Sky v Virgin - we all lose!

[RJW2]

As most people will soon know if they dont already, Sky has broken off negotiations with VirginMedia and as of 28th Feb cable customers will no longer get Sky One and other basic sky channels. As a sky and Virgin media customer I think the manner in which this has happend is disgraceful and so I wrote the following letter to sky's and virgin's press offices:
corporate.communications@bskyb.com

"To Whom it may concern,

As a sky customer for several years (television) and a Telewest/Virgin Media customer for a similar period of time (broadband and phone), I am writing to express my anger at the recent announcements that Sky is planning on withdrawing certain programmes from cable providers.

To anyone who has been paying attention, and there are many thousands of us, the negotiations to renew the contracts for these programmes have been conducted in what is clearly a very unprofessional manner. With Sky releasing figures that show an increase to profits and market share, one can only assume you are determined to remove any and all competition from the market place by massively inflating the price for your product in an effort to drive customers away from Virgin Media. The end result of which will always be a decline in the value and quality of services provided to the consumer.

However, and more importantly, these antics will cause real inconvenience to the millions of people who work hard every day and look forward to the relaxation and entertainment value of their favourite shows, something you will now deprive them of.

As a result of this I am now considering switching all of my services to Virgin Media, even though several of my favourite programmes are on Sky One. The bitter taste I would have while watching the channel would surely sour my enjoyment anyway.

I can only hope that before February 28th Sky will see sense and negotiate a fair price for their product. There are many more important things in life than TV, but profit isn't one of them! While I understand it is every corporation's legal duty to maximise profits and value for the shareholders, surely in this day and age we can expect more, especially from those who are guardians of perhaps the most fundamental component of civil society, the media.

Sincerely

-----

P.S. In case you cannot remember, the company you are negotiating with is called Virgin Media, not NTL/Virgin. Most people stop playing childish name games when they leave primary school. Have some respect. "


Have received the following response from Virgin's head of Media Relations:

"Spot on! Thanks, Robert. Please also check out our new website regarding this matter - www.virginmedia.com/fairplay. There is a message board on there and it would great if you have the time to express your opinions publicly on there too. So far it seems the majority of people share your views. I particularly agree with the final point you make as a PS. "

[Starburst]

The question of course is why you were not a cable tv viewer in the first place and well lets be honest the idea that the failure of negotiations between two companies both profit motivated is down to one is a bit naive.
If cable had treated TV as a serious offering then SKY would never have become dominant and the bottom line is the VM still considers TV as a loss leader to promote phone and internet services.
That basic difference with SKY makes the "value" of a TV package significantly different for the two companies.

Neither side has actually made public the packages and pricing that is being discussed and lets not forget cable booted MTV off after negotiations stalled and used the media to enourage a consumer response. What goes around comes around, that said I expect it all to be sorted out because it is all one big game of chicken with perhaps a few pence per subscriber difference between them.

[warrej]

Originally Posted by Starburst

Neither side has actually made public the packages and pricing that is being discussed..

VM have...Sky wanted roughly double what VM are currently paying despite viewer share falling year on year by 7% (for Sky one I believe)

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by warrej

VM have...Sky wanted roughly double what VM are currently paying despite viewer share falling year on year by 7% (for Sky one I believe)

So what were they paying before and how if any is the package different and is it being compared to the combined NTL/TW deal or just the NTL previous 5 year NTL deal?
We don't know since VM and SKY have not released specifics so just saying double means nothing to us the public and is pure spin and manipulation on the part of the VM press relations office, exactly the same thing that SKY is doing.

VM wants to pay as little as possible to increase profits and SKY wants them to pay as much as possible to increase profits, they just can't come to a price they both agree on and well Branson is a media whore (in a good way) and is doing what he always does

[RJW2]

Originally Posted by Starburst

The question of course is why you were not a cable tv viewer in the first place and well lets be honest the idea that the failure of negotiations between two companies both profit motivated is down to one is a bit naive.
If cable had treated TV as a serious offering then SKY would never have become dominant and the bottom line is the VM still considers TV as a loss leader to promote phone and internet services.
That basic difference with SKY makes the "value" of a TV package significantly different for the two companies.

Neither side has actually made public the packages and pricing that is being discussed and lets not forget cable booted MTV off after negotiations stalled and used the media to enourage a consumer response. What goes around comes around, that said I expect it all to be sorted out because it is all one big game of chicken with perhaps a few pence per subscriber difference between them.

Starburst - not sure why the question should be about my status or not as a cable viewer???

I think you miss the point here. I am most certainly not niaive about corporate competition and while there is evidence of this being an orchastrated, one sided break down I certainly dont take that at face value. Consumers can never leverage enough interference in corporate affairs to change their profit driven practise as a whole - the email is only meant as what it can be, a sinlge issue point of opinion threatening the only thing we have to offer, our custom.

If anything it is niaive to suggest that cable should have taken tv seriously, its vastly more complex than that in terms of business growth models, access to markets, etc. etc.

And if consumers never voiced an opinion until all the facts were in the open then we would be even more slient and apathetic than we are now!

One thing I do agree with however is that there is still a good chance this will all be resolved by the 28th.

[warrej]

Originally Posted by Starburst

So what were they paying before and how if any is the package different and is it being compared to the combined NTL/TW deal or just the NTL previous 5 year NTL deal?
We don't know since VM and SKY have not released specifics so just saying double means nothing to us the public and is pure spin and manipulation on the part of the VM press relations office, exactly the same thing that SKY is doing.

