Guardian: "Sky Atlantic won't be on Virgin Media soon, says BSkyB boss" - Page 10

mertle · 10-02-2011, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Last time round, Sky wanted Virgin to pay a price that reflected Sky's investment in programming on Sky One (in essence they wanted Virgin to help them pay the king's ransom it cost to steal Lost off C4). This flew in the face of the conventional means by which these things are normally agreed (you pay for a channel based on its popularity, not based on what its owner has lavished on it).

Sky might just have got away with this tactic had they not only recently used the popularity argument to negotiate a vastly reduced rate for carriage of the channels VM owned at the time. VM was rightly able to point out that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Nevertheless, Sky threw its toys out the pram and spent a few weeks being faced with the reality of ratings sliced by a third and advertisers making dangerous noises about wanting lower rates for slots on Sky One before eventually cutting a deal that essentially valued Sky Basics and VM's channels on the same basis. All of which is now a bit academic as VM has sold the lot to Sky anyway.

As you say, Sky won't be as worried about advertising rates this time round because the channel has never been on VM, so nobody is going to complain that viewing figures are lower than they thought they would be. On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised if once again Sky's valuation of the channel in negotiations with VM has more to do with what Sky has spent on it rather than what it's actually worth in ratings terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

This reminds me of something that has always surprised me. Sky one is theoretically accessible to about half the households in the UK (approx 21m homes, 8m Sky subscribers and 3m VM subscribers). Yet when the big shows (particularly Lost and 24) transferred to Sky, they got viewing figures that were anywhere from 1/6th to 1/3rd of what they were when they were on terrestrial TV. Frankly, if I were in Sky's position, I'd be reviewing my strategy, not just adding another channel for people to not watch American shows on.

Both make a very good point why sky move last time failed although I am not sure Chris about advertiser wont be angry. They lost a good channel which by all accounts had infinate more reach ie all platforms and had circa 2m viewers for it to be replaced by this.

I cant see advertisers being happy with SKY motives and actions to deny SKY Atlantic to all platforms in SD. Sky to me have also completely missed judged its own viewers think it would be corporate suicide to put it in theyre pay system.

Stuart thats actually a good point I think its more down to diversity of the amount sky channels available. VM, Freeview, BT got less diversity so that might be reason for figure clusters.

Its like the issue about revamping channels or ditching them because numbers are low. As long you making a profit and not a loss then its not needed, your catering for a niche market. There is millions of viewers we all not going to want to watch the same thing. We all have different tastes it annoys the hell out me when owners of channels get paraniod why millions dont watch and revamp them or close them.

Was it right for sky ditch those channels no if they was not making a loss. I wish regulators would actually control this practise too. I would say the same with atlantic but its likely making the huge losses.

About time customers/viewers was protected from STEALING shows too. If you lost out of getting a blockbuster then there should have to bite the bullet and miss out.

Its annoying like hell that bigger companies can steal shows which are free to air to put them in ppv system because they become cult viewing.

ONCE in free to air always free to air should be so regulators Protect Customers/viewers rights.

Digital Fanatic · 10-02-2011, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat

You have heard of PVRs? They have fast forward buttons for skipping adds!

That TIVO thingie you've got should do the job

Sorry DF; I tried to resist...

I'd have to find a programme that was worth TiVo'ing on Sky1 first!

I used to like the channel around 1999 to about 2004 after that it went down-hill.

anyway, back on topic

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mertle

Its annoying like hell that bigger companies can steal shows which are free to air to put them in ppv system because they become cult viewing.

ONCE in free to air always free to air should be so regulators Protect Customers/viewers rights.

programme grabbing has been Sky's trademark move for a while now. Let the DTT free channels get them hooked and then grab them.

howardmicks · 10-02-2011, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Virgin Media are only a platform now. They have invested heavily in VOD content and in their network over the last few years.

Sky bought some programming for an over inflated price and they want VM to pick up the tab.

Sky are like the dodgy car salesman here.

Agree

**Maggy** · 10-02-2011, 12:58

At the end of the day they are only television channels and programmes and are completely transitory.

How many of the endlessly repeated shows now being being presented on a variety of channels were once the must see shows of their time and are now what we all endlessly flick through on our way to find something newer?

Which makes me wonder why so many are getting their panties in a twist over not having access to shows that will eventually air on a channel that they can view anyway? Why pay the extra cost to actually see something before anyone else?

LexDiamond · 10-02-2011, 13:02

There seems to have been a huge increase recently on this forum regarding regulators and how they should regulate more and more.

pauldavies83 · 10-02-2011, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Why pay the extra cost to actually see something before anyone else?

