Only 100 Customers/Day Leaving VM

Originally Posted by Virgin Mary

I do not believe that only 100 customers per day are leaving VM. Let's not forget that the "cry wolf", hot air (baloon) specialist is running the PR of VM.

On top of that VM has to pay the price the permanent heavy discounts that most of us got. In my case 30 quid or so per month.

Branson has been doing a super job to 20 days, give him time, a second bankruptcy for NTL is around the corner.

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs.

I am pleased you got a good discount, and couldn't help but notice your gratitude in response to it.

Nice sig, btw - who are Virgin/NTL?

re the "bankruptcy just round the corner", did you actually read the 4th quarter results, or is it just wishful thinking on your (and Sky's) behalf?
"Total revenue in the fourth quarter increased to £1,081.6 million (Q3 2006: £1,024.9m) due to revenue growth in all segments. Year on year revenue growth in the fourth quarter was £597.0 million (Q4 2005: £484.6m), due to the merger with Telewest and the acquisition of Virgin Mobile."

Most losses reported by business are not actually losses at all just an income less than projected income figures.

[Virgin Mary]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

But by giving those discounts they are still getting an income . IMO better to have a customer paying something than a customer leaving and paying nothing its math.

You might be right. The phone and BB cost NTL very little, but they have to pass on the fees to the TV companies. If NTL breaks even with 57 quid per month (all channels, movies sport, phone +10 MB BB), then kudos to them!

well they wont break even if said clients pay nothing and leave will they

[Virgin Mary]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs.

I am pleased you got a good discount, and couldn't help but notice your gratitude in response to it.

Nice sig, btw - who are Virgin/NTL?

re the "bankruptcy just round the corner", did you actually read the 4th quarter results, or is it just wishful thinking on your (and Sky's) behalf?
"Total revenue in the fourth quarter increased to £1,081.6 million (Q3 2006: £1,024.9m) due to revenue growth in all segments. Year on year revenue growth in the fourth quarter was £597.0 million (Q4 2005: £484.6m), due to the merger with Telewest and the acquisition of Virgin Mobile."

I can be OTT sometimes

The solution to the Sky One problem was simple:

Put the "hor air" Branson on every TV program (including Richard and Judy) to say that Murdoch wants to squeeze an extra 50p per customer per month for his SKY One.

And then let the VM customers decide:

Keep Sky one and pay 50p extra, or get rid of Sky one and pay 50 less.

Simple and Clean. Now, VM has created so many unhappy customers for no reason. Old stupid NTL, it will never change.

In business if you let a company dictate terms your onto a loser. You have to make a stand or you will pay later. Remember Sky got VM channels cheap but then did the dirty. You can not let companies set presidents like this

[parky]

Originally Posted by VirginMediaSucks

That's why I question the "100 per day" figure. Looking at the BARB statistics, it's clear that several hundred thousand Virgin Media subscribers are regular Sky One viewers. Common sense would tell you that the cancellation rate would be higher than 100 per day.

Virgin Media are claiming that just 0.003% of their subscriber base is cancelling per day. Does that make sense? I really don't think so.

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------



Ah, you're a sensible sort of guy.. but that's not how a lawyer would present it.

I was a regular Sky viewer but I'm not cancelling.

You really need to move to Sky and leave us alone !

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Virgin Mary

I do not believe that only 100 customers per day are leaving VM. Let's not forget that the "cry wolf", hot air (baloon) specialist is running the PR of VM.

On top of that VM has to pay the price of the permanent heavy discounts that most of us got. In my case, 30 quid or so per month.

Branson has been doing a super job for 20 days, give him time, a second bankruptcy for NTL is around the corner.

If it is a lie then they would have to answer to investors when the truth came out.

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Virgin Mary

I can be OTT sometimes


Keep Sky one and pay 50p extra, or get rid of Sky one and pay 50 less.

So is that 50p per year, or 50p per day - which would work out at an additional £182.50 per year?

