Tuesday, 12 October 2010

The Media vs Sky, part 2

The media giants of the UK, with the notable exception of Virgin Media have whined to Vince Cable today about News Corp buying Sky. Below are a quick sample of key numbers. As a quick glance shows, DMGT apart none of the other businesses are doing very well at all. Even ignoring the huge costs of the BBC and Channel 4, SKY is happily raking in far more in profits and growing its business.

No wonder the competition hate it, its business model has been well executed and is working well. New platforms like HD TV both delivered on time and prove to add customers and revenues in quick order. Meanwhile newspapers try to move online and cannibalise their own revenues. Even News Corporation is struggling with its own traditional media business model.

There is no reason for Vince Cable to block News Corporation's bid for SKY - it is already the effective owner as established by the ITV competition inquiry.

Profits and Customers of 2010 major UK players:

SKY - £1.17 billion, increasing customers 3%
News Corp UK - £27.7 million,  customer numbers 4% falling

Telegraph - £53.1 million, 5% fall in customers
BBC -  it costs £3,450 million odd in tax, Falling market share of TV
DMGT (Daily Mail) £240 million, Customers increasing by 4%
BT - £1,000 million operating cash flow for BT Retail (the bti that competes with SKY), no profit breakdown reported for this unit.
Northcliffe - £0 (part of DMGT)
Channel 4 - £3.9 million - Falling market share of TV and gets subsidy out of the TV tax.
Trinity Mirror - £72.2 million, 11.8% fall in customers
Guardian Media - £171 million loss, 10% fall in customers

However, I bet our nice shiny new Business Secretary can't see the commercial reality and goes for a nice political punishment for SKY to sate his moronic Lib Dem activist base.


roym said...

do we want our own version of berlusconi here though?

Anonymous said...

Going off topic early but on Jeremy Vine show { the death in the Iraq hostage rescue.]he just read an email out.

Now Mr Cameron understands 'Intelligence' may be faulty. He now knows the difficulties Tony Blair found in deciding to go to war and I hope he will be more aware that intelligence can bee faulty.'

Why did Jeremy read that out?
It was it no way relevant. The examples are completely unconnected. The decision to invade a sovereign power and a rescue mission are not the same. The use of intelligence gathering in these examples is not the same.

Why did he feel the need to air that fatuous remark?

CityUnslicker said...

Anon - BBC do it all the time, whenever they read out a Government initiative the only people they ever quote for a comment are the Labour opposition.

Anonymous said...

Yes but do you like Fox News? would you trust it?

Steven_L said...

I like Fox News, and the Daily Mail, and judging by the stats I'm not alone :)

Thud said...

I like and trust fox news as much as any other outlet,probably more considering the time on air they give to democrats etc.

James Higham said...

I'd modify Thud's comment to "I dislike and trust fox news as much as any other outlet" - they're sensationalist and ignore the true story as much as any other media.

That's why I come to blogs like this for my news.