More trouble on the Horrizon for BSkyB

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by andygrif

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.

I agree - a lot of people posting on CF may know which P2P software to use to download TV shows, and like Andy says, can hook-up their PC to their TV (or have a DivX-compatible DVD player) so they can watch the downloaded episodes. However, if you ask less technically-minded people where to download American TV shows from, and just as importantly, how it's done... you'll see that most people may know it's possible but don't know how to do it themselves.

Even some of the techie people I work with wouldn't know the difference between a torrent and a newzbin file, as they're simply not interested in pirating TV shows. Whilst it does happen, I think it's wrong to assume that it's common knowledge on how it is achieved.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by andygrif

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.

I disagree - Sky has just lost a chunk of its viewers thanks to the channels being pulled from VM. Even though that chunk is a significant minority of the broadcaster's overall reach, it has got the advertisers in a flap, and they are already looking for rebates. P2P has a massive reputation, possibly bigger than it deserves, but the moment there is any evidence at all that people are starting to rely on that in lieu of Sky, then there will be a negative impact on Sky. The actual size of the problem is secondary to the perception of it, as the record industry repeatedly demonstrates. And as Sky has itself shown, it is not uncommon for a company to attempt to negotiate on perception rather than on hard audience share - that is, after all, why they were trying to skin VM for a huge increase in carriage charges on the basis of 'increased investment' while VM was pointing out that Sky's audience share is actually falling.

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.

The longer Sky waits to resolve this and get back onto the cable platform, the more likely it is that some clever hack on one of the national papers, or BBC online, is going to start trying to do an article about people turning to 'alternative' means to get access to top quality shows that, ridiculously, are only available to about one fifth of the households in the UK.

At the moment, the advantages are all with VM. There will only ever be a certain amount of churn and they have a platform which is ripe for technological innovation that they can use, with a little savvy, to keep a positive profile of themselves in the media for as long as they need to. Sky, on the other hand, is going nowhere, except in ratings terms where at the moment it's going backwards.

[andygrif]

I would have thought that if people cared that much about the TV shows they're missing now, then they would go and get Sky installed rather than finding fiddly ways around it.

I guess time will tell - perhaps someone will do some research into the number of those shows being shared over the net now, compared to before March 07.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

Channel 5, presumably.

[arcamalpha2004]

Originally Posted by andygrif

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.



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.

I dont expect anything else from VM, but as you say, it depends how long the discounts last, richard branson is not going to be happy being associated with a company giving cheap packages away forever, especially when the VM rebranding was meant to be the nail in the coffin of all things " NTL "
The investigation is going to be interesting is as far as VM with its closed network is concerned.
VM are squarking about " choice for the customer " but they really need to be prepared for when sky ask the regulator to look at VM'S closed network.