Has the international news channel had its day?
#1

Reading the threads about the merging of BBC News and BBC World News and people's thoughts on CNN International's prioritisation of US news got me wondering if the truly international news channel is just not something there is demand for anymore?

Back in the 2000s, broadband internet access was limited and streaming video a bit of a rarity. If you were abroad and wanted to keep up with what was going on at home, you would have probably headed to an internet café or (maybe) used a laptop in a hotel room on fairly expensive ethernet. This meant that international English language news channels were the best option for keeping up with what was going on at home. Satellite distribution was also still fairly expensive, making it hard to offer 'TV from home' even if people wanted to.

Nowadays, wherever I travel I can watch Sky News on my iPad and (often) Chromecast it to a TV in the room. There is also a wide range of channels I can choose from if I want a German, French, Singaporean or whatever spin on what's going on. Given a choice between BBC World News and Sky, I'd probably choose Sky because it covers stuff I'm more likely to be interested in. 

I realise international travellers weren't the only people these channels were aimed at but they must've been a fairly big part, especially in terms of advertising money must have been those people.

It's sad for us as pres fans but is the international news channel simply something that's been out-evolved?
Reply
#2

It's a good question, but the answer is no, it hasn't, and the reasons for that are clear when you look outside of the UK.

There are now more international news channels than ever before, and they're all serving one particular mission that is the same the world over. To cover the world from their countries perspective. The multitude of different perspectives allow for greater understanding of the world at large, and the world closer to home.

The balance of domestic and international channels will always favour domestic and there are far more domestic news channels than international ones, but both have their place.
Reply
#3

You suggest that the 2000s were a golden age for international news channels, but BBC World News didn't start to get profitable until the end of that decade and has continued to increase viewers pretty much every year since - its heyday was definitely not in the early 2000s.

It's interesting that you make a comparison between Sky News and BBC World News and state a preference for Sky - but that's really because they're different beasts. Sky News is a domestic channel that is available internationally, BBC World News is an international channel aimed at an international audience. I know there's a misconception among some that BBC World News is for Brits abroad, but it really isn't - that's something that Sky is going to be more suited to.
Reply
#4

I liked BBC World News In 2000 for pres geeks it was an absolute joy, but I did notice in Europe there was barely any ads, we just got the wonderful breakfiller instead.
Reply
#5

(30-01-2023, 09:43 PM)harshy Wrote:  I liked BBC World News In 2000 for pres geeks it was an absolute joy, but I did notice in Europe there was barely any ads, we just got the wonderful breakfiller instead.
Probably one of the main reasons that the channel was in such a poor financial state at the time. Regardless of how good the pres was, the channel was struggling in a lot of ways back then - 2000-01 was the nadir in live news content for a reason. Indeed, I recall reading that at one point in the early-2000s there was a strong 'if things don't improve, it's curtains' vibe (the kerfuffle over usage fees didn't help). 2006 - when they finally got proper US distribution - was the big turning point for the channel as that was then really started bringing in the ad revenues and allowed them to reintroduce 'stranded' news programming for the first time since it was all cut in the late-1990s.
[-] The following 1 user Likes DTV's post:
  • harshy
Reply
#6

(30-01-2023, 07:48 PM)DTV Wrote:  It's interesting that you make a comparison between Sky News and BBC World News and state a preference for Sky - but that's really because they're different beasts. Sky News is a domestic channel that is available internationally, BBC World News is an international channel aimed at an international audience. I know there's a misconception among some that BBC World News is for Brits abroad, but it really isn't - that's something that Sky is going to be more suited to.
On the contrary, I fully understand this - my question is whether the place for an international channel aimed at an international audience is disappearing now that it's far easier for most people to pick up content from home (wherever that may be) than it once was.
Reply
#7

(30-01-2023, 10:17 PM)sigma421 Wrote:  On the contrary, I fully understand this - my question is whether the place for an international channel aimed at an international audience is disappearing now that it's far easier for most people to pick up content from home (wherever that may be) than it once was.
Given BBC World News' weekly audience is claimed to be around 100m, I'd say it certainly has its place. As with anything, it'll continue to have such a place for as long as it fulfills a niche and BBC World News fills several. While there is certainly a shift to online news, it's important to remember that the shift to non-linear broadcasting is not as sharp outside the west and, even in the west, news (and sport) are some of the programmes holding up best. International news channels also benefit in being more curated news (as opposed to domestic rolling news) and by shifting audiences as the globe spins.

You also have to consider the BBC's competition. As a general news source for the English-speaking Commonwealth (Africa, parts of South Asia), its competitors are often not particularly trustworthy national broadcasters. Plus, from a news agenda perspective, the BBC has typically been regarded as one of the best at balancing world events based on news value rather than other concerns (though this does seem a bit imperilled with the merger). This in particular has always been a key driver for its growth in the US - serving those who are interested in international news (as opposed to the overly US-centric home broadcasters).
Reply
#8

(30-01-2023, 10:14 PM)DTV Wrote:  
(30-01-2023, 09:43 PM)harshy Wrote:  I liked BBC World News In 2000 for pres geeks it was an absolute joy, but I did notice in Europe there was barely any ads, we just got the wonderful breakfiller instead.
Probably one of the main reasons that the channel was in such a poor financial state at the time. Regardless of how good the pres was, the channel was struggling in a lot of ways back then - 2000-01 was the nadir in live news content for a reason. Indeed, I recall reading that at one point in the early-2000s there was a strong 'if things don't improve, it's curtains' vibe (the kerfuffle over usage fees didn't help). 2006 - when they finally got proper US distribution - was the big turning point for the channel as that was then really started bringing in the ad revenues and allowed them to reintroduce 'stranded' news programming for the first time since it was all cut in the late-1990s.
I know it's not necessarily 'done' to bump a six-week old thread, but anyway...

RE: the no ads on BBC World in Europe - I take it you would have been watching via one of the Astra satellites, @harshy? If so, then I suspect the reason you weren't seeing any ads was that AIUI they were (and are) sold by the local cable/satellite providers. There probably wouldn't have been much capacity, or desire, for pan-European adverts. 

There was indeed a point in the mid-2000s (2004, to be exact) when Michael Grade threatened to close World if it didn't improve its ratings. Here is a Guardian article about that, and here is the blue place's thread about it.

[-] The following 2 users Like Kojak's post:
  • bkman1990, DTV
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)