# Sky running anti-Virgin ads



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

I just saw an ad over at ebay UK where Sky are having a dig at Virgin Media.

I screen-capped the three main frames of it:










I also snagged the URL to the Flash ad so you can  see it for yourself  if you want.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

There are ads running on (at least) my local radio, as well as local papers saying much the same.

It's interesting that VM have 'gone quiet' for a bit. Perhaps in case it harms the court case?

FWIW, the 'Sky Snooze' moniker was (allegedly) ordered to be removed by Mr. Branson himself, which is intriguing that he's taking interest in his newest baby.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

They've been using these banners extensively on Digital Spy for the last week or so. There are several different ones of different shapes and sizes too.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I think Sky will do themselves no favours at all with these ads in any court case suggesting they are behaving anticompetitively and monopolistically in the 100% price rises they have tried to impose on Virgin.

However it has the stamp of James Murdoch on it, who seems to be a most unpleasant and egotistical little brat from what I saw of the speech he gave at the Ofcom International Conference shown a few weeks ago on Information Tv on Sky.

Sky are clearly acting vexatiously and not content with already putting Virgin in a position where they feel they realy can't acquiesce to the 100% price rise (the thin end of the wedge if they did surely) being demanded Sky are now actually behaving in an inflammatory manner to try and directly tarnish Virgin's reputation with its existing customers.

This could go down very badly for Sky in court. Most people, including judges who on the whole travel a lot on holidays, rather like Virgin but don't like Sky so this will be an example of Sky at its most bullying, bratish and badly behaved worst.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Besides, they are technically incorrect. VM haven't "dropped" those shows (there's one for 24 too) but SKY have pulled the channels off the VM feed  Okay, it's because they aren't getting paid for them but that's beside the point


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Well if you're going to go down that semantic route, they haven't pulled them, the contract has expired and no new one could be agreed.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Well if you're going to go down that semantic route, they haven't pulled them, the contract has expired and no new one could be agreed.


Sure but they are abusing their monopolistic control of their rights to certain popular programs to ask for a massive percentage price increase that does not correlate with any corresponding increas in Sky's own cost base.

Now naturally I wouldn't expect a card carrying member of the Murdoch fan club like your good self to necessarily share my view on the matter.........


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Sure but they are abusing their monopolistic control of their rights to certain popular programs to ask for a massive percentage price increase that does not correlate with any corresponding increas in Sky's own cost base.
> 
> Now naturally I wouldn't expect a card carrying member of the Murdoch fan club like your good self to necessarily share my view on the matter.........


Aspects of Sky are pseudo-monopolistic, but Sky One isn't one of them. General entertainment channels based around imported US contENt are 10 a penny. Virgin want that particular one bacause it's a good one which their customers want to watch. That's a commercial judgement, but something is only a monopoly if they are the only source of it, and you can get American TV in loads of places!

If you think the price charged for something is based on its cost to produce I suggest you might stuggle with GCSE Economics...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> If you think the price charged for something is based on its cost to produce I suggest you might stuggle with GCSE Economics...


Actually as one who got a Grade A in GCSE Economics A level I can say that pricing depends on where the Supply & Demand curves intersect. If there is rabid competition and near unlimited supply of the product then prices will fall to near zero and if there is a limited supply of the goods and a monopoly supplier then prices will be very, very high.

To my mind Sky operates as a near monopolist in the supply of a meaningful comprehensive tv package of sports, movies and general entertainment programs and that is why prices are high.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Actually as one who got a Grade A in GCSE Economics A level


A GCSE "A level"?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ndunlavey said:


> A GCSE "A level"?


Well it was an 'A' level of some form anyway with the Oxford & Cambridge exam Board. 1981 is a long time ago now.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

OK - it's so long ago you can't remember what exam it was, but you think you can remember the content?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ndunlavey said:


> OK - it's so long ago you can't remember what exam it was, but you think you can remember the content?


I can remember it was an Economics A level at Grade A with Oxford & Cambridge exam board. You are just trying to split hairs as you normally do.

And yes I can remember most of the stuff they taught, although to my mind Economics is a rather bogus science as there are so many imperfections and distortions in the market place and so many human beings often do things for emotional reasons that often defy true market forces.

Which O or A level did you have to take to learn the word gob****e I wonder.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Well if you're going to go down that semantic route, they haven't pulled them, the contract has expired and no new one could be agreed.


