movies

[hodgie99]

hi i new to this just wondering if vm av thought of dumping sky of platform altogether and bring out there own movies channels or free up space for more hd channels

[Arthurgray50@blu]

The strange thing is that VM seem to forget there are customers out that would PREFER a choice of channels of Movies, which are there, but you only GET what VM want you to watch, and this is why customers go the SKY, if VM are to compete with SKY then they MUST show enough mixtures of channels of the same qaulity to get the custom, l run a small business, and l would love to run VM, and the first thing l would do is run a survey of the customers want, get rid of management, and bring in my own team who would put the customer first.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The strange thing is that VM seem to forget there are customers out that would PREFER a choice of channels of Movies, which are there, but you only GET what VM want you to watch, and this is why customers go the SKY, if VM are to compete with SKY then they MUST show enough mixtures of channels of the same qaulity to get the custom, l run a small business, and l would love to run VM, and the first thing l would do is run a survey of the customers want, get rid of management, and bring in my own team who would put the customer first.

Arthur, you seem to be under the misapprehension that VM is operated for their customers benefit. It is not. It is run almost entirely for the benefit of it's shareholders and executives. Customers and staff seem to be regarded as inconveniences that they would dearly like to get rid of.
I guess the present mania to outsource everything is the nearest they can get to that ideal.
Of course I could be absurdly wide of the mark but that is what it feels like to be a VM customer from here. I've not personally known many staff but those who I have come across have all been broadly unanimous as to the validity of this opinion.
I have no doubt that most businesses operate similarly but the difference between some of them and VM is that some at least try to foster the illusion that YOU, the individual customer are a valued member of their community.
To illustrate this, please let me bore you for a little longer.
Today VM collected my V Box. They turned up, unannounced, and unfortunately I was upstairs and quite unable to get to the front door in a reasonable time, due to disability, and consequently missed him. He left a postcard, I rang him, he called back and the matter was sorted amicably. He turned out to be a pleasant, friendly guy who was quite a pleasure to meet.
Now the post card
On the front it says:

TIME TO CATCH UP

I called round as arranged on xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxam/pm
to collect some of out equipment but you weren't in.
--------------------------------------------------
Here's what happens now:-
You will be charged £250 for each unreturned set top box.
If your outstanding balance is not paid we may take legal action against you.
We'd rather it didn't come to this. Our team can still help. If you get in touch in any of the 3 ways overleaf.


Is that intimidating or what? I am still a customer for BB, I do not have a single penny outstanding. Whoever VM's customer liaison bod is, he seems to have studied the Gestapo version of How To Win Friends & Influence People.

It seems to me that VM, while it embarrassingly sucks up to new trade, seeks unerringly to drive existing customers into the arms of it's opposition with it's callous display of arrogant indifference to them.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Mick Fisher, l thank you for your comment, l could not agree with you more, let me give you a very good example, When VM stripped the customers of Sky's basic package, there argument was, that Sky were charging too much money, yet, EVERY other company, has agreed the fee, and it is now on there network, Sky wanted £40 million (which later went down), later we heard that, a director had left VM with a mouth watering payout, then we hear that VM has poured £40. million budget into Virgin One, a channel that has no hope of beating Sky One, and yet the twist in the tale is that the channel WILL be shown on VM. all VM customers were told was that they were not prepared to give in to Skys prices, l spoke to VM to find out why l was not getting a certain channel, l was told that it was due to the fact that we were NOT in the area, to get the channel. l believe that VM is as you say run for the shareholders, and NOT the customer.

[dev]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Mick Fisher, l thank you for your comment, l could not agree with you more, let me give you a very good example, When VM stripped the customers of Sky's basic package, there argument was, that Sky were charging too much money, yet, EVERY other company, has agreed the fee, and it is now on there network, Sky wanted £40 million (which later went down), later we heard that, a director had left VM with a mouth watering payout, then we hear that VM has poured £40. million budget into Virgin One, a channel that has no hope of beating Sky One, and yet the twist in the tale is that the channel WILL be shown on VM. all VM customers were told was that they were not prepared to give in to Skys prices, l spoke to VM to find out why l was not getting a certain channel, l was told that it was due to the fact that we were NOT in the area, to get the channel. l believe that VM is as you say run for the shareholders, and NOT the customer.

the other companies were offered a price lower than what VM were offered. out of interest, what magical movie channels exist you want adding that VM don't have? only want what VM want you to watch? VM don't run movie channels!

[hodgie99]

why everyone going off the subject all i was asking is why vm dont get there own movie channels add ditch sky

[G UK]

why everyone going off the subject all i was asking is why vm dont get there own movie channels add ditch sky

Because as with any help forum (especially one for mainly a single company) there are those, many with good reason, that have issues with said company because of there own experiances. Myself have never had such troubles but can sympathise with them.

The reason Virgin dont create there own Movie channel is simply down to Money. It is standard business practice that you dont try to break into a market which is already full and is not that lucrative in that movie channels arn't doing to well lately. After investing £40m into V1 VM just dont have the money to throw away.

edit: Drunken ramblings require great concentration to spell correctly!!

[hodgie99]

£40million renaming ftn

[G UK]

Originally Posted by hodgie99

£40million renaming ftn

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/Broadc...intStoryID=146

Shamelessly stolen from TV Boy on the VM news thread

Bugger, now I've just thrown my keyboard across the room trying to catch a can of beer I knocked over.

[hodgie99]

if that 40 million went ion sky we would now have sky 1 sky 2 sky three sky news sky sports news and maybe just maybe sky hd instead we get one channel they'll say to but it only plus one so it one channel and no doubt these programes would of gone to sky or terrestrial ne way

[G UK]

Sky 1: Possibly worth money if you like the Simpsons and Star Trek (which V1 now has). I miss Simpsons but can live without it.
Sky 2: Pointless, Repeats repeated
Sky 3: Everybody gets anyway (Freeview)
Sky News: Plenty of News channels anyway. Just watch another.
Sky Sports News: Big loss to some people but every body can still recieve it (Freeview) and being replaced by Setanta Sports News. Possibly.

So all that has happened is that we have Virgin 1 full of repeats with a few new programmes instead of Sky 1 err.. full of repeats with a few new programmes.

Please note if you want SSN that badly just get freeview.

Therefore no loss.

Edit. Just to make clear I am still disappointed with the V1 schedule which looking at it could do with 1 or 2 more new programmes at Primetime on launch