Virgin reports 200m TV VOD views in Q1

[Digital Fanatic]

Virgin Media's video on-demand platform has registered a record 200 million television views in the first quarter of 2010, with Glee, EastEnders and Coronation Street all proving popular.

In the three months to the end of March, the number of Virgin Media homes regularly watching on-demand content grew to 2.1m, representing 60% of its total TV base. Average monthly views now stand at 68m, up 24% year-on-year.

Virgin Media Press Release HERE

More from Digital Spy

[tvtimes]

Just goes to show demand is growing massively. There is more of a demand for vod than there is for HD.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Just goes to show demand is growing massively. There is more of a demand for vod than there is for HD.

Care to back that statement up with some actual facts? Sky's much higher than expected HD sales seem to say otherwise and I would regard the two as being complimentary to one another rather than mutually exclusive. Strong demand for both from what I can see and Virgin seem to agree given their recent investment in HD content.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Care to back that statement up with some actual facts? Sky's much higher than expected HD sales seem to say otherwise and I would regard the two as being complimentary to one another rather than mutually exclusive. Strong demand for both from what I can see and Virgin seem to agree given their recent investment in HD content.

I don't need to back it up with facts mate. You back your statement up with some facts.

BBCiplayer, itv player, Skyplayer, vm vod, 4od, five od plus others receive millions upon millions of views between them. Hell it's been announced VM received 200m hits for their vod service in 1 quarter of the year! It doesn't matter if it's the same people using or not there is still way more of a demand for vod. Skys HD subscriber numbers are tiny in comparison. It has taken them two years to get the level of hd subs they have now.

I'm not saying there's no demand for HD i have HD myself but there is a lot more growth in vod clearly.

If you wangt to prove me wrong you could always go ahead and post contradictory figures showing me how many viewers all the HD channels got put together?

[Digital Fanatic]

Plus virtually all of VM's customers have access to VOD and with even more HD channels coming our way, we can have both

[tvtimes]

Sky understand the publics need for vod aswell as HD. That's why there desperate to get there vod service launched and hd boxes that are ethernet compatible are now given away free.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

I don't need to back it up with facts mate. You back your statement up with some facts.

BBCiplayer, itv player, Skyplayer, vm vod, 4od, five od plus others receive millions upon millions of views between them. Hell it's been announced VM received 200m hits for their vod service in 1 quarter of the year! It doesn't matter if it's the same people using or not there is still way more of a demand for vod. Skys HD subscriber numbers are tiny in comparison. It has taken them two years to get the level of hd subs they have now.

I'm not saying there's no demand for HD i have HD myself but there is a lot more growth in vod clearly.

If you wangt to prove me wrong you could always go ahead and post contradictory figures showing me how many viewers all the HD channels got put together?

Well yes you do need to back it up, you made it as a statement of fact. Do learn how these things work, when you make a statement of fact the onus is on you to prove it, not on the person who doubted it - which is what I did, I didn't say you were wrong I cast doubt and said I considered the two complimentary.

If you'd care to explain also, genius, how exactly I compare VoD hits with viewings of linear programs that would also be good. 200 million VoD hits in a quarter isn't really comparable to how many HD subscribers there are receiving linear HD content. Most of the stuff we watch here is HD, taking each and every bit of content as a 'hit' and doing the same for other Sky subscribers would probably be more accurate but good luck with that.

So, again, yes it's on you to back up your statement of fact. If you can't back things up don't give your opinion as fact then get indignant when asked to bear it out, simple.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Sky understand the publics need for vod aswell as HD. That's why there desperate to get there vod service launched and hd boxes that are ethernet compatible are now given away free.

Sky+ boxes had USB a while ago. I would speculate the primary reason for Sky to be handing out the HD boxes for free is that, well, they are HD not because have Ethernet ports. That there is a pull VoD service coming soon is merely a bonus. It was actually originally planned and worked on 3 years ago but put on hold for a few reasons.

I didn't say VoD had zero demand I said both were in demand. If they weren't people wouldn't be selling them. Perhaps a better comparison would be to ask how many people actually pay to access VoD content on VM given that Sky subscribers pay to access Sky HD. That HD also needs a shiny new TV and new set top box as well makes it even more difficult to compare.

Given Virgin have released a PVR-less HD box they evidently think there's demand for HD there to make it worth their while. Let's just say that there is strong and significant demand for both and be done with it.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well yes you do need to back it up, you made it as a statement of fact. Do learn how these things work, when you make a statement of fact the onus is on you to prove it, not on the person who doubted it - which is what I did, I didn't say you were wrong I cast doubt and said I considered the two complimentary.

If you'd care to explain also, genius, how exactly I compare VoD hits with viewings of linear programs that would also be good. 200 million VoD hits in a quarter isn't really comparable to how many HD subscribers there are receiving linear HD content. Most of the stuff we watch here is HD, taking each and every bit of content as a 'hit' and doing the same for other Sky subscribers would probably be more accurate but good luck with that.

So, again, yes it's on you to back up your statement of fact. If you can't back things up don't give your opinion as fact then get indignant when asked to bear it out, simple.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------



Sky+ boxes had USB a while ago. I would speculate the primary reason for Sky to be handing out the HD boxes for free is that, well, they are HD not because have Ethernet ports. That there is a pull VoD service coming soon is merely a bonus. It was actually originally planned and worked on 3 years ago but put on hold for a few reasons.

