Quote:
Originally Posted by andygrif
As said, I am not arguing to the contrary. I said before I fail to see what your statistics actually prove in the context of what was being discussed.
Whilst there may well be 3.3m Virgin TV customers, not all of them had Sky One. I don't know how many did or did not, but I can guarantee that not all did.
Finally, again, your stats state that TV viewing household have 2.2 viewers, but as I said, and you have not included this in your maths, you are assuming that both of them are watching the TV whenever the TV is on.
Therefore, if you're going to use these stats to prove something, you need to say what is is you're trying to prove and do so by using a less simplistic (i.e more accurate) manner to prove it 
Just repeating what you said before doesn't a fact make  |
The figure of 2.2 viewers as quoted by the BFI is not a figure for average occupancy of a household, nor is it an average number for total people who like to watch TV in a household - if it were, then you would be justified in objecting to my use of it.
The figure is the standard muliplication factor used when determining how many individuals watched a programme, where the raw statistics are expressed as households rather than individuals. This means that - presumably - BARB has research that shows that when a TV is tuned to a particular programme in an average house, an average number of 2.2 people will be watching it. It does explain this in the article I linked to - I'm wondering whether you actually read it?
As for the number of Sky viewers on cable - I really do think you're splitting hairs. The majority of combinations of channels offered by VM, past and present, include Sky One. I don't see that you have any basis to show a significant variance from the figure I have used. Certainly you've done rather less well than I have at bringing actual facts to this discussion, rather than conjecture that happens to back up your viewpoint. You might do well to heed your own advice about merely repeating statements not making them factual.
You still don't see what the stats prove in the context of the discussion. Well, specifically the OP suggested (based on less than a full week's stats as it turns out) that Sky has barely been dented by the loss of carriage on VM.
I suggest otherwise - they appear to have lost about a third of their veiwers for Lost. (Incidentally, that proportion is broadly in line with the split of cable/satellite viewers in the UK, so perhaps we have some evidence for 3.3 million being a reasonable estimate of Sky One's reach on cable after all, but I digress)
I went a step further and attempted to show that the whole 'crisis' is a bigger deal for Sky than it is for VM. Sky has lost a third of its viewers, and therefore a third of its justification for advertising rates, for its most expensive programme ever.
VM, on the other hand, has risked the ire of just 6.5% of its viewers in the same crisis. Those 500,000 viewers will mean a lot to Sky and their advertisers. They do not mean nearly as much to VM.