Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35667292)

Sky Atlantic is the best advert for illegal downloads the UK has ever seen. I can't believe the number of my friends and acquaintances who have seen Game of Thrones, despite not having Sky or a large DVD collection.

I don't understand Sky's strategy here. The evidence surely shows that exclusive offerings like this simply don't pull in the punters. The movement of telly addicts to Sky back when their Basics package vanished from VM for a period of months was negligible; Sky was forced back to the negotiating table due to viewing figures that had been slashed and angry advertisers who pointed out that they weren't going to keep paying the same amount to reach only two thirds of the viewers.

It looks to me as if they are simply locked into a mindset now and don't know what else to do.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 ----------



This is not necessarily bad news for VM customers. The deal relates to exclusive carriage of HBO shows on Sky Atlantic, not exclusive access to Sky Atlantic by Sky subscribers only.

If Sky does see the light and realise it has nothing to gain from channel exclusivity, there is nothing in this deal with HBO that I can see that would prevent Sky making the channel available on cable before 2020.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35667311)

Sky came back to VM because Sky purchased the VM Channels and the return of Sky Basics was part of that deal, not that Sky came back to the table.

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667316)

I've just been shopping in ASDA. They wouldn't accept my Tesco Clubcard. They said Tesco say they can't accept it. How nasty can Tesco be? And I couldn't buy Sainsburys bacon there either! Vindictive, I call it...

Originally Posted by Gunslinger (Post 35667322)

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Originally Posted by Gunslinger (Post 35667322)

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Originally Posted by theone2k10 (Post 35667328)

Not coming soon but a bit of good news for WWE fans - Sky sports have agreed and signed a 5 year deal from 2015 with WWE, to show all 12 ppvs and raw, smackdown and main event.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35667333)

no real surprise there

Originally Posted by JustaBloke (Post 35667325)

Hands up. You're quite right, it's not a true analogy. However Weetabix (for example) will often provide a 50% extra free pack exclusively to ASDA or one of the others. ASDA (or McDonalds, or anyone) will also seek to sign exclusive deals with suppliers such as farmers wherever they can so as to exclude their competitors. It's the way of the world.

I sound like I'm a Sky fan. I'm not, I just have no reason to hate them. I want SA on VM as much as anyone. But I can understand why it's not, and it's nothing to do with nastiness and everything to do with sound business practice.

Originally Posted by Doug P (Post 35667365)

It has to be accepted that much that is on Sky Sports, and indeed BT would not be shown at all on terrestrial if the pay channels did not exist.....

Originally Posted by Doug P (Post 35667365)

It has to be accepted that much that is on Sky Sports, and indeed BT would not be shown at all on terrestrial if the pay channels did not exist.....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35667380)

What do you mean? I distinctly remember top league football being screened on terrestrial TV long before Mr Murdoch came along.

Originally Posted by Gunslinger (Post 35667347)

OK, it's pushing the supermarket analogy at bit further, but in the examples you quote, customers still have a free choice where they buy the product itself. If say Tesco not only obtained the exclusive rights to sell Weetabix but then said, by the way if you want buy it you also have to get your entire year's (or week's) shopping here too, there would quite rightly be an outcry.

The problem is not Sky per se, who just do what they can get away with, it's exclusivity coupled with the enforced bundling of channels, which take away the ability of customers to pick and mix what they want to see.