I didn't say VoD had zero demand I said both were in demand. If they weren't people wouldn't be selling them. Perhaps a better comparison would be to ask how many people actually pay to access VoD content on VM given that Sky subscribers pay to access Sky HD. That HD also needs a shiny new TV and new set top box as well makes it even more difficult to compare.

Given Virgin have released a PVR-less HD box they evidently think there's demand for HD there to make it worth their while. Let's just say that there is strong and significant demand for both and be done with it.

I never said anything was fact did i? Where did i use the word fact in my post? So get your facts right. I said VOD is in higher demand than HD. The figures speak for themselves. 200 million hits for VOD for just one company out of several in one quarter is hugely impressive. How many HD customers do sky and VM have and how many HD channels are there? Not really that many is there and you state that there is more of a demand for HD. Not only broadcast companies like vm, bt look at Youtube that's still a form of VOD and is one of the fatest and most popular mediums for video on the planet. More than half of vms subscriber base uses their vod service but no where near that figure have their HD service and they give it away.

You're right for HD you do have more set up costs but if there was such a big demand for it like people suggest everyone would have it. Millions of people have HD ready tvs now but are in no rush to go and get an HD service. Freeview HD is free but people aren't using that in the same numbers. VOD is great for tv when you want to watch it because it works around your lifestyle. HD is not such a big issue as the majority of people are happy with watching regular sd broadcasts.

I have already said there is demand for both i didn't say there wasn't did i? But i did say i think there is more demand for VOD than HD.

Lol look at you getting all heating and abusive, i think i'll just ignore you and you ridiculous comments in the future. Genius lol that's funny

[Turkey Machine]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Sky understand the publics need for vod aswell as HD. That's why there desperate to get there vod service launched and hd boxes that are ethernet compatible are now given away free.

Yep, but their bundled broadband is nowhere near capable enough to deliver that service. 2Mbit?! Good gods, I wouldn't even trust BT to deliver VOD with that...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

<Snip>

Lol look at you getting all heating and abusive, i think i'll just ignore you and you ridiculous comments in the future. Genius lol that's funny

I'm not the one getting heated and abusive dear boy. If you don't really get that this:

There is more of a demand for vod than there is for HD.

Is a statement of fact there's not really a huge amount of discussion to be had, beyond my making the obvious point that using You Tube et al as a guide to the demand for VM's VoD is obviously quite disingenuous, and that until very recently there was a fee for HD on VM and even now V+ has a rental charge and you aren't getting HD on VM yet without one. Can't see that the HD only box has been released yet. I was actually discussing demand for VM's VoD. Given the thread was entitled 'Virgin Reports 200mln TV VoD Views' I would have thought discussion of You Tube, iPlayer, Sky Player and other Internet based services is somewhat irrelevant and 'VoD' would refer to VM's On Demand service.

Per my previous post we'll agree to disagree and life goes on

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm not the one getting heated and abusive dear boy.

Oh but you are, calling people a genius in a sarcastic manner is rather abusive. Calling someone 'Dear boy' is also demeaning and disrespectful.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Is a statement of fact there's not really a huge amount of discussion to be had, beyond my making the obvious point that using You Tube et al as a guide to the demand for VM's VoD is obviously quite disingenuous, and that until very recently there was a fee for HD on VM and even now V+ has a rental charge and you aren't getting HD on VM yet without one. Can't see that the HD only box has been released yet. I was actually discussing demand for VM's VoD. Given the thread was entitled 'Virgin Reports 200mln TV VoD Views' I would have thought discussion of You Tube, iPlayer, Sky Player and other Internet based services is somewhat irrelevant and 'VoD' would refer to VM's On Demand service.

Per my previous post we'll agree to disagree and life goes on

I know what a fact is thank you i don't need someone on a forum trying to explain the english language and meanings to me.

Whether or not there is a fee for HD or not is irrelevant, there was a fee for VOD aswell seeing as you had to subscribe to virgin media's top pack to get their service. There is set up costs for both, people go out and buy HD ready tv's but the majority aren't even subscribed to a HD service yet and are still watching SD broadcasts which shows the majority don't yet have the same demand for it like they do HD. IMO.

If the discussion of other services like Sky, iplayer, itv player. 4od etc are irrelevant to this thread and this thread is only relevant to VM then that's fine by me as you again can look at all VM's figures the majority have access to video on demand but don't use VM's HD service even though a lot are on their top pack and would only have to pay a one off cost for installation. VM's HD service numbers are poor. Whereas more than half of their customers are now using their vod service. Virgin media's own words.

Truth is there is more demand for Video on demand than there is for HD regardless of the platform.

[Ignitionnet]

Haven't read your response - see previous posts about agreeing to disagree. Have a good one

[Planetgarb]

Hahahaha this is funny ..... you both dont have the real facts and are waffling over your own opinions and little details of who said what.

keep it up its very entertaining

[m419]

VOD on Sky, and who says Virgin Media Television will provide Sky with VoD content?

And how do you know Channel 4 and ITV are not already some kind of contract to supply only BT Vision and Virgin Media customers, ITV Player is not yet available on TalkTalk TV,which probably explains why.

The most likely service to be featured on Sky's VoD service would be Demand 5 from Channel 5 as well as Sky's own channels such as Sky 1 and Sky Movies and Sky Sports as well as FX,History and National Geographic.

To be honest as most people have Sky plus, I can see demand for VoD would be low. Virgin TV on demand in TV choice already features some content from FX,History and National Geographic.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Planetgarb

Hahahaha this is funny ..... you both dont have the real facts and are waffling over your own opinions and little details of who said what.

keep it up its very entertaining

You're like a week too late.