1) They want Sky Sports News HQ at the top
2) They want people to click 401 and see what Sky Sports News looks like it's a promotional trick.
3) It's upto them what numbers they put their channels on.
4) It's been done to get people talking and chatting and tweeting about it, therefore it is a complete success as people can't stop talking about the new name and channel numbers well done to us all for falling for it.
Nice one. Come up with an idea which is almost universally condemned and derided as making no logical sense, get people talking about it in an entirely negative way, and as a result declare it as "a complete success".
Try that in most fields and see what happens. Nothing like making the customer unhappy is there for achieving business success. Works every time.
I hope the silly rebranding and pointless EPG channel numbering backfires Sky Sports News, the channels viewing fingers could drop sharply. It might be in rating crisis mode like ITV Breakfast.
Sky Sports relies on paying subscribers first and foremost and with SSN especially, viewing figures aren't anywhere near as important as with other channels. Secondly, I highly doubt a shift down to 401 will deter anybody from watching Soccer Saturday for example. If anything, it could work to add viewers.
Nice one. Come up with an idea which is almost universally condemned and derided as making no logical sense, get people talking about it in an entirely negative way, and as a result declare it as "a complete success".
Try that in most fields and see what happens. Nothing like making the customer unhappy is there for achieving business success. Works every time.
5) Everybody complains to Sky, they change it back and declare in a major advert they listen to their customers and have restored the name and channel numbers.
5) Everybody complains to Sky, they change it back and declare in a major advert they listen to their customers and have restored the name and channel numbers.
Nice one. Come up with an idea which is almost universally condemned and derided as making no logical sense, get people talking about it in an entirely negative way, and as a result declare it as "a complete success".
The recently announced price increases are an astronomical success.
Another complete success has been moving Sky Go on Xbox to require a Sky Go Extra subscription.
The loss of Champions League football is also being celebrated wildly in for the sports division at Sky.
Clearly they want SSN to be the first channel hit.
Moaning about the numbering is borderline moronic in my opinion.
I agree, alot of people may just want see headlines and nothing else, also if you are the old packs like me , you don't needs sports pack to view so being the first for sports channel is a good idea.
I see they're talking about 20 presenters. Presumably 10 male & 10 female. Is there a list of them all somewhere?
There is that and more there already so nothing new.
Most of the current lot
Kate Abdo
David Bobin
Millie Clode
John Davies
Ed Draper
Kirsty Gallacher
Vicky Gomersall
Pete Graves
David Garrido
Alex Hammond
Charlotte Jackson
Adam Leventhal
Hayley McQueen
Kate Riley
Natalie Sawyer
Jeff Stelling (Soccer Sat)
Clare Tomlinson
Julian Warren (& Soccer Special)
It's like they wanted a new brand but didn't want to get rid of its existing one.
They could have gone for something like Britain's Sports HQ, but that obviously removes Sky branding.
Wonder what they going to do with Soccer Saturday, as their current studio will look too small compared to this.
New studio looks massive. They've just extended it back to where the desks were with the blue pillars, and knocked through the partition. It makes it look huge now. We'll done for that.
The channel is screaming out to be called 'Sky Sports Centre' (or at least Sky Sports Central). Who, other than Sky employees is going to call it 'Sky Sports News HQ' - other than in an ironic way?
I still call it skysports.comTV sometimes to take the mick. I expect 'HQ' will be jibbed off as a similar embarrassment at some point.
It's been a stupid change for the sake of change. Some creative team or agency at Sky has come up with a bright idea and somehow managed to push this crazy idea through.
Keep it as Sky Sports News - it's simple and works. Put it on 407, and have Sky Sports 1 -5 and Sky Sports F1 before it.
It's a shame, as all this nonsense has taken the limelight away from what looks like a nice new studio and shift in editorial focus.
TV and radio types never learn, how long did Sky News HD last (except for Martin Stanford who still insists on calling it that), Channel 3 North East (Tyne Tees Television) even the announcers couldn't remember which it was called, a few years ago Talksport was rebrand Talk with Talk Talk for a short period.
They probably don't even realise or if they do as I said it's a publicity stunt as any publicity is good publicity.
There is that and more there already so nothing new.
