Sky playing hardball, no offers if you threaten to cancel.

and it is also pure speculation. They have to weigh up the increased
revenue against customer reaction. Every PVR provider has a contingency
for unskippable ads but none have been brave enough to risk it yet.

I see Sky's on demand business model more like a box office or downloads
service - missed episodes and premium movies on a fee basis (either per
use or flat monthly) mixed in with some free content as loss leaders.



There is one group of people who would pay Sky serious amounts of money to
push content to Sky boxes regardless of whether viewers want the content or
not or watch the content or not:...

Sky has little upside except to push very premium content in a "Sky Box
Office" format to users who would pay about SBO price.

Sky have been doing that for 7 years.

Sky have little to gain, unless there was content so lucrative and NOT LIVE
(i.e. not boxing matches).

Movies would be close to competing with DVDs in price, so it would not
exactly be a good proposition on a large scale to push movies that way and
not a new revenue stream for Sky.

The real place where Sky would make their money is...



The BBC.
****V.

and the porn channels.

Candidly, the BBC and ITV are desperate to preserve their "share".

The BBC would **** away £50M on "marketing" and not care. In this case, they
could **** that money into Sky sticking **** like "Two Pints of Lager" on
peoples' hard disks, claim an increase in share, justify their rip off
licence fee, and no one would know because everything the BBC does is
cloaked as "commercial and confidential" and therefore exempt from the
Freedom of Information Act.

ITV are similarly desperate to prop up their dying business. ITV would pay
Sky large amounts of money for small percentage shares in reach.


The final group is porn. Porn especially harder stuff, can not compete with
the free ****, and it can not be broadcast before a certain time of day.

Sky can take gate keeper's revenue for relaying porn over night to their
Sky+ boxes, but allow porn users to consume this offline during the day.

Sky and the porn channels thus get round OFCOM regulations, develop a market
that is not served correctly presently, and is a unique proposition.




I hereby wager that Sky will make more money in "on demand" Sky+ revenues
from the BBC, ITV, and porn channels than it will from user revenues.




Curiously, enough, more people (like me) do not have Sky than do have Sky.
The reason I do not have Sky is I will not accept DOG infested, advert
saturated, subscription services. There is an entire market for quality
waiting to be established which Sky has failed to touch. Ironically, BSB in
1990 was DOG free, advert free, high quality broadcasting, which lasted
until the merger into BSKYB.

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...


and it is also pure speculation. They have to weigh up the increased
revenue against customer reaction. Every PVR provider has a contingency
for unskippable ads but none have been brave enough to risk it yet.

I see Sky's on demand business model more like a box office or downloads
service - missed episodes and premium movies on a fee basis (either per
use or flat monthly) mixed in with some free content as loss leaders.



There is one group of people who would pay Sky serious amounts of money to
push content to Sky boxes regardless of whether viewers want the content
or not or watch the content or not:...

Sky has little upside except to push very premium content in a "Sky Box
Office" format to users who would pay about SBO price.

Sky have been doing that for 7 years.

Sky have little to gain, unless there was content so lucrative and NOT
LIVE (i.e. not boxing matches).

Movies would be close to competing with DVDs in price, so it would not
exactly be a good proposition on a large scale to push movies that way and
not a new revenue stream for Sky.

The real place where Sky would make their money is...



The BBC.
****V.

and the porn channels.

Candidly, the BBC and ITV are desperate to preserve their "share".

The BBC would **** away £50M on "marketing" and not care. In this case,
they could **** that money into Sky sticking **** like "Two Pints of
Lager" on peoples' hard disks, claim an increase in share, justify their
rip off licence fee, and no one would know because everything the BBC does
is cloaked as "commercial and confidential" and therefore exempt from the
Freedom of Information Act.

ITV are similarly desperate to prop up their dying business. ITV would pay
Sky large amounts of money for small percentage shares in reach.


The final group is porn. Porn especially harder stuff, can not compete
with the free ****, and it can not be broadcast before a certain time of
day.

Sky can take gate keeper's revenue for relaying porn over night to their
Sky+ boxes, but allow porn users to consume this offline during the day.

Sky and the porn channels thus get round OFCOM regulations, develop a
market that is not served correctly presently, and is a unique
proposition.




I hereby wager that Sky will make more money in "on demand" Sky+ revenues
from the BBC, ITV, and porn channels than it will from user revenues.




Curiously, enough, more people (like me) do not have Sky than do have Sky.
The reason I do not have Sky is I will not accept DOG infested, advert
saturated, subscription services. There is an entire market for quality
waiting to be established which Sky has failed to touch. Ironically, BSB
in 1990 was DOG free, advert free, high quality broadcasting, which lasted
until the merger into BSKYB.

Totally agree with he last paragraph But would add...

The sheer amount of programming now that *pretends* to give the viewer a
little power by phoning at a high cost to get rid of someone or keep someone
in the show.

Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, X Factor, Celebrity this that and the other.

Wonder if the viewer they realise with some of these channels they're paying
subscriptions, Paying the channel via voting or *taking part* AND putting up
with countless adverts.
ITV going Quiz stupid all night and having to warn the viewer to set a limit
to the amount of times they call has only added to yet more junk!

