Where the real battle-line is drawn (content versus delivery system)

[SydneyHopper]

The ironic thing is that the delivery systems are going to
outstrip the quality of the content and then where
will we be? Self created content?

The battle is not among the programs, but amongst the hardware
and the software. Youtube shows that. People will watch any dirge
as long as it is delivered uniquely and imaginatively. Which is why
Virgin media is concentrating on VOD and archival content and not
wasting its money going after single entities that are about to expire

This shows a ideological schism between the two business models.

Sky thinks content is king: water cooler shows, cult shows and
the latest greatest American shows. All paid, top dollar.

Virgin media is all about hardware, software. Delivery systems.
Bundled programming. The Youtube approach. Sexy delivery

Which ideology will win out?

[Cablefan]

Content is king. I think linear channels are very important to the average customer. Sky built its business on content not delivery systems (although I think that the delivery system plays a big role in regard to churn)

I think Virgin really need to look at branding their channels, particuarly Living and Bravo, with the company identity.

I also think that creating a "best of" channel - taking the best bits (on a first run basis) from the flextech channels, would give cable a USP content wise.

Premium content wise - would it not be possible to look at branding Film:Flex as Virgin Movies (or something similar) ?

[Chicken]

Originally Posted by Cablefan

Premium content wise - would it not be possible to look at branding Film:Flex as Virgin Movies (or something similar) ?

Virgin Movies Sounds like my kind a' channel

[SydneyHopper]

Originally Posted by Cablefan

Content is king. I think linear channels are very important to the average customer. Sky built its business on content not delivery systems (although I think that the delivery system plays a big role in regard to churn)

I think Virgin really need to look at branding their channels, particuarly Living and Bravo, with the company identity.

I also think that creating a "best of" channel - taking the best bits (on a first run basis) from the flextech channels, would give cable a USP content wise.

Premium content wise - would it not be possible to look at branding Film:Flex as Virgin Movies (or something similar) ?

I think Freeserve is the place for traditional linear viewing, as
it doesn't ask too much of the consumer, and it soothes them
with talks of aerials and the golden five of bbc through to channel
4. The rest of us, who like danger, ventured into the looking glass.

I think Sky needed to put content as king, but I'm not sure
that principle applies anymore. Or, Sky may have to retain
that antiquated model, which will allow Virgin Media to
innovate and to play around with the delivery systems and
make some sort of revenue stream from non linear broadcasts

I don't think Virgin will go after sports, or individual programs

A business model already exists that allows Virgin to show
the products of other people's industry and the slow trickle
of films that arrive in On demand will continue. So, where
are the changes taking place? the delivery systems.

Virgin is creating relationships with companies that
will bring new old content. But they will be delivered in
an innovative fashion. The YouTube factor. But the content
gathering of old NTL will not change, it will be in direct
proportion to the budgetary concerns of each previous
incarnation. It'll just be sexed up.

I'm convinced that Virgin will focus entirely on innovative delivery
systems and not burn the pounds going after the new and sparkly

It will rely on the industry of others, spotting the unique
potential within Virgin Media's unique broadcast facilities

I don't thing there will be re-branding of Living, or Filmflex, as
it brings their content into sharp focus as comparable paradigm
to Sky. No, they do not want to show how closely associated they
are with Sky's business model, but how new and invigorating they are

[downquark1]

Content is king.

3 letters. AOL

[Cablefan]

Originally Posted by SydneyHopper

I think Freeserve is the place for traditional linear viewing, as
it doesn't ask too much of the consumer, and it soothes them
with talks of aerials and the golden five of bbc through to channel
4. The rest of us, who like danger, ventured into the looking glass.

I think Sky needed to put content as king, but I'm not sure
that principle applies anymore. Or, Sky may have to retain
that antiquated model, which will allow Virgin Media to
innovate and to play around with the delivery systems and
make some sort of revenue stream from non linear broadcasts

I don't think Virgin will go after sports, or individual programs

A business model already exists that allows Virgin to show
the products of other people's industry and the slow trickle
of films that arrive in On demand will continue. So, where
are the changes taking place? the delivery systems.

Virgin is creating relationships with companies that
will bring new old content. But they will be delivered in
an innovative fashion. The YouTube factor. But the content
gathering of old NTL will not change, it will be in direct
proportion to the budgetary concerns of each previous
incarnation. It'll just be sexed up.

I'm convinced that Virgin will focus entirely on innovative delivery
systems and not burn the pounds going after the new and sparkly

It will rely on the industry of others, spotting the unique
potential within Virgin Media's unique broadcast facilities

I don't thing there will be re-branding of Living, or Filmflex, as
it brings their content into sharp focus as comparable paradigm
to Sky. No, they do not want to show how closely associated they
are with Sky's business model, but how new and invigorating they are

Luckily for Virgin Media, I think they recognise the importance of content, hence the bid for ITV. You could have the greatest delivery system in the world but if you're not actually delivering what the consumer wants then why would someone subscribe? Content is king.

I think Sky needed to put content as king, but I'm not sure
that principle applies anymore.