Most of the current lot
Kate Abdo
David Bobin
Millie Clode
John Davies
Ed Draper
Kirsty Gallacher
Vicky Gomersall
Pete Graves
David Garrido
Alex Hammond
Charlotte Jackson
Adam Leventhal
Hayley McQueen
Kate Riley
Natalie Sawyer
Jeff Stelling (Soccer Sat)
Clare Tomlinson
Julian Warren (& Soccer Special)
Haven't seen David Bobin for ages and ages.
Tony Wrighton still covers occasionally though.
There is that and more there already so nothing new.
Most of the current lot
Kate Abdo
David Bobin
Millie Clode
John Davies
Ed Draper
Kirsty Gallacher
Vicky Gomersall
Pete Graves
David Garrido
Alex Hammond
Charlotte Jackson
Adam Leventhal
Hayley McQueen
Kate Riley
Natalie Sawyer
Jeff Stelling (Soccer Sat)
Clare Tomlinson
Julian Warren (& Soccer Special)
Julian Waters
Olivia Wayne
Mike Wedderburn
Jim White
Tom White
Tony Wrighton
Anna Woolhouse
Rob Wotton
Rachel Wyse
I understand why they've made the 'HQ' channel the first to go to. It acts as a starter channel before you experience Sky Sports as a package. However the name is strange...Sky Sports HQ would have been better. As someone else said on another site, maybe the channel should have been on 400 instead?
Having a degree and worked in marketing I have to say I am someone confused about what Sky are trying to achieve here. Sky sports news is long established, well known and actually a decent production. The change of name to to add HQ to it is not necessary, won't be used and really serves no purpose even as a rebrand. Yes there will be more content, new studio etc and that is great as it's keeping the product fresh but adding the words HQ makes it sound like a building not a tv channel.
In regards the EPG I find this even more baffling. Consumers subscribe to sky sports to watch exactly that sports, primarily premier league football but also test cricket and a whole raft of other sports such as darts, super league etc make it such an appealing package. They don't pay 20 odd quid a month to watch sky sports news as it's just an extra to the package. The star of the show are the sports on offer not the news channel. Moving EPG position would only work and be viable if the others were rebranded sucked as sky sports 1 to sky sports football for example but this cannot happen as its shows a multitude of its headline sports, so therefore it can only really remain as a number. As these are consequential numbers it remains perfectly logical and common sense that they remain as they are with the channel prefix reflecting the channel brand, anything else is just plain crazy as it causes the channel to lose its identity and makes it more confusing and frustrating fir the viewer who it would appear have been overlooked. It's a bit like bbc 1 moving to channel 2 etc etc, a completely illogical thing to do. Whilst getting they want to promote sky sports news I think they are completely missing the point of what they are trying to achieve. With the rebrand and introduction of sky sports 5 it would have been the perfect time to move it to 406 not completely mess up and confuse the viewer with its bizzare allocation of channel numbers. I suspect within 12 months common sense will have prevailed and they will have corrected this.
I presume Sky own EPG number 400? If they do, why on earth they didn't put this "new" channel on there and keep Sky Sports 1-5 on 401-405, I don't know.
Ridiculous decision, and the fact someone actually got paid to come up with this is laughable.
That is not possible under Sky's EPG Listing Methodology, which is regulated by Ofcom.
An EPG agreement is terminated after the allocated service has been suspended for 30 days, any new allocation has to go at the end of the genre or sub genre.
So Sky can neither allocate it to themselves now nor claim that it was allocated to them originally and just left unused for 16 years.
It would be a clear abuse of their position as EPG operator to use channel 400. Sky Sports has no more right to it than British Eurosport, BT Sport, or any other service. All of whom I am sure would love to have first place in the sports section.
Some of the overreaction to the change is quite bizarre. It will take a few weeks and people will be used to it. There are very few channels which have managed to retain their original EPG positions, and I cannot think of any that suffered because people got confused by the number changing.
Besides, just how many people only use the channel numbers directly anyway? Instead going through the Sky Guide, or just going to x01 at the front of a section then using the up and down button.
Very few channels with numbered names are in EPG positions that end in the same number. If BT Sport customers can manage, Sky Sports ones will too.
That is not possible under Sky's EPG Listing Methodology, which is regulated by Ofcom.
An EPG agreement is terminated after the allocated service has been suspended for 30 days, any new allocation has to go at the end of the genre or sub genre.
So Sky can neither allocate it to themselves now nor claim that it was allocated to them originally and just left unused for 16 years.
