Variety.Com: VM have Sky 'rattled'

[punky]

Originally Posted by Toto

So Gavin, having called the company ntl-Virgin (where have I heard that before?)

I never "called the company ntl-Virgin", I said "ntl-Virgin merger", not company. In the same way I am not a VM puppet, I am not a Sky one either.

Going back to VM's (then ntl:Telewest) attempted purchase of ITV, Murdoch junior came out fighting saying they (Sky) had not interest in the proposed by-out, and yet days later they pumped a massive amont of cash into a 17% stake in the company, which ended VM's interest.

Ian Hislop summed it up all nicely for me. When Branson was slagging off Murdoch, Hislop said: Branson is angry because Murdoch is doing a better job of being Branson than Branson is. Basically, Branson is Murdoch with a clever marketting ploy to be hip and cool.

I'm not saying he's loosing sleep, but even you have to admit they are concerned?

Depends on what you mean 'concerned'. A company is always 'concerned' with the competition, but are Sky anymore concerned now than before the merger? I don't think so. If I was Murdoch, I wouldn't be either.

[lostandconfused]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Depends on what you mean 'concerned'. A company is always 'concerned' with the competition, but are Sky anymore concerned now than before the merger? I don't think so. If I was Murdoch, I wouldn't be either.

i would have thought it would be obvious that sky would be more concerned now than before the merger.

pre virgin media, how much advertisment of the ntl brand was there? not a lot compared to the VM brand being launched, if sky truely has nothing to worry about, why bother spending money advertising their benefits compared to VM... this didnt happen when it was ntl:telewest

[punky]

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

pre virgin media, how much advertisment of the ntl brand was there? not a lot compared to the VM brand being launched,

Eh? At least once a week I was getting a bloody leaflet through the post, despite already receiving (then) all 3 of ntl's services (of which I still do, some of you might like to know). And then there was all the TV adverts with the old bloke marrying the young bird, 30 seconds of looking a toilet door and listening to the the toilet flush. "if you can, you should" is imprinted in my brain. Then there was all the bus shelter adverts. And newspaper ads. And magazine flyer-drops.

All that's happened is that all ntl:telewest's are filled with Uma Thurman. Which pretty much backs up Virgin's ethos. They'd rather spend more money appearing cool/hip than on services. At least the previous ntl:tw's ads were cheap.

if sky truely has nothing to worry about, why bother spending money advertising their benefits compared to VM... this didnt happen when it was ntl:telewest

So, by Sky advertising after the merger, its 'concerned', or to use the OP, "rattled" by VM? Not at all. Before, during and after Sky advertised more or less the same. Sky are a company, you'd expect them to advertise their services. Its not a new thing post-VM.

[savvychels]

Originally Posted by Toto

I've seen significant changes over the past few months, not just since VM launch day. I'm all for pointing out the continued errors being made, but I genuinely believe they should be given credit where it is deserved.

Totally agree with this.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Mick

Let's give them a bloody chance shall we - its only been a week and a few days since they rebranded...

Too many people are expecting overnight miracles.

I thnk the problem comes from a few VM advocates that claim that the miracles have already happened.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Depends on what you mean 'concerned'. A company is always 'concerned' with the competition, but are Sky anymore concerned now than before the merger? I don't think so. If I was Murdoch, I wouldn't be either.

The difference being that before, Sky would not have have spent hundreds of millions buying an ISP. They would not have spent hundreds of millions buying shares in ITV, despite the fact they are specifically forbidden from owning 100% of any terrestrial channel.

I've also noticed in the last few months (since NTL started talking about the merger), Sky have been advertising more and more. Then, we come to their adverts. Sorry, "Editorial Comments" being broadcast regulalarly asking Virgin (or, as they put it, Virgin:NTL) customers to phone and complain if the channels are taken off air.

[punky]

This month it emerged that Sky had renegotiated its agreement to carry channels owned by Flextech - part of the Virgin Media empire - on its own satellite platform. Virgin Media was getting 40p a month per subscriber per channel; the new deal reduces that to 10p.

