TV Home Forum

21st Century Fox takeover over Sky bid

Threat of closing Sky News - Page 12 (December 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
CO
Colorband
*
I'm sorry, I had to.
DV
dvboy
Did someone put a link to this forum on DigitalSpy again?
ST
Stuart
T0M posted:
If Sky2 wont exist then surely Sky 1 just becomes simply 'FOX'?

Originally it was called Satellite Television (1982), then Sky Channel (1984), but has been Sky1/One since 1989 - long before Sky2/Two or Sky3/Three were ever launched.


As others have said, I can't see them removing the Sky brand, as they have heavily invested in creating a standard image across their European businesses. In the UK particularly it's a strong brand that has been well embedded over a couple of decades.

Fox is a less well known brand.
MO
Mouseboy33
Well if they indeed spin off, whats been described as the "loss-making' SkyNews, that is probably going to be the most interesting development, IMO, out all this mess. If SkyNews cant make money, it will be interesting to see how they can continue operating with no profit coming in after years of being propped up by SkyTv. The channel has been run as virtually a vanity project since its creation without fear of serious repercussions financially. Does that mean they will continue to make, IMO, bone-headed creative decisions? Right now they know the money is there to do basically what they want, within reason (of course they have a budget) without any thought to the channel folding or closing because Sky's got deep pockets. If they are spun-off, they will have to consider any changes very carefully and the whole thinking of the channel (From management down) will need to change from being a virtually "corporate funded" channel to one that has to turn a profit to survive.

How do they monetize their product with-out having a sugar daddy bank-rolling their operation? Before the consolidations and take-overs and such, CNN successfully came up with a formula for a large global commercial news channel to operate successfully without being bankrolled like the BBC, Sky or AJE. (Affiliation deals, CNNewsource, etc. http://www.cnnnewsource.com/) After losing money for years, Sky News, operational mentality will need a major overhaul to making a profit if its spun off. How could this affect their product? Thats the big question.
JA
JAS84
T0M posted:
Sky 1 - FOX 1
Sky 2 - Won't exist
Sky Living - FOX Living
Sky Atlantic - FOX Atlantic
Sky Arts - Sky Arts 1 and 2
Sky Arts 1 - FOX Arts 1
Sky Arts 2 - FOX Arts 2
Sky News - FOX News

If Sky2 wont exist then surely Sky 1 just becomes simply 'FOX'? If they do go this in depth (which I doubt), I think they'd bring over the FX and FXX brands too.
I also don't think they'd rebrand Sky News, they'd be crazy to do that.
There's already a channel called FOX. It used to be FX.
IS
Inspector Sands
You got up at 6:30am on a Sunday to post that nonsense?
CO
Colorband
I dunno, FOX Sky 1 seems a little bit clunky. As do FOX Sky Living, FOX Sky Atlantic, FOX Sky Arts, and FOX Sky News.

Why add in the name of a company when you have a company name? And how would they abbreviate in the EPG? FOX Sky Atlntc? It all seems rather odd. And I have to repeat what most people have said; Sky isn't going anywhere. They probably won't even add in "FOX" before every name; it'd be hell for their graphic designers, for a start.
RE
Rex
I dunno, FOX Sky 1 seems a little bit clunky. As do FOX Sky Living, FOX Sky Atlantic, FOX Sky Arts, and FOX Sky News.

Why add in the name of a company when you have a company name? And how would they abbreviate in the EPG? FOX Sky Atlntc? It all seems rather odd. And I have to repeat what most people have said; Sky isn't going anywhere. They probably won't even add in "FOX" before every name; it'd be hell for their graphic designers, for a start.

And Murdoch built up Sky as a synonymous brand - buying up what was attractive towards viewers, such as US shows and the Premier League rights, which it is associated with to this very day. He reaped the benefits as a result, with Sky Multichannels and its digital successor becoming extremely popular.

It'd be commercial suicide if such a change ever happened, as I've repeated before.

The fantasy rotas are getting a bit out of hand here.
JF
JetixFann450
I think Sky should stay the same. If they did use the FOX name, well lets just say that:

Sky's broadband, TV and phone services turn into Foxtel.
Sky Sports turns into Fox Sports.

And a lot of changes that are not listed here. Now could we just shoosh about the "FOX" change?
ST
Stuart
Firstly, 21CFox (or it's pre-demerger incarnation as News International) has always been the largest shareholder in Sky. At no time did they attempt to force any brand other than 'Sky' on these assets.

Secondly, taking full ownership means taking the full profits. Tinkering with an established brand for no reason whatsoever is not good business practice.

For example: Cadbury is an established brand in the UK for chocolate, but was bought by Kraft foods in 2010. I don't buy 'Kraft chocolate', and in fact the holding company has been renamed 'Mondelez International', which equally doesn't appear on any chocolate bars. They bought a brand and retained it, not to change it.
JA
JAS84
True in a sense. They kept the brand, but they did change the recipe on some products, such as Creme Eggs, and changed the Heroes chocolate selection (they now include Toblerone, a brand Kraft already owned before buying Cadbury).
:-(
A former member
JAS84 posted:
True in a sense. They kept the brand, but they did change the recipe on some products, such as Creme Eggs, and changed the Heroes chocolate selection (they now include Toblerone, a brand Kraft already owned before buying Cadbury).


Thats nothing new Heroes has changed umpteen times, companies have learned not to much around with the current products, to many burnt fingers in the past.

Newer posts