Why pay the extra cost to get TiVo before anyone else?

It's human nature. New and shiny, people will want it

**Maggy** · 10-02-2011, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

Why pay the extra cost to get TiVo before anyone else?

It's human nature. New and shiny, people will want it

And yet people also endlessly moan about how much DTV costs.

passingbat · 10-02-2011, 15:12

As a joint Sky/HBO production, I wonder what channel this previous Sky one pogramme will end up on? Pretty much guarantied for Atlantic I think.

Sky1 'Strike Back' lands second series

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...nd-series.html

Ignitionnet · 10-02-2011, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Virgin Media are only a platform now. They have invested heavily in VOD content and in their network over the last few years.

Sky bought some programming for an over inflated price and they want VM to pick up the tab.

Sky are like the dodgy car salesman here.

No-one's forcing VM to take Sky's content, they could always go elsewhere or source their own if they feel Sky are ripping them off and they could get it for lower direct from source

---------- Post added at 15:16 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

There seems to have been a huge increase recently on this forum regarding regulators and how they should regulate more and more.

Unless it's about regulating Virgin Media in which case it's bad, bad, bad. As expected given most of this forum's population are VM retail customers!

Digital Fanatic · 10-02-2011, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

No-one's forcing VM to take Sky's content, they could always go elsewhere or source their own if they feel Sky are ripping them off and they could get it for lower direct from source

Yeah, I think this is where VoD comes in to play

Gunslinger · 10-02-2011, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Nevertheless, Sky threw its toys out the pram and spent a few weeks being faced with the reality of ratings sliced by a third and advertisers making dangerous noises about wanting lower rates for slots on Sky One before eventually cutting a deal that essentially valued Sky Basics and VM's channels on the same basis.

It was more than a 'few weeks', well over a year wasn't it before the deal was cut?

What's the betting how long it might take this time round, given the lack of advertiser pressure, and (if News International get their way) lack of external shareholder pressure on BSkyB to behave rationally?

**Chris** · 10-02-2011, 15:58

To be quite honest, I can't remember now ...

This time round it will appear on VM just as soon as Sky believes there is no longer any commercial advantage in it being an exclusive. A couple of years, perhaps.

Ignitionnet · 10-02-2011, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

It was more than a 'few weeks', well over a year wasn't it before the deal was cut?

What's the betting how long it might take this time round, given the lack of advertiser pressure, and (if News International get their way) lack of external shareholder pressure on BSkyB to behave rationally?

Virgin will get it when Sky feel they are ready to sell it and not before. It's Sky's ball and they can take it home if they want to.

Nothing irrational about it, while Sky feel they can get more retail customers by keeping it to themselves that's what they'll do.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

To be quite honest, I can't remember now ...

This time round it will appear on VM just as soon as Sky believes there is no longer any commercial advantage in it being an exclusive. A couple of years, perhaps.

What Chris said.

Gunslinger · 10-02-2011, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

This time round it will appear on VM just as soon as Sky believes there is no longer any commercial advantage in it being an exclusive. A couple of years, perhaps.

I think 1-2 years is about right, people should not expect to see Sky Atlantic on VM any time soon, as this time around there do not seem to be the same immediate business pressures on Sky (or VM) to make it happen.

However on past form, decisions are made for strategic as well as immediate business reasons. In years past, Sky have seen off both BSB and ITV Digital, and may have been trying it on with VM in 2007. Hence the costly (and 'irrational') purchase of the ITV stake as well as the Sky Basics episode.

In the medium term, Sky probably now 'needs' a viable and visible competitor if it is to avoid regulatory intervention. Also Sky and VM have a number of common interests, particularly in fostering and strengthening the Pay-TV model before YouView comes on the scene in 2012. So who knows.

LexDiamond · 10-02-2011, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Unless it's about regulating Virgin Media in which case it's bad, bad, bad. As expected given most of this forum's population are VM retail customers!

That's true. Mass regulating pay tv would lead to VM suffering regulation too . E.g. the competition on a platform only basis argument fails quite simply because VM have a superior platform. Unless off course platforms themselves are regulated to make them homogeneous. In which case VM lose out because Sky's marketing budget would blow VM out of the water on a like for like platform basis. But then we have regulators dictating what a company can and cannot do. It ends up being the DTV version of a communist lada car.

And this is before the very hilarious fact that in the context of this regulation argument, VM gave Sky even more power by selling them its channels. Yet VM don't mind so I doubt any regulator ever would.