Virgin Media sells UKTV stake to Scripps for £339m

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I'm not DF, but it's in development at the moment.

you are SP

[denphone]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I'm not DF, but it's in development at the moment.

Have you got a timespan on that

[spiderplant]

Nope

[New to cable]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

It's a risk VM are taking, but the end result should be more content and that's what everyone keeps going on about.

Its not a risk though is it, a lot of regular posters on this forum are absolutely obsessed with Sky and Sky's content. To the point that if you say sky tv is ok someone will ask something completely uneducated and insane like "Has your master paid you today"

Virginmedia is now a platform not a content provider so it needs to understand where its strengths are. Its 4 million TV customers give it leverage and it also needs to make its customers understand VM is not sky.

There are 100's of content providers worldwide who will be happy to do deals with VM when they realise the 4 million customers waiting too watch the content.

Surely if you sell your channel to sky you may have a possible 10 million customers but you're up against channels like Sky Atlantic. But on VM you don't have that issue. Turn negatives into positives and get different exclusive content an stop chasing skys tail.

I'm sure VM has a team of people selling its advantages like VOD in HD and Tivo etc. But its customers need to forget about Sky and Skys content.

What he said.

Also bear in mind that despite Sky channels being available in more than half the homes in the UK, their top-rated entertainment channel - Sky One - still only has an average viewing share of about 1% and struggles to screen anything that garners more than 1 million viewers. Sky Atlantic's share (still available in more than 10 million homes) is well under half of one percent. Sky's TV channels simply aren't all that special in the minds of the vast majority of British TV viewers, even those viewers that have access to those channels. That anybody would think otherwise says lots for the skill of Sky's marketing department. But at the end of the day, it's all gloss and very little substance.

On top of that there is nothing to suggest that people with Virgin Media TV aren't watching broadly the same stuff as everyone else, namely big-name shows on the big-name public service channels, with a little of 'all the rest' thrown in when there's nothing else worth watching.

VM's strength lies not in what linear channels it has available, but in how it can deliver content to its customers. That's where the company's focus has been for quite some time now, and today's announcement is simply another path along that road.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

What he said.

Also bear in mind that despite Sky channels being available in more than half the homes in the UK, their top-rated entertainment channel - Sky One - still only has an average viewing share of about 1% and struggles to screen anything that garners more than 1 million viewers. Sky Atlantic's share (still available in more than 10 million homes) is well under half of one percent. Sky's TV channels simply aren't all that special in the minds of the vast majority of British TV viewers, even those viewers that have access to those channels.

On top of that there is nothing to suggest that people with Virgin Media TV aren't watching broadly the same stuff as everyone else, namely big-name shows on the big-name public service channels, with a little of 'all the rest' thrown in when there's nothing else worth watching.

VM's strength lies not in what linear channels it has available, but in how it can deliver content to its customers. That's where the company's focus has been for quite some time now, and today's announcement is simply another path along that road.

I'm afraid Chris your living in the dark ages here , them figures merely represent how many watched say Hawaii Five O on its Sunday night premiere airing, what about people who watch it when repeated or VIA Sky Anytime/Anytime+ or Sky Go online.

So people want VM to pay the price that they won't pay by subscribing to Sky..If you want Sky Atlantic so much subscribe to Sky for goodness sake.

[New to cable]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'm afraid Chris your living in the dark ages here , them figures merely represent how many watched say Hawaii Five O on its Sunday night premiere airing, what about people who watch it when repeated or VIA Sky Anytime/Anytime+ or Sky Go online.

Muppetman I'm affriad it is you who has it wrong. Shows with good veiwing figures are availible for all to see. To many Sky shows have very poor figures.

You can't start saying the reason sky has crap viewing figures is because everyone time shifts. Surely 1 or 2 shows would have big figures?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So people want VM to pay the price that they won't pay by subscribing to Sky..If you want Sky Atlantic so much subscribe to Sky for goodness sake.

l would pay more to have more channels Maggy and l have no intention of going to Sky for it

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'm afraid Chris your living in the dark ages here , them figures merely represent how many watched say Hawaii Five O on its Sunday night premiere airing, what about people who watch it when repeated or VIA Sky Anytime/Anytime+ or Sky Go online.

If you believe that (legal) catch-up services bolster the reach of any of Sky's content by more than 10-15% then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

The most popular non-soap drama in the UK (Doctor Who) manages a time-shift that adds at most 1.5 million to an overnight of about 6 million, and that's considered to be a massive amount. To believe Sky to be achieving anything like it is self-delusion on a grand scale.

Don't deceive yourself by hanging round the sort of forums where lots of Sky content fans hang out. This forum, and others, are what you would call a self-selecting sample and are not representative of the nation's viewing habits as a whole.

Most households view broadly the same set of linear programming on the same set of channels, regardless of the platform they use. Your point about catch-up methods serves admirably to prove the suggestion that VM is correct to concentrate on its delivery, rather than its linear content, and it really does not prove that VM should be chasing after more Sky-branded channels at any cost.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you believe that (legal) catch-up services bolster the reach of any of Sky's content by more than 10-15% then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

The most popular non-soap drama in the UK (Doctor Who) manages a time-shift that adds at most 1.5 million to an overnight of about 6 million, and that's considered to be a massive amount. To believe Sky to be achieving anything like it is self-delusion on a grand scale.

