Were VM wrong to sell channels to Sky

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by nialli

According to The Independent last week:

Put simply Sky are asking to much to keep it exclusive on there own platform.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by nialli

According to The Independent last week:

As I said earlier it wouldn't appear that Sky are withholding it, rather that it is maybe too expensive. Same result for us though I guess.

Although I accept that is merely a press report.

Let's remember though their own customers have to pay extra for it in HD, it dosen't look like a cheapo channel so maybe BT and VM's pricing structure simply cannot support it. Again, who knows.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by nialli

According to The Independent last week:

wouldnt sky get more money having a sensible price for vm and getting more from advertisers

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Put simply Sky are asking to much to keep it exclusive on there own platform.

There is no evidence that they are asking any price and them advertising the channel as exclusive weeks before it starts tends to prove that is indeed their intention. also their director of programmes stating that it is a Sky exclusive.

Originally Posted by Dave42

wouldnt sky get more money having a sensible price for vm and getting more from advertisers

For an established channel like Sky One, then yes - as the whole Sky Basics debacle showed. That channel lost a big chunk of its viewers while it was off the air in VM homes and the threat of reduced ad revenue was partly what forced Sky back to the table.

That was a rare example of Sky overplaying its hand though. It is normally pretty shrewd and it knows its own market well. It is very good at playing on exclusivity and high-profile scalps, which is why I have long believed that new US programmes that otherwise would have gone on Sky One are going to start popping up on Sky Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Dave42

wouldnt sky get more money having a sensible price for vm and getting more from advertisers

Quite but they had just given away some of the channels like Sky 1 HD that set them apart from cable. They wanted something exclusive to replace them.

Anyhow, let's stick to the topic please. There's an Atlantic/VM thread elsewhere.

As regards whether VM were right to flog off their channels, well, what they've done is bet the family silver on the belief that On Demand is going to continually increase in popularity and linear broadcasting is going to decrease. They didn't believe they had the expertise to run channels as well as they need to be, but they do believe their technology gives them a massive lead over the opposition when it comes to VOD. They are positioning their business in accordance with that belief.

Only time will tell whether they have got it right.

[Dave42]

back on topic if it was only way to get sky sports and movies HD channels was to sell the few vmtv channels then they did the right thing IMO as thats the channels everyone wanted the most for sky

[dsmuk]

If they wanted rid of them I don't think they were wrong to sell them, it is who they sold them to that appears to have been the problem. It seems very shortsighted and somewhat crazy to have sold them to their single biggest threat but not to have safe guards in place to ensure closer relationship between the Sky content division on future deals seems a rocky error

On the first page there was mention that Sky is a open platform in that if you pay you can go on the Sky EPG. I have always been surprised that Virgin haven't worked a profitable way of offering a similar option for broadcasters to make themselves available.

If all the FTA/FTV channels are willing to pay Sky why would then not want to pay Virgin.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by dsmuk

If they wanted rid of them I don't think they were wrong to sell them, it is who they sold them to that appears to have been the problem. It seems very shortsighted and somewhat crazy to have sold them to their single biggest threat but not to have safe guards in place to ensure closer relationship between the Sky content division on future deals seems a rocky error

On the first page there was mention that Sky is a open platform in that if you pay you can go on the Sky EPG. I have always been surprised that Virgin haven't worked a profitable way of offering a similar option for broadcasters to make themselves available.

If all the FTA/FTV channels are willing to pay Sky why would then not want to pay Virgin.

As far as I am aware FTA broadcasters buy a EPG slot (much like with Freesat) but also pay a 'platform contribution' fee. It was reported the BBC pay around £10m a year but that is for all of their many services but that also includes some EPG regionalisation that they need for their channels too. FTV channels also have to pay NDS for encryption.

Both categories of course have to rent transponder space, this could be directlly from SES Astra or Eutelsat and they would also pay for the associated transmission costs, of course they could come to an agreement to sub lease capacity from the likes of Sky too.

I don't know why many are not on VM too.

[yorkshireborn]

Originally Posted by mersey70

As I said earlier it wouldn't appear that Sky are withholding it, rather that it is maybe too expensive. Same result for us though I guess.

Although I accept that is merely a press report.

Let's remember though their own customers have to pay extra for it in HD, it dosen't look like a cheapo channel so maybe BT and VM's pricing structure simply cannot support it. Again, who knows.

sky customers are not paying any extra for this channel in HD the cost for HD is still £10

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by yorkshireborn

sky customers are not paying any extra for this channel in HD the cost for HD is still £10

I mean they have to pay extra full stop to view it in HD, it is £10.25 a month extra to be exact!

[c1rcle]

Right? Wrong? How about absolutely bloody stupid? Unless the people who made the decision to sell those channels were in nappies the last time Sky MOD edit:Virgin they should be fired right now & replaced with single cell Amoeba that could do the job just as well.

Please do not try bypassing the swear filter.

[c1rcle]

Sorry!