Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. I.

[howardmicks]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

but we don't know how much Sky are asking. Much better that VM get it at the fair price, afterall it's a niche channel as I've said all along and the viewing figures are embarrassing for Sky.

VM did the right thing

Yer right matey

[Digital Fanatic]

[QUOTE=mersey70;35171288]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

but we don't know how much Sky are asking. Much better that VM get it at the fair price, afterall it's a niche channel as I've said all along and the viewing figures are embarrassing for Sky.

VM did the right thing [/QUOTE

In your opinion.

I still cannot see any viewing figures for Sky Atlantic on the Barb website although I too fully expect them to be low when they appear.

But do Sky launch these channels to obtain massive audiences? Reading Jeremy Darroch's comments they seem to do it to differentiate themselves from their competition and it seems to work. Nevertheless it's available in 10m homes. It's part of a wider package of PAY channels. Sky's ad income makes up only about 6% of their total income. However their targetted audience for Atlantic is not that of say Sky Living or Sky 1, they are aiming at a far higher demographic and advertisers will pay accordingly even for relatively low audiences. That's why UKTV's Good Food is so successful, the audience are a far higher demographic than say ITV1, Nigella followers if you like, the sort who shop at Waitrose rather than Tesco! Not huge but lucrative all the same.

Sky know full well if they show a list of channels and point out they have Channel X and competitor Y dosen't most Joe Bloggs subscribers will go with them. It's human nature.

Take a look at their latest subscriber numbers, they simply do not lie. All Sky care about is how many people subscribe to a particular PACK. Have you seen Sky Arts ratings?, very low but Sky know that's another group of customers they can hook into a PACK of channels, do the ratings really justify 2 HD versions? Sky clearly think so. Why do the operate Sky News which loses money hand over fist? Maybe because it's part of the overall package.

But that's all just my opinion.

*cough, cough*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...tic-tv-ratings

Sky have made a lot of noise over Sky Atlantic and by the looks of it, it has so far failed to become the hugely popular channel they made it out to be. Sky News are even in trouble for over promoting the channel and Ofcom are investigating them.

Sky News has always been marketed by Sky as a loss leader (that's why it's on Freeview) and it acts as a barker for Sky programming with adverts for their channels non stop. It's there to promote Sky.

The same as Sky Arts, it took over The Arts Channel when it went bust and runs Sky Arts and HD equivalents at a loss to show Sky has "upmarket" channels.

p.s. I don't post other peoples opinions, I have my own

[mersey70]

[QUOTE=Digital Fanatic;35171351]

Originally Posted by mersey70

*cough, cough*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...tic-tv-ratings

Sky have made a lot of noise over Sky Atlantic and by the looks of it, it has so far failed to become the hugely popular channel they made it out to be. Sky News are even in trouble for over promoting the channel and Ofcom are investigating them.

Sky News has always been marketed by Sky as a loss leader (that's why it's on Freeview) and it acts as a barker for Sky programming with adverts for their channels non stop. It's there to promote Sky.

The same as Sky Arts, it took over The Arts Channel when it went bust and runs Sky Arts and HD equivalents at a loss to show Sky has "upmarket" channels.

p.s. I don't post other peoples opinions, I have my own

For the record Sky never took over The Arts Channel, they took over Artsworld.

438,000 viewers dosen't seem too bad to me but I accept that's only one show, the other figures (if true) were low, I agree. But I have no axe to grind.

Maybe the figures will pick up in the 10million homes who have access to it, particularly when the tranche of brand new shows start.

The Guardian!, cough cough. A touch on the biased side but you'll appreciate that.

And regarding having your own opinion, I suspect that isn't quite 100% true but understandable all the same.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by mersey70

For the record Sky never took over The Arts Channel, they took over Artsworld.

438,000 viewers dosen't seem too bad to me but I accept that's only one show, the other figures (if true) were low, I agree. But I have no axe to grind.

Maybe the figures will pick up in the 10million homes who have access to it, particularly when the tranche of brand new shows start.

