IS
No he isn't, you don't make profits by having a sub-standard product to sell.
You can hardly say that their flagship channels; Sky News and Sky Sports aren't quality products. The Sky Digital and Sky+ systems are great pieces of consumer technology - very easy to use, standardised and reliable. In many respects far superior to their cable and terrestrial equivalents.
Sky has got into its position through a lot of hard work and risk-taking, especially early on when it and BSB were hemoraging cash. We shouldn't be-grudge any profits it's owners (and remember that it is a publicly owned company) makes now
Very few of the events on Sky Sports were ever shown on terrestrial TV in the first place. League (Premiership) Football was never covered live of a weekend, nor was Rugby League or Spanish football etc etc.
Having 4 channels to fill means that they show sports events in full that would never get shown on traditional channels
tvarksouthwest posted:
Sky may have revolutionised TV from a technological viewpoint. But as an outpost of the mighty News Corporation, the company is in the worst ownership possible. Run by a man whose sole interest is profit rather than providing a quality product.
No he isn't, you don't make profits by having a sub-standard product to sell.
You can hardly say that their flagship channels; Sky News and Sky Sports aren't quality products. The Sky Digital and Sky+ systems are great pieces of consumer technology - very easy to use, standardised and reliable. In many respects far superior to their cable and terrestrial equivalents.
Sky has got into its position through a lot of hard work and risk-taking, especially early on when it and BSB were hemoraging cash. We shouldn't be-grudge any profits it's owners (and remember that it is a publicly owned company) makes now
Quote:
The sole worst development in the history of television was subscription TV and its dominance of British sport. Because Murdoch has the sporting authorities firmly in his pocket, fans have to pay extra to view events once free to the nation.
Very few of the events on Sky Sports were ever shown on terrestrial TV in the first place. League (Premiership) Football was never covered live of a weekend, nor was Rugby League or Spanish football etc etc.
Having 4 channels to fill means that they show sports events in full that would never get shown on traditional channels
AD
Why don't they give us +1s of channels that lots of people watch (e.g BBC One+1, ITV1 +1 Sky One+1) and take away all the +1s of channels people never watch in the original timings anyway (UKTV People+1 etc)
IS
Depends who you mean by 'they'?
adamcobb55 posted:
Why don't they give us +1s of channels that lots of people watch (e.g BBC One+1, ITV1 +1 Sky One+1) and take away all the +1s of channels people never watch in the original timings anyway (UKTV People+1 etc)
Depends who you mean by 'they'?
IS
In that case, why would a broadcaster get rid of a +1 channel because 'no-one watches'? If that was the case they'd might as well close down altogether.
adamcobb55 posted:
Why don't they give us +1s of channels that lots of people watch (e.g BBC One+1, ITV1 +1 Sky One+1) and take away all the +1s of channels people never watch in the original timings anyway (UKTV People+1 etc)
In that case, why would a broadcaster get rid of a +1 channel because 'no-one watches'? If that was the case they'd might as well close down altogether.
:-(
A former member
I have to say, I never saw the usefulness of +1 channels at first. However, over time, I have found that they are actually very convenient.
AD
In that case, why would a broadcaster get rid of a +1 channel because 'no-one watches'? If that was the case they'd might as well close down altogether.
Yes but my point is that more people would watch a +1 of a major channel than would a small channel.
Inspector Sands posted:
In that case, why would a broadcaster get rid of a +1 channel because 'no-one watches'? If that was the case they'd might as well close down altogether.
Yes but my point is that more people would watch a +1 of a major channel than would a small channel.
IS
Yes, part of the problem is that a channel like ITV1 would need 16 +1's.
For a small channel a +1 is a very good way of increasing your viewership very cheaply
adamcobb55 posted:
Yes but my point is that more people would watch a +1 of a major channel than would a small channel.
Yes, part of the problem is that a channel like ITV1 would need 16 +1's.
For a small channel a +1 is a very good way of increasing your viewership very cheaply
MI
I'm not sure where this thread is going - debating the values of +1 channels (the benefits of which we all know about and are acceptable on platforms with space to spare to house them) or discussing how much of an impact Sky has had on the TV viewing habits of Britain.
I think the major problem with Sky is that it is both a television provider and a television broadcaster. This gives it unlimited power over its audience, and the market. It also leaves very little room for manouvere between channel content and parent company. Is it any wonder Fox productions like Buffy, 24, Malcolm In The Middle, the Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy easily find a home on Sky One? No contracts need to be signed, no exorbitant fee charged. Similarly with the Sport channels, the UK is fortunate (if that's the right word) to be able to watch foreign sport such as Australian rugby league and American football. Granted this may have a following amongst niche audiences (such as residents of Earls Court or RAF Fairford) - I myself am a US baseball fan - but the very fact that these sporting events serve as little more than freely-provided fillers means that their televisual value is diminished. Imagine if ITV had signed a contract with Japanese TV and began receiving free Japanese Sumo Wrestling to fill the gaps in its doomed Sports Channel. It would have died a quicker death than it actually did.
Additionally, regarding sport, let us not forget that the Premiership did not exist before Sky's coercian and involvement led to its creation. Nor did Twenty20 cricket or the PDC darts organisation. The quality of Sky Sports presentation and production is by far the best thing to have come out of this gargantuan monster, and has helped shape other broadcasters' sports presentations to the standards they are today. Or has it heaped unfair pressure on them by forcing them to conform to the expectations of Sky-familiar audiences?
