Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
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?
|
No I didn't. Had you have explained this like you did then, then I wouldn't have to read through pages of gumph from the BFI to get to the point you're making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
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.
|
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm criticising the information you presented, and the way you presented it for a point that was indifferent to the consensus anyway. The only clear fact is that 500,000 less people watched Lost on Sky One this week than the previous weeks. We all agree that the assumption is that this loss comes from VM customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
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.
|
Perhaps if you'd read my posts you might see that we're saying the same thing, aside from this 6.5% route versus 33% for one programme on Sky, which to my mind simply acts like comparing a horse to a housebrick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
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.
|
Your two 'facts' might well stand up, but they are of no difference or similarity to each other. You're suggesting that cheesing off 6.5% of your customers is by some way related to Sky having 33% less viewers in some way other than the 6.5% are the same people as the 33%. Why? What does this prove?
Sky have lost viewing figures - Virgin have not, becuase they have not taken their channels away from any platform.
Virgin have annoyed their customers, Sky have not, as Sky's customers still have the single programme you're going on about.
Whilst the two figures are linked (and only) as they are affecting the same people, they are totally unconnected in every other way...so i remain confused as to exactly what point you are trying to make, other than to join in with the collective putting the boot into Sky?
It's like saying that 6.5% of Virgin customers have lost their one programme, but Tesco provides 50% of them with their bread each week. Both might be true, both are utterly irrelivant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
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.
|
I'm not sure that you made that suggestion clear before now, but if that was what you're trying to prove with your maths, then this doesn't add up either:
First, you're talking about one programme, not all programmes on all Sky basic channels.
Second, none of us know how many Virgin customers have switched or will be doing so. It might be none, it might be lots, it might be somewhere in the middle. Until you have this stat, we're all guessing.
Third, Sky have only lost revenue from Virgin to this point. They have not reduced their advertising costs yet, although of course it's clear that unless they can bridge this missing viewing gap they will have to in the Summer.
So it's not really better or worse for anyone at this time (publicly anyway). But I would have thought that someone with an understanding of media such as yourself would be able to separate viewing figures with customer figures...if I didn't know you better I would be suggesting that you were just trying to stir it up for somereason.