Don't deceive yourself by hanging round the sort of forums where lots of Sky content fans hang out. This forum, and others, are what you would call a self-selecting sample and are not representative of the nation's viewing habits as a whole.

Most households view broadly the same set of linear programming on the same set of channels, regardless of the platform they use. Your point about catch-up methods serves admirably to prove the suggestion that VM is correct to concentrate on its delivery, rather than its linear content, and it really does not prove that VM should be chasing after more Sky-branded channels at any cost.

I never stated any amounts, if you care to read my post back nor was I suggesting Sky's most popular shows rivalled terrestrial viewing which seems ludicrous to even suggest considering their are far more people with access to them , I don't hang around any forums nor delude myself to Sky's content reach, was merely stating the viewing figures aren't accurate on overnights now , maybe you should try reading properly and cut the personal insults. Can you also point out were I suggested that VM should pay ridiculous amounts to acquire Sky content ?

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I never stated any amounts, if you care to read my post back nor was I suggesting Sky's most popular shows rivalled terrestrial viewing which seems ludicrous to even suggest considering their are far more people with access to them , I don't hang around any forums nor delude myself to Sky's content reach, was merely stating the viewing figures aren't accurate on overnights now , maybe you should try reading properly and cut the personal insults. Can you also point out were I suggested that VM should pay ridiculous amounts to acquire Sky content ?

My, we're touchy this evening aren't we. Odd how you can dish out barbed comments and then get all hot under the collar when you get them back. If you can't stand the heat ...

You have an extremely shaky grasp of statistics and a still shakier grasp of the realities of TV channel penetration in the UK.

Sky is in more than 10 million homes. VM is in about 4 million. Between them, they make the vast majority of pay-TV channels available to 14 million homes, or more than 50% of all British households.

If Sky One, to take the most popular pay-TV entertainment channel as an example, was performing as well even as Channel 5 (the least popular public service channel) then you would expect its reach to be about 2%, making an allowance for the fact that about half as many homes can get Sky One as can get C5. But Sky One only gets half that. Its tiny reach has nothing to do with the fact that it's a subscription channel and everything to do with it being a niche product.

And that brings me back to my point. Sky's channels are not mass-market products. They are niche products. As you correctly point out, on-demand/catch-up viewing is of growing importance and Virgin Media's long-term strategy is to develop an on-demand platform that serves up the meat you can get from those niche channels without also carrying the gristle (of which there is much).

However to suggest, as you did, that BARB's figures are suspect because of the availability of services like Sky Go is just naive.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

My, we're touchy this evening aren't we. Odd how you can dish out barbed comments and then get all hot under the collar when you get them back. If you can't stand the heat ...

You have an extremely shaky grasp of statistics and a still shakier grasp of the realities of TV channel penetration in the UK.

Sky is in more than 10 million homes. VM is in about 4 million. Between them, they make the vast majority of pay-TV channels available to 14 million homes, or more than 50% of all British households.

If Sky One, to take the most popular pay-TV entertainment channel as an example, was performing as well even as Channel 5 (the least popular public service channel) then you would expect its reach to be about 2%, making an allowance for the fact that about half as many homes can get Sky One as can get C5. But Sky One only gets half that. Its tiny reach has nothing to do with the fact that it's a subscription channel and everything to do with it being a niche product.

And that brings me back to my point. Sky's channels are not mass-market products. They are niche products. As you correctly point out, on-demand/catch-up viewing is of growing importance and Virgin Media's long-term strategy is to develop an on-demand platform that serves up the meat you can get from those niche channels without also carrying the gristle (of which there is much).

However to suggest, as you did, that BARB's figures are suspect because of the availability of services like Sky Go is just naive.

No offence but I haven't said they are mass market , nor have I stated they will have the reach of terrestrial TV , I merely stated the overnights aren't accurate anymore which remains a FACT.

The overnights are as accurate as they ever were. They tell you how many people watched any given programme as it was broadcast.

The consolidated figures, which are the ones you get from the public part of the BARB website, are the ones that claim to allow for time-shifting, and I suspect what you actually mean is that the consolidated figures are more questionable because they can't yet measure online catch-up, only catch-up via TV.

There may be some truth in that, however, the BBC does from time to time release general, aggregated stats for the iPlayer and while it's not often possible to see how a specific programme has been accessed, it is definitely possible to say that while iPlayer is impressive, its not generating the sorts of figures that would justify the claim that BARB's figures "aren't accurate anymore which remains a FACT".

It's not a fact, even if you put it in caps.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

The overnights are as accurate as they ever were. They tell you how many people watched any given programme as it was broadcast.

The consolidated figures, which are the ones you get from the public part of the BARB website, are the ones that claim to allow for time-shifting, and I suspect what you actually mean is that the consolidated figures are more questionable because they can't yet measure online catch-up, only catch-up via TV.

There may be some truth in that, however, the BBC does from time to time release general, aggregated stats for the iPlayer and while it's not often possible to see how a specific programme has been accessed, it is definitely possible to say that while iPlayer is impressive, its not generating the sorts of figures that would justify the claim that BARB's figures "aren't accurate anymore which remains a FACT".

It's not a fact, even if you put it in caps.

Thanks for educating me