Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
If you believe that (legal) catch-up services bolster the reach of any of Sky's content by more than 10-15% then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
The most popular non-soap drama in the UK (Doctor Who) manages a time-shift that adds at most 1.5 million to an overnight of about 6 million, and that's considered to be a massive amount. To believe Sky to be achieving anything like it is self-delusion on a grand scale.
Don't deceive yourself by hanging round the sort of forums where lots of Sky content fans hang out. This forum, and others, are what you would call a self-selecting sample and are not representative of the nation's viewing habits as a whole.
Most households view broadly the same set of linear programming on the same set of channels, regardless of the platform they use. Your point about catch-up methods serves admirably to prove the suggestion that VM is correct to concentrate on its delivery, rather than its linear content, and it really does not prove that VM should be chasing after more Sky-branded channels at any cost.
|
I never stated any amounts, if you care to read my post back nor was I suggesting Sky's most popular shows rivalled terrestrial viewing which seems ludicrous to even suggest considering their are far more people with access to them , I don't hang around any forums nor delude myself to Sky's content reach, was merely stating the viewing figures aren't accurate on overnights now , maybe you should try reading properly and cut the personal insults. Can you also point out were I suggested that VM should pay ridiculous amounts to acquire Sky content ?