Well yeah, but they'd never fit that on a advert


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

When I dumped Sky a few weeks back, one of the reasons they gave me why I should stay was The Simpsons...

Talk about living in the past....


----------



## Bakdraft (Dec 21, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Well yeah, but they'd never fit that on a advert


Acording to the sky.com website, Sky did not end anything Virgin Media did...



sky said:


> You may be aware that we have been negotiating with Virgin Media to continue offering Sky One, Sky Sports News, Sky Travel and the RTS News Channel of the Year, Sky News. Unfortunately Virgin Media have decided to drop these channels from today. This was their decision. As a "closed network" only they can decide what to offer their customers. Up to the final hours we tried time and again to reach a solution, including proposing a way for Sky to retail channels directly to cable customers in a way that would cost Virgin Media nothing.


My view is Sky really is abusing it's position it's not like they have to protect themselves from anyone.... they dominate.... so it's clearly wrong.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Bakdraft said:


> My view is Sky really is abusing it's position it's not like they have to protect themselves from anyone.... they dominate.... so it's clearly wrong.


And its part of a general monopolistic pattern which involves pulling Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Three off Freeview and replacing them with encrypted sport and movie channels so anyone who wants any Sky has to become a subscriber.   :down: :down: :down:

Sign this petition on the 10 Downing Street website if you don't agree with Sky channels being pulled from Freeview and replaced with Pay Tv:-

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SkyPayOnFreeview/


----------



## steford (Oct 9, 2002)

As much as I dislike Murdoch (and quite like Branson/Virgin) this is the last nail in the coffin for me for cable. Always been a big supporter and being able to not have BT or Sky was a big plus. Then it took ages for them to put broadband in ex-C&W, ex-Videotron areas meaning I had to ditch their phone service to get BT and ADSL. I have to ring up every year to get my "phone discount" reinstated and year on year my £19.50 charge has gone up without them telling me to £21.75 now. Every time my box freezes I threaten to leave. So now is the time I think. For £25 I can get the 2 packs we actually use (Kids and Entertainment) and their top broadband - saving me about £20 a month.

Agreed that Sky have gone a little over the top in their ads, their "from cable" pack, catch up weekend etc.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Bakdraft said:


> Acording to the sky.com website, Sky did not end anything Virgin Media did....


You expect them to take the blame?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

To take a parallel situation a restauranteur suddenly increases all his prices by 100% for no obvious reason but then suggests it is entirely his customer's decision to no longer come to the restaurant and nothing at all to do with him...............


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

steford said:


> For £25 I can get the 2 packs we actually use (Kids and Entertainment) and their top broadband - saving me about £20 a month.


Plus line rental (required for your ADSL connection) so that's £36.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

I think that Virgin should be putting banner ads on their site for a legal BitTorrent user, such as Zudeo.com. The fact that this installs Azureus, and that could be seen as a useful tool in its own right, ...

People will soon get the hint that there are alternatives to jumping ship to Sky to (temporarily?) regain their missing series. As to whether Virgin might lose more users to The Torrent, than to Sky, is anybody's guess. It really depends on whether user-loyalty exists for Virgin, and whether there is a greater hatred for anything Sky-related.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I had a thought last night. If the channels do return sometime in the near future and if Sky do the same as usual, then all of 24 will be re-run in the week leading up to the season finale


----------



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

Is it not reasonable to expect that any channel running ads should be free to the end user?
All of a sudden it appears that some commercial TV providers seem to expect us to pay more on top for non premium channels. I can understand charges for Sky sport and movies where licencing deals are involved and have to be paid for but not for sky one and any other channel with a a high proportion of advertising.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Indeed. I have said this before, but as far as I know, Sky could go completely commercial-free and _still_ make loads of money!

Okay, not exactly the same point, but related


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

cwaring said:


> If the channels do return sometime in the near future and if Sky do the same as usual, then all of 24 will be re-run in the week leading up to the season finale.


I would have thought that Sky will soon be running promotions based upon that, to encourage Virgin users to switch to Sky, when they have already missed too many episodes to continue watching the first showings.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

They are apparently planning a "catch-up" week-end 'for ex-VM viewers' sooon


----------



## steford (Oct 9, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Plus line rental (required for your ADSL connection) so that's £36.


