Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
Because at one time, all significant Sky branded channels were available on VM, even if some were only SD.
Then the sale of VM channels (Living etc.) to Sky happened and then Sky shortly afterwards, launched Atlantic as exclusive to them. It left a sour taste over the whole issue.
Streaming services always used exclusive content deals to attract customers. No one likes it, but it has always been the way of that business.
---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------
Now TV is an option. But it is a very poor substitute for an HBO Go service because it doesn't have back seasons always available.
But people who pay a lot for the XL TV package feel it is wrong to have to shell out even more to get HBO content via Now TV, when all the main Sky channels used to be included in the cost of XL. TV.
|
Fair enough PB, but why can Sky not change the way they operate? They have changed the goal posts and it appears to work for them. They are not on this planet to be liked - neither are VM (who we know full well upset many on here too). If Sky saw Netflix were expanding due to them offering exclusives, why shouldn't they have done something similar? I know Sky now say Atlantic is used to keep custmoers, but originally it would have been used to attract customers from rivals.
LG/VM could easily have struck a couple of exclusive deals with channels from all over the world if they wanted, over the past 4-5 years. They have simply chosen not to - but two two wrongs make a right in my eyes.
You mention about XL customers not wanting to pay more, but our bills have always gone up when new channels (including the newest Sky HD channels) have launched and our bills will go up again if we ever get Atlantic. Admittedly the bills will not go up as much as the nowtv subs though.
---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincerooney
Sky's original programming is horrendous that's why they buy in so much if it. I think the point raised about virgin selling uktv to sky and then sky launching their own channel exclusively straight after shows the nastiness of sky. Some may class it as good business strategy I call it ****. In industry this is fine but in a tv landscape with one company butchering creativity and destroying consumers choice by basically saying "you can have that or that but not both" something should be done
If I was a billionaire id launch my own channel and buy up as much as I could as exclusive content and then give it away to bt and virgin for free. And then sky trundled up my front path smugly asking for it id grab them by the balls and ask for the earth.
|
It may well be nasty of Sky, but the facts of the matter are, they do run a business - they may be **** in many peoples eyes, but what do they care? They are making the profits they need to make. VM/LG could still do the same and buy exclusive content (they could, in theory, launch an exlusive new channel from C4 if they chose to), but they choose not to.
Were VM nasty not to offer Sky their BB? Was it nasty of BT to offer BT Sport free with their BB? No, VM need a USP, as do Sky and BT.
Bearing in mind, we get the vast majority of content Sky have on VM, Sky need to do something to stop people jumping ship to get a potentially better deal from VM. Atlantic does this, probably at a considerable cost to Sky too.
It would be nice if a rival of Sky took them by the balls, but for some reason they will not.