There is an African saying that when elephants fight, its usually the grass that is worse for the wear. The same can be said of the bruising battle between Virgin Media and BSkyB. The drama between the two media giants, Britain's biggest private media companies, has been playing to the public gallery for the past couple of weeks and today, it reached its finale with an announcement that Virgin had decided to drop four of BSkyB's channels from its bouquet of cable channels.
The Channels - Sky One, Sky Travel, Sky Sports News and Sky News- especially the latter are very popular with viewers, and its no surprise that BSkyB would want to cash in on their success. But such an argument would be superficial without taking into account the fact that there is more at stake here than just failed price squibbles. At stake for each of them is the consolidation of their share of the market. Its an open secret that the BBC is slowly but gradually losing its grip on the UK's media market and Sky and Virgin are the only media companies that are best positioned to capitalise on the BBC's dilemma. This latest conflict is only the beginning of what is likely to turn into a longrunning battle for the hearts and minds of Britain's increasingly young and restless media users/consumers. Round One was won by Sky late last year when it snapped up a covetted key shareholding stake in ITV, which Virgin had been eyeing. That behind-the scenes- manoveouring is now likely to become the subject of an inquiry after Sir Richard Branson lodged a complaint, according to recent press reports.
I find it interesting and a coincedence perhaps, that Sky and Virgin's latest spat has climaxed just a day after I attended a lecture on economic changes in media and communication and so, I can easily draw paralles between the complex neo-classical theories and the brutal realities of the corporate media world. As my LSE professor Robin Mansell, aptly noted in the lecture, Virgin and BSkyB's brawl is symptomatic of a rat race in which big media players are always moving (like Sharks) to stay on top, by "hook or crook" (my words not hers). Often this entails crushing the competition - as in Sky and Virgin - or simply working behind the scenes (and on the screen) to block whatever existing avenues or loopholes that might threaten their market share or monopoly - BBC, Bertelsman.
The most important question that comes to mind however is where the ordinary media consumer fits into this intricate web of corporate politics. Does the consumer's interests matter at all? Or does it all boil down to how much profit is reflected in the company's balance sheet at the end of the year? Its shocking for instance that both media companies have taken this battle to a whole new level of primitivity. In Today's City AM, there's a full page ad in which Sky attempts to give its side of the story about the failed negotiations, with undisguised glee and rounds off its account thus, "so, if you are a Virgin Media Customer and would like to continue watching these programmes, its easy to join Sky and Keep the TV you love. We want to do everything to make sure you can keep up with your favourite Sky programmes so we're planning to run all our big shows over a catch up weekend. And we'll make other shows available on our Anytime on demand service".
There are no prizes for guessing in what currency Virgin is likely to retaliate. I have already sighted several billboards around London promoting its combined cable TV/internet broadband/telephone packages as more superior to Sky's. Similar smear advertising campaigns have taken place in Uganda, between Capital FM and KFM (owned by Nation Media Group) but the surprising thing is that the regulatory agencies and consumer protection associations often remain mere bystanders on the sidelines.
But even more surprising is the lack of ethical corporate awareness and morality amongst these players. I reckon Prof Roger Silverstone (RIP) would have found them useful illustrations in an updated edition of Media and Morality (2006). Sadly, its often such occurences that many countries (particularly those with dogdy democratic credentials like Uganda) often use to justify stiffer regulation/censorship of the media as well as media content and refusing to open up the media sector to competition. The debate about whether to regulate or not, is a lengthy one and one without clear answers, so I will not even attempt to unravel any of its intricancies. But either way, its unlikely that the media companies will lose sleep over this. I have no doubt that whatever profits Sky may be losing in its failed deal with Virgin will be recouped somehow, from anyone of its worldwide web of subsidiaries. Similarly, Virgin knows it can and will recover. I doubt they would have had the guts to pull the plug on Sky without first carrying out a thorough risk assessment! The consumer on the other hand, will continue to remain a victim in this elephantine battle of the heavyweights, which at present shows no signs of ebbing.
