Originally Posted by derek500:
“With the EPG swap, Sky News HD is on the default 501 channel in 3.5m homes. No need to go searching for it any more. As Sky Sports News proved, the vast majority of viewers watched it on Sky and not on Freeview. I expect similar for Sky News.”
Not entirely sure about that statement myself. Whilst I will admit the drop off hasn't been as big as I or others had expected, Sky Sports News has still lost 22% of its viewers, or just over 1 in 5 if you prefer, since the Freeview feed was switched off.
(source: reach figures Feb 2011/Feb 2010, BARB.co.uk)
I would also argue that Sky have taken steps to try and artificially inflate its figures. For example, no longer simulcasting the weekend Soccer Specials (which are the big audience draw on SSN) on Sky Sports 1 & 2, bringing in viewers that otherwise might not have watched.
I would assume Sky News would be more greatly affected if it was removed from Freeview as the news channel doesn't have Sky's premium sports subscriber base to support it. But for a moment let's go along with your theory and assume Sky News has a similar percentage of viewers coming from DTT.
An average Sky News bulletin has a total audience of around 80,000 viewers. If 22% are watching on Freeview, that leaves you with about 62,000. Let's assume only 18,000 of those are cable viewers as Sky have roughly two and a half times the number of subscribers. That leaves you with 44,000. Only about a third of Sky's customers have HD so if we strip out the two thirds that can't that leaves us with around 15,000, but this includes viewers that are watching in SD when they could be in HD. Even with the changes made there are probably still a couple of thousand or so that are doing this. And to be honest, I think the number watching on Freeview is higher, so the actual figure is probably closer to 10k.
Basically we are left with a tiny number. If you strip out those that would be watching anyway regardless of the HD channel's existance, then you are left with a number not much above 0. And I'm not convinced anyone would feel compelled to subscribe to Sky TV just to watch Sky News in HD, nobody is that sad. mlt11 will argue that incremental improvements are driving subscribers, but I don't honestly think Sky News HD would factor into anyone's decision to make that leap.
As I said, Sky News HD was a huge waste of money that cost a load more jobs in a recession. There are no positives that can be drawn from it unless you genuinely feel your viewing experience is enhanced being able to watch Burley pontificating and pouting to the camera in high-def. If you do, I worry about you I really do!