It would be a clear abuse of their position as EPG operator to use channel 400. Sky Sports has no more right to it than British Eurosport, BT Sport, or any other service. All of whom I am sure would love to have first place in the sports section.
Some of the overreaction to the change is quite bizarre. It will take a few weeks and people will be used to it. There are very few channels which have managed to retain their original EPG positions, and I cannot think of any that suffered because people got confused by the number changing.
Besides, just how many people only use the channel numbers directly anyway? Instead going through the Sky Guide, or just going to x01 at the front of a section then using the up and down button.
Very few channels with numbered names are in EPG positions that end in the same number. If BT Sport customers can manage, Sky Sports ones will too.
Sky could decide to start the Sports Genre at 400 instead of 401 but couldn't allocate themselves an extra number - in other words they could move their channels from 401 - 409 to 400 - 408 but they couldn't use 409 themselves. British Eurosport would have first dibs.
As for the "overreaction" argument this is a little different in that you have 5 sequentially numbered channels moving voluntarily to EPG numbers whose last digit will no longer match the channel name/number. The fact that people may get used to it is neither here nor there when it comes to the logic or lack of it behind this particular change. At the moment if I want the cricket I know its on Sky Sports 2 so key in 402. I'll get used to keying in 403 but it does involve an additional avoidable thought process.
The point is that this change wasn't necessary and makes no logical sense to the consumer.
Do I assume you never gripe about anything? Just accept everything because after all "you'll get used to it". ;-)
If my suggestion in post 49 were to happen I would expect SSN to be renamed SS1 and SS1 to SS5 to become SS2 to SS6.
In a way, we've already seen the start of the process with the decision to take high profile events off SS1 - ie Sky have already shown they are happy for the big events to not be on 401.
So what's happening in August and what might happen later is just an extension of an ongoing process:
ie If Test cricket can be on 402 and US golf majors can be on 404 then no reason why PL football shouldn't be on 402, Test cricket on 403 and the Ryder Cup on 405.
Renaming SSN to SS1 would obviously also fit in with a move to the Sports Pack.
Finally if the above were to happen they could then enhance SSN (renamed SS1) by showing live action from other SS channels:
ie The full live event would be on SS2 to SS6 and SSN (renamed SS1) could "go live" at crucial moments.
I quite like that idea, especially SSN becoming SS1 (& being in the sports pack) means they can have 'live look-ins' into things that are being shown on the other SS channels.
Clearly they want SSN to be the first channel hit.
Moaning about the numbering is borderline moronic in my opinion.
They can achieve the goal of making SSN the first channel visited on 400 (providing they can use it) just as well as putting it on 401 & unnecessarily pushing the other channels down one.
Oh BTW, I'm sorry for having an in your words 'moronic' opinion. I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't mean it's moronic....
Comments
Nice one. Come up with an idea which is almost universally condemned and derided as making no logical sense, get people talking about it in an entirely negative way, and as a result declare it as "a complete success".
Try that in most fields and see what happens. Nothing like making the customer unhappy is there for achieving business success. Works every time.
Sky Sports relies on paying subscribers first and foremost and with SSN especially, viewing figures aren't anywhere near as important as with other channels. Secondly, I highly doubt a shift down to 401 will deter anybody from watching Soccer Saturday for example. If anything, it could work to add viewers.
5) Everybody complains to Sky, they change it back and declare in a major advert they listen to their customers and have restored the name and channel numbers.
The missing ingredient. Now you're talking ;-)
The recently announced price increases are an astronomical success.
Another complete success has been moving Sky Go on Xbox to require a Sky Go Extra subscription.
The loss of Champions League football is also being celebrated wildly in for the sports division at Sky.
I agree, alot of people may just want see headlines and nothing else, also if you are the old packs like me , you don't needs sports pack to view so being the first for sports channel is a good idea.
Especially Natalie
There is that and more there already so nothing new.
Most of the current lot
Kate Abdo
David Bobin
Millie Clode
John Davies
Ed Draper
Kirsty Gallacher
Vicky Gomersall
Pete Graves
David Garrido
Alex Hammond
Charlotte Jackson
Adam Leventhal
Hayley McQueen
Kate Riley
Natalie Sawyer
Jeff Stelling (Soccer Sat)
Clare Tomlinson
Julian Warren (& Soccer Special)
They could have gone for something like Britain's Sports HQ, but that obviously removes Sky branding.