I ditched NTL phone a long time ago though to get ADSL as they couldn't do cable broadband in our area (Ealing, London!!)


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Yeah. Sorry. Missed that bit in your post


----------



## Chris T (Oct 30, 2002)

It seems that Sky have a data base of names and address of VM customers and are now starting a direct marketing campaign in the same vane as the banner adds, I wonder where they got this info from?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Chris T said:


> It seems that Sky have a data base of names and address of VM customers and are now starting a direct marketing campaign in the same vane as the banner adds, I wonder where they got this info from?


It seems to me that Sky are asking for trouble and for high court injunctions etc by going to these spiteful lengths. If Virgin Media customers are unhappy with the loss of the Sky channels they will surely find their own way to Sky.

This unpleasant style of marketing has the stamp of the nasty young James Murdoch, who now runs Sky Digital, all over it.

So far as one can tell Sky seem to believe their only remaining source for future paying subscription growth is to try and steal as many Virgin Media customers as they possibly can.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Chris T said:


> It seems that Sky have a data base of names and address of VM customers and are now starting a direct marketing campaign in the same vane as the banner adds, I wonder where they got this info from?


How can you tell? Can it be proved?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Could well be part of the contract that NTL supplied names and addresses of those who subscribed to sky One. Such a clause would be normal.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> It seems to me that Sky are asking for trouble and for high court injunctions etc by going to these spiteful lengths. If Virgin Media customers are unhappy with the loss of the Sky channels they will surely find their own way to Sky..


What's spiteful or injunctable about Sky attempting to retain Sky One viewers?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Could well be part of the contract that NTL supplied names and addresses of those who subscribed to sky One. Such a clause would be normal.


Would be equally normal to have a clause in the contract though to prevent Sky from using such a list of names and addresses to try and poach or lure away Virgin Media's customers.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Would be equally normal to have a clause in the contract though to prevent Sky from using such a list of names and addresses to try and poach or lure away Virgin Media's customers.


Yes, but we don't know the terms of the contract.

There are other ways of getting lists of NTL customers anyway; many "lifestyle surveys" which generate address lists ask if people have cable.

It seems a completely normal way to do business to me. I'd write to all the customers of rival products to mine if I could afford it and get the list!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> What's spiteful or injunctable about Sky attempting to retain Sky One viewers?


That they are repeatedly slagging off Virgin and through anti competitive pricing of Sky One trying to put Virgin customers in a position where they are forced to switch to Sky Digital.

Do you own shares in Newscorp or something as you only ever seem to see sun and light in respect of that organisation's frequently disgraceful marketing tactics, highly anti competitive commercial agreements and usually excessively priced products.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

No, no shares in Newscorp.

I agree that Sky appear to be playing some kind of dodgy game with the pricing on the Virgin package.

But given that Virgin are no longer carrying Sky One, promoting Sky One to Virgin customers is just normal business, not "spiteful". I've seen nothing which could legitimately be called "slagging off" in those ads.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> But given that Virgin are no longer carrying Sky One, promoting Sky One to Virgin customers is just normal business, not "spiteful". I've seen nothing which could legitimately be called "slagging off" in those ads.


I haven't seen the ads but I would have thought using a direct mailing list of Virgin's customers was probably an unwise thing to do in this situation. A lot of Virgin Media customers are likely to walk anyway without Sky having to do things which might jeapordise its own position in any legal action alleging anti competitive behaviour.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

By contrast virgin renamed SkyNews to 'SkySnooze' in the guide 

THAT was spiteful, even if it was funny


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Seems to be some dispute over the figures; 100% increase or 20% increase:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a43226/virgin-sky-in-stalemate-over-carriage-deal.html?rss

Who knows!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> By contrast virgin renamed SkyNews to 'SkySnooze' in the guide
> 
> THAT was spiteful, even if it was funny


But it was only there for a day or two and almost certainly done by a Virgin techy without the authorisation of senior Virgin Media management.

Sky made almost no effort to offer a more realistic commercial deal that Virgin might have accepted so in my view nearly all the fault lies with Sky.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

As far as the mailing list is concerned, it would be quite easy to get an apparent list of VM customers:

1) Get list of names and addresses for a VM area - let's say Brighton.
2) Prune list of name and addresses of Sky subscribers.
3) Hey presto! List of people we can market to - some might not be VM customers now, but what the heck?