You can hide anything in figures and statistics.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Yes it may seem that way...But there area lot of aggrieved Customers of VM whom feel pardonably annoyed by Sky's usual dubious business practices who need to vent.What is making things worse is the Sky trolls hellbent of keeping up the anguish and rubbing noses in Sky's messing about.Hopefully,eventually things will settle down and the sky trolls will get bored.

Though I notice Mick is a bit on the warpath and we have some banned people and amended threads so maybe things will settle down faster.

It would also help if new members would stop starting brand new threads about the issue and just post to the pretty high number of Sky v VM type threads already started.

Off to do some ironing.

Dont mention the war !

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

And that's credible?

In the article yesterday it said 100 a day were leaving, steve burch is supposed to have claimed that they were saving around 95% with retention offers, was never very clever at maths but that to me sounds like around 200 a day calling to cancel?

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Originally Posted by LostintheNW

Why excactly are you posting on this site? its obvious that you seem to hink Virgin are crap and are to blame for all this, meanwhile sky are oh so innocent and provide an amazing service.

Do us a favour and run along to murdoch will you and ask him when you are getting your Sky+ box with 3 tuners and HD support all in one, that you dont need to pay for, that is replaced for free if it breaks. Also ask him when you are getting your 20mb broadband and vod that works like a dvd player.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------



By the way the link in your sig...that site needs changing, the removal of sky one is not a fundamental change in the service anyone is receiving. I suggest you read up on contract law before you start making assumptions like that

I suggest that you look up on contract law.
It could indeed be seen as VM breaking the contract.
If you look up working lunch from friday just gone a professor in law gave his feelings on the matter, I think he should be regarded as being able to state fact?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------

Originally Posted by LostintheNW

Fanboi? care to grow up and are you quite sure I am not a lawyer?

Sorry but if you subscribed to Virgin for this one channel then that actually makes you pretty sad, given the amount of channels that are available, Sky one did not make up 100% of the subscription amount charged to each customer, so why you think you are entitled to a discount is beyond me, and what do you mean they are making extra profit out of you, all because they removed one channel? Pathetic

And the truth of the fact is, that the removal of one channel does not constitute a huge change in the services you are recieving. If virgin suddenly decided to drop the tv service say, then this is a change for which you can canel without any penalty payment. Oh and did i forget to mention i covered this in my contract law part of my course which appears to have got me a job as a lawyer

I would ask for your money back

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

I wonder what Sky's current churn rate is???

I would guess less than VM at the moment.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Downloads

You should really read the press release, it wasn't an admission at all. They wanted to maintain the high moral ground so let people go even though they they believe it doesn't represent a change.

Ofcourse VM are going to think it does not represent a change.
Banks think it quite legitimate to charge you £25 for a letter, until they are threatened with the court system.

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Originally Posted by maxeh

Actually you will find that retentions will be making sure they know which customers are leaving to the lack of Sky basic and/or other reasons, thus this figure of a 100 per day will be most likely based on just those leaving due to the removal of the Sky basic channels- it's not a difficult concept to understand I assure you.

If I were a VM customer right now, it would be impossible for me to bring myself to remove the Video On Demand service you guy's have. I saw an up-to-date list the other day of what is available, and I am SO jealous it's unbelievable. If i weren't moving house in a few months I would order VM TV right now.

Seeing the up to date list is one thing, having a working VOD system is another.

[iadom]

James ( Son of Satan) Murdoch gives his views here.

http://tinyurl.com/ys6ez5

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

...snip.....
I suggest that you look up on contract law.
It could indeed be seen as VM breaking the contract.
If you look up working lunch from friday just gone a professor in law gave his feelings on the matter, I think he should be regarded as being able to state fact?
...snip...

To be fair, it was "his view" he stated, not fact. His opinion was given, and I am sure other lawyers may have other opinions - but, at the end of the day, VM have given any potentially aggrieved customers until the end of the month to leave without any additional charge, so everyone should be happy.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

...snip...Seeing the up to date list is one thing, having a working VOD system is another.

My VOD works fine - in fact, my chum, who is on Sky, has just had a demo of it, and liked it so much he is cancelling Sky and going to NTL.

