Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2009)

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by toady

Without it being on Sky, it won't be viable to stay just on VM

Even putting aside the fact that Living is (currently) owned by VM, how much extra can it cost to host another time-shift version of a channel of which you already have the SD, SD +1 and HD versions? When you say "viable", do you mean for Living to supply it or for VM to deliver it?

This is definitely an aspect of the supply/delivery mechanism that I still don't get.

[zantarous]

Virgin will need a EPG slot on Sky for Living HD and the easiest way to get one is to replace one of their own channels.

[JMcB]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Virgin will need a EPG slot on Sky for Living HD and the easiest way to get one is to replace one of their own channels.

I would like to see V/M hold onto Living HD, and not give it to Sky from the start

[zantarous]

Theres no money to be made from that, only a small percentage of Virgin viewers will be HD capable and on Sky they can get a bigger reach and get some of the Sky subscription money, or better yet maybe some Sky HD channels. There is no benefit for the consumer for exclusive channels.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Theres no money to be made from that, only a small percentage of Virgin viewers will be HD capable and on Sky they can get a bigger reach and get some of the Sky subscription money, or better yet maybe some Sky HD channels. There is no benefit for the consumer for exclusive channels.

sky aint willing to give more that pentance sicne they dnt think livign hd is value for money theyu think sky1 hd is better

they dnt need a epg slot for hd channels as i foudn out they can launch dh channels withotu affecting old sd boxes

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Theres no money to be made from that, only a small percentage of Virgin viewers will be HD capable and on Sky they can get a bigger reach and get some of the Sky subscription money, or better yet maybe some Sky HD channels. There is no benefit for the consumer for exclusive channels.

There's no money to be made from HD simulcasts anyway.

I've said this a million times but people still keep banging on about how it's not viable to have a HD channel not on sky like it's gospel, when infact it's total rubbish.

What extra revenue does a HD simulcast of a channel generate? There will be an extremely limited increase in viewers of SD + HD compared to SD alone as there's only a tiny amount of people that will point blank refuse to watch SD, so any viewers on HD are simply subtracting from the SD viewing figures. That means the key metric for channel revenue from advertisers which is eyeballs on sets, remains the same, they've just migrated from one channel to another, and are watching the same adverts.

Unless advertisers pay more for HD advertising (and they don't) then withholding an HD version of a channel DOES NOT in any way effect revenue, hence why Sky can do it, because any viewers that would watch the HD channel are just watching the SD one instead and they're still getting their ad revenue from them.

The only additional revenue will be from the carriage fee, which is going to be limited for a HD channel (there's no way they'll get a share of the HD sub) and VM would be far better off using it as a bargaining chip to get Sky HD channels.

[zantarous]

Of course they will get part of the HD sub, Living is a pay TV channel it is not going to broadcast as free to air. Even ESPN which you have to pay a separate sub for still requires you to pay the HD sub to see the HD version.

I agree with using it as leverage, but to get the Sky Basics surely they need just more then Living, their case would be much stronger with Bravo and Virgin 1 HD.

And surely the number of viewers does matter, if only a handful of people are watching the HD version would still make sense to keep paying for HD masters?

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Of course they will get part of the HD sub, Living is a pay TV channel it is not going to broadcast as free to air. Even ESPN which you have to pay a separate sub for still requires you to pay the HD sub to see the HD version.

I agree with using it as leverage, but to get the Sky Basics surely they need just more then Living, their case would be much stronger with Bravo and Virgin 1 HD.

And surely the number of viewers does matter, if only a handful of people are watching the HD version would still make sense to keep paying for HD masters?

They wont get a part of the sub, that is at sky descretion who gets it, and do you really think there goign to give there biggest rival part of it or there chanenls emans they have compettion?

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Virgin will need a EPG slot on Sky for Living HD and the easiest way to get one is to replace one of their own channels.

Referring to my original question ...

I fail to see the correlation between HD launch on Sky and dropping +2 on VM.

Zantarous: I realise that Living may have to replace their +2 slot on the Sky EPG with HD but surely +2 can still stay on VM.

Toady: You haven't explained your viability theory for +2 on VM only.

AndrewC: I don't see why you think Living wouldn't need an EPG slot for HD.

Even more now!

[zantarous]

Until it happens we won't know for sure, but if Living +2 was VM only then it wouldn't reach as many viewers as the other two channels and I guess advertiser pay a particular rate for +1 channels.

As for Living on Sky, I really can't see the channel not being included in the HD sub, after all Living does quite well on Sky and Sky would not want a two tier HD service.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

Referring to my original question ...
Zantarous: I realise that Living may have to replace their +2 slot on the Sky EPG with HD but surely +2 can still stay on VM.

Toady: You haven't explained your viability theory for +2 on VM only.

AndrewC: I don't see why you think Living wouldn't need an EPG slot for HD.

Even more now!

Apgolise i never put it across right, of course it need epg slot, but i emna it wouldnt need one that sd box would require, since as i been told they can launch more hd channels withotu affecting the sd box, but they can t launch mor sd channels untilt eh problem wiht old boxes is fixed.

[JMcB]

We now have Living HD, if we got Virgin 1HD and Bravo HD

Would Sky give V/M the Sky HD channels for V/M HD channels

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

Apgolise i never put it across right, of course it need epg slot, but i emna it wouldnt need one that sd box would require, since as i been told they can launch more hd channels withotu affecting the sd box, but they can t launch mor sd channels untilt eh problem wiht old boxes is fixed.

Ah, OK, I understand what you mean now, I think.

Older Sky STBs have no more capacity for new EPG slots but, as the HD channels only appear in the Sky+ STB EPG, the old boxes are not affected by the addition of HD channels. Right?

Most people's Set-Top-Boxes are actually Under-Set-Boxes and so should be called USBs!
(Like we need another acronym for USB.)

Originally Posted by JMcB

We now have Living HD, if we got Virgin 1HD and Bravo HD

Would Sky give V/M the Sky HD channels for V/M HD channels

This could all become irrelevant if Sky (as is likely) buys VM's bouquet of channels off them (i.e Living, Bravo etc).

It sticks in my throat a bit if Sky does grab them but on the other hand imho it makes it more likely we would begin to see a trickle of Sky HD on VM!

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by zantarous

Of course they will get part of the HD sub, Living is a pay TV channel it is not going to broadcast as free to air. Even ESPN which you have to pay a separate sub for still requires you to pay the HD sub to see the HD version.

I agree with using it as leverage, but to get the Sky Basics surely they need just more then Living, their case would be much stronger with Bravo and Virgin 1 HD.

And surely the number of viewers does matter, if only a handful of people are watching the HD version would still make sense to keep paying for HD masters?

There's a huge difference between a consumer having to pay the HD sub to receive a channel, and the channel provider actually getting a share in it. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that ESPN for example don't recieve any of the £10/month HD sub. The very fact that more and more HD channels get added without the sub rising supports this, if the HD sub was being shared amoung channel providers it would have to increase as more channels were added.

I can pretty much gaurentee that they only people that get money from the Sky HD sub are sky themselves, the other HD channels will simply be providing the channels as part of a standard carriage deal for a marginal increase (if any at all) on what they were paid for the SD varient.

The amount of people watching is only important in so much that you have an audience to justify the additional expense of producing or aquiring HD content. VM will likely feel that the HD audience on VM alone is enough to justify it, especially as it adds upsell opportunities for them.