TV Home Forum

Sky's Branding

(October 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IN
Interceptor
JAS84 posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
JAS84 posted:
It's just an app. The programmes it links to are on Nickelodeon, Nicktoons, Nick Jr, Cbeebies (pointless IMHO, because that channel's shows are on BBC iPlayer) and Cartoon Network. They don't themselves have the rights to enough kids shows to make a channel. There's no US counterpart to call upon.

Sky have always had a 50% stake in Nickelodeon UK, and Comedy Central for that matter. For Sky's sake it's easier to put kids on demand under one banner than set up a new channel.
Nick's ownership is irrelevant. Nick shows are on Nick, the point was, they don't have enough shows to launch a new channel called Sky Kids - they obviously couldn't take things away from Nickelodeon. They haven't had enough shows for a Sky branded kids channel since 1996 in fact, when Sky One had to end it's Undun block due to the launch of Fox Kids, which took the majority of their children's lineup.

I don't think that would be an unsurmountable problem if Sky had any desire to launch a channel of their own. Clearly they never have.
ST
Stuart
Interceptor posted:
I don't think that would be an unsurmountable problem if Sky had any desire to launch a channel of their own. Clearly they never have.

Would there be sufficient revenue in it for Sky? It's a fairly crowded genre already.
NW
nwtv2003
Interceptor posted:
JAS84 posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
Sky have always had a 50% stake in Nickelodeon UK, and Comedy Central for that matter. For Sky's sake it's easier to put kids on demand under one banner than set up a new channel.
Nick's ownership is irrelevant. Nick shows are on Nick, the point was, they don't have enough shows to launch a new channel called Sky Kids - they obviously couldn't take things away from Nickelodeon. They haven't had enough shows for a Sky branded kids channel since 1996 in fact, when Sky One had to end it's Undun block due to the launch of Fox Kids, which took the majority of their children's lineup.

I don't think that would be an unsurmountable problem if Sky had any desire to launch a channel of their own. Clearly they never have.


I get the feeling they take the MTV approach in the sense that it is easier to promote the service as part of the Sky package than launch their own service, hence my original post regarding Sky owning 50% of Nick UK. Don't forget when Sky launched their three music channels, they were disposed of relatively quickly from memory.

In this age and the way most kids are very technologically aware it makes more sense to build up a stronger on demand and online portfolio than launch a separate linear channel.
IN
Interceptor
nwtv2003 posted:
Interceptor posted:
JAS84 posted:
ck's ownership is irrelevant. Nick shows are on Nick, the point was, they don't have enough shows to launch a new channel called Sky Kids - they obviously couldn't take things away from Nickelodeon. They haven't had enough shows for a Sky branded kids channel since 1996 in fact, when Sky One had to end it's Undun block due to the launch of Fox Kids, which took the majority of their children's lineup.

I don't think that would be an unsurmountable problem if Sky had any desire to launch a channel of their own. Clearly they never have.


I get the feeling they take the MTV approach in the sense that it is easier to promote the service as part of the Sky package than launch their own service, hence my original post regarding Sky owning 50% of Nick UK. Don't forget when Sky launched their three music channels, they were disposed of relatively quickly from memory.

In this age and the way most kids are very technologically aware it makes more sense to build up a stronger on demand and online portfolio than launch a separate linear channel.

The music channels were created to cash in on those bloody awful ringtone adverts. That dried up pretty quickly once Ofcom clarified the rules on making terms clear.


I don't think you can really say Sky has a consistent strategy on this. They went in 50:50 with QVC, but they did their own thing with Sky Travel. They created a load of their own entertainment channels but have done loads of joint ventures too.
TM
tmf9
Sky's music channels were an attempt to devalue MTV, with the aim of reducing the amount Sky had to pay Viacom to carry the MTV/VH1 channels. They were not a ratings success but Sky did succeed in getting Viacom to accept a slight cut in subscription revenue.

The big surge in ringtone advertising (driven by the infamous Crazy Frog in 2005) came when Sky had already given up on the channels and handed control of them to ChartShow TV.

41 days later

JA
JAS84
Sky Box Office 718 and 719 are gone.
DE
derek500
JAS84 posted:
Sky Box Office 718 and 719 are gone.


Incidentally there are no Sky Box Office film channels on Sky Q, it's all on demand.
London Lite and nwtv2003 gave kudos
RD
rdd Founding member
I had mentioned in the thread on the Sky Cinema rebrand, I can't imagine that the NVOD Sky Box Office movies service has much more life left in it - a relic of a different era at this stage.
WH
whoiam989
DirecTV in the USA operates satellite TV business in Mexico and Central America under the Sky name. Looks like they have adopted all-lowercase, rounded Sky plc. logo from this year. (Previously, they used the same logo as what Sky Italy used before.)
RD
rdd Founding member
Do they have any connections with Sky Plc now other than the brand? Seems DirectTV is owned by AT&T these days?
JA
JAS84
The Sky Italy logo is still used in Brazil. Only a matter of time before they fall into line I guess.

And yes, News Corp sold its stake in Sky Mexico to DirecTV years ago, and then DirecTV got take over by AT&T last year.
CY
cyberdude
JAS84 posted:

And yes, News Corp sold its stake in Sky Mexico to DirecTV years ago.

News Corp should divest itself of Sky full stop.

Newer posts