barb figures show 1% reach drop to sky one

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The figure is the standard muliplication factor used when determining how many individuals watched a programme, where the raw statistics are expressed as households rather than individuals. This means that - presumably - BARB has research that shows that when a TV is tuned to a particular programme in an average house, an average number of 2.2 people will be watching it. It does explain this in the article I linked to - I'm wondering whether you actually read it?

No I didn't. Had you have explained this like you did then, then I wouldn't have to read through pages of gumph from the BFI to get to the point you're making.

Originally Posted by Chris T

As for the number of Sky viewers on cable - I really do think you're splitting hairs. The majority of combinations of channels offered by VM, past and present, include Sky One. I don't see that you have any basis to show a significant variance from the figure I have used.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm criticising the information you presented, and the way you presented it for a point that was indifferent to the consensus anyway. The only clear fact is that 500,000 less people watched Lost on Sky One this week than the previous weeks. We all agree that the assumption is that this loss comes from VM customers.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Certainly you've done rather less well than I have at bringing actual facts to this discussion, rather than conjecture that happens to back up your viewpoint.

Perhaps if you'd read my posts you might see that we're saying the same thing, aside from this 6.5% route versus 33% for one programme on Sky, which to my mind simply acts like comparing a horse to a housebrick.

Originally Posted by Chris T

You still don't see what the stats prove in the context of the discussion. Well, specifically the OP suggested (based on less than a full week's stats as it turns out) that Sky has barely been dented by the loss of carriage on VM.

Your two 'facts' might well stand up, but they are of no difference or similarity to each other. You're suggesting that cheesing off 6.5% of your customers is by some way related to Sky having 33% less viewers in some way other than the 6.5% are the same people as the 33%. Why? What does this prove?

Sky have lost viewing figures - Virgin have not, becuase they have not taken their channels away from any platform.

Virgin have annoyed their customers, Sky have not, as Sky's customers still have the single programme you're going on about.

Whilst the two figures are linked (and only) as they are affecting the same people, they are totally unconnected in every other way...so i remain confused as to exactly what point you are trying to make, other than to join in with the collective putting the boot into Sky?

It's like saying that 6.5% of Virgin customers have lost their one programme, but Tesco provides 50% of them with their bread each week. Both might be true, both are utterly irrelivant.

Originally Posted by Chris T

I went a step further and attempted to show that the whole 'crisis' is a bigger deal for Sky than it is for VM. Sky has lost a third of its viewers, and therefore a third of its justification for advertising rates, for its most expensive programme ever.

I'm not sure that you made that suggestion clear before now, but if that was what you're trying to prove with your maths, then this doesn't add up either:

First, you're talking about one programme, not all programmes on all Sky basic channels.

Second, none of us know how many Virgin customers have switched or will be doing so. It might be none, it might be lots, it might be somewhere in the middle. Until you have this stat, we're all guessing.

Third, Sky have only lost revenue from Virgin to this point. They have not reduced their advertising costs yet, although of course it's clear that unless they can bridge this missing viewing gap they will have to in the Summer.

So it's not really better or worse for anyone at this time (publicly anyway). But I would have thought that someone with an understanding of media such as yourself would be able to separate viewing figures with customer figures...if I didn't know you better I would be suggesting that you were just trying to stir it up for somereason.

[popper]

6.5% of Virgin customers have lost their one programme, but Tesco provides 50% of them with their bread each week. Both might be true, both are utterly irrelivant.

nope, not in wythenshawe (south manchester, probably VM's largest ?cabled garden city), we lost Tesco's when they shut up shop in civic months ago, so we all get our bread from iceland or farmfoods now, the poor birds are going hungry this week as farmfoods is blocked off and shut today while they dimolish the towerblock

the new sky bloke with his generator/dish and HD TV was there again trying to sell his wares but as usual no takers......., (no real shop selling [HD]TV's there any more)the VM guy under his shiny new plastic cover was as usual , ringing through to accounts/installs and setting up another 10 meg broadband/tv appointment.

its friday andy, have a beer and relax

the lads new sapphire ATI X1550 AGP gfx card from civic (£69)seems to be working nice..... im happy.

