Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Just wondering as there was a suggestion of insider knowledge.
I note Berkett claiming the price was unrealistic, also describing the product as 'great' which is somewhat at odds with the gloating exercise here.
|
I'd be the last person to insist VM must be right just because they're VM ... fanboyism is tiresome and oh so pointless.
But I think Berkett has a good point here.
Sky Atlantic
is a great product on paper - any of the shows on its roster would do well, were they to be screened on one of the terrestrial channels. But it is a long-understood truth of the British pay-TV marketplace than people are extremely reluctant to pay for channels outside of "The Three Fs".
Sky has invested a pile of cash in launching Sky Atlantic and attempting to counteract the perception that there is nothing worth paying for on its platform for those who aren't already interested in any of the aforementioned premium content.
Berkett's view seems to be that it's a good idea, but Sky may be throwing too much money at it - or at least, may have tried to take the opportunity to get VM to pay too great a share of what is after all a brand-building exercise intended primarily to benefit Sky, not pay-TV in general.
As I said, Sky has form here - they paid a fortune to steal Lost off Channel 4, failed miserably to break through their ceiling of 1-1.5 million viewers for peak-time drama on Sky One, and then tried to get VM to pick up the tab when it came time to re-negotiate the Sky Basics package.