More trouble on the Horrizon for BSkyB

[info4u]

Originally Posted by Chris Howell

The heat is on, on the street (and the Sky!)
Inside your head, on every beat
And the beat's so loud, deep inside
The pressure's high, just to stay alive
'Cause the heat is on (on Demand!)

Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
Caught up in the action - EVERYONE is gunning for you
Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
(Murdoch can you feel it)
(Murdoch can you feel it)
(Murdoch can you feel it)
The heat is on, the heat is on, the heat is on
the heat is on Oh it's on the street, the heat is - on.

Errr :-S Ooooo Kkkkk then

[starsailor123uk]

Originally Posted by brundles

How does 3.3 million VM subscribers equate to a 10% share of Sky + VM viewers when (according to Wikipedia) Sky only has just over 8 million subs?

It just goes to show that some groups use figures one way when they want and another when they dont

one week it is a massive audience % of VM subscribers watching lost, 24 etc and they will be leaving like leemmings over a cliff (no fact quotes here I know there not suicidial) and now as the leaving has been apparently small (wait to see) VM are now considered insignificant in terms of lost viewers when the lost viewer potentially affect revenue.

Probably some where in between. A lot of VM subscribers did watch Lost, 24 etc but when they were removed then they look for alternative ways of obtaining it (Torrent, mates videoing or DVDing) or just watched something else and waited to watch it later.

Serial Programmes appeals to On-Demand as I can watch them (if available) in bunches when I want. BBC3 and 4 have played on this for 2/3 years by showing next weeks episode early

[garybuk]

Thing is, I've tried NTL / VM Digital Cable and it sucks, the boxes are slow, the software is buggy, the remote is horrible, the boxes are no where near as advanced as the SKY boxes.

They need to speed up the boxes, get a faster easier to use EPG, put things in logical groupings

I subscribe to VM Cable (10m service) but I have 2 SKY+ boxes and have never had any problems, you get what you pay for imho. It does suck what SKY have done, btu they are a company and they are not going to give their services away for free.

SKY don't produce anything of note apart from their sports channels, it's all replayed american shows, why couldn't Virgin just creare a channel and get these shows?

[GuestUK]

Sky One may mostly depend on repeats and imports, but it remains to stand that they are one of the most watched non-terrestrial channels and offer a lot of programming which people like. Repeats are often considered to be a bad thing, but Sky One generally repeat series in such a fashion that by the time it repeats, you have forgotten most of it since it was originally on, or indeed, never seen the original showing, so the repeats are still popular. They also show a lot of new programming too, and they cater to a wide variety of tastes. I doubt anyone like everything they show, but for quite a lot of people, there is something on Sky One they like, thus making it a valuable channel.

If Virgin were to purchase rights to all the television shows Sky One show, first, it would be rather pointless, as both Virgin and Sky would be spending money on the same programs, thus that money going in twice. Good for the rights holders of the programs, but in the end, bad for customers, as double the overall money is going in to getting the same programs - what does this mean? Half as much money going in to new and different content overall.

Secondly, quite often exclusivity deals are done. Sky may get exclusive rights to some programs, Virgin to others. The result being that there is a developed fragmentation, where some programs are only available on Sky, and some only on Virgin. This will either force people to get both services, or live without certain programs, and a fragmentation of the digital market I fear may be a bad thing.

Third is the matter of cost. If Virgin are having to compete with Sky, there is going to be a lot of cost involved, especially for the very popular and new programs and especially if competing for exclusivity rights. The result is that either Virgin will make significant losses and without passing it on to their customers, the results will be more job losses, less new developers, worse service and less focus on other aspects, such as a customer service. Alternatively, they may pass the cost on to customers, making the service even more expensive, and what used to be available cheaply and freely on Sky One becoming an expensive pay per view on on demand, or increased monthly costs - again, the customers lose out. Third, they may not be able to afford the price, and thus more programmes are lost to Sky, and again, customers suffer.

I think ultimately if the situation is not resolved, this can only be a bad thing.

[grabbi]

Things get worse and worse here doesn't it?

Murdoch is really in trouble... doesn't know how to run all his companies, never mind just BSkyB.

I recall a few years ago... 2000 I think it was, David Duchovny was given a payout because Fox conned him, and an ongoing case between Fox and Chris Carter is still an issue for him, and he will be in court again with Sir Rich and Virgin Media...

I'm glad the advertisers want their money back... I bloody would.

Sky are doomed.

And when Setanta sign with Virgin to offer a reduction on Premiership football, along with a few Virgin Channels (possibly reaching out to the Freeview public with free TV for Phone customers) Sky and Freeview will feel a dent.

I'm sticking with Virgin, especially for the next 9 months as things are getting exciting...

[andygrif]

I assume your post is just your opinion...it's just that you seem to be presenting it as fact, which given the lack of suporting info might be a little difficult to comprehend.