I say, prepare yourself for another round. You could however choose to remain a cheerleader in either the blue (BSkyB) or the red corner (Virgin) or do something about their impunity!
The Channels - Sky One, Sky Travel, Sky Sports News and Sky News- especially the latter are very popular with viewers, and its no surprise that BSkyB would want to cash in on their success. But such an argument would be superficial without taking into account the fact that there is more at stake here than just failed price squibbles. At stake for each of them is the consolidation of their share of the market. Its an open secret that the BBC is slowly but gradually losing its grip on the UK's media market and Sky and Virgin are the only media companies that are best positioned to capitalise on the BBC's dilemma. This latest conflict is only the beginning of what is likely to turn into a longrunning battle for the hearts and minds of Britain's increasingly young and restless media users/consumers. Round One was won by Sky late last year when it snapped up a covetted key shareholding stake in ITV, which Virgin had been eyeing. That behind-the scenes- manoveouring is now likely to become the subject of an inquiry after Sir Richard Branson lodged a complaint, according to recent press reports.
I find it interesting and a coincedence perhaps, that Sky and Virgin's latest spat has climaxed just a day after I attended a lecture on economic changes in media and communication and so, I can easily draw paralles between the complex neo-classical theories and the brutal realities of the corporate media world. As my LSE professor Robin Mansell, aptly noted in the lecture, Virgin and BSkyB's brawl is symptomatic of a rat race in which big media players are always moving (like Sharks) to stay on top, by "hook or crook" (my words not hers). Often this entails crushing the competition - as in Sky and Virgin - or simply working behind the scenes (and on the screen) to block whatever existing avenues or loopholes that might threaten their market share or monopoly - BBC, Bertelsman.
The most important question that comes to mind however is where the ordinary media consumer fits into this intricate web of corporate politics. Does the consumer's interests matter at all? Or does it all boil down to how much profit is reflected in the company's balance sheet at the end of the year? Its shocking for instance that both media companies have taken this battle to a whole new level of primitivity. In Today's City AM, there's a full page ad in which Sky attempts to give its side of the story about the failed negotiations, with undisguised glee and rounds off its account thus, "so, if you are a Virgin Media Customer and would like to continue watching these programmes, its easy to join Sky and Keep the TV you love. We want to do everything to make sure you can keep up with your favourite Sky programmes so we're planning to run all our big shows over a catch up weekend. And we'll make other shows available on our Anytime on demand service".
There are no prizes for guessing in what currency Virgin is likely to retaliate. I have already sighted several billboards around London promoting its combined cable TV/internet broadband/telephone packages as more superior to Sky's. Similar smear advertising campaigns have taken place in Uganda, between Capital FM and KFM (owned by Nation Media Group) but the surprising thing is that the regulatory agencies and consumer protection associations often remain mere bystanders on the sidelines.
But even more surprising is the lack of ethical corporate awareness and morality amongst these players. I reckon Prof Roger Silverstone (RIP) would have found them useful illustrations in an updated edition of Media and Morality (2006). Sadly, its often such occurences that many countries (particularly those with dogdy democratic credentials like Uganda) often use to justify stiffer regulation/censorship of the media as well as media content and refusing to open up the media sector to competition. The debate about whether to regulate or not, is a lengthy one and one without clear answers, so I will not even attempt to unravel any of its intricancies. But either way, its unlikely that the media companies will lose sleep over this. I have no doubt that whatever profits Sky may be losing in its failed deal with Virgin will be recouped somehow, from anyone of its worldwide web of subsidiaries. Similarly, Virgin knows it can and will recover. I doubt they would have had the guts to pull the plug on Sky without first carrying out a thorough risk assessment! The consumer on the other hand, will continue to remain a victim in this elephantine battle of the heavyweights, which at present shows no signs of ebbing.
I say, prepare yourself for another round. You could however choose to remain a cheerleader in either the blue (BSkyB) or the red corner (Virgin) or do something about their impunity!
No comments:
Post a Comment