About me

Get new posts by email.

About me

Virgin Media vs Sky: Legs need slapping

Hold up!

See that little date above?

This post was published years ago.

My opinions have changed over time: I think it's quite fun to keep old posts online so that you can see how that has happened. The downside is that there are posts on this site that express views that I now find offensive, or use language in ways I'd never dream of using it today.

I don't believe in airbrushing history, but I do believe that it's important to acknowledge the obvious: some of what I've written in the past has been crap. Some of it was offensive. Some of it was offensively bad. And there's may be some brass among the muck (you can make up your own mind on that).

Some of what I've presented as my own views has been me—wittingly or unwittingly—posturing without having considered all the facts. In a few years, I'll probably think the same about what I'm writing today, and I'm fine with that. Things change. People grow. Society moves forward.

The internet moves on too, which means there might be broken links or embedded content that fails to load. If you're unlucky, that might mean that this post makes no sense at all.

So please consider yourself duly warned: this post is an historical artefact. It's not an exposition of my current views nor a piece of 'content' than necessarily 'works'.

You may now read on... and in most cases, the post you're about to read is considerably shorter than this warning box, so brace for disappointment.

Squabbling Children
“Give me your channels!” / “No, you’re not having them!” / “I’m telling mum!”

For those of you who’ve been living on the moon for the last few months, Sky’s channels have been removed from the Virgin Media platform recently because the two companies have been unable to agree terms under which the channels should be carried. Virgin says that Sky’s requested price is too high, and is refusing to pay it. It also says that Sky ‘forced’ them to accept a low offer for carriage of it’s channels on Sky’s platform.

Now, Virgin is taking Sky to court over the dispute.

My solution? The judge should get Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch in the court, slap their legs, make them apologise, and sort out their differences.

This is the most ridiculous argument we’ve heard in a long time. This sort of dispute just wouldn’t happen in any other business sphere? Can you imagine Tesco refusing to stock Heinz beans because they were making too many demands about product placement in the store? No. Heinz beans, like Sky channels, are popular, so not selling them would damage Tesco. Equally, Tesco is an important retailer, as Virgin is an important platform, and not having their beans on sale there would damage Heinz. In psychology terms, it’s a simple choice between a vicious circle or a virtuous circle – and Virgin and Sky appear to be choosing the former.

This has not worked well for either of them. Virgin Media is unable to offer it’s customers the best service, and people have cancelled as a result. Sky’s channels are getting far fewer viewers – in fact, they’ve fallen out of the multichannel top five – damaging their advertising income. Both of them are being in terms of PR, and a court case will also be damaging to both of them – why on Earth would either of them want an investigation into a highly uncompetitive industry?

They need their heads banding together.

I no longer care whose fault this is. Just grow up and sort it out!

This post was filed under: Media, News and Comment.

Recently published posts

Random posts from the archive

Comments and responses

Comment from Fspiders

    14.36, 24/04/2007

What utter rubbish!

Tesco’s would never stock an item that within a day increases 200%. Who would the customer complain to? not Heinz but the poor tesco’s checkout person.

Sky is a bully and needs to be stood upto.

Sky were quick to accept virgins channels at a price they haggled for and then and only then did Sky drop the bombshell of what they wanted for their ever dwindling popular package. 3 wks before the time limit that they gave virgin media to accept their demands sky started an aggressive advertising market on VM customers telling them they were going to lose channels and to demand VM accept their deal.

Sky now tell the public that they are also going to kill fta sky channels on freeview. I see them going to ppv on freeview, another notch for the bully and another blow for the poor.

Surely even you with your attitude of cowering before bullies you cannot expect VM to accept that massive increase and pass it onto their customers.

Take em to court VM and lets hope Sky get reigned in.

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

    17.10, 24/04/2007

I’m not sure I’ve an ‘attitude of cowering before bullies’, but that’s by-the-by. You honestly believe that if Heinz double the price of their beans then Tesco wouldn’t sell them? I think you’re deluded. Have you never looked, for example, at the fluctuations in fruit prices? Doubling overnight is far from uncommon.

I agree that Sky are bullying, and I don’t suggest that we merely kowtow to them, I’m suggesting that their strategy is hurting them as much as Virgin Media, and that the companies need to sort the problem out. And as for Sky removing it’s channels from Freeview, you may have missed the news that they have put these plans ‘on hold’ due to the decreased advertising revenue caused by the channels not being on Virgin Media any more.

Sky’s premature advertising campaign was particularly puerile, but no more so than the rest of this ridiculous argument. And Sky have said that they’re happy to sell directly to viewers via the Virgin Media platform, yet Virgin Media have rejected that suggestion – so they’re hardly doing everything they can to restore service for their viewers.

What good will taking them to court do? That would be damaging for both companies, and would probably not find a suitable middle ground. And the money Virgin Media spends on the court case (and associated advertising) will no doubt be far more than the increase Sky is demanding.

There are no angels in this case. It’s two big corporations mud-slinging, and it’s stupid.

Compose a new comment

I'm not taking comments on my blog any more, so I'm afraid the opportunity to add to this discussion has passed.

The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. Information about cookies and the handling of emails submitted for the 'new posts by email' service can be found in the privacy policy. This site uses affiliate links: if you buy something via a link on this site, I might get a small percentage in commission. Here's hoping.