The Marketing of Sky

iainf72

Cracking article

http://www.thewashingmachinepost.net/

They needed the Rapha's help

BikingBernie

I would still rather gnaw my own foot off than put any money into Murdoch's pocket by subscribing to Sky TV.

Guess who is the latest person to be employed by Murdoch...

Over the past few months, as opposition to the Obama administration has deepened, the affinity between Palin and Fox has grown in equal measure. Both see themselves as champions of the "tea party movement" – the groundswell of discontent from angst-ridden and disaffected voters, some Republican, some independents – who believe President Barack Obama is driving America towards an alien world of socialism. :roll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... epublicans

teagar

BikingBernie wrote:

I would still rather gnaw my own foot off than put any money into Murdoch's pocket by subscribing to Sky TV.

Guess who is the latest person to be employed by Murdoch...

Over the past few months, as opposition to the Obama administration has deepened, the affinity between Palin and Fox has grown in equal measure. Both see themselves as champions of the "tea party movement" – the groundswell of discontent from angst-ridden and disaffected voters, some Republican, some independents – who believe President Barack Obama is driving America towards an alien world of socialism. :roll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... epublicans

As much as that is interesting, I really don't think Palin being on Fox News will have a bearing on the Sky procycling team.

A surprise, i know.

TheHelpfulDevil

Good read, interesting take on the whole sky marketing. thanks for the post.

disgruntledgoat

As long as they keep growing Rugby League in Britain and France, I'm all for them!

calvjones

teagar wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

I would still rather gnaw my own foot off than put any money into Murdoch's pocket by subscribing to Sky TV.

Guess who is the latest person to be employed by Murdoch...

Over the past few months, as opposition to the Obama administration has deepened, the affinity between Palin and Fox has grown in equal measure. Both see themselves as champions of the "tea party movement" – the groundswell of discontent from angst-ridden and disaffected voters, some Republican, some independents – who believe President Barack Obama is driving America towards an alien world of socialism. :roll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... epublicans

As much as that is interesting, I really don't think Palin being on Fox News will have a bearing on the Sky procycling team.

A surprise, i know.

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

Tom Butcher

Interesting article. For me though all the attention to detail has produced a team that appear dull and regimented.

I suppose it's all subjective but what seems to be lacking a bit is personality. I look at the lauch photos and they are all there very uniform, obviously all of them told to wear their helmets, hi viz jackets given to anyone accompanying them on the launch ride - all very corporate and correct.

Of course there is plenty of room for them to win me over with their style of racing - if they race with style and panache then the dull as ditchwater kit doesn't really matter. If their racing style is safe and efficient though then forget it.

RichN95.

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

Tom Butcher

Isn't that an argument for changing your behaviour when you watch a film or buy a book rather than anything else ? Or do you think that you morals shouldn't affect your actions ?

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

There's a difference between doing business in a (typically amoral) way, and systematically exploiting the ignorance and fear of an entire nation to make the same buck. Most publishers/film companies would not have a strong editorial line with which I disagree: many of News International's subsidiaries do. So I don't see how my making an inforned decision in this case is puerile? I avoid lots of companies whose business practices I find unacceptable (although finding information is often difficult).

I'm no naive ingenue when it comes to this stuff. My PhD in the economics of sport knocked that out of m.

calvjones

'many thanks to tim ashton for suggesting this article and his subsequent generous assistance with the content.'

In economics we call this regulatory capture.

calvjones

[/pompous]

Sorry

RichN95.

calvjones wrote:

There's a difference between doing business in a (typically amoral) way, and systematically exploiting the ignorance and fear of an entire nation to make the same buck. Most publishers/film companies would not have a strong editorial line with which I disagree: many of News International's subsidiaries do. So I don't see how my making an inforned decision in this case is puerile? I avoid lots of companies whose business practices I find unacceptable (although finding information is often difficult).

I'm no naive ingenue when it comes to this stuff. My PhD in the economics of sport knocked that out of m.

But Sky have no more connection to Fox News than 20th Century Fox or Harper Collins. I can't remember Jamie Redknapp or Homer Simpson telling me to vote for Sarah Palin or David Cameron. Their news coverage isn't really any different to BBC News 24 (maybe they like it to be, but it's not)

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

Their news coverage isn't really any different to BBC News 24 (maybe they like it to be, but it's not)

Which says as much about the BBC as it does Murdoch's global media empire...