I've mentioned before young children being *programmed* to get used to DOGS
via CITV, CBBC etc.

Personally, I think TV is dying away as Internet based programmes become
more popular, sure it's only illegal downloading for now or small clips like
Youtube,Metacafe and similar sites.

O-K, They're now getting the idiots with HDTV as a gimic but that will
eventually prove to be more of interest to advertisers...

All SKY's fault bringing DOGS, ADS and Advertising together in a
subscription based group of channels, The other channels saw they could get
away with it :-(

I think the clue is the most modern TV's having various inputs including PC
inputs...Nobody is bothered about the actual programmes shown, Just what
console,Computer,DVD player can be attached to it!

T.W.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:32:27 GMT, "steeler" wrote:

If you add up the programming budget for Sky One, FX, Living and E4 you will
find £21 a month is quite a good deal. Of course it assumes you want to
watch all those US imports - if you don't then it is worthless.

That's about double the TV license fee for a vastly inferior selection of
programming.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"steeler" wrote in message


"Mike Henry" wrote in message
. ..
In .com, "Ed"
wrote:


Edster wrote:
"Ed" wrote in message

Normally Jan and Feb are full of 'please stay with Sky' offers
because
people are broke after Christmas and call to cancel.

But reading the MSE thread on the subject no-one, but no-one at Sky's
turnaround dept. is even entertaining a conversation about an offer,
let alone offering one

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...115125&page=73

Bugger!

Their new adverts on demand scheme for Sky+ users will more than
compensate for a few people unsubscribing. Advertising fees for
something like that are going to be extremely high.

I would imaine exactly the reverse to be true, on the basis that since
I got sky+ I cant remember not fast forwarding through an ad break. I
time shift almost everything apart from live sport. Programme
sponsorship and product placement are the way Sky will go as its ad
revenues plummet as it gives all its customers sky+ for next to
nothing. Subs will rise to cover the shortfall in advertising revenue,
so hanging onto churners, even at half price, should be vital for them

I think you've misunderstood. In this context, "adverts on demand" is at
the advertiser's demand, *not* the viewers! As far as I understand it
the system is capable of working like this: advertising content is
downloaded during idle periods and saved to the whopping 50% of the disc
reserved for it. Later, when the viewer is watching something and
presses "FF" on the remote, adverts can be played back at that point in
time (inserted into the recording) and can be made un-skippable.

Therefore Sky can demand, and will get, very high fees from the
advertisers for the "holy grail" of unskippable adverts that they can
send to millions of viewers.


and it is also pure speculation. They have to weigh up the increased
revenue against customer reaction. Every PVR provider has a contingency
for
unskippable ads but none have been brave enough to risk it yet.

I see Sky's on demand business model more like a box office or downloads
service - missed episodes and premium movies on a fee basis (either per
use
or flat monthly) mixed in with some free content as loss leaders.


80gig would only fit about 40 hours of programmes, even if it was only
for Sky One. So the choice of programmes will be entirely that of the
broadcasters and its sponsors.

I live in a area where there is no digital signal, next year the analogue
signal is switched off, LONG LIVE SKY
Joe

Joe wrote:
"Edster" wrote in message
...
"steeler" wrote in message


"Mike Henry" wrote in message
. ..
In .com, "Ed"
wrote:


Edster wrote:
"Ed" wrote in message

Normally Jan and Feb are full of 'please stay with Sky' offers
because
people are broke after Christmas and call to cancel.

But reading the MSE thread on the subject no-one, but no-one at Sky's
turnaround dept. is even entertaining a conversation about an offer,
let alone offering one

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...115125&page=73

Bugger!

Their new adverts on demand scheme for Sky+ users will more than
compensate for a few people unsubscribing. Advertising fees for
something like that are going to be extremely high.

I would imaine exactly the reverse to be true, on the basis that since
I got sky+ I cant remember not fast forwarding through an ad break. I
time shift almost everything apart from live sport. Programme
sponsorship and product placement are the way Sky will go as its ad
revenues plummet as it gives all its customers sky+ for next to
nothing. Subs will rise to cover the shortfall in advertising revenue,
so hanging onto churners, even at half price, should be vital for them

I think you've misunderstood. In this context, "adverts on demand" is at
the advertiser's demand, *not* the viewers! As far as I understand it
the system is capable of working like this: advertising content is
downloaded during idle periods and saved to the whopping 50% of the disc
reserved for it. Later, when the viewer is watching something and
presses "FF" on the remote, adverts can be played back at that point in
time (inserted into the recording) and can be made un-skippable.

Therefore Sky can demand, and will get, very high fees from the
advertisers for the "holy grail" of unskippable adverts that they can
send to millions of viewers.


and it is also pure speculation. They have to weigh up the increased
revenue against customer reaction. Every PVR provider has a contingency
for
unskippable ads but none have been brave enough to risk it yet.

I see Sky's on demand business model more like a box office or downloads
service - missed episodes and premium movies on a fee basis (either per
use
or flat monthly) mixed in with some free content as loss leaders.


80gig would only fit about 40 hours of programmes, even if it was only
for Sky One. So the choice of programmes will be entirely that of the
broadcasters and its sponsors.

