BARB numbers and even if they managed to win over 25% of the new "Trump viewers" and convert them to full time viewers it hardly makes a difference.

The fact that they couldn't find a single advertiser willing to part with money for a slot during the show further reinforces how badly this went for GB News.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256410#Comment_118256410

I'm not responsible for your misinterpretations. If I were you, I'd question whether my motivations were in good faith and ask whether I'm perhaps inadvertently seeing something in the other poster's words that doesn't actually exist in reality.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255249#Comment_118255249

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256305#Comment_118256305

There wouldn 't be any ads on the Youtube version, obviously.

Cody montana

Lads, 1 trillion people watched the interview!

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256460#Comment_118256460

In this case, there is nothing to misrepresent. You predicted a 7x increase in TV channel viewers and we had nothing of the sort.

You attempting to claim that 7=4, or even 3; and restate the starting figures to try bend them to match the output is the misrepresentation here. And its absolutely in bad faith.

techman1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253565#Comment_118253565

Maybe but he is also entertainment and box office aswell . He had the largest Twitter following ever, not because everyone loved him but because all his haters couldn't resist following him.

The whole format was a copy of the sky news antics, with all the graphics and dramatic music

Mic 1972

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255116#Comment_118255116

That's not bad for a channel that according to "experts" was meant to be done and dusted in 6 months.

Looks like the channel keeps growing

@Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256676#Comment_118256676

Let's not forget that @Timberrrrrrrr predicted the channel was going to be done and dusted by 12 December.

Then again, there is still 10-days left for him to turn out to be right.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118241929#Comment_118241929

I'm an ordinary working person. I don't believe this smeared me. I looked at this. Saw the picture wasn't of me but of Farage and I thought to myself: "Is that image of Farage meant to be ME???" After due consideration, the indicators that this was NOT aimed at me were in the majority (over 50% if you are wondering) so I determined it was NOT smearing me.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256811#Comment_118256811

You predicted Andrew Neil wasn't quitting the channel after he had already left the thing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256914#Comment_118256914

I said that we couldn't know. I was agnostic on the question.

In hindsight, I turned out to be right. Negotiations were ongoing and, had things worked out, Neil would still have been there.

Only an extremist would make a claim with certainty like that.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256470#Comment_118256470

There were no ads anywhere! That's the thing, TV, YouTube, Twitter, there were no ads generating revenue anywhere.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256914#Comment_118256914

He predicted much worse would come to light about Marcus Rashford "Jimmy Saville level stuff"

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256979#Comment_118256979

Well,

There are these posts from you firmly rejecting the suggestion that Andrew Neil had left for good - They don't seem all that "agnostic on the question" to me.

Post#1269

Where is the evidence that Andrew Neil has "jumped ship", as if to suggest he has permanently left the channel?

Post# 1463

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.

Post# 1498

Weeks ago, I said that Andrew Neil was not leaving the channel and that those who claimed he was, were reading into it what they wanted.

His tweet only yesterday shows that he still believes in the channel and has no intention to leave.

I turned out to be right.

I wonder what new spin the anti-GB News brigade will apply to this tweet?

Post# 1500

Again, you are being cynical about the nature of his tweet because you dislike GB News from the outset.

Even if Andrew Neil explicitly stated that he wasn't leaving the channel, you would probably summon a defence that he's lying to the public.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118257321#Comment_118257321

Thanks for harvesting those quotes for me, all of which nourish precisely the point I made.

None of those statements can be taken to be anything but fact, he was at the time employed by GB News; he didn't "leave" - and during that period, was negotiating with the top team precisely because he wanted to remain.

That's all my points argued, and they turned out to be precisely right. Statements of fact, at the time, and nothing more. I didn't claim to know anything more than what was present on the table at the time.

However, the extremists are the ones who somehow knew exactly what was going on, despite not having a shred of evidence to hand to back their claims up. That's just conjecture, and I called it out at the time.

Neil may very well have struck a deal at the time, but to be premature and claim to know what was happening is simply not right.

I remained agnostic, fuelled only by the actual facts to hand.

Those on the other side spoke with certainty about a matter they'd no evidence to back up.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118257565#Comment_118257565

Is there anything you won't try to spin just so you don't have to accept that you said something you claimed you didn't?

It's an incredible ability - You say you were agnostic about the Andrew Neil departure , I link to your posts where you were anything but - claiming that anyone suggesting that Neil was not coming back was simply a member of the "Anti GB-News Brigade" and you come back trying to suggest that my post supports your position???

Bottom line - You were wrong , everyone else was correct .

He left and never came back just as everyone but you correctly predicted.

You spoke with "certainty" that he definitely hadn't left

Weeks ago, I said that Andrew Neil was not leaving the channel and that those who claimed he was, were reading into it what they wanted.

