General : Coming soon to Virgin TV 2014

[ocav]

Originally Posted by Chris

Sky Atlantic is the best advert for illegal downloads the UK has ever seen. I can't believe the number of my friends and acquaintances who have seen Game of Thrones, despite not having Sky or a large DVD collection.

I don't understand Sky's strategy here. The evidence surely shows that exclusive offerings like this simply don't pull in the punters. The movement of telly addicts to Sky back when their Basics package vanished from VM for a period of months was negligible; Sky was forced back to the negotiating table due to viewing figures that had been slashed and angry advertisers who pointed out that they weren't going to keep paying the same amount to reach only two thirds of the viewers.

It looks to me as if they are simply locked into a mindset now and don't know what else to do.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 ----------



This is not necessarily bad news for VM customers. The deal relates to exclusive carriage of HBO shows on Sky Atlantic, not exclusive access to Sky Atlantic by Sky subscribers only.

If Sky does see the light and realise it has nothing to gain from channel exclusivity, there is nothing in this deal with HBO that I can see that would prevent Sky making the channel available on cable before 2020.

Sky came back to VM because Sky purchased the VM Channels and the return of Sky Basics was part of that deal, not that Sky came back to the table. At the time ALL Sky channels were removed whereas this time it's only 1. Seen as adverts are sold as a package rather than per channel through Sky Media so advertisers are on Atlantic, Sky1, Sky Sports all for one price, so for them Atlantic isn't a major problem.

For them it has high profile talked about Dramas which is some of the most popular on Pay TV.

Personally since switching I've only watched it once or twice but there is a lot of stuff I'd watch if I has the opportunity to see it from the beginning, unfortunately everything is on it's 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc series.

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by ocav

Sky came back to VM because Sky purchased the VM Channels and the return of Sky Basics was part of that deal, not that Sky came back to the table.

That's not entirely true is it?

The Sky Basics came back some time before VM sold Living etc to Sky.

The sale of the Living etc channels was a later deal which gave access to the HD variants of (some) Sky channels. No doubts others on here will recall exact dates.

If anybody is looking to clutch at straws, the entended HBO deal may give VM confidence to do a deal with Sky over Sky Atlantic....

I've just been shopping in ASDA. They wouldn't accept my Tesco Clubcard. They said Tesco say they can't accept it. How nasty can Tesco be? And I couldn't buy Sainsburys bacon there either! Vindictive, I call it...

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

I've just been shopping in ASDA. They wouldn't accept my Tesco Clubcard. They said Tesco say they can't accept it. How nasty can Tesco be? And I couldn't buy Sainsburys bacon there either! Vindictive, I call it...

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

Hands up. You're quite right, it's not a true analogy. However Weetabix (for example) will often provide a 50% extra free pack exclusively to ASDA or one of the others. ASDA (or McDonalds, or anyone) will also seek to sign exclusive deals with suppliers such as farmers wherever they can so as to exclude their competitors. It's the way of the world.

I sound like I'm a Sky fan. I'm not, I just have no reason to hate them. I want SA on VM as much as anyone. But I can understand why it's not, and it's nothing to do with nastiness and everything to do with sound business practice.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

Not a true analogy.

If you had said 'I went to Asda to buy some Weetabix but they wouldn't sell me any because Tesco have an exclusive deal.....'

Competition is supposed to work in the interest of consumers. In the case of TV content, it just forces up costs and/or forces customers into binary choices.

This.

Customers have been getting ripped off for years now because the govt have refused to look after customers interests and allowed television to become a cow for sky to milk. this shouldnt have ever been allowed to happen in the first place.

[theone2k10]

Not coming soon but a bit of good news for WWE fans - Sky sports have agreed and signed a 5 year deal from 2015 with WWE, to show all 12 ppvs and raw, smackdown and main event.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by theone2k10

Not coming soon but a bit of good news for WWE fans - Sky sports have agreed and signed a 5 year deal from 2015 with WWE, to show all 12 ppvs and raw, smackdown and main event.

no real surprise there

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Dave42

no real surprise there

A leopard will never change its spots l am afraid.

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by JustaBloke

Hands up. You're quite right, it's not a true analogy. However Weetabix (for example) will often provide a 50% extra free pack exclusively to ASDA or one of the others. ASDA (or McDonalds, or anyone) will also seek to sign exclusive deals with suppliers such as farmers wherever they can so as to exclude their competitors. It's the way of the world.

I sound like I'm a Sky fan. I'm not, I just have no reason to hate them. I want SA on VM as much as anyone. But I can understand why it's not, and it's nothing to do with nastiness and everything to do with sound business practice.

OK, it's pushing the supermarket analogy at bit further, but in the examples you quote, customers still have a free choice where they buy the product itself. If say Tesco not only obtained the exclusive rights to sell Weetabix but then said, by the way if you want buy it you also have to get your entire year's (or week's) shopping here too, there would quite rightly be an outcry.

The problem is not Sky per se, who just do what they can get away with, it's exclusivity coupled with the enforced bundling of channels, which take away the ability of customers to pick and mix what they want to see.

[Doug P]

It has to be accepted that much that is on Sky Sports, and indeed BT would not be shown at all on terrestrial if the pay channels did not exist.....

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Doug P

It has to be accepted that much that is on Sky Sports, and indeed BT would not be shown at all on terrestrial if the pay channels did not exist.....

If Pay TV providers did not exist then the rights would be much cheaper and would be seen much more widely on the terrestrial channels and thus we would not have this relentless arms race where the price for the sports rights and other content goes higher and higher and thus in the end its the customer who pays the price and even those who don't subscribe to the premium channels end up paying the price as well.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Doug P

It has to be accepted that much that is on Sky Sports, and indeed BT would not be shown at all on terrestrial if the pay channels did not exist.....

What do you mean? I distinctly remember top league football being screened on terrestrial TV long before Mr Murdoch came along.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What do you mean? I distinctly remember top league football being screened on terrestrial TV long before Mr Murdoch came along.

I said much that is on Sky Sports. Rugby League coverage would be minimal. Cricket is too long for terrestrial channels nowadays. Sadly much ladies' sport would be ignored.

The alleged cream such as top soccer would of course be shown but I doubt in such quantity.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

OK, it's pushing the supermarket analogy at bit further, but in the examples you quote, customers still have a free choice where they buy the product itself. If say Tesco not only obtained the exclusive rights to sell Weetabix but then said, by the way if you want buy it you also have to get your entire year's (or week's) shopping here too, there would quite rightly be an outcry.

The problem is not Sky per se, who just do what they can get away with, it's exclusivity coupled with the enforced bundling of channels, which take away the ability of customers to pick and mix what they want to see.

Yes, the problem is the legislative environment in which the entertainment industry works.

Programmes should be freely available in the same way that music is, it's not rocket science. I have no problems with channels being exclusive but programmes should be available to any channel that wants to get the rights to show them.

It's simply annoying that if I do not want to be denied HBO programming I have to subscribe to Sky (when I want VM for Netflix and everything else I like about TIVO, etc) as well as VM, and most of the content is duplicated.

I want everything on the one box and I'm not interested in the Now Box or any of the other devices that I'd have to buy in order to receive the missing content. It's a ridiculous system that encourages piracy and is overdue for change.