retired_lizm5285

Any idea which incarnation(s)? </BLOCKQUOTE>

With sky showing TNG, Enterprise (and lately voyager) and Sci-fi showing TOS, i'm gonna assume that they have DS9 (or atleast hope so) </BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the hope. I doubt any of the others you mentioned would have been bought exclusively by the channels you mentioned, however, so would all be possibilities. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Virgin just posted me a leaflet lol,

and yes the advert for virgin 1 does have DS9 on it, so looks confirmed

Ventil

OK I'll explain again.

Sky pulled off as a spoiler tactic as there main priority is to generate subscriptions rather than viewing levels for their channels.
Virgin 1 is going to be a brand new station, and with any launch, be it a TV station, deodorant or flavour Tango, you need as many people as possible to see it.
In regards to this situation it also comes hand in hand with it being a mechanism that could draw subscription viewers away from Sky.
But first and foremost they need it to be seen by as many people as possible.

If you want me to go into the deeper side of share of audience versus share of TV revenue deals and station groups collective bargaining I'm more than willing to do so.

retired_kris10nicole

That's all fine. But as i said originally, it's again a calculation of trade off between station revenue and subscription revenue that determines the tactic. That was the question that litstbts was asking, and why the fact that it's two revenue streams is irrelevant, as the calculation deciding which way to go is taking both into account.

Ventil

Actually I think you're missing the point that he was getting at.
The question was why haven't Virgin done the same (now asked by both of you) and I've answered that twice.

Just to repeat once more....

Sky pulled off Virgin as a spoiler tactic to hit their subscription levels.
Virgin have not pulled off Sky as they want as many people as possible to see their station.

Is that too difficult to understand?

retired_katie14

Sky didn't pull off Virgin (tee-hee) though, did they?

Ventil

Not all their channels just Sky 1 and SSN.

They did leave Sky 2 & 3 behind for which we're eternally grateful....

retired_kris10nicole

Christ on a bike, i'm missing the point? I've agreed and accepted what you said there, and i haven't asked why Virgin haven't done the same at all.

The only point i've made in here was in response to your initial answer to his question, which a) didn't explain that (you did subsequently, you are quite right and i didn't dispute your answer), and b) said that it was two different revenue streams, which is the bit i questioned as it's irrelevant, unless you were claiming they were independant. Which you have since said you weren't.

retired_katie14

No I meant they didn't take it off as a subscription tactic, thought it was that Virgin refused to accept the cost they were charging (which you might argue was as good as but not quite the same).

runronnirun

what's that? </BLOCKQUOTE>

It stars Lena Headey. That's all you need to know :thup: </BLOCKQUOTE>

\O/

retired_kris10nicole

Sky 2 did go, and sky 3 was never on Virgin.

Although thinking on, i know Sky 3 was never on NTL. Did one of the other platforms that became virgin have it? either way, it's not on now.