[arcamalpha2004]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

I've always thought that the loss of revenue from VM for Sky would be small in comparison to the loss of potential advertising revenue. The Mail On Sunday Financial page says today as well

I read that too.
Add to it, " Dumping sky one has been unpopular with virgin viewers. It takes about 20 minutes to get through to a virgin helpline, but customers have been offered big price cuts for not walking away from their contracts "

So while sky may be taking a hit on advertising revenue VM shareholders will not be over excited either over the situation.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Originally Posted by grabbi

Things get worse and worse here doesn't it?

Murdoch is really in trouble... doesn't know how to run all his companies, never mind just BSkyB.

I recall a few years ago... 2000 I think it was, David Duchovny was given a payout because Fox conned him, and an ongoing case between Fox and Chris Carter is still an issue for him, and he will be in court again with Sir Rich and Virgin Media...

I'm glad the advertisers want their money back... I bloody would.

Sky are doomed.

And when Setanta sign with Virgin to offer a reduction on Premiership football, along with a few Virgin Channels (possibly reaching out to the Freeview public with free TV for Phone customers) Sky and Freeview will feel a dent.

I'm sticking with Virgin, especially for the next 9 months as things are getting exciting...

I would not say that sky are doomed, it may be the wish of some, but with deeper pockets than branson I do not think the word " doomed " should be overplayed.

[Chris]

Despite the fact this was posted yesterday afternoon, and no-one has noticed so far - it isn't really a cable tv discussion. It's about Sky as a business.

Thread moved.

[Druchii]

It's also spelt wrong

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I read that too.
Add to it, " Dumping sky one has been unpopular with virgin viewers. It takes about 20 minutes to get through to a virgin helpline, but customers have been offered big price cuts for not walking away from their contracts "

So while sky may be taking a hit on advertising revenue VM shareholders will not be over excited either over the situation.

I'm kind of in agreement with what you're saying, but I don't know what else VM are supposed to do. They're banking on those calling, threatening to cancel being passified with their discounts for a few months and will be so used to not having Sky channels by the end by the time their monthly bills jump back up in price they won't do anything about it.

It's not a huge risk...but it may still backfire, especially if there is a standard number of months these discounts will last for and Sky really keeps some major shows up their sleeves until those discounts expire.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I would not say that sky are doomed, it may be the wish of some, but with deeper pockets than branson I do not think the word " doomed " should be overplayed.

You're right of course. Sky are not 'doomed' any more than Virgin are. All things can be ridden out if you have better plans on the horizon, understanding shareholders (notably a family relation with an Australian accent) and very deep pockets to both pay for a massive increase in advertising your product and counter any losses.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by info4u

Its not about who watches the Sky channels its about the fact they are available to them, (This is the basic ones Sky News, Sky 1, Sky Sports News) which form part of the FREE TV package VM offers therefore available to all VM customers

Agreed. Advertisers probably do know how many VM customers watch Sky, but they'll also be interested in sky getting the ones who don't watch Sky to watch Sky. Sky leaving cables means that potentially, the advertisers lose access to 3.3 million people.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by andygrif

It's not a huge risk...but it may still backfire, especially if there is a standard number of months these discounts will last for and Sky really keeps some major shows up their sleeves until those discounts expire.

The days when TV stations could choose when to start screening the high-profile US TV shows they have bought are largely gone, thanks to file-sharing in its various forms. Sky's top US imports invariably screen here within a matter of weeks of their premieres, and in some cases they actually premiere over here (the second 13-episode installment of each series of Stargate, for example, and last year's run of BSG).

Sky might love to do as you suggest but it would be more likely to backfire on them than on VM.

[grabbi]

CSI, probably the most successful import from the US, starts about 14 episodes into the series... unless that's because its terrestrial tv...

But all the same, they are first run rights too!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by grabbi

CSI, probably the most successful import from the US, starts about 14 episodes into the series... unless that's because its terrestrial tv...

But all the same, they are first run rights too!

Starts where? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying...

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The days when TV stations could choose when to start screening the high-profile US TV shows they have bought are largely gone, thanks to file-sharing in its various forms.

That's only a problem if there's a lead time of when the show is screened in the US vs the UK. Also, it's only a problem if the majority of people use such methods of getting their TV...and the simple reality is that most people don't.

In fact most people don't have a telly hooked up to their computer...of course this will change more and more over time...but we're a hell of a long way away from that point yet.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Sky might love to do as you suggest but it would be more likely to backfire on them than on VM.

I don't understand how it would backfire on Sky; they're going to screen this stuff anyway, so by waiting until everyone's bills dramatically increase would be the time to do it - if it had only a marginal effect on subs, it would be beneficial rather than backfiring.

Anyways, I'm not saying it would happen - but it would be a pretty big priority for me to do if I were in change.

Similarly if I were doing the same thing at Virgin, then as soon as the discounts were expiring, I'd be doing something pretty amazing with some other aspect of my service (which might be where the 20mb connections come into it).