The Guardian!, cough cough. A touch on the biased side but you'll appreciate that.

And regarding having your own opinion, I suspect that isn't quite true but understandable all the same.

What's that supposed to mean?

[mersey70]

[QUOTE=Digital Fanatic;35171363]

Originally Posted by mersey70

What's that supposed to mean?

You work for Virgin Media, your posts are valued and interesting but rarely if ever have I seen you criticise Virgin.

It's totally understandable but I cannot accept you always give an honest personal public critique of VM, but freely seem to do so with Sky though.

Let's wait for the next set of subscriber figures on both sides, they are the best indicator. They are all that matter in pay TV anyway.

In my opinion.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by mersey70

You work for Virgin Media, your posts are valued and interesting but rarely if ever have I seen you criticise Virgin.

It's totally understandable but I cannot accept you always give an honest personal public critique of VM, but freely seem to do so with Sky though.

Let's wait for the next set of subscriber figures on both sides, they are the best indicator. They are all that matter in pay TV anyway.

In my opinion.

it's still my opinion

[gadge]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree. As I've said before, if Sky want exclusive rights to programmes on its TV channels, it should be prepared to make those channels available at a wholesale price to other platforms. If they are abusing their privileged position, they should not be allowed to get exclusive rights.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

I wonder how deep? Do you think they will give Sky a run for their money with the Premier Football contracts next time around?

Yes i do think they will give sky a run for their money espn are bigger than sky will ever be.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by gadge

Yes i do think they will give sky a run for their money espn are bigger than sky will ever be.

I hope ESPN do too but i'd rather one or the other get the maximum 5 packages.

But even if they say got 3 packages I reckon it would have to be offered as a stand alone sub like on Sky.

Or XL would be considerably more expensive.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by ahardie

Why? If they can make a profit from selling on these channels to the Asian community then good luck to them. And if the asian community is willing to pay for them then why shouldn't they have them?

Why? Because there`s enough foreign channels on virgin already and as far as I`m concerned they`re takeing up space that other channels could occupy. Too many shopping channels and radio stations also.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

Why? Because there`s enough foreign channels on virgin already and as far as I`m concerned they`re takeing up space that other channels could occupy. Too many shopping channels and radio stations also.

If what we are told is true capacity is no longer an issue on cable.

If there are channels missing that you would like I suspect it has little to do with 12 International and 8 Shopping channels and a selection of radio stations taking up space.

Ask VM why they are not available.

[Big-Ted]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

Why? Because there`s enough foreign channels on virgin already and as far as I`m concerned they`re takeing up space that other channels could occupy. Too many shopping channels and radio stations also.

Wel I and many others don't watch Sky Sports or Movie channels. So I demand they get rid of those as well......as we already have eurosport espn etc plus several movie channels

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Big-Ted

Wel I and many others don't watch Sky Sports or Movie channels. So I demand they get rid of those as well......as we already have eurosport espn etc plus several movie channels

You only get sky sports and sky movies if you subscribe to them, were as we all get them awful shopping channels and radio whether you want them or not. But I take your point.

[Hiroki]

Originally Posted by mersey70

You work for Virgin Media, your posts are valued and interesting but rarely if ever have I seen you criticise Virgin.
It's totally understandable but I cannot accept you always give an honest personal public critique of VM, but freely seem to do so with Sky though.

Let's wait for the next set of subscriber figures on both sides, they are the best indicator. They are all that matter in pay TV anyway.

In my opinion.

I've noticed that but then I always thought that the Virgin "staff" members that you see on forums like this are paid by the company to post which is why they never deviate from the company line.

Probably over-thinking it haha

[brooza]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

You only get sky sports and sky movies if you subscribe to them, were as we all get them awful shopping channels and radio whether you want them or not. But I take your point.

They still take up the space though

[toady]

Originally Posted by brooza

They still take up the space though

But as others say its not a space problem, VM can't get the channels for a decent price or the broadcaster doesn't want to be on VM

Don't the shopping channels pay to be on VM, if so they are discounting the rest of the channels you have