BBC V BSkyB

1679111260

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,387
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zz9 wrote: »
    One of the biggest benefits of advertising is exactly that, to be able to charge higher prices. Hence Coke spend millions on advertising and sell at a higher price.

    Do BSM charge more than Bob's Driving School?

    If their advertising promotes an image of quality and success, making customers believe they will be more likely to pass, then they will pay the higher price.

    That is one of the biggest benefits of advertising!

    So you do believe that a tutor adding his advertising costs onto his fee whilst his competitors are charging less would get more custom. Interesting theory
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Sover_99 wrote: »
    So you do believe that a tutor adding his advertising costs onto his fee whilst his competitors are charging less would get more custom. Interesting theory

    If his competitors are not advertising?
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sover_99 wrote: »
    So you do believe that a tutor adding his advertising costs onto his fee whilst his competitors are charging less would get more custom. Interesting theory

    That millions of companies around the world share. Such as Coke, Hovis, Persil etc
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sover_99 wrote: »
    How can the production cost for million cans be cheaper if economies of scale has nothing to do with it. They would be the same.
    You clearly stated economies of scale has nothing to do with it.

    Banged your head against that wall too many times I guess

    Please, please, please, try and understand.

    Economies of scale DO reduce costs. It does have a effect. I am not disputing that.

    What I am saying is that just because a company can make a product for less money it doesn't mean they will sell a product for less money. That would depend on the market.

    There now comes a balancing point. Reducing the price may increase sales but will only make more money if total profit is more than keeping it at a higher price.

    A cut in price will need more sales to achieve the same profit as keeping it at the same level as before an economy of scale cut.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    terrykl wrote: »
    Jeeze,I don't think that even a sat nav could get this thread back on course!!:p

    It's probably my fault as i sort of started the off topic track (somebody had the standard anti BBC TVL fee winge so I had to point out we all pay for adverts and have no choice in the matter - well you have to:D). As soon as I posted I thought mistake and decided to take no part in the subsequent discussion, wise move.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bobcar wrote: »
    It's probably my fault as i sort of started the off topic track (somebody had the standard anti BBC TVL fee winge so I had to point out we all pay for adverts and have no choice in the matter - well you have to:D). As soon as I posted I thought mistake and decided to take no part in the subsequent discussion, wise move.

    As has been mentioned, even textbooks are fuzzy on the matter.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    xxtimbo wrote: »
    Murdoch has built up BSky B to become a massive TV empire with over 5 million subscribers.
    As pointed out, it's nearly double that.

    Here are some more facts.

    * 10m homes have DTT.
    * 9.3m homes have Sky
    * 3.8m homes have Virgin Media (which is only available to 50% of populartion anyway)

    So, actually, Sky's just a little behind Freeview.

    And, even in those homes with Sky (and VM I assume) BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,697
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As pointed out, it's nearly double that.

    Here are some more facts.

    * 10m homes have DTT.
    * 9.3m homes have Sky
    * 3.8m homes have Virgin Media (which is only available to 50% of populartion anyway)

    So, actually, Sky's just a little behind Freeview.

    And, even in those homes with Sky (and VM I assume) BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.
    How dare you put this thread back on topic. :D:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 223
    Forum Member
    As pointed out, it's nearly double that.

    Here are some more facts.

    * 10m homes have DTT.
    * 9.3m homes have Sky
    * 3.8m homes have Virgin Media (which is only available to 50% of populartion anyway)

    So, actually, Sky's just a little behind Freeview.

    And, even in those homes with Sky (and VM I assume) BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.
    Trends In Television 2010 PDF
    • BBC - 32.9%
    • ITV - 22.86%
    • Channel 4 - 11.18%
    • Five - 5.91%
    • Total Free To View - 72.85%
    • BSkyB - 6.61%
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy380 wrote: »
    How dare you put this thread back on topic. :D:D

    Last year Sky spent £1.9 billion on Programming. And £1.1billion on Marketing.....:eek:


    Just saying....
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zz9 wrote: »
    Last year Sky spent £1.9 billion on Programming. And £1.1billion on Marketing.....:eek:


    Just saying....

    It's probably what they're marketing puts people off......:D
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    howard h wrote: »
    It's probably what they're marketing puts people off......:D

    I don't know. I'm looking forward to next series of Sick On A Widow.
  • sparkie70sparkie70 Posts: 3,053
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lets just say the BBC vanished during the night & never returned who would replace it?.
    People pay for SKY but get commercials even on pay per view:eek: I'm not saying the BBC makes mistakes but I think this country will be worse of without it.
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    sparkie70 wrote: »
    Lets just say the BBC vanished during the night & never returned who would replace it?.
    People pay for SKY but get commercials even on pay per view:eek: I'm not saying the BBC makes mistakes but I think this country will be worse of without it.

