52,000
 

That's how many customers are watching Sky Sports/Movies in HD on Cable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...00mb-broadband

Given all the fuss, foot-stomping and declarations from people who said they would leave VM thanks to the £7 per box Sky Premium Charge, 52,000 isn't too shabby, no?

Re: 52,000
 

52,000 of 725,000, or 7% of the Sky Premiums customers on cable. Or 52,000 of the 3.7m cable TV customers total - just 1.4% of the overall customer base.

Hardly inspiring numbers are they?

In comparison, of the nearly 10m customers Sky have, 3m pay the £10p/m SkyHD premium - 30%

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-m...ers-800160027/
http://www.indiantelevision.com/head...oct/oct180.php

Re: 52,000
 

I have to agree they are not that good, and a lot will be getting it via VIP50.

Re: 52,000
 

Compared to the forecasts of doom on here back in August, they are.

And how long have Sky Sports HD and Sky Movies HD been on Sky? Years? Virgin have had them for months.

Hell, were still missing the likes of SSN HD and certain movie channels, so I don't think a comparison to Sky is totally fair.

Re: 52,000
 

I think those figures are a pretty healthy starting point, the 50mb broadband started quite slow and only had 74,000 subscribers but jumped over 20% in the last quarter alone to over 90,000. The numbers can change very quickly.

And of course Sky HD has been around since 2006 and the figures you quote (I think) are for total Sky HD subscribers who all have to pay the £10 even for basics, plenty of VM customers like me are happy with the HD choice which is included in XL.

Re: 52,000
 

Id say the forcasts of doom were accurate based on those numbers.

Either the demand isn't there, or the subscriber base isn't prepared to pay. How else do you describe the numbers?


And Sky have been pushing the service to the entire population (anyone who sees their advertising - cable customers included) for that time. People know what the service is, and those who were chomping at the bit after being starved of the service for the years it was Sky only have spoken - all 52,000 of them.

It's a decent enough comparison. It can be used to show people aren't as willing to pay a premium as Sky think they are, given the choice (which they aren't on satellite - its pay the premium or get no HD)

Re: 52,000
 

Maybe it will be better to make a comparison after a decent period of time, Sky HD has had over 4 years to develop and I am sure those figures you quote are for total Sky HD customers who all have to pay for HD, except for a handful of free channels.

Re: 52,000
 

Yes they are - I was typing a reply as you typed yours by the looks of it :)

HD was a brand new product to the UK market when it first launched on Sky - Virgin have years of momentum provided by Sky to use to sell it to their base, and it hasn't really exploded.

I don't blame Virgin for this, it's down to customer demand. I've always argued I don't see why you should pay extra for the same content in a better resolution - we didn't pay extra for widescreen for example. I think these numbers show that give the consumer a choice, and they will pay for the content but not the picture quality. Hopefully a message to Sky - improve your content to justify your price increase, not just HD whatever you already have and call it improvement.

Re: 52,000
 

Given the differing pricing models it would be a huge surprise if Sky's HD penetration wasn't much higher (and stays higher) than the percentage of VM customers paying the £7 charge as basically on Sky if you don't pay the £10 charge you don't even get basic pay channels , unlike with VM on XL.

Give it a year and see what happens, you never know Uncle Rupe might drop the charge altogether, and Liverpool might win the Premier League!

Re: 52,000
 

Well since they had it earlier they obviously get more for it but give virgin some time and they will eventually get past sky and Liverpool might win the premier league after all

Re: 52,000
 

I love your optimism (on the last point!) good lad.

Re: 52,000
 

52,000? Since August? Not bad.


Since August.

Lets see what happens in the next few years. Of course Virgin's HD penetration (oooh err missus! ;)) won't get anywhere near Sky, which covers more than 52% of the UK and spend more on marketing than ITV spend on making programmes.

HD will continue to become the norm rather then the exception as well. Interesting that the BBC HD Blog mentions that the cost of making HD content is now quite cheap compared to a few years ago, while Sky continue to charge their customers £10 per month, who are only too willing to pay if Sky's latest quarterly results are any indication.

Re: 52,000
 

Considering Virgin haven't advertised it at all beyond a banner in the TV guide and on their website I would say that 52,000 is a good number.

Would like to know the break down for those that get it via the VIP50 package.

Re: 52,000
 

The press release states: "we added 222,100 HD customers to reach an installed base of 1.42m".

I assume this means Virgin have 1.42 million customers who have either a V HD Box or a V+ HD Box? 222,100 new HD customers in a quarter is pretty impressive. We are becoming a very hungry HD nation. For me 52,000 subscribers of SKY Premium HD out of 1.42 million HD customers is not an impressive return so far.

Also to say Virgin didn't advertise SKY Premium HD when it arrived 2 months ago simply isn't true. Adverts were run in the national tabloids, some of them a full page if I remember correctly. I know a leaflet campaign took place in my area as my brother and my father-in-law subscribed on the back of receiving them.

Re: 52,000
 

It's only been a few months and remember that unlike Sky you don't need to pay extra to get plenty of HD channels on XL. Let's see in 12 months. I don't think we can compare VM's press ad campaign (most of the ad's I saw were small ones in the sports pages) to Sky's though, barely a TV commercial break goes by without a Sky advert. VM now actually have a higher penetration of HD customers (38%) than Sky (32%) although I accept you must pay for it with Sky even for basics.

Over 220,000 new HD customers (and a 20%+ rise in 50mb broadband customers) in just one quarter is pretty impressive as you say. The only doubt I have is whether VM can fulfill their customer's appetite for more HD whilst they don't charge extra fo basics.

I am the first to criticise VM or Sky if I think it's deserved but these figures are pretty good, in my opinion.

Re: 52,000
 

Well exactly mersey70 for 12 months i don't think virgin have done bad and the 38% we have may just tell virgin for more hd channels but even on sky if you had the packages you still have to pay £10 a month for hd and the figures are good for us i do think

Re: 52,000
 

I saw an advert while playing Fight Night Round 4 online :LOL:

Re: 52,000
 

Heh, more Virgin customers signed up for Sky Premium HD content than BT Vision customers signed up for Sky Sports!

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bt-...da79363e3.html

Re: 52,000
 

10% of their install base though. That's no too bad going considering it's a **** service.

Re: 52,000
 

Research by Neilsen shows BT spent £6.3m on its Sky Sports campaign in the three months to the end of September, compared to BSkyB's £13.7m and Virgin Media's £700,000.

With contracts starting at just £6.99 a month, BT signed up around 50,000.

Sky refused to comment on the number of Sky Sports customers they added (or lost).

Virgin Media added over 100,000 Sky Sports and/or Sky Movies subscribers.

Re: 52,000
 

I had BTV before joining VM and thought it was excellent. The box was great, much nicer UI and far faster than the V+, the on demand content was refreshed more frequently too. Unfortunately it was too expensive when you factored in the phone and BT broadband connection which for me was excellent too. I personally think BTV has the edge on VM with their on demand content, however when you then also consider all the many more linear channels on cable then VM (XL anyway) offers better value overall, in my opinion.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend both services.