General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2019)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

I think it was in the original launch specificiation and nothing has really changed except Now tv a cheaper way to get Sky. Sky and VM tweet people who are trying to find out how to get the channel they are quickly saying "only through sky or now tv". Its in pretty much every google search for sky atlantic.

So in principle if the only way you can get sky atlantic is through Sky or Now tv you wouldnt announce thats going to change until launch day surely?

I dont think VM will get the channel mind you but i think they may get the Now tv app

l don't think they will get neither..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

Sky have openly admitted they need more eyes on sky Atlantic for advert revenue etc. I’d imagine virgin media will get the now tv app. But if you were sky would you announce it yet or instead wait until next year then the deal kicks in? More time to use the precious “sky exclusive” tag and try to entice virgin media customers over in the next 5+ months

I agree with most of that, Vince. But I don't think Virgin will go down the Now TV route, to be honest. They would almost certainly insist that the Now TV on demand content be made available on Virgin's own on demand system.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The very fact that Sky and Virgin have just renewed it's deal for Sky's portfolio of linear channels and On Demand suggests Now TV is very unlikely to appear. As jfman has pointed out had Virgin struck a deal for Sky Atlantic it would have dominated the headline and press release.

Unless Sky made that a condition within the contract agreed.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

SKY Atlantic is not arriving on VM in any shape or form with this new agreement.

No-one has suggested that we will get the channel since the announcement about the new deal has been agreed.

The argument is about whether we will get the on demand content that will be available to BT.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

exactly don't know why people cant except we not getting SA ever

I think we have all acknowledged that we are not getting the scheduled channel for the foreseeable future.

The channel is most likely to go under anyway with the launch of new streaming services.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

l don't think they will get neither..

Is that a double negative?

You are clearly hedging your bets!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are clearly hedging your bets!

Not at all but you knew that anyway...

[cheekyangus]

The thing that most stood out in that Sky/VM Press Release was the ambiguity of it.

"Sky Sports and Sky Cinema in HD so customers can continue to enjoy the latest movies and best live sport action"

Given VM already have them in HD what's the point in mentioning this? Given there is evidence of Sky Cinema going HD-only (jj20x on Forum Box found an info screen)...maybe this means both are going HD-only.

"Sky’s Entertainment channels including Sky One, Sky Witness and more, in HD".

Given there aren't many Sky Entertainment channels and they basically mentioned half of them, why didn't they just mention them all. And again since they are in HD on VM already, what is the point of mentioning them? At the least my interpretation, reading through the ambiguity, is the existing HD Sky Basics are going HD-only.

Press Releases tend to be about mentioning what is new, not about saying "we've got the same services still". And they tend to be carefully worded.

(https://www.virginmedia.com/corporat...d-the-industry)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

The thing that most stood out in that Sky/VM Press Release was the ambiguity of it.

"Sky Sports and Sky Cinema in HD so customers can continue to enjoy the latest movies and best live sport action"

Given VM already have them in HD what's the point in mentioning this? Given there is evidence of Sky Cinema going HD-only (jj20x on Forum Box found a info screen)...maybe this means both are going HD-only.

"Sky’s Entertainment channels including Sky One, Sky Witness and more, in HD".

Given there aren't many Sky Entertainment channels and they basically mentioned half of them, why didn't they just mention them all. And again since they are in HD on VM already, what is the point of mentioning them? At the least my interpretation, reading through the ambiguity, is the existing HD Sky Basics are going HD-only.

Press Releases tend to be about mentioning what is new, not about saying "we've got the same services still". And they tend to be carefully worded.

(https://www.virginmedia.com/corporat...d-the-industry)

There are good reasons for wondering whether programmes formerly aired on SA might be available to Virgin Media on demand, but there is nothing firm anyone can point to at the present time. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the ambiguity of the press release. Something here is being hidden, I think.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There are good reasons for wondering whether programmes formerly aired on SA might be available to Virgin Media on demand, but there is nothing firm anyone can point to at the present time. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the ambiguity of the press release. Something here is being hidden, I think.

why would sky allow VM to have SA on demand and withhold the linear channel don't make no sence OB it be either both or none and it none we getting

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Dave42

why would sky allow VM to have SA on demand and withhold the linear channel don't make no sence OB it be either both or none and it none we getting

It all comes back to the magic question of why Virgin, who pay Sky hundreds of millions of pound per year, would sign a deal for key content they couldn’t even announce? How long is this delay? 3 months? 6?