I think that principle applies more now then it ever has, hence Sky's shift from buying paytv rights to exclusive rights (Lost, 24 etc.)

[ClearBlueSky]

At the moment, Sky has the content. Virgin has.... Bravo :-)

One would have thought that Virgin would have been a little less aggressive and put more money into content development but they decided to rely on PR and glossy brochures.

Sky may fool some of the people all of the time, but when users start to realise that Virgin are charging them £305 per year more than Sky, even though Sky provide better TV, faster broadband and more calls - they'll leave in droves.

[bubs999]

You can have the snaziest delivery method in the world, but if you've only got crap to show on it, you won't keep the customers.

I subscribe to XL Tv and this evening, I flicked through the channels for a good thirty minutes trying to find something decent to watch and I struggled. I didn't even look at the On Demand stuff, as its all repeats of shows I have seen. I want to be entertained with new Dramas, Thrillers and a bit of Comedy and Sci Fi that I haven't seen before.

If Virgin were to spend the same on Content as they did on that silly advert with Uma, then we may get somewhere. I know there are threads about HBO and Warner Bros Tv coming to on demand, but unless its new shows that they aren't going to charge for, then it won't wash (I couldn't care less for HD content yet)

Just my 2p worth

[harmonyinfo]

Originally Posted by ClearBlueSky

At the moment, Sky has the content. Virgin has.... Bravo :-)

One would have thought that Virgin would have been a little less aggressive and put more money into content development but they decided to rely on PR and glossy brochures.

Sky may fool some of the people all of the time, but when users start to realise that Virgin are charging them £305 per year more than Sky, even though Sky provide better TV, faster broadband and more calls - they'll leave in droves.

Why are there so many Sky supporters saying how bad Virgin Media is at the moment? I thought this site was for Virgin Media customers to moan on?

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by ClearBlueSky

At the moment, Sky has the content. Virgin has.... Bravo :-)

One would have thought that Virgin would have been a little less aggressive and put more money into content development but they decided to rely on PR and glossy brochures.

Sky may fool some of the people all of the time, but when users start to realise that Virgin are charging them £305 per year more than Sky, even though Sky provide better TV, faster broadband and more calls - they'll leave in droves.

I'm sorry but i hate to KEEP picking up on your inaccuracies, but they don't provide faster broadband everywhere, they don't provide better TV as that is only your opinion and how can you place more calls on an unlimited package?

Oh... and what is droves? How many is droves?

[Chris Howell]

Originally Posted by harmonyinfo

Why are there so many Sky supporters saying how bad Virgin Media is at the moment? I thought this site was for Virgin Media customers to moan on?

Because they're scared that Sky finally have some serious competition, and coming here to educate us how 'superior' Sky is reassures them.

[SydneyHopper]

Originally Posted by Cablefan

Luckily for Virgin Media, I think they recognise the importance of content, hence the bid for ITV. You could have the greatest delivery system in the world but if you're not actually delivering what the consumer wants then why would someone subscribe? Content is king.

Oh, I know the ideologies are not diametrically opposed as
Virgin still seeks content, just not on a per series rota. Virgin
are buying groups of programs that can show the technological
superiority of their delivery system. An area where Sky can't
compete. Indeed, Sky is looking more ramshackle and
antiquated by the day.

Originally Posted by Cablefan

I think that principle applies more now then it ever has, hence Sky's shift from buying paytv rights to exclusive rights (Lost, 24 etc.)

I think modern day exclusivity deals have an expiry date

Sky have only one option and that is to blast Virgin out of the
water with debt charges, but that can't compete with Youtube
type sexiness, or innovative delivery systems. And even having
plastic carbuncles on the side of houses, seems a little old now.

[dtweek]

talking of delivery systems. One area in which Sky wins hands down is their set top boxes. I've got an old PACE Box, which I loath only marginally less than Newscorp and the bullies at SKY.

I think Virgin buying out NTL will probably be one of the best things that's ever happened to digital TV, as this will break up some of Newscorps monopoly.

Now when are Virgin going to pull their fingers out and bite the financial bullet that would be to tell all users with a PACE box that they can get a replacement or a half price service for using such an antiquated box.

In terms of content delivery I would say VOD is going to win hands down. Programs like 24 and Lost lose so much of the tension when they get broken up by commericals for domestic cleaning products. I've not enjoyed 24 half as much since it went to SKY. It also takes and hour to watch rather that 45 mins. With VOD I get 15 minutes more of my life to play with and no adverts, I think 99% of people would be happy with that. I'll gladly wait until Virgin has it once losing Sky1.

so come on Virgin, give us some new boxes to play with. I realise it won't happen overnight, but a signal of intent would go a long way.

[12noon]

I don't think my box is that bad, but i wouldn't mind paying a small one off fee for a top of the range one.

[jcw00]

Originally Posted by ClearBlueSky

but when users start to realise that Virgin are charging them £305 per year more than Sky, even though Sky provide better TV, faster broadband and more calls - they'll leave in droves.

How did you come to the £305 per year?