itv and sky
The question not asked is; why on earth do Sky need ITV in their subscription line-up? ITV offer little that would set the pulses racing to purchase a sub if you are not already sold on Sky TV. The movies are old, they are gradually moving away from expensive drama, news operations are in decline, they have no flagship imports and limiting the audience to pay tv would seriously reduce the level of audience that such as Britain's Got Talent recently managed. Only the football may be attractive to Sky.
The same is true of CH4. Sky could outbid them on any import, not that CH4 has any significant ones left. Perhaps Big Brother may be attractive to them but that may well be up for aqusition soon and anyway the big audience figures would be unlikely for a pay tv offering, especially if its core audience is an impoverished (or unwilling to pay, as in downloading) youth audience.
Don't really see the attraction to Sky for these channels or Five for that matter, so presumably Sky would expect significant payments from them to be included in their packages and then the question is; in the current income climate would such an investment for ITV and CH4 be counterproductive, guaranteeing extra costs and reducing the potential audience for advertisers? Sky may have their million plus subscribers but the extent of their channels ensures some dilution for each channel and currently increasing levels there may be but there is a saturation point which will be a minority of the potential viewing audience. "Can't pays" and/or "won't pays" can be assured.
(Also posted in Freesat and Broadcasting)
The same is true of CH4. Sky could outbid them on any import, not that CH4 has any significant ones left. Perhaps Big Brother may be attractive to them but that may well be up for aqusition soon and anyway the big audience figures would be unlikely for a pay tv offering, especially if its core audience is an impoverished (or unwilling to pay, as in downloading) youth audience.
Don't really see the attraction to Sky for these channels or Five for that matter, so presumably Sky would expect significant payments from them to be included in their packages and then the question is; in the current income climate would such an investment for ITV and CH4 be counterproductive, guaranteeing extra costs and reducing the potential audience for advertisers? Sky may have their million plus subscribers but the extent of their channels ensures some dilution for each channel and currently increasing levels there may be but there is a saturation point which will be a minority of the potential viewing audience. "Can't pays" and/or "won't pays" can be assured.
(Also posted in Freesat and Broadcasting)
Any time Sky can increase its monopoly, it will do.
I dont think anyone will subscribe purely to watch those channels. I havent watched a single thing on ITV2 or 3 and only watch the football on ITV4.
I dont think anyone will subscribe purely to watch those channels. I havent watched a single thing on ITV2 or 3 and only watch the football on ITV4.
