General : Virgin Media & UKTV+ITV Channels

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Ultimate.Conj

45p a week cannot be right. Are you saying virgin refused to pay sky £ 23.40 a year for Atlantic?

Or do you mean 45p per week per customer?

Per week, per customer. This sounds like nothing, but, apparently, is an extraordinary high figure for carriage costs for one channel and it all adds up.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As I said before, an already weakened platform could not not afford to also lose the ITV channels. It's pretty obvious that VM gave in to the requirements of ITV and this will not have gone unnoticed by the other channel providers.

That’s an opinion, not a fact. Unless you know the terms of the ITV deal.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Source?

It's all there if you do a search, including searching Ofcom.

[Mr K]

Guess it depends on how many customers VM lose as a result of this, how many discounts they've had to give, how much bad feeling it's caused, as to whether it has all been worth it. As UKTV weren't increasing prices it could be a false economy, VM certainly seem to have been taken by surprise by the reaction.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Ultimate.Conj

I wouldn't say it was obvious.

Did you see what virgin also get in the deal?

Premium box sets
Extended on demand viewing
4k programming including sports

Not sure that is "giving in"

Obviously, VM will have wanted to get value for money and insisted that they too got something in return for their increased carriage costs.

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s an opinion, not a fact. Unless you know the terms of the ITV deal.

I think it's pretty obvious that ITV got what they wanted if you think about it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's all there if you do a search, including searching Ofcom.

If I search twitter for the term OFCOM and any ISP I find people wanting to complain to the communications regulator. It’s almost as if they see it as a way to get attention from the company.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As I said before, an already weakened platform could not not afford to also lose the ITV channels. It's pretty obvious that VM gave in to the requirements of ITV and this will not have gone unnoticed by the other channel providers.

l somehow doubt it as it takes two to come to a amicable agreement that is acceptable for both as its been rumoured for weeks that a deal was very close as it was just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Guess it depends on how many customers VM lose as a result of this, how many discounts they've had to give, how much bad feeling it's caused, as to whether it has all been worth it. As UKTV weren't increasing prices it could be a false economy, VM certainly seem to have been taken by surprise by the reaction.

Exactly. VM tried to get UKTV to accept less and it's always worth trying to get suppliers to provide things for less.

It didn't work, so VM thought that they'd push the issue and make the spat public. It's been handled appallingly and blown up in their face.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Obviously, VM will have wanted to get value for money and insisted that they too got something in return for their increased carriage costs.

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



I think it's pretty obvious that ITV got what they wanted if you think about it.

There’s nothing obvious at all about it.

Advertisers pay ITV to reach the biggest commercial audiences. 4m homes is a sizeable portion of that. Do ITV want to go back and refund their advertisers a percentage of their fees? Probably not.

I see two companies haggling to the last minute and striking a mutually beneficial deal. Everyday capitalism really.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

If I search twitter for the term OFCOM and any ISP I find people wanting to complain to the communications regulator. It’s almost as if they see it as a way to get attention from the company.

....obviously.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Exactly. VM tried to get UKTV to accept less and it's always worth trying to get suppliers to provide things for less.

It didn't work, so VM thought that they'd push the issue and make the spat public. It's been handled appallingly and blown up in their face.

“You have speculated” it has blown up in their face.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

....obviously.

So you agree it’s a bad methodology to apply small sample sizes to the entire customer base?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by denphone

l somehow doubt it as it takes two to come to a amicable agreement that is acceptable for both as its been rumoured for weeks that a deal was very close as it was just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Why do you think that ITV gave VM an ultimatum in the same week as their platform had been weakened? Why do you think that 18 months of not getting a deal regarding retransmission fees was resolved within 24 hours after a threat to further weaken the channel line up?

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s nothing obvious at all about it.

Advertisers pay ITV to reach the biggest commercial audiences. 4m homes is a sizeable portion of that. Do ITV want to go back and refund their advertisers a percentage of their fees? Probably not.

I see two companies haggling to the last minute and striking a mutually beneficial deal. Everyday capitalism really.

It's true to say that ITV would have lost advertising revenue, but pretty obvious that the loss of the UKTV channels and the threat to pull the feeds within days led to VM agreeing to what ITV wanted within 24 hours.

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So you agree it’s a bad methodology to apply small sample sizes to the entire customer base?

What are you talking about?

[jfman]

It’s not obvious at all.

Given that UKTV will be arguing over pennies per subscriber per month if ITV proposed adverse terms Virgin would have been better dealing with UKTV and kicking the can down the road again over ITV.

The fact there is a deal with ITV so quick makes it more likely it’s on terms the parties were close to anyway. It’d have been in ITVs interest to drag it out, arguing their content is more compelling than ever on the platform.

[telegramsam]

Looking at it from another point of view, ITV could of looked at Virgins hard stance with UKTV and thought "hey we don't want our channels withdrawn from the Virgin Media platform, we'll give in to what Virgin Media want". Just my opinion guys.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why do you think that ITV gave VM an ultimatum in the same week as their platform had been weakened? Why do you think that 18 months of not getting a deal regarding retransmission fees was resolved within 24 hours after a threat to further weaken the channel line up?

There was no ultimatum as that imaginary word is only in the pages of some newspapers who like to write banner headlines without any substantiation of proof.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why do you think that ITV gave VM an ultimatum in the same week as their platform had been weakened? Why do you think that 18 months of not getting a deal regarding retransmission fees was resolved within 24 hours after a threat to further weaken the channel line up?

Retransmission fees were always part of the wider deal that ITV and Virgin signed so that was obviously not going to be announced until a full deal had been reached between the two on other matters.