By being both broadcaster and provider, Sky has all the free advertising it wants. Advertising a programme in the press is common practice nowadays, but Sky's adverts carry two messages - watch this programme but you can only watch it through a dish (or cable) .
And as a result of this forcing of the Sky brand onto an unsuspecting public, other broadcasters have now begun to play the Sky game, but without the need for dual advertising. Newly Freeview-based E4 is now roughly concurrent to Sky One in terms of entertainment value and is just as strong, if not stronger, a TV brand. Freeview-bound FilmFour may not have 10 screens and 50 box office channels but it is still a good, strong movie TV brand, and DTT-housed TCM also carries some weight. Sky News may be slick, quick and appealing on the eye, but in the 9 years its been around the FTA News 24 has managed to muscle in on its territory admirably.
Sky has been good for television, but not for the television industry. Subscription is now a norm as opposed to being a luxury or an option. Why rent out advertising space when you can be packaged in a Sky Channel Mix? Why run the risk of being a FTA/V channel when you can charge a small fee to see sub-standard programming? I wouldn't charge money for all the sub-brands of Discovery, or for the (dis)pleasure of seeing other people's gardens 24/7 on numerous UKTV channels.
But then I'm not Rupert Murdoch, who dispite questionable political views and unpleasant bully-boy attitudes, is a multi-millionaire successful businessman in charge of some of the biggest brandnames in the world.
I think the major problem with Sky is that it is both a television provider and a television broadcaster. This gives it unlimited power over its audience, and the market. It also leaves very little room for manouvere between channel content and parent company. Is it any wonder Fox productions like Buffy, 24, Malcolm In The Middle, the Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy easily find a home on Sky One? No contracts need to be signed, no exorbitant fee charged. Similarly with the Sport channels, the UK is fortunate (if that's the right word) to be able to watch foreign sport such as Australian rugby league and American football. Granted this may have a following amongst niche audiences (such as residents of Earls Court or RAF Fairford) - I myself am a US baseball fan - but the very fact that these sporting events serve as little more than freely-provided fillers means that their televisual value is diminished. Imagine if ITV had signed a contract with Japanese TV and began receiving free Japanese Sumo Wrestling to fill the gaps in its doomed Sports Channel. It would have died a quicker death than it actually did.
Additionally, regarding sport, let us not forget that the Premiership did not exist before Sky's coercian and involvement led to its creation. Nor did Twenty20 cricket or the PDC darts organisation. The quality of Sky Sports presentation and production is by far the best thing to have come out of this gargantuan monster, and has helped shape other broadcasters' sports presentations to the standards they are today. Or has it heaped unfair pressure on them by forcing them to conform to the expectations of Sky-familiar audiences?
By being both broadcaster and provider, Sky has all the free advertising it wants. Advertising a programme in the press is common practice nowadays, but Sky's adverts carry two messages - watch this programme but you can only watch it through a dish (or cable) .
And as a result of this forcing of the Sky brand onto an unsuspecting public, other broadcasters have now begun to play the Sky game, but without the need for dual advertising. Newly Freeview-based E4 is now roughly concurrent to Sky One in terms of entertainment value and is just as strong, if not stronger, a TV brand. Freeview-bound FilmFour may not have 10 screens and 50 box office channels but it is still a good, strong movie TV brand, and DTT-housed TCM also carries some weight. Sky News may be slick, quick and appealing on the eye, but in the 9 years its been around the FTA News 24 has managed to muscle in on its territory admirably.
Sky has been good for television, but not for the television industry. Subscription is now a norm as opposed to being a luxury or an option. Why rent out advertising space when you can be packaged in a Sky Channel Mix? Why run the risk of being a FTA/V channel when you can charge a small fee to see sub-standard programming? I wouldn't charge money for all the sub-brands of Discovery, or for the (dis)pleasure of seeing other people's gardens 24/7 on numerous UKTV channels.
But then I'm not Rupert Murdoch, who dispite questionable political views and unpleasant bully-boy attitudes, is a multi-millionaire successful businessman in charge of some of the biggest brandnames in the world.
AM
[quote="Inspector Sands"][Very few of the events on Sky Sports were ever shown on terrestrial TV in the first place. League (Premiership) Football was never covered live of a weekend, nor was Rugby League or Spanish football etc etc.
/quote]
Luckily before Sky got their hands onto Rugby League and changed it (in my opinion) for the worse - I was able to see live games on a Saturday afternoon, during the winter months (as it should be!) on Granada and is memory serves me correctly it was a co-production between Granada, Yorkshire and Border (and possibly Tyne Tees). Also, at the same time, it was Granada that introduced the score flash graphics at the bottom of the screen when a goal was scored in any of the numerous 3pm Saturday kick-off football games.
/quote]
Luckily before Sky got their hands onto Rugby League and changed it (in my opinion) for the worse - I was able to see live games on a Saturday afternoon, during the winter months (as it should be!) on Granada and is memory serves me correctly it was a co-production between Granada, Yorkshire and Border (and possibly Tyne Tees). Also, at the same time, it was Granada that introduced the score flash graphics at the bottom of the screen when a goal was scored in any of the numerous 3pm Saturday kick-off football games.