Take the tinfoil hats off folks.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

Regarding the issue of "the list" that Sky may or may not have. The way I imagine it working (pure speculation here) is that everyone who has cable and gets the Sky channels either bundled in the basic package or by paying more for super-premium channels, are effectively Sky customers. I would think that the contract would state that Virgin are simply re-sellers of the Sky offerings. Any cable customer that doesn't receive any Sky channels (if there is such a customer) would not be available to Sky.

So with the talks between them breaking down, Sky have a list of their own customers who are suddenly deprived of their service (even if it is mostly Sky's fault), and would have the right to solicit them to offer their service back via alternate methods.

Similar situation arose here with a Porsche dealership. They had a list of people who they'd sold cars to, and who's cars they serviced. Porsche HQ weren't happy with the owners of the dealership (a bit like a franchise I suppose) and decided to rescind their official dealership status and give it to some people who built a fancy new one. The now ex-Porsche dealership believed that the customer list they had belonged to them and started mailing people telling them they could still get their cars serviced there even though they weren't official anymore. Apparently Porsche weren't happy that the ex-dealer used their mailing list of "Porsche customers" (not "dealer customers").


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

Well they'd be skirting close breaking the Data Protection Act by using it in that manner... in fact I doubt Sky have a legitimate use for the names and addresses of Virgin customers prior to the breakdown of the agreement. Numbers, maybe, but those people have no contractual agreement with Sky directly.

It's more like they're just mailshotting Virgin areas to try to get people to switch. They're putting anti-virgin adverts on Sky One FFS, which Virgin customers can't even see!


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

B166er - I have some experience in the area, and the manufacturer pressure is normal. 

However, the reality is that - unless the manufacturer supply the system to the dealer - the data is the dealers. 

The same applied (but in reverse) to problems with a vehicle. Try convincing the manufacturer that the vehicle is their's and they should sort something out (i.e. claim on warranty).


----------



## Chris T (Oct 30, 2002)

Apparently Sky also have the telephone numbers of VM customers, VM are asking customers who have received a mail shot or phone call from Sky to contact VM as there is an internal investigation to how this has happened.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

b166er said:


> ... everyone who has cable and gets the Sky channels either bundled in the basic package or by paying more for super-premium channels, are effectively Sky customers..


Although I'm not expert either, I would have to disagree with this.

Even those who get the FREE TV pack (with the phone line) get Sky One. That would have made us all, effectively, Sky customers which, of course, would make no sense.

We are VM customers with contracts for VM services.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I's very easy to buy lists of cable customers from any list broker. No subterfuge required.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I's very easy to buy lists of cable customers from any list broker. No subterfuge required.


Yes but if you are as big as Sky you have to very careful what you such lists for and whether it is legal to do.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> It's very easy to buy lists of cable customers from any list broker. No subterfuge required.


I wouldn't have thought so. VM "do not pass on" your details and who else would have them?  Unless you mean someone within the company doing so illegally? (Of course, no-one can stop that, I suppose!)


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Yes but if you are as big as Sky you have to very careful what you such lists for and whether it is legal to do.


Absolute rubbish.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> Absolute rubbish.


You think being as big as Sky may put them beyond the reach of the law then?


----------



## Benedict (Jun 8, 2002)

It's actually very easy to buy a list of prospects (VM customers or otherwise) in a cabled area from a list broker.

It's also very easy (using data freely downloadable from the Ofcom website) to work out which of these prospects are likely to be VM customers, using nothing more than their phone number.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete, you or I or Sky's marketing department can go to any of the main list brokers and ask them for a list of cable subscribers and send them whatever letter we like, so long as its not libellous or something. 

Carl, there are other sources of lists of cable subscribers than NTL. The main one would be lifestyle surveys which are filled in by millions, which routinely ask that as a question.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

I don't see how anyone could get a list of virgin customers. Unless Virgin have given contractual notice that they are going to pass on the contact information to 'brokers' then they are in serious breach of the data protection act.

Virgin have *not* given such notice - quite the contrary:

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/privacypolicy.html

"We will not pass on your personal information to third parties except in accordance with this policy and our Terms and Conditions or where we are required by law to disclose that information."

So someone is in trouble if this has leaked.