Sky sound very scared... Re-negotiating to buy channels from VM at 1/4 the existing rate...

Also...

Sky One accounts for many of the most watched programmes on the cable service.

I personally thought as much. So Sky pretty much have VM over a barrel here.

Source: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2016063,00.html

[Toto]

Sky One accounts for many of the most watched programmes on the cable service.

Editorial licence, they don't appear to back this claim with any respected research.

As has already been pointed out, its a battle of words at the moment, but the noises coming from VM would suggest that they mean to take the fight for content to the wire.

If they can up the anti also against Sky's not so glittering move into Broadband, VM will have done themselves proud in pulling their former company out of the quicksand of poor customer service and choice, and onto the firm ground of customer excellence, as is expected of a Virgin branded company.

Like it or not Gavin, Sky have made MUCH more noise about their offerings since RB and Virgin came into the fray.

I've been in full time employment for as long as you have been alive, and if I have learned one thing, its never, EVER underestimate your competitors. That is money in the bank advice.

Originally Posted by Chris Howell

I was driving home earlier today and I went past a HUGE VM advertising poster telling the world about unlimited downloads.

I thought, "Would that poster be even there under the old NTL Telewest days? Not bloody likely!"

Keep it up, Virgin Media.

Unlimited downloads?
I suggest a read of the terms & conditions?
How companies get away with blatant lies is beyond me.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Sky sound very scared... Re-negotiating to buy channels from VM at 1/4 the existing rate...

That doesn't sugest they are scared. Bullying maybe, but not scared.

What DOES suggest they are scared is the fact that they have massively increased their advertsing in all media, and that they have spend nearly a billion pounds since VM was first rumoured..

Companies that are sure of their position don't generally spend that much on a rumour..

I personally thought as much. So Sky pretty much have VM over a barrel here.

Source: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2016063,00.html

I read that Lost and 24 (Sky's two biggest programs) average about 800,000 viewers. If you combine satellite and cable thats out of possibly 10,000,000 viewers (the total is actually 13 million, but I am allowing for 3 million to have both).

I wouldn't say that Sky one is the most watched channel on Cable, I would say it's probably the fifth or sixth.

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I wouldn't say that Sky one is the most watched channel on Cable, I would say it's probably the fifth or sixth.

It's actually the 2nd most watched non-terrestrial channel last week based purely on % share, behind Sky Sports One:

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...t=multichannel

The Sky channels as a whole carry an 8.6% share, more than twice that of all non-Sky channels coming in at 3.5%.

You can also get stats for previous month, etc from that site

So yes I would suggest that the claim that Sky One carries some of the most watched shows on cable is accurate.

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

What DOES suggest they are scared is the fact that they have massively increased their advertsing in all media, and that they have spend nearly a billion pounds since VM was first rumoured..

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4496894.stm
NTL and Virgin in takeover talks
Last Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005, 12:18 GMT

http://networks.silicon.com/broadban...9153556,00.htm
BSkyB confirms £211m offer for Easynet
Multiplay ahead for Sky, trouble on the horizon for smaller ISPs?
Published: Friday 21 October 2005

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but October is before December, suggesting that Sky have had this strategy for a while, and before the Virgin / ntl talks were confirmed as in progress. It's fair to say that Sky / Easynet were in discussion for months before this, as the story I quoted from December says 'talks' while the October Sky / Easynet story is an offer, IE legal stuff done and here's the cash.

Of course they're on an advertising spree, who wouldn't be, it's good business when your competitors are advertising like crazy with the floodlights on them to try and steal their thunder a bit.

There's some cynicism from both camps here in my opinion. Both are running questionable ads and sniping at one another.

Perhaps should VM get their act together and actually be properly competitive, expand their coverage with real cable not LLU, and take advantage of their network then Sky would be concerned.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Carl J

It's actually the 2nd most watched non-terrestrial channel last week based purely on % share, behind Sky Sports One:

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...t=multichannel

The Sky channels as a whole carry an 8.6% share, more than twice that of all non-Sky channels coming in at 3.5%.