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

There's a difference between doing business in a (typically amoral) way, and systematically exploiting the ignorance and fear of an entire nation to make the same buck. Most publishers/film companies would not have a strong editorial line with which I disagree: many of News International's subsidiaries do. So I don't see how my making an inforned decision in this case is puerile? I avoid lots of companies whose business practices I find unacceptable (although finding information is often difficult).

I'm no naive ingenue when it comes to this stuff. My PhD in the economics of sport knocked that out of m.

But Sky have no more connection to Fox News than 20th Century Fox or Harper Collins. I can't remember Jamie Redknapp or Homer Simpson telling me to vote for Sarah Palin or David Cameron. Their news coverage isn't really any different to BBC News 24 (maybe they like it to be, but it's not)

They employ Jaime Redknapp. This is in itself a far worse crime than anything yet discussed.

Its an interesting point isn't it? However, I am uncomfortable buying Bodyshop stuff because the more successful they get, the more money L'oreal has to squirt stuff in rabbits eyes and splurge Eva Longoria over my screen wearing false hair. I guess, for me, the same applies here.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting anyone else follow my lead. The OP suggested there was no link between Fox News and the success of Team Sky, and I was suggesting different in my case.

Kléber

Even Murdoch is despairing with Fox News, expect the head of Fox to get sacked or resign within the coming months. Sky in the UK is a lot less biased, although all media organisations have their own bias.

I welcome Sky's money into the sport, it's better than spending it on Formula 1 for example and the good thing is that I can still watch the sport without having to buy a subscription etc.

micron

Interesting article though am unsure how the writer is so certain that they will 'guarantee' a clean winner.

As for racing style, if Wiggins is anything to go by it'll be follow the wheel and don't do anything to jeopardise the percentages.

Sorry but I'm another one who can't get thrilled about anything the Murdoch's have a hand in

iainf72

micron wrote:

Interesting article though am unsure how the writer is so certain that they will 'guarantee' a clean winner.

Agreed - They don't do anything to make me think they'll be cleaner than anyone else. A few colourful riders and management and it looks like any dodgy Euro team. I wish they'd try to address some of those concerns instead of the press being terrified their access will be cut.

Jez mon

How come Fox news is so right wing, but so many of the animated comedies on Fox are well, a bit liberal. Example, on Family Guy, Peter finds Jesus, they then find GW Bush and tell him he was wrong! Thats pretty far away from Fox New's viewpoint!

BikingBernie

Interestingly enough the banner headline for this page just contained a link to this site...

http://news1.newsmax.com/obama-healthca ... 4wod0navJQ

The propaganda onslaught on the public mind continues unabated everywhere you turn. Here are a few antidotes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Media-Control-S ... pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-C ... pd_sim_b_2

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce ... on&key=114

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guard ... _power.php

http://www.flatearthnews.net/

'It is a fact that the much-boasted freedom of the British press is theoretical rather than actual. To begin with, the centralised ownership of the press means in practice that unpopular opinions can only be printed in books or in newspapers with small circulations.'

The English People by George Orwell (1944).

BikingBernie

Jez mon wrote:

How come Fox news is so right wing, but so many of the animated comedies on Fox are well, a bit liberal. Example, on Family Guy, Peter finds Jesus, they then find GW Bush and tell him he was wrong! Thats pretty far away from Fox New's viewpoint!

Perhaps because such programs provide a 'safe' outlet for mildly dissenting voices? Only regimes that feel insecure and not in full control of what people think need to impose oppressive controls on 'free speech' and to silence dissenting voices. (China might be put forward as a good example of this). When the propaganda system is so well developed that most people can hardly formulate a 'heretical' idea, and anyone that does is marginalised and effectively powerless, there is no need to silence 'free speech'. (The USA probably offers the best example of this).

An illusion of 'freedom' can also be maintained by allowing people to speak out on issues that do not challenge the core ideologies a society is based on. As Bill Hicks put it:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

Chip \'oyler

iainf72 wrote:

Cracking article

http://www.thewashingmachinepost.net/

They needed the Rapha's help

Love them or loathe them - you can't deny that Rapha have been inspirational and have spawned a thousand imitators

RichN95.

calvjones wrote:

They employ Jaime Redknapp. This is in itself a far worse crime than anything yet discussed.

Well, on that point, we're in agreement.

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

They employ Jaime Redknapp. This is in itself a far worse crime than anything yet discussed.

Well, on that point, we're in agreement.

Good. I won't have to pop 'round Splott or wherever and duff you up

Neil Macleod

Gutted, was in the middle of reading it and then came back to it later, and it's been removed. Was an interesting article.

