[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I said it wasn't about changing subscription service or one particular series. Most companies want to look good, some put a lot of effort into managing their image. Often it can be because they have a virtual monopoly of their market. Even if it doesn't pay immediate rewards a good company image may have long term benefits. Some actions can have a cumulative effect.

Some people don't use the services of certain businesses because they don't like something about them. Whether they are too big, environmental credentials, who owns the company. Many, for instance,may not now have a problem with Sky due to its change of ownership. Sky values its image, why else do that Sky Ocean Rescue thing, or fund a cycling team despite never showing the sport on their own sports channels?

I haven't been in Asda since Walmart bought them. I have avoided other companies because I didn't like their business practices, some of those companies later changed and I returned. So it's not nobody. I'm not saying it's a large percentage, but it can be a significant minority who think about stuff like that. And if you are trying to maximise your assets you want to at least try to attract everybody.

Timing of information release is as important as the information itself, e.g. there's the burying of certain news on a bad news day so that it won't be paid attention to. I'm not saying this is that, just that it's an example of timing being important.

So in the grand scheme of things, I can see a company spreading out good news press releases, it's a low effort strategy, it allows each piece of good news to be recognised rather than buried in a wave of information.

This might not be happening, I could be wrong, it's just a possibility, a suggestion.

I am a prime example of this (no pun intended)!