    Not during the middle of Movies on Sky Movies which are commercial free and only appear between movies.:D:D
    Ian.
  • bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    THOMO wrote: »
    Not during the middle of Movies on Sky Movies which are commercial free and only appear between movies.:D:D
    Ian.

    However they do make the most to the sports channels.

    Lets face some facts here. BBC Licence Fee, about £12 a month.

    To get Sky Sports I need a base back from what I understand of £19.50 (say Entertainment with Sky One), want some Sky News? another pound please, like a documentary another pound! So £21.50 a month then want sport another £20 (for Sports 1 and 2, and with the way they move sport form channel to channel you need the full pack).

    BBC TV - No Adverts.

    Sky Sports, extra £20, adverts, sponsorship of programmes.

    Last week The Open Golf was on the BBC 1, I did not pay extra for the Sport, it was on a channel that this week had news, new drama (New Tricks and in a joint deal Torchwood). It was also on BBC2, was I charged more to view BBC2? NO.

    Was the Golf on BBC a sponsored event. brought to me by -brand-? I have not seen Golf on Sky Sports. Do they stay for hours on end no adverts? I would imagine if the Open was on Sky Sports it will be brought to me by a major brand.
  • CTD101CTD101 Posts: 4,174
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As pointed out, it's nearly double that.

    Here are some more facts.

    * 10m homes have DTT.
    * 9.3m homes have Sky
    * 3.8m homes have Virgin Media (which is only available to 50% of populartion anyway)

    So, actually, Sky's just a little behind Freeview.

    And, even in those homes with Sky (and VM I assume) BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

    I think your numbers are a bit off. Sky broke through the 10 million subscriber base before December 2010, plus you have the many households with Freesat from Sky. I still think Sky are behind freeview but those numbers are well out.
  • Object ZObject Z Posts: 1,871
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CTD101 wrote: »
    I think your numbers are a bit off. Sky broke through the 10 million subscriber base before December 2010, plus you have the many households with Freesat from Sky. I still think Sky are behind freeview but those numbers are well out.

    Is that Freeview exclusive homes in the figures being quoted?

    I have Freeview, by default that most TV's and HDD recorders have DTT recievers built in, but I also have Sky.

    I guess that would apply to Virgin homes too.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CTD101 wrote: »
    I think your numbers are a bit off. Sky broke through the 10 million subscriber base before December 2010, plus you have the many households with Freesat from Sky. I still think Sky are behind freeview but those numbers are well out.

    They're Ofcom figures and exclude ROI. They quote 'around 2m for non subscription satellite, but those figures are for 'any set in the home'. They don't quote 'primary' use.
    Object Z wrote: »
    Is that Freeview exclusive homes in the figures being quoted?

    DTT on main set.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,697
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    However they do make the most to the sports channels.

    Lets face some facts here. BBC Licence Fee, about £12 a month.

    To get Sky Sports I need a base back from what I understand of £19.50 (say Entertainment with Sky One), want some Sky News? another pound please, like a documentary another pound! So £21.50 a month then want sport another £20 (for Sports 1 and 2, and with the way they move sport form channel to channel you need the full pack).

    BBC TV - No Adverts.

    Sky Sports, extra £20, adverts, sponsorship of programmes.

    Last week The Open Golf was on the BBC 1, I did not pay extra for the Sport, it was on a channel that this week had news, new drama (New Tricks and in a joint deal Torchwood). It was also on BBC2, was I charged more to view BBC2? NO.

    Was the Golf on BBC a sponsored event. brought to me by -brand-? I have not seen Golf on Sky Sports. Do they stay for hours on end no adverts? I would imagine if the Open was on Sky Sports it will be brought to me by a major brand.
    You can't compare the BBC's (limited) sport output to 4 dedicated sports channels that show sports that the BBC is not interested in (not forgetting that they are looking at possibly cutting some rights although its probably scare tatics) such as greyhound racing and speedway.

    Theirs a lot of things that Sky do that I don't agree with (paying extra for the HD channels being one) but at least I have the choice to take their service or not if I can afford it and I can still watch other channels if I don't. I can't watch any live tv at all if I opt out of the BBC.

    The BBC do suffer one major problem with some sports in that they disrupt tv schedules for late running events and also moving sporting events from one channel to another (Wimbledon mainly but also F1) which causes complaints.

    I found the BBC's coverage of the Open golf this year to be poor and not because of the weather. An hour and a half of fairly pointless chat on the Saturday morning is not what I want to see. But Sky show the same amount of hours the BBC has for golf per year in one month and I really don't know why a programme being sponsered would make any difference to the coverage.
  • bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy380 wrote: »
    You can't compare the BBC's (limited) sport output to 4 dedicated sports channels that show sports that the BBC is not interested in (not forgetting that they are looking at possibly cutting some rights although its probably scare tatics) such as greyhound racing and speedway.