I live in a area where there is no digital signal, next year the analogue
signal is switched off, LONG LIVE SKY
Joe

NO, long live satellite TV. Not SKY

"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com...

Krustov wrote:
uk.media.tv.misc
mick
Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:38:26 GMT


I haven`t payed full price
for Sky for years and have absolutely no intention of doing so in the
future
(it`s waaaaay over priced) so if there are no more deals then there`ll
be no
more Sky. Not that I`m fussed.


On the odd occasion its a bit of a bummer if you fancy watching a rerun
of the xfiles or whatever - but it doesnt take long to find out what
freeview channels are worth watching and you soon get used it .

Skys new tactic could well backfire on them as the longer you go without
the subscription channels the less you seem to miss them .


I am very surprised at this too. Their top package is currently a
shocking £522 a year, but if you cancel they get nothing. Surely
offering you a deal for £20 a month is better than zero as far as
their business model is concerned?

================

You have got to look at the big picture, not the single case, its not better
if many people learn they can do that. Better to lose one of those, than get
half, have it spread through forums like this, and repeated to many
thousands of customers who otherwise wouldnt have done it.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...

I think you've misunderstood. In this context, "adverts on demand" is at
the advertiser's demand, *not* the viewers! As far as I understand it
the system is capable of working like this: advertising content is
downloaded during idle periods and saved to the whopping 50% of the disc
reserved for it. Later, when the viewer is watching something and
presses "FF" on the remote, adverts can be played back at that point in
time (inserted into the recording) and can be made un-skippable.

that is complete and utter ********,. the 50% is for "VOD" movies to be
stored.


Therefore Sky can demand, and will get, very high fees from the
advertisers for the "holy grail" of unskippable adverts that they can
send to millions of viewers.

The vast majority of Skys revenue is from subscribers, not advertisers, and
they have no wish to turn their main source of revenue against them. they
are well aware there would be an exodus of viewers if they tried such a
thing.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message


"Mike Henry" wrote in message
. ..

I think you've misunderstood. In this context, "adverts on demand" is at
the advertiser's demand, *not* the viewers! As far as I understand it
the system is capable of working like this: advertising content is
downloaded during idle periods and saved to the whopping 50% of the disc
reserved for it. Later, when the viewer is watching something and
presses "FF" on the remote, adverts can be played back at that point in
time (inserted into the recording) and can be made un-skippable.

that is complete and utter ********,. the 50% is for "VOD" movies to be
stored.

Thats just the hook to sucker people into signing up for it. 80gb
isn't anywhere near big enough for that task.

Its big enough for the task of storing the most commonly requested reruns,
or whatever Sky thinks would be the most requested, plus its all they've got
to work with.
The fact its not big enough to store all tv programs ever made doesnt mean
you can't offer some replays.




Therefore Sky can demand, and will get, very high fees from the
advertisers for the "holy grail" of unskippable adverts that they can
send to millions of viewers.

The vast majority of Skys revenue is from subscribers, not advertisers,
and
they have no wish to turn their main source of revenue against them. they
are well aware there would be an exodus of viewers if they tried such a
thing.

How do you explain the inability to switch off the red button garbage
then? Only advertisers want that.


Rubbish, there are lots of uses for the red button, so its not just for
advertisers, in fact that would be a minority of uses. You may not like it,
I dont like it, but your hatred has blinded you to the fact its got other
uses,and Sky have got other requirements other than doing what advertisers
want. besides which, even advertisers dont want adverts all the time!

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Rubbish, there are lots of uses for the red button, so its not just for
advertisers, in fact that would be a minority of uses. You may not like
it, I dont like it, but your hatred has blinded you to the fact its got
other uses,and Sky have got other requirements other than doing what
advertisers want. besides which, even advertisers dont want adverts all
the time!

--
Tumbleweed


I'd be very interested to here an example of an Interactive service that
needs constant promoting on-screen and isn't about the broadcaster making
money.

And before you say BBCi, BBCi is about Ashley Highfield creating his little
massively-budgeted empire that did not exist 7 years ago as coined from
licence fee payers. Even though all of BBCi's satellite services involve
licensing the technology from News Corp, its about sticking a BBC logo on
top of their Sky contract so they can pretend it is another essential BBC
service. Most BBC aficionados will fall for this deception.


I point out to the group that IMHO the greatest "interactive" TV technology
device ever invented was CEEFAX which was done so in the 70 and pretty much
standard by the late 80s. Nobody has ever beaten the quality of so-called
"analogue" CEEFAX and yet the geniues at the BBC have shut this down in
favour of a slower less comprehensive "digital" system that doesn't have
page numbers.

On 17 Jan 2007 05:20:51 -0800, "Ed" wrote:

But reading the MSE thread on the subject no-one, but no-one at Sky's
turnaround dept. is even entertaining a conversation about an offer,
let alone offering one

Presumably that's the same MSE website which posted a blow-by-blow
guide for what lies to tell in order to get discounts that were
intended for genuine customers?

And now it doesn't work any more? How surprising. How does that saying
about "spoiling it for everybody" go?
--