Wonder what they going to do with Soccer Saturday, as their current studio will look too small compared to this.
New studio looks massive. They've just extended it back to where the desks were with the blue pillars, and knocked through the partition. It makes it look huge now. We'll done for that.
I still call it skysports.comTV sometimes to take the mick. I expect 'HQ' will be jibbed off as a similar embarrassment at some point.
Keep it as Sky Sports News - it's simple and works. Put it on 407, and have Sky Sports 1 -5 and Sky Sports F1 before it.
It's a shame, as all this nonsense has taken the limelight away from what looks like a nice new studio and shift in editorial focus.
They probably don't even realise or if they do as I said it's a publicity stunt as any publicity is good publicity.
Haven't seen David Bobin for ages and ages.
Tony Wrighton still covers occasionally though.
How long did that last - 3 months?
Olivia Wayne
Mike Wedderburn
Jim White
Tom White
Tony Wrighton
Anna Woolhouse
Rob Wotton
Rachel Wyse
In regards the EPG I find this even more baffling. Consumers subscribe to sky sports to watch exactly that sports, primarily premier league football but also test cricket and a whole raft of other sports such as darts, super league etc make it such an appealing package. They don't pay 20 odd quid a month to watch sky sports news as it's just an extra to the package. The star of the show are the sports on offer not the news channel. Moving EPG position would only work and be viable if the others were rebranded sucked as sky sports 1 to sky sports football for example but this cannot happen as its shows a multitude of its headline sports, so therefore it can only really remain as a number. As these are consequential numbers it remains perfectly logical and common sense that they remain as they are with the channel prefix reflecting the channel brand, anything else is just plain crazy as it causes the channel to lose its identity and makes it more confusing and frustrating fir the viewer who it would appear have been overlooked. It's a bit like bbc 1 moving to channel 2 etc etc, a completely illogical thing to do. Whilst getting they want to promote sky sports news I think they are completely missing the point of what they are trying to achieve. With the rebrand and introduction of sky sports 5 it would have been the perfect time to move it to 406 not completely mess up and confuse the viewer with its bizzare allocation of channel numbers. I suspect within 12 months common sense will have prevailed and they will have corrected this.
Ridiculous decision, and the fact someone actually got paid to come up with this is laughable.
That is not possible under Sky's EPG Listing Methodology, which is regulated by Ofcom.
An EPG agreement is terminated after the allocated service has been suspended for 30 days, any new allocation has to go at the end of the genre or sub genre.
So Sky can neither allocate it to themselves now nor claim that it was allocated to them originally and just left unused for 16 years.
It would be a clear abuse of their position as EPG operator to use channel 400. Sky Sports has no more right to it than British Eurosport, BT Sport, or any other service. All of whom I am sure would love to have first place in the sports section.
Some of the overreaction to the change is quite bizarre. It will take a few weeks and people will be used to it. There are very few channels which have managed to retain their original EPG positions, and I cannot think of any that suffered because people got confused by the number changing.
Besides, just how many people only use the channel numbers directly anyway? Instead going through the Sky Guide, or just going to x01 at the front of a section then using the up and down button.
Very few channels with numbered names are in EPG positions that end in the same number. If BT Sport customers can manage, Sky Sports ones will too.
Sky could decide to start the Sports Genre at 400 instead of 401 but couldn't allocate themselves an extra number - in other words they could move their channels from 401 - 409 to 400 - 408 but they couldn't use 409 themselves. British Eurosport would have first dibs.
As for the "overreaction" argument this is a little different in that you have 5 sequentially numbered channels moving voluntarily to EPG numbers whose last digit will no longer match the channel name/number. The fact that people may get used to it is neither here nor there when it comes to the logic or lack of it behind this particular change. At the moment if I want the cricket I know its on Sky Sports 2 so key in 402. I'll get used to keying in 403 but it does involve an additional avoidable thought process.
The point is that this change wasn't necessary and makes no logical sense to the consumer.
Do I assume you never gripe about anything? Just accept everything because after all "you'll get used to it". ;-)
They can achieve the goal of making SSN the first channel visited on 400 (providing they can use it) just as well as putting it on 401 & unnecessarily pushing the other channels down one.
Oh BTW, I'm sorry for having an in your words 'moronic' opinion. I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't mean it's moronic....