Considering Sky aren’t particularly being aggressive in their pursuit of cable customers as it is (the current new customer offers are quite tame) what’s the value added for Sky in doing this?

First it was May, then it was the end of Game of Thrones, now it’s when Now TV joins BT. Then it’ll be some other magical stumbling block.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by jfman

It all comes back to the magic question of why Virgin, who pay Sky hundreds of millions of pound per year, would sign a deal for key content they couldn’t even announce? How long is this delay? 3 months? 6?

Considering Sky aren’t particularly being aggressive in their pursuit of cable customers as it is (the current new customer offers are quite tame) what’s the value added for Sky in doing this?

First it was May, then it was the end of Game of Thrones, now it’s when Now TV joins BT. Then it’ll be some other magical stumbling block.

Even if Sky can coax 1 customer from virgin media between now and the end of the year based on sky offering sky atlantic thats still more customers.

Why say "you're getting sky atlantic content in january via...." why lose your attraction before you need to reveal your hand in january?

I'm not saying its going to happen. But if the contract doesnt start till 2020 why let customers know they're getting your golden goose until you need to?

[jfman]

Virgin customers = 4 million.

Let’s call it 20p per subscriber per month - £800 000 a month or £4.8m for July to December. That’s a very expensive customer gained. They’d need tens of thousands to justify the temporary strategy and there’s no evidence for it.

You’re introducing “ifs” and further speculative variables that are improbable, to justify an internet myth that there’s no evidence for.

Why lose your star attraction at all?

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by cheekyangus

I can't see that happening. WarnerMedia will likely launch HBO Max outside the US soon enough and the value of a 3rd Party running a channel on their behalf won't be particularly appealing if they want to make a success of HBO Max.

I was being humourous lol, had i that kind of information i wouldn't post it on a forum lol.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree with most of that, Vince. But I don't think Virgin will go down the Now TV route, to be honest. They would almost certainly insist that the Now TV on demand content be made available on Virgin's own on demand system.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------



Unless Sky made that a condition within the contract agreed.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------



No-one has suggested that we will get the channel since the announcement about the new deal has been agreed.

The argument is about whether we will get the on demand content that will be available to BT.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------



I think we have all acknowledged that we are not getting the scheduled channel for the foreseeable future.

The channel is most likely to go under anyway with the launch of new streaming services.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------



Is that a double negative?

You are clearly hedging your bets!

The only way VM TV customers will get any SKY Atlantic content of any kind including on demand would be via a subscription of nowtv via a compatable device aka roku.
Even BTs agreement is going to be delivered via Nowtv on the BT Youview boxes but BT customers will be able to record Nowtv channels.
One does wonder if EE and Plusnet tv customers might get the same service further down the line.

[jfman]

You’ve missed “subscribing to Sky”.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

why would sky allow VM to have SA on demand and withhold the linear channel don't make no sence OB it be either both or none and it none we getting

They've done it for BT, Dave, so it's not that much of a stretch.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They've done it for BT, Dave, so it's not that much of a stretch.

They haven’t though.

BT subscribers are, some day, getting Now TV as an optional add on. Why would Virgin essentially allow Sky to retail Now TV on its platform when it’d devalue Virgin’s own top packages? The two situations aren’t comparable.

BT subscribers are getting something they don’t have at present.
Virgin customers would be given an alternative way to purchase Sky’s basic (and premium) channels than from Virgin themselves.

If Virgin were going down that route why enter this carriage agreement at all?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It all comes back to the magic question of why Virgin, who pay Sky hundreds of millions of pound per year, would sign a deal for key content they couldn’t even announce? How long is this delay? 3 months? 6?

Considering Sky aren’t particularly being aggressive in their pursuit of cable customers as it is (the current new customer offers are quite tame) what’s the value added for Sky in doing this?

First it was May, then it was the end of Game of Thrones, now it’s when Now TV joins BT. Then it’ll be some other magical stumbling block.

The date for that announcement may be delayed. Or maybe Sky just don't want it publicly announced. It could be that the BT deal being delayed is the cause of the hiatus, and that may continue until the New Year. Who knows?

As has been explained previously, Sky want to monetise their content. A very economic argument!

I don't regard the BT deal as being a stumbling block! Where ARE you coming from, you antagoniser, you!

[jfman]

I agree Sky want to monetise their content but it’s flawed to assume that doing so involves putting it out there on a platform neutral basis.

If they lost tens of thousands of subscribers in an already challenging market to, for example, Virgin’s top package right now because it’s own platform had no unique selling point it’d massively backfire.