    Theirs a lot of things that Sky do that I don't agree with (paying extra for the HD channels being one) but at least I have the choice to take their service or not if I can afford it and I can still watch other channels if I don't. I can't watch any live tv at all if I opt out of the BBC.

    The BBC do suffer one major problem with some sports in that they disrupt tv schedules for late running events and also moving sporting events from one channel to another (Wimbledon mainly but also F1) which causes complaints.

    I found the BBC's coverage of the Open golf this year to be poor and not because of the weather. An hour and a half of fairly pointless chat on the Saturday morning is not what I want to see. But Sky show the same amount of hours the BBC has for golf per year in one weekend and I really don't know why a programme being sponsered would make any difference to the coverage.

    I was more comparing that, whilst Sky's movie channels do not have ads, Sky don't seem to give advert free sports do they?

    I don't deny that if people can afford Sky it provides a choice.

    BUT if the BBC disappeared tonight, what would the £12 that is used on a licence fee get access to on Sky? Seems the answer is not much.

    So BBC v BSkyB, in terms of what it offers, think for the majority BBC wins, in most areas of the UK, 11 radio stations (not including sports extra), five tv channels 24 hours day (again taking in account the shared slot by CBBC and BBC Three, CBeebies and BBC 4).

    Yes, I imagine some people don't listen/watch BBC by choice. RAJAR estimates that 68% of the population hear BBC Radio, but some of that may be in communal areas. (anyone really know how many people hear BBC radio by choice not default?). With BBC 1 TV reaching over 80% of viewers and BBC 2 over 60% are all the 60% part of the 80%? Or does BBC as a whole maybe reach over 90%.

    So with the majority using BBC services, with a wide range of programmes, entertainment, news, documentaries, movies, sport can/would Sky in a BBC less world offer it's services for about £12 a month?

    BBC v BSkyB, I would think for over 50% of the nation BBC across the board, wins in more categories.
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    derek500 wrote: »
    They're Ofcom figures and exclude ROI. They quote 'around 2m for non subscription satellite, but those figures are for 'any set in the home'. They don't quote 'primary' use.

    DTT on main set.

    In DSO areas all sets will have DTT.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PeterB wrote: »
    In DSO areas all sets will have DTT.

    But not used 'primarily'. I've never even tuned in Freeview on my TVs. When they switch on they default to HDMI and the Sky boxes.
  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PeterB wrote: »
    In DSO areas all sets will have DTT.

    No they don't.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,697
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was more comparing that, whilst Sky's movie channels do not have ads, Sky don't seem to give advert free sports do they?

    I don't deny that if people can afford Sky it provides a choice.

    BUT if the BBC disappeared tonight, what would the £12 that is used on a licence fee get access to on Sky? Seems the answer is not much.

    So BBC v BSkyB, in terms of what it offers, think for the majority BBC wins, in most areas of the UK, 11 radio stations (not including sports extra), five tv channels 24 hours day (again taking in account the shared slot by CBBC and BBC Three, CBeebies and BBC 4).

    Yes, I imagine some people don't listen/watch BBC by choice. RAJAR estimates that 68% of the population hear BBC Radio, but some of that may be in communal areas. (anyone really know how many people hear BBC radio by choice not default?). With BBC 1 TV reaching over 80% of viewers and BBC 2 over 60% are all the 60% part of the 80%? Or does BBC as a whole maybe reach over 90%.

    So with the majority using BBC services, with a wide range of programmes, entertainment, news, documentaries, movies, sport can/would Sky in a BBC less world offer it's services for about £12 a month?

    BBC v BSkyB, I would think for over 50% of the nation BBC across the board, wins in more categories.
    Whether the BBC wins over Sky depends on personal taste and what type of programming you want. I was recommended Luther by a friend so caught up with episode one of series one yesterday and switched it off after about 45 minutes as It wasn't to my taste as I prefer US programming.

    I personally think that £145.50 per year paid to the BBC so I can watch other channels live broadcasts is quite frankly wrong and is not VFM for my viewing.

    Next summer will be interesting as to how much programming won't be The Olympics for 2 weeks and also how many late changes they'll be on the BBC.

    Sky is a business and doesn't have a guaranteed income unlike the BBC so asking what you'd get for your £12 is no comparrison.
  • PeterBPeterB Posts: 9,487
    Forum Member
    Hammy wrote: »
    No they don't.

    OK, many? All non cable and Sky?
Sign In or Register to comment.