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

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by spankysmagicpian

Just read about MTV charging for their online OD rather than the free model with adverts that the majority of channels do.



Now that would be interesting. Maybe Sky are making hay while the sun shines as if this ever took off (and I am sure it will) their numbers will start to drop significantly. I think peoples main complaint is 'why can't I subscribe to the channels I watch?' well, not so far down the road, they probably will be able to.

I think VM are ultimately positioned to exploit this market should...sorry...when it arrives.

I would have thought Youview (if successfully launched) would be miles ahead of VM for this as it is going to be subscription free and therefore truly 'pay as you view'.

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Looks like Sky are in trouble over Sky Atlantic coverage on Sky News!

Sky News faces investigation over Sky Atlantic coverage. giving it too much airtime



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ofcom-atlantic

Don't Sky break this rule every day with their so called Sports News Channel that is just a 24 hour long advert for sports they show

[Bob]

Hmm...I get a feeling of deja vu.

Isn't this argument precisely the same as what happened a couple of years back when the Sky Basics were pulled from Virgin Media. Sky harped on about pouring loads of money into Sky One, Virgin wanted it on the cheap etc.

Fast forward over a year and Sky offered a better deal because the advertisers were kicking up a stink.

Obviously the difference this time is the advertisers can't complain because the channel has never been on Virgin and they haven't lost their audience.

But to quote that song "It's all just a little bit of history repeating!"

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.

[Stuart]

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.

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.

Their big problem - well, one of their problems - is the American super-size advert breaks in their programmes. It makes it very difficult to really stick with a show unless you badly want to. The hard core will sit through it but a lot of casual viewers won't. I certainly never watched anything on Sky One unless I really wanted to.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Chris

Their big problem - well, one of their problems - is the American super-size advert breaks in their programmes. It makes it very difficult to really stick with a show unless you badly want to. The hard core will sit through it but a lot of casual viewers won't. I certainly never watched anything on Sky One unless I really wanted to.

That's what PVRs like V+ and Sky+ are for. I hven't watched a show with adverts in it, live, for years.

For US shows, just start watching 20 minutes after the start for a 1 hour show; you'll end up finishing at the same time as the TV broadcas, minus add breaks!

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Chris

Their big problem - well, one of their problems - is the American super-size advert breaks in their programmes. It makes it very difficult to really stick with a show unless you badly want to. The hard core will sit through it but a lot of casual viewers won't. I certainly never watched anything on Sky One unless I really wanted to.

I don't think I've watched Sky1 since it came back to cable. The ad breaks are way too annoying.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

I don't think I've watched Sky1 since it came back to cable. The ad breaks are way too annoying.

Only for the Hogfather and going postal in HD for me since it came back. And that was recorded to miss ads.....

[howardmicks]

I am not a big sky fan,But sky are willing to invest in programs for there channels it is only natural they want to recover some of there cost not only from there own subscribers but from selling there channels to other tv providers.Vm decided to pull out of the channels and program market by selling there channels so what do they expect,If there not willing to invest in programs why should they expect to get them from sky for next to nothing.They should have thought about all this before they sold the channels especially to sky.

[BenMcr]

We don't know what figures are involved here so we can't realte 'next to nothing' to anything or other channel agreement

As I've said before I'd much rather Virgin get it for the right price rather than at any price

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

I am not a big sky fan,But sky are willing to invest in programs for there channels it is only natural they want to recover some of there cost not only from there own subscribers but from selling there channels to other tv providers.Vm decided to pull out of the channels and program market by selling there channels so what do they expect,If there not willing to invest in programs why should they expect to get them from sky for next to nothing.They should have thought about all this before they sold the channels especially to sky.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

I am not a big sky fan,But sky are willing to invest in programs for there channels it is only natural they want to recover some of there cost not only from there own subscribers but from selling there channels to other tv providers.Vm decided to pull out of the channels and program market by selling there channels so what do they expect,If there not willing to invest in programs why should they expect to get them from sky for next to nothing.They should have thought about all this before they sold the channels especially to sky.

Sky do have a right to make a profit from what they invest in. I'm just making the point that if they want / need a lot of viewers, it doesn't appear to be working.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by howardmicks

I am not a big sky fan,But sky are willing to invest in programs for there channels it is only natural they want to recover some of there cost not only from there own subscribers but from selling there channels to other tv providers.Vm decided to pull out of the channels and program market by selling there channels so what do they expect,If there not willing to invest in programs why should they expect to get them from sky for next to nothing.They should have thought about all this before they sold the channels especially to sky.

Problem with this statement is that it is free to all Sky Subscribers till September IIRC.

Then, I have read, it will go into the variety pack.

Therefore Sky are not positioning it as a premium channel like moveis etc but part of their standard channels.

It could almost be right to concider it a basic channel like Sky 1 etc.

Why then should Virgin help pick up the tab on a channel that Sky will not charge its own customers for at all if included in a current package.

I say wait till Sky come back begging for any crumbs Virgin are willing to pay for what appears from viewing figures to be a channel even their own customers arn't watching

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

I don't think I've watched Sky1 since it came back to cable. The ad breaks are way too annoying.

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...