You can also get stats for previous month, etc from that site

So yes I would suggest that the claim that Sky One carries some of the most watched shows on cable is accurate.

Read my post. I didn't distinguish between terrestrial and cable channels. Therefore my assertion was correct.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4496894.stm
NTL and Virgin in takeover talks
Last Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005, 12:18 GMT

http://networks.silicon.com/broadban...9153556,00.htm
BSkyB confirms £211m offer for Easynet
Multiplay ahead for Sky, trouble on the horizon for smaller ISPs?
Published: Friday 21 October 2005

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but October is before December, suggesting that Sky have had this strategy for a while, and before the Virgin / ntl talks were confirmed as in progress. It's fair to say that Sky / Easynet were in discussion for months before this, as the story I quoted from December says 'talks' while the October Sky / Easynet story is an offer, IE legal stuff done and here's the cash.

OK. So maybe they weren't panicing about the recent name change. Maybe they were not comfortable with the fact that the then merged NTL:Telewest were already talking about a triple play?

[newguy]

It's all good news for customers thou which is good and the Virgin brand is indeed a good named brand and it will be interesting what else Sir Richard pulls out of the hat next.

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Read my post. I didn't distinguish between terrestrial and cable channels. Therefore my assertion was correct.

True, but then commenting on 'most watched channel on cable / satellite' does strongly imply discussion of non-terrestrial channels. As neither cable nor Sky get anything for showing the terrestrials, they are required to, they are a total non-issue in this.

While you may not be distinguishing between terrestrial and cable for the purposes of deciding who is and isn't scared of who terrestrial is completely irrelevant. Sky One is the second most watched channel not available down an analogue aerial.

OK. So maybe they weren't panicing about the recent name change. Maybe they were not comfortable with the fact that the then merged NTL:Telewest were already talking about a triple play?

ntl and Telewest have been offering triple play since spring 1999 for ntl and early 2000 for Telewest, so what?

All major players have been working on triple play for a while, it's the nature of the industry. Nothing to do with being 'scared' of anyone just convergence. Triple play can improve customer retention and loyalty, as can double play, which is why Pipex, Plusnet, Tiscali, etc, etc, have moved out of providing broadband only.

Think people are reading a lot where it isn't there. The two are sniping, trying to 'urinate' on one another's bonfires.

I think too many people here are sold on the hype of Virgin Media, the nice infinity logo and the pretty red fonts, Uma Thurman, etc. Has anyone actually stopped to think that VM are still pretty heavily indebted and are spending tens of millions of this ad campaign?

The financial people are still expecting Virgin Media Inc to post a loss of not far off a billion US dollars for the year. This is a company that financially isn't super healthy still, just ask the employees who've been going without bonuses and negligable pay rises.

Net loss was £104.2 million in the third quarter, up from £53.5 million in the same quarter last year due mainly to higher interest charges as a result of higher borrowings to finance the merger with Telewest and the acquisition of Virgin Mobile.

Total liabilities as of September 30, 2006 were £7,843 million.

Yes there's obviously spending on improving customer experience, however no-one can claim that this is due to Virgin media, and may I point out the numerous times in the past that ntl have claimed to be reinventing and investing in their customer service, none of which have been much of a success.

Don't believe the hype, wait and see. Yes there is potential there, but there always has been and for years it's been unfulfilled.

Who knows maybe now it actually will be, you'll forgive me for not holding my breath though.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Carl J

I think too many people here are sold on the hype of Virgin Media, the nice infinity logo and the pretty red fonts, Uma Thurman, etc. Has anyone actually stopped to think that VM are still pretty heavily indebted and are spending tens of millions of this ad campaign?

I think you must think people here are thick then. You just like to think people are sold on this stuff. People are actually sold on the fact that Virgin can offer better deals than Sky. In my area that's the case anyway. They also offer supperior VoD, a better box and better broadband on the whole.

Why would i stop to think about how in debt Virgin are?? Does anyone stop to think how Man U are in debt whilst they are winning the league?

I think you must be sold on Sky being a Sky Employee and believe everything they tell you.