[King Of Fools]

It appears that everybody seems to be arguing with each other but nobody knows what the others are arguing about!

I think, however, that we all seem to be agreeing on the same things, so !

Originally Posted by Chris T

The figure of 2.2 viewers as quoted by the BFI is not a figure for average occupancy of a household, nor is it an average number for total people who like to watch TV in a household - if it were, then you would be justified in objecting to my use of it.

The figure is the standard muliplication factor used when determining how many individuals watched a programme, where the raw statistics are expressed as households rather than individuals. This means that - presumably - BARB has research that shows that when a TV is tuned to a particular programme in an average house, an average number of 2.2 people will be watching it. It does explain this in the article I linked to - I'm wondering whether you actually read it?

As for the number of Sky viewers on cable - I really do think you're splitting hairs. The majority of combinations of channels offered by VM, past and present, include Sky One. I don't see that you have any basis to show a significant variance from the figure I have used. Certainly you've done rather less well than I have at bringing actual facts to this discussion, rather than conjecture that happens to back up your viewpoint. You might do well to heed your own advice about merely repeating statements not making them factual.

You still don't see what the stats prove in the context of the discussion. Well, specifically the OP suggested (based on less than a full week's stats as it turns out) that Sky has barely been dented by the loss of carriage on VM.

I suggest otherwise - they appear to have lost about a third of their veiwers for Lost. (Incidentally, that proportion is broadly in line with the split of cable/satellite viewers in the UK, so perhaps we have some evidence for 3.3 million being a reasonable estimate of Sky One's reach on cable after all, but I digress)

I went a step further and attempted to show that the whole 'crisis' is a bigger deal for Sky than it is for VM. Sky has lost a third of its viewers, and therefore a third of its justification for advertising rates, for its most expensive programme ever.

VM, on the other hand, has risked the ire of just 6.5% of its viewers in the same crisis. Those 500,000 viewers will mean a lot to Sky and their advertisers. They do not mean nearly as much to VM.

BARB are assuming a lot, how about households who leave the tv on to keep the burglars at bay?
Average of 2.2 people per household? are them 2.2 people watching the same channel in the age of multiple tv sets?
How about the households, that are only inhabited by 1 but to round things up barb say " lets call that 2.2 "
The truth will be known once the end of year profits are listed, with sky having a bit more flexibility in the wallet I dont think it will be panic stations just yet.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

BARB are assuming a lot, how about households who leave the tv on to keep the burglars at bay?
Average of 2.2 people per household? are them 2.2 people watching the same channel in the age of multiple tv sets?
How about the households, that are only inhabited by 1 but to round things up barb say " lets call that 2.2 "
The truth will be known once the end of year profits are listed, with sky having a bit more flexibility in the wallet I dont think it will be panic stations just yet.

I don't think BARB are assuming anything. And seeing as they are the acknowledged experts in this field, if they use 2.2 as an average, I am happy to accept that they have the research and experience to back that up. What are your qualifications to say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Chris T

I don't think BARB are assuming anything. And seeing as they are the acknowledged experts in this field, if they use 2.2 as an average, I am happy to accept that they have the research and experience to back that up. What are your qualifications to say otherwise?

No more than yours, and that is my point.
Figures mean jack as far as I am concerned, what will matter is the net profit of each company.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

No more than yours, and that is my point.
Figures mean jack as far as I am concerned, what will matter is the net profit of each company.

I have no qualifications, agreed, but then I'm not the one suggesting that the people who do have the qualifications have got it wrong, am I?

[NTLVictim]

Just bear in mind that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Just bear in mind that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

true but which ever way you chop these figures they are bad news for SKY.

If there had been no or little drop then Sky would have won the battle as it would likely have been a massive switch of customers from VM to Sky.

God knows how much there advertising attack has cost to try and make us switch. We not even getting to the figure sales pitch of reduced costs to pull them in. Admittedly VM were also giving favours to keep disgruntled customers.

You have to question where are Sky going to recoup there spending/losses. I read that the beeb said even with Sky they could not raise funds to outbid setanta/ITV for the recent football.