Seems it wasn't actually help from Rapha, but more the company who helped develop their strategy, although since I never got to finish it, I could be wrong.

moray_gub

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

I agree with you i think this whole i wont have anything to do with Sky branding etc is a kind of look at me posturing.

Jez mon

BikingBernie wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

How come Fox news is so right wing, but so many of the animated comedies on Fox are well, a bit liberal. Example, on Family Guy, Peter finds Jesus, they then find GW Bush and tell him he was wrong! Thats pretty far away from Fox New's viewpoint!

Perhaps because such programs provide a 'safe' outlet for mildly dissenting voices? Only regimes that feel insecure and not in full control of what people think need to impose oppressive controls on 'free speech' and to silence dissenting voices. (China might be put forward as a good example of this). When the propaganda system is so well developed that most people can hardly formulate a 'heretical' idea, and anyone that does is marginalised and effectively powerless, there is no need to silence 'free speech'. (The USA probably offers the best example of this).

An illusion of 'freedom' can also be maintained by allowing people to speak out on issues that do not challenge the core ideologies a society is based on. As Bill Hicks put it:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

That's probably a fair enough explanation. The only thing I can say to that, is that from here, it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate feeling for America (or any other country for that matter). A lot of the time we only really hear the extreme ends of the spectrum...i.e. FOX News and the most liberal of liberals.

mroli

In relation to Fox - isn't the point that in the US, you are allowed to have news channels/programs that are impartial, whilst in the UK, there is a requirement for news to be impartial. Therefore you have targetted news in the states pandering to both the Republican/Democrat agendas. In this way you know what you are getting - ie with Fox, you get Sarah Palin as the "voice of truth"... I don't agree with this per se - but it is an interesting debate, especially as David Cameron is said to have been meeting with Murdoch recently and to be pushing for the impartiality requirement in broadcast news to be dropped.
In relation to Fox as a television channel not being solely promoting a right wing agenda - I think that is correct in the fact that they are a commercial channel that is reliant on advertising to survive - therefore programs like Family Guy and the Simpsons that are uncomfortable political bed-fellows are commercial requirements. I have seen the Simpsons mock themselves for the fact that they are on Fox rather than a more "worthy" liberal agenda pushing channel when that is probably their more natural home.
In relation to Sky - as a Murdoch wealth creating machine, I don't agree with it, I don't agree with the way that they have come to dominate sport (eg football). But part of this is the reluctance of the other uk commercial channels to "take them on" and in relation to cycling, Sky does have a good track record both in sponsorship and as a corporate employer (although apparently their cycle to work scheme sis somewhat unwieldy). Thye also take their CSR and environmental responsibilies seriously apparently.
Would I wear a SKY team shirt - yep, because I want a succesful British cycling team. Would I wear a rival's shirt if the were British (deffo - for the same reason).

PauloBets

get behind the Sky Team...they have a great ethos, are clean or serious about being clean from their vetting process and deserve all our support. No talking this new team down you people...we should be supportive

iainf72

PauloBets wrote:

get behind the Sky Team...they have a great ethos, are clean or serious about being clean from their vetting process and deserve all our support. No talking this new team down you people...we should be supportive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cecchini

BikingBernie

mroli, Just where are these 'liberal agenda pushing' channels that you speak of to be found in the USA? On public service TV perhaps, which hardly has the penetration of the corporate-owned main news channels. Take a look at some of the material I linked to earlier which show that the 'liberal media' in the USA exists more in the mind of right-wing zealots than in reality.

It is also the case that in the US (and increasingly in the UK) almost anything to the left of the extreme right is labelled as being 'liberal'; witness the ridiculous situation where people seriously argue that Obama is a 'socialist'. In short, the USA, with the honourable exception of some grass-roots projects, is a wasteland when it comes to genuinely 'liberal', (as in 'left wing’) ideology. Similarly there is no 'left wing' alternative in the UK anymore, the only ‘choice’ being right wing and even more right wing. (And I'm no longer sure whether it is 'New Labour' or the Tories who are furthest to the right).

Yes, shows like the Simpsons have very strong commercial reasons for continuing in their current form, but any 'liberal' agenda the Simpsons might from time to time express is about as threatening to the existing order as a kitten.

Of course, all this relates to more than just news coverage. I re-watched 'Blue Collar' recently and simply can't imagine a film with a similar message being made today. Similarly, there is no way much of the politicised content that characterised 'Play for Today' would be made by the BBC these days. Instead they spinelessly cower in the face of ridiculous accusations that they are a hotbed of 'cultural Marxism' from right-wing extremists such as Paul Dacre of The Daily Mail, and in so doing inevitably display a right, rather than left-wing bias.