General : Underhand devious Sky

I think the business models are different anyway ,sky concentrates on TV and VM on internet so comparing the 2 as tv suppliers and expecting them to be equal is wrong imo

[nstokes]

Originally Posted by martyh

I think the business models are different anyway ,sky concentrates on TV and VM on internet so comparing the 2 as tv suppliers and expecting them to be equal is wrong imo

You have a good point

[Chad]

I saw something the other night that I couldn't believe. You may have seen this yourself.

There is an advert currently running for The Discovery Channel which features clips from a programme featuring Freddy Flintoff. I've seen this advert on SKY 1, SKY Sports and Channel 4.

What surprises me is at the end it turns out the advert isn't for The Discovery Channel, it's actually an advert for SKY advising that the Discovery Channel is available on SKY channel 520. There is no mention of the Discovery Channel being available on Virgin or Smallworld. The advert leaves the impression that SKY is the only place to watch the Discovery Channel.

That seems fairly underhand and devious, or at the very least a bit misleading. How can SKY advertise channels on their platform in such a way that viewers of the advert are of the impression no other TV platform provides the channel?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chad

I saw something the other night that I couldn't believe. You may have seen this yourself.

There is an advert currently running for The Discovery Channel which features clips from a programme featuring Freddy Flintoff. I've seen this advert on SKY 1, SKY Sports and Channel 4.

What surprises me is at the end it turns out the advert isn't for The Discovery Channel, it's actually an advert for SKY advising that the Discovery Channel is available on SKY channel 520. There is no mention of the Discovery Channel being available on Virgin or Smallworld. The advert leaves the impression that SKY is the only place to watch the Discovery Channel.

That seems fairly underhand and devious, or at the very least a bit misleading. How can SKY advertise channels on their platform in such a way that viewers of the advert are of the impression no other TV platform provides the channel?

Thats not the only channel that l have seen do it Chad as there has been several other channels that Sky do part own who do exactly the same thing quite a bit.

Originally Posted by Chad

I saw something the other night that I couldn't believe. You may have seen this yourself.

There is an advert currently running for The Discovery Channel which features clips from a programme featuring Freddy Flintoff. I've seen this advert on SKY 1, SKY Sports and Channel 4.

What surprises me is at the end it turns out the advert isn't for The Discovery Channel, it's actually an advert for SKY advising that the Discovery Channel is available on SKY channel 520. There is no mention of the Discovery Channel being available on Virgin or Smallworld. The advert leaves the impression that SKY is the only place to watch the Discovery Channel.

That seems fairly underhand and devious, or at the very least a bit misleading. How can SKY advertise channels on their platform in such a way that viewers of the advert are of the impression no other TV platform provides the channel?

Sky is the only place to watch discovery unless you buy a package that includes those channels from Virgin . It's not a free channel

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Thats not the only channel that l have seen do it Chad as there has been several other channels that Sky do part own who do exactly the same thing quite a bit.

The're advertising a channel on their own network ,what the hells wrong with that ?

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Actually I was thinking more about the way the government has managed to look the other way every time Murdoch added another titbit to his ever-growing media empire and failed entirely to see any conflicts of interest or think that his growing monopoly should be investigated..

Other wise it is good business acumen..

thats because the tory govenment in bed with murdoch thet never do anything about it and why the made jeremy hunt in charge to make sure he got 100% control of sky untill milly dowlers phone hacking got caught by the press and everyone know sky want a monopoly

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by boragthung

Noticed a new programme pilot (Awake ) on Sky 1 last week and set it to series record as it looked really interesting. Just watched it last night only to hear the announcer say at the end 'Awake continues next week on Sky Atlantic'.

I could not see any future recorings planned so looking at my Digiguide I discover that the whole series is on Atlantic only, no repeats on Sky 1.

I think this is totally despicable and shouldn't be allowed!!!Grrrrr!!

I had Awake on a whishlist for a long time before a UK broadcaster was announced and subsequently forgot about it when I later learned that Atlantic had got the rights. So I was surprised when it turned up as a planned recording. I then remembered that Sky had done this sort of thing before, to try to get VM customers to defect to Sky. I just find it irritating rather than wrong.

A lot of people seem really annoyed at it's cancellation, so sorry for them, but knowing that it happened to a show that Sky choose to restrict viewers numbers of, by putting it on Atlantic, eases the irritation slightly

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well when you have a marketing budget 5 times the size of your rivals it rather easy to overwhelm the message of your rivals but yet thats the typical Sky tactic of trying to squash the opposition.

Vey bias view but I guess that has come to be expected of your posts

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Vey bias view but I guess that has come to be expected of your posts

Sky are an good product/company.However the Murdochs and the way they gor their empire under the monopolies wire are not to be admired.It's given Sky a certain financial clout that they probably wouldn't have if they had been put through the monopolies process fairly.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

Vey bias view but I guess that has come to be expected of your posts

l think l am going to choke on my breakfast with that remark dear Lex as l think you need to get your glasses on this morning and take a look at your many biased posts with your Sky fanboy friends before turning your guns on me as yes l do praise Virgin where due but l also criticise them in equal measure as well and l don't think we can say that about your many Sky fanboy postings can we.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Dave42

thats because the tory govenment in bed with murdoch thet never do anything about it and why the made jeremy hunt in charge to make sure he got 100% control of sky untill milly dowlers phone hacking got caught by the press and everyone know sky want a monopoly

We haven't got a Tory government. Isn't it actually the case that Vince Cable would have seen that decision through had he not said something silly.

---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No they are just devious and underhand..because they use their superior and unfairly gained share of the market to buy up the more interesting products on the market such as the premiership..

Imagine if everyone could watch that free on the BBC...or the cricket.

In fairness to Sky, which came first, really? My take on it is they spent the money on the Premier League and earnt market share, rather than the other way around. That's speculating to accumulate-business in it's purest form. Sky are a success story. They may be involved with people we don't like but they're bloody good at what they do-if people want to take a principled stand against them as I have then they have that opportunity, but it's hard not to admire the fact that they have been able to grow their business amidst bleak economic times.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by denphone

l think l am going to choke on my breakfast with that remark dear Lex as l think you need to get your glasses on this morning and take a look at your many biased posts with your Sky fanboy friends before turning your guns on me as yes l do praise Virgin where due but l also criticise them in equal measure as well and l don't think we can say that about your many Sky fanboy postings can we.

Yet more bias

Less name-calling, more reasoned discussion, please.

[Pog66]

Originally Posted by Dave42

thats because the tory govenment in bed with murdoch thet never do anything about it and why the made jeremy hunt in charge to make sure he got 100% control of sky untill milly dowlers phone hacking got caught by the press and everyone know sky want a monopoly

ahem - for the short of memory amongst us the current COALITION govt has only been in place two years - and the Sky empire has been built up over a considerably longer period of Labour government.

We digress - back to the topic

Anyhoo, back to the topic.

I don't see what is underhand about giving a "taster" of a programme/channel - VM sometimes put a channel on M or L for a weekend.