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Re Sky churn rate

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I would guess less than VM at the moment..

Indy
"BSkyB chief executive James Murdoch yesterday shrugged off a sharp rise in the number of customers leaving his pay TV platform.
Sky said the rate of this "churn" had increased to 11.9 per cent - well ahead of analysts predictions of 11 per cent. However, Mr Murdoch was confident of meeting Sky's bid to achieve 10 million customers in four years.
He blamed a strategy of cutting discounts for customers who called customer service agents threatening to leave for the increase in churn. This, he said, accounted for 27,000 customers leaving and the churn rate would have been down at 10.6 per cent if they were excluded."

Originally Posted by foreverwar

To be fair, it was "his view" he stated, not fact. His opinion was given, and I am sure other lawyers may have other opinions - but, at the end of the day, VM have given any potentially aggrieved customers until the end of the month to leave without any additional charge, so everyone should be happy.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------


My VOD works fine - in fact, my chum, who is on Sky, has just had a demo of it, and liked it so much he is cancelling Sky and going to NTL.

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Re Sky churn rate


Indy
"BSkyB chief executive James Murdoch yesterday shrugged off a sharp rise in the number of customers leaving his pay TV platform.
Sky said the rate of this "churn" had increased to 11.9 per cent - well ahead of analysts predictions of 11 per cent. However, Mr Murdoch was confident of meeting Sky's bid to achieve 10 million customers in four years.
He blamed a strategy of cutting discounts for customers who called customer service agents threatening to leave for the increase in churn. This, he said, accounted for 27,000 customers leaving and the churn rate would have been down at 10.6 per cent if they were excluded."

Glad your chum likes VOD.
I think it is crap, why would I want to watch something from 3 years ago?
Regardless what you say about the contract, a court could decide and that is why imo VM have decided to make the move they have.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I would ask for your money back

I'm not sure why you felt the need to be insulting about someone elses education, i think it just devalues your opinion.

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Glad your chum likes VOD.
I think it is crap, why would I want to watch something from 3 years ago?
Regardless what you say about the contract, a court could decide and that is why imo VM have decided to make the move they have.

Another silly argument. Why watch something on Sky from 3 years ago too? Because some people have seen some of the stuff on VoD and some people haven't. I've not seen Supernatural and will be watching it shortly (as an example).

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

To be fair, it was "his view" he stated, not fact. His opinion was given, and I am sure other lawyers may have other opinions - but, at the end of the day, VM have given any potentially aggrieved customers until the end of the month to leave without any additional charge, so everyone should be happy.

Just to follow on from that - the Terms & conditions for Virgin Media:

Some services (for example, television channels that form part of our television services) are supplied by other organisations. As a result, we may, due to matters outside our reasonable control or for commercial or contractual reasons, change all or any programming, programming services, channel allocations and channels, or cancel, postpone or alter the details of any advertised Pay-Per-View or programmes on demand or interactive services without notice. We will give you reasonable notice of any withdrawals and changes where it is possible to do so. You will be entitled to end this agreement if the changes are significant, as described in paragraph J3.

I would have put Sky's terms, but they're not apparently on the system. I'd guess, very similar.

Originally Posted by Downloads

I'm not sure why you felt the need to be insulting about someone elses education, i think it just devalues your opinion.

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------



Another silly argument. Why watch something on Sky from 3 years ago too? Because some people have seen some of the stuff on VoD and some people haven't. I've not seen Supernatural and will be watching it shortly (as an example).

It does not devalue my opinion at all, he/she obviously does not understand contract law, or the fact that a contract can be contested as unfair.
If he/she thinks I am insulting they better pick themselves up, its a tough world.
I view VOD as a lame duck, is it ok for me to think that?
Some think it the bees knees, that is fine also.
End of.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Just to follow on from that - the Terms & conditions for Virgin Media:

I would have put Sky's terms, but they're not apparently on the system. I'd guess, very similar.

Blahdy blahdy blah.....
How many times do I have to say that a contract can be contested?