.......

I turned out to be right.

I wonder what new spin the anti-GB News brigade will apply to this tweet?

Except , you weren't right , you were WRONG.

Why are you physically incapable of admitting to an error/mistake?

Why must you double and triple down on these tiresome spins and convulsions to somehow (in your mind) look like you were correct all along when you simply weren't???

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118257565#Comment_118257565

And we have always been at war with Eastasia

Seriously, any normal person would cringe at having to the amount of deceptive, distractionary covering for their own posting history as you do.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118257656#Comment_118257656

If I'm being honest, the whole "launching a TV channel in 2021" shtick has become a bit boring for me. It's weird seeing this person twist themselves like this to defend such a stupid notion though.

Rudy Giuliani to appear on Talking Pints tonight, should be interesting to hear his take on last night's Farage-Trump interview.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258579#Comment_118258579

maybe he will publicly ask trump to pay his bills? Will farage ask him about the press conference at four seasons landscaping?

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118257639#Comment_118257639

Its kinda impressive to see the diehard commitment to constantly try to retcon what was previously said in black and white for everyone to see, even when it is literally re-posted in front of you.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258606#Comment_118258606

the gaslighting is strong.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258579#Comment_118258579

Will his face start to melt again 🤣🤣🤣

extra gravy

Rudy 😂 Jesus he's really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Hope he asks him about Four Seasons Landscaping!

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258656#Comment_118258656

Will he shove his hand down his pants during the interview?

Set the pulses of the GBNews fans into overdrive.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258606#Comment_118258606

It's "impressive" in the way that the saddening sight of a devastating plane crash with bits of bodies all over the place in a bloody mess is "impressive".

So GBN did set record viewing figures for itself but nothing near half a million viewers as Eskimo promised. And he realistically is the biggest guest they'll ever get.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1530512/Nigel-Farage-GB-News-record-viewing-figures-Donald-Trump-interview

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258932#Comment_118258932

And yet, not a single penny was made from advertisement revenue, GBEEBIES is such a toxic brand that they couldn't get a single company to advertise thier product during what will be thier finest moment.

EH keeps avoiding the question because he's embarrassed by it but does anyone else have any other reason as to why during Farage's two hour show last night there wasn't a single advertisement for any product whatsoever?

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118258932#Comment_118258932

Problem with Trump is he is something of a busted flush. He must have given many hundreds of TV interviews in the last five years - the only people interested in him in the UK in late 2021 are the remaining right wing Trump fanboys.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118259542#Comment_118259542

I didn't watch it (So I didn't comment). The articles I read seemed to indicate it went as expected (Again no comment).

You took one for the team and watched? Fair play. Was there REALLY no ads? That's amazing. I'm sure he'll come back and say "Well, they didn't want to break up such an important and prestigious interview with advertising". Which would be BS. As you said, this will be the biggest interview they get. Perfect chance to make a LOT of money. And remember, this is a business. Like every other station, like every other business, the goal is to make money.

In fairness to them, it is a big "interview" but he's really only there because they are his kind of people. But still, the POTENTIAL for massive numbers. For their biggest audience yet. A chance to put them right on the map.

No advertising. Wow, that's mental. Can you imagine the rush for advertising if he had the balls to do an ACTUAL "No holds barred" interview on ITV/C4. Hell, even BBC would sell ads :)

ohnonotgmail

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

He was only on GBNews because no other tv station wants him.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118261690#Comment_118261690

Plus he knew there'd be no hard questions and even though it'd be advertised as "nothing is off limits", he'd be interviewed by a sycophant who wouldn't push at those limits anyway.

L1011

No advertiser would want to be associated with a Trump interview of that style.

If it was a proper, incisive interview they'd be all over it - but Trump would have walked out after the first question. Being associated with a hagiography of a tyrant isn't a good look.

AllForIt

I would genuinely find it incredulous there were no ads because of Trump. Maybe they decided to run promos instead to promote themselves knowing full well they'd have many viewers tuning in for the first time. I'm not saying I don't get some people detest Trump, I mean it's the advertising opportunity being turned down I find hard to believe. Wouldn't the same companies equally refuse to advertise with them at all if they were of that attitude. Sure I may be wrong and it would be interesting to have this confirmed either way.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118261820#Comment_118261820

the only advertisers they have are at the level of "cash for gold" companies.

Quin_Dub

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

They had actual "Ad Breaks" but they had no actual adverts - All they had were promos for other shows on the channel.

Which is consistent with their normal programming - They have next to no adverts and they fill the time with promos or a "back soon" test card.

It's a vanity project for the backers and that's it - It will never break-even let alone make a profit.

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"