(Leaks do happen.. the local NHS sold their lists to someone - They spell my name differently and they're the only people that spell it that way.. and last year I suddenly got bombarded by junkmail using that exact spelling. It stopped about 3 months later.. so presumably they tracked it down and dealt with it).


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

People fill in those lifestyle questionnaires. Millions do every year. One of the question is "Do you have cable?" Result, one list of cable subscribers. Not a complete list, but it doesn't have to be complete to be useful.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

Did nobody consider the point I made? Perhaps Sky is entitled to receive the list of the subset of VM customers that have Sky channels because they are Sky customers. If these people are paying VM on behalf of Sky, they're Sky customers. Just like in my example, the car dealerships maintain a list of people buying cars, but the car maker is the one providing them with the product and are entitled to that list. I'm speculating in the Sky/VM situation but isn't it a reasonable expectation that Sky have that list, and have always had it ?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that's entirely possible bi66er yes, in fact I made a similar point earlier.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

But we're not! We get our services from VM. I don't think it matters who provides those channels. VM pay Sky £x to carry their channels. It doesn't make any difference whether they're seen by 1 or 1000 people, they're still VM channels.

It might be worth clarifying this point if I can


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

That's not to say Carl that a clause in the supply contract did not give Sky the right to communicate with the people who get Sky channels. I'm not saying it is the case, Ihave no idea, but such a clause would not be unusual.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I don't suppose they'd tell me if I asked them so I can't disagree


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

I'm afraid you all still are likely to have your tin hats on. 

Lists of names and addresses (phone numbers, whatever) are remarkably revealing. Especially when cross referenced.

The OP speculated whether Sky were targeting VM customers. As I mentioned earlier, it's easy to do. The fact that the OP received a mailing from Sky proves nothing. I suspect his nearest non-Sky, non-VM neighbour received the same mailing.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

My bad - not OP, but post #30. 

Still think that this is a mass mailing.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I would tend to agree with that thought.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

Sky have a big billboard campaign here in south wales at the moment, as I'm sure they're doing across the country, with "Get Jack Back" posters among others. What I find strange is that Cable doesn't really make much headway out of the main population centres around here (Cardiff/Swansea) yet they put the posters up in areas where there's little or no chance of cable ever arriving! I was driving up the Rhondda valley yesterday afternoon and saw at least one of these posters - I'm pretty sure Treorchi has no cable TV so why on earth agressivley advertise to a population that can't even get the product in the first place.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

aerialplug said:


> What I find strange is that Cable doesn't really make much headway out of the main population centres around here (Cardiff/Swansea) yet they put the posters up in areas where there's little or no chance of cable ever arriving!


Sky put leaflets throught my door here for years encouraging me to become an individual dish customer, despite our having covenants under our leases in the flats forbidding individual satellite dishes and despite Sky refusing to cover the cost of installing a communal system with a single dish in a block of flats themselves.

When a company is this big as Sky they just believe in doing as much promotion as possible everywhere on big national contracts on a fairly scattergun and indiscriminate basis.


----------



## aerialplug (Oct 20, 2000)

One thing I did notice in my travels yesterday is that significantly more houses have dishes on them than on average streets. I was driving up the Glyn Corrwg valley (of mountain biking fame yesterday afternoon and in some places 80-90% of the houses had dishes along their fronts on one side of the street and no doubt the scene would be similar along the backs of the houses on the other side.

The reasoning is obvious. No cable comes remotely close to these villages and being in such hilly terrain, Freeview is unavailable until switch off so the only source of digital TV is satellite. Even in some of these cases, the dish had to be mounted on masts to look over local high terrain!


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

aerialplug said:


> Sky have a big billboard campaign here in south wales at the moment, as I'm sure they're doing across the country, with "Get Jack Back" posters among others. What I find strange is that Cable doesn't really make much headway out of the main population centres around here (Cardiff/Swansea) yet they put the posters up in areas where there's little or no chance of cable ever arriving! I was driving up the Rhondda valley yesterday afternoon and saw at least one of these posters - I'm pretty sure Treorchi has no cable TV so why on earth agressivley advertise to a population that can't even get the product in the first place.


Cable operators do the same - we used to get ntl fliers through the door quite regularly and there have been big billboard posters put up down the road - but the area is not cabled and not likely to be for some time. I fully expect to get virgin fliers through the door any day now.


----------