Is this the first crack in SKY's power that they being forced to be more careful how they spend. All this spending has to catch up sky at some point.

[delfokronic]

[ntluser]

Surely if Sky One has lost viewers it means that either Sky customers are watching it less or that the drop was caused by the loss of Virgin Media Customers or both.

Sky Customers are fortunate in that in addition to all the official channels broadcast by Sky there are a massive number of Free To Air or Free To Watch channels. Hopefully, among all those choices, they can find something worth watching or listening to.

Personally, I think it was a mistake by Sky to drop Virgin Media Customers especially me as I am a Sky One fan. Sky have lost a lot of revenue. They should have taken what money Virgin Offered and recouped their spending losses from elsewhere.

It will interesting to see what happens with Ofcom or any legal actions in relation to this issue.

Might be also worth asking why Virgin Media cannot broadcast the same FTA channels as Sky and give their customers more choice.

[King Of Fools]

More on Digital Spy:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...customers.html

Originally Posted by Digital Spy

Satellite broadcaster Sky has seen the audience share on its basic channels drop by a combined 24.5% since they came off the Virgin Media platform last month.

Since March 1, Sky One, Two and Sky News' weekly all-hours shares have reduced with Sky One no longer in the top five non-terrestrial channels.

[dev]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

BARB are assuming a lot, how about households who leave the tv on to keep the burglars at bay?
Average of 2.2 people per household? are them 2.2 people watching the same channel in the age of multiple tv sets?
How about the households, that are only inhabited by 1 but to round things up barb say " lets call that 2.2 "
The truth will be known once the end of year profits are listed, with sky having a bit more flexibility in the wallet I dont think it will be panic stations just yet.

what about households with 3/4/5 people? student flats where there can be ~8 people watching?

if you want to say only 1 person watched lost then divide all viewing figures by 2.2? percentages will be the same

[mertle]

I just read this and they have a similar thread. Which someone said Lost hit less than a million viewers. So checked and sure enough there blue ribboned show has plummeted to new depths.

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...rt=weeklytop30

Unless Sky u-turn Sky One will I believe will not get future major investment or Sky might just pull the plug on it especially if it continues to drop. At the moment to relieve its flagging channel they throw a dog bones. A film here and plan to put football on it. What happens if this fails.

I really can see when 24 and Lost comes next up for bidding Sky will not be able to get new deals. I even doubt the makers will even offer these shows while the reach is so low.

At the end of the day even with fox they will want there shows shown in as many households as possible. Which might mean Domestic channels getting them in the future. I doubt Sky would pay the same price for those channels as the viewing figures just does not justify the outlay. What must annoy the americans is likely when the bids come in due to Sky stupidity series like lost will not go for a million an episode. I would doubt Sky would pay that sort of fee ever again and domestic/VM channels might not want to pay such high price. Will this then alienate Sky relationship with american broadcasters.

Originally Posted by mertle

I just read this and they have a similar thread. Which someone said Lost hit less than a million viewers. So checked and sure enough there blue ribboned show has plummeted to new depths.

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...rt=weeklytop30

Unless Sky u-turn Sky One will I believe will not get future major investment or Sky might just pull the plug on it especially if it continues to drop. At the moment to relieve its flagging channel they throw a dog bones. A film here and plan to put football on it. What happens if this fails.

I really can see when 24 and Lost comes next up for bidding Sky will not be able to get new deals. I even doubt the makers will even offer these shows while the reach is so low.

At the end of the day even with fox they will want there shows shown in as many households as possible. Which might mean Domestic channels getting them in the future. I doubt Sky would pay the same price for those channels as the viewing figures just does not justify the outlay. What must annoy the americans is likely when the bids come in due to Sky stupidity series like lost will not go for a million an episode. I would doubt Sky would pay that sort of fee ever again and domestic/VM channels might not want to pay such high price. Will this then alienate Sky relationship with american broadcasters.

The real question is what do the 8 million Sky subscribers actually watch for their money.

Mind you I suppose the same could be said for VM viewers

Is Freeview the best bargain???????