VM wants to pay as little as possible to increase profits and SKY wants them to pay as much as possible to increase profits, they just can't come to a price they both agree on and well Branson is a media whore (in a good way) and is doing what he always does

I don't know, we are not likely to be party to that kind of information! I suspect it is double of what Telewest/NTL were being charged previously (I think Telewest had the better deal). Either way Sky are trying to charge way over the odds for what are pretty poor channels apart from the odd show. I won't miss them...I have loads of other stuff to watch. Lost will be downloaded if required

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by RJW2

Starburst - not sure why the question should be about my status or not as a cable viewer???

Well because for me it indicates why VM is in the "mess" it is now thanks to years of under invesment in TV products compared to telecoms. Your usege of SKY for telly and VM for phone/net speaks volumes of the areas the two companies excel in and that is surely a factor in how the two value television.
Not a knock you personally but a reflection on why perhaps the current situation exists between the two companies and why this sort of thing is not the norm in the US where cable has been at the forefront of tv not just phone and net.

I think you miss the point here. I am most certainly not niaive about corporate competition and while there is evidence of this being an orchastrated, one sided break down I certainly dont take that at face value. Consumers can never leverage enough interference in corporate affairs to change their profit driven practise as a whole - the email is only meant as what it can be, a sinlge issue point of opinion threatening the only thing we have to offer, our custom.

My apologies, too many of the posts I've seen have been very shallow with little or no effort to understand the whole picture or even accept that there is more than one side and we are not being told everything.
For me both sides have some high ground, deciding which is more valid is something we can not do until we get more specifics which is why I see no practical sense it contacting one or the other.

If anything it is niaive to suggest that cable should have taken tv seriously, its vastly more complex than that in terms of business growth models, access to markets, etc. etc.

The UK cable industry was born on the demand for telecoms and a desire to get a piece of the £3 Billion profits BT were making at the time. Television has always been a secondary service but I don't accept that Cable even in the early days of multipule companies could not have done more and especially since TW and NTL became dominant. It's true cable has always been cash poor thanks to mergers and debts and well simply poor business practices but again they should have done more with what they had.
TW were the first HD broadcaster in the UK, what an opportunity missed

And if consumers never voiced an opinion until all the facts were in the open then we would be even more slient and apathetic than we are now!

Tricky
How much value an opinion that is not based on the facts?
My opinion is that both sides are to blame, exactly how that blame can be proportioned is going to be determined IF we ever know the true facts and figures but the PR machine is designed not to use facts but use emotion.

One thing I do agree with however is that there is still a good chance this will all be resolved by the 28th.

Yes, I can not honestly see either company really benefitting if the channels were pulled from VM. SKY would be opening up a huge can of worms and VM still need the SKY channels, it's a much more critical situation then when TW dropped the Viacom channels when negotiations failed.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by warrej

I don't know, we are not likely to be party to that kind of information! I suspect it is double of what Telewest/NTL were being charged previously (I think Telewest had the better deal). Either way Sky are trying to charge way over the odds for what are pretty poor channels apart from the odd show. I won't miss them...I have loads of other stuff to watch. Lost will be downloaded if required

Exactly yet some people are prepared to take the VM PR at face value as if it was gospel and not a statement written by a ver expensive media relations concer.
Until I know exactly what SKY are offering and what they want I can't in all honesty say if they are "trying to charge way over the odds".


As for value again it comes down to a telco company with a little tv compared to a tv company with a little telco, the value of a TV deal will be fundementally different.
For the viewer SKY1 is still the main PAY multichannel even in the download age but I can't argue against downloading content you don't or may not have access to

[warrej]

Originally Posted by Starburst

Exactly yet some people are prepared to take the VM PR at face value as if it was gospel and not a statement written by a ver expensive media relations concer.
Until I know exactly what SKY are offering and what they want I can't in all honesty say if they are "trying to charge way over the odds".

I'm just basing my opinions on the "decent", "upstanding", "fair" company that I know $ky to be

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Starburst

For the viewer SKY1 is still the main PAY multichannel even in the download age...

Not for me. I've just recently got Sky for the first time and never watch Sky One. Apart from the channels available on Freeview, I also watch UKTV G2, Living, Bravo and Footie.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by warrej

I'm just basing my opinions on the "decent", "upstanding", "fair" company that I know $ky to be

Yeah they certianly have exploited every opportunity and twisted the market to suit themselves over the years.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by andykn

Not for me. I've just recently got Sky for the first time and never watch Sky One. Apart from the channels available on Freeview, I also watch UKTV G2, Living, Bravo and Footie.

Yeah well we don't base ratings on one particular viewer or the BBC wouldn't even be in the top 20 most watched channels based on my viewing habits

Some good stuff on SKY1 but it's not for everyone.

[Inactive]

Originally Posted by warrej

I'm just basing my opinions on the "decent", "upstanding", "fair" company that I know $ky to be

Just picked myself up off of the floor ...

This is Planet Earth we are on, I presume..

[pete18]

Sky should not hold Virgin to ransom I am glad that virgin have not caved in to Skys demands, I do watch sky one quite abit for 24 and LOST and sometimes watch over shows like Bones.

Even though when I first heard this was happening I was a bit mad

But if Virgin gave in to Sky that would mean only one thing prices increases for all Virgin Media customers

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by pete18

But if Virgin gave in to Sky that would mean only one thing prices increases for all Virgin Media customers

Which would happen anyway thanks to inflation which is slowly getting up steam and well VM give away TV with some services so would that change?

Would a slight price increase be worth more content though in the form of channels currently not carried under the old NTL and TW contracts?