Westeros Blog: BSkyB to Broadcast Game of Thrones in UK

[Westeros]

Via the Guardian, we learn that Rupert Murdoch’s BskyB has bought exclusive U.K. broadcasting rights to HBO’s programming, including their archives and all forthcoming programming. According to the report, this is a 5 year agreement worth £150 million.

We can note that HBO has confirmed to us some weeks ago that the early word that the BBC was likely to co-fund Game of Thrones never came to fruition. This seems to settle the matter fully, as there were many question marks on the state of the BBC’s involvement given no mention of them in official press material.

Thanks to paddyolaughlin for the head’s up.

Visit the Site!

[Brude]

£30 million a year? Wow! That's almost $47 million/year based on current rates. It's gonna put a huge dent in the production budget for the series, for whatever part of that goes towards Thrnes. It might be why they figure they can afford to make it bigger and better with reshoots - maybe there's a been a big budget increase in light of this?

[Werthead]

This is both good and bad news.

Good news: Sky treat their shows with respect. They show first-run shows in good timeslots, very well-advertised, almost always within 1-2 weeks of US transmission, sometimes within 1-2 days of US transmission. They kept BSG in a prime-time slot for almost its entire run despite getting insanely low ratings for it (about 300,000 per week) simply because they liked it. This news means that UK fans will see Thrones very soon after US transmission and it won't have been screwed over like the BBC did to Rome.

Bad news: Sky is a minority cable/satellite channel. They have 9 million subscribers, but their audience figures for dramas struggle to get about 1-2 million at the outside. They also put a lot of advert breaks in their shows, far more than terrastrial channels. This also means that UK fans who want to see the show will have to go and subscribe to Sky to do it, which will be annoying, expensive and for some people, unaffordable.

Overall assessment: mixed. What the BBC did to Rome was completely unnecessary and sabotaged the chances of the show being a success. Them making the same mistake with Thrones was unlikely, but now even that small possibility has gone. OTOH, the potential UK audience figures for Thrones have been slashed by roughly 75-80%. The magazine cover stories and high profile that would have accompanied the show debuting on the BBC are now a lot less likely to happen, and the show's overall profile in the UK will be much lower as a result. But it will be treated with more respect.

[Brude]

So wait, BSkyB is a pay channel that also has commercial breaks?

[Werthead]

So wait, BSkyB is a pay channel that also has commercial breaks?

Yup. Something that pisses a lot of people off who subscribe to it.You pay a certain amount of money (rather more than Americans do for HBO, as far as I can tell) and then you have to sit through upwards of 20 minutes of breaks per 45-minute episode. How on earth they're going to handle HBO shows without pushing them all up to 90 minute slots, I have no idea.

[Angalin]

So wait, BSkyB is a pay channel that also has commercial breaks?

That's crazy. No wonder they have so few subscribers. Knock off some ad time and get more viewers, maybe?

[Werthead]

That's crazy. No wonder they have so few subscribers. Knock off some ad time and get more viewers, maybe?

10 million subs is quite a lot in UK terms (one-sixth the total population, one-third the number of households), but for some reason Sky shows don't seem to translate subs into comparable viewing figures. I get the feeling that a lot of Sky subscribers get it for the movies and sports events rather than the drama stuff.

[Brude]

Yup. Something that pisses a lot of people off who subscribe to it.You pay a certain amount of money (rather more than Americans do for HBO, as far as I can tell) and then you have to sit through upwards of 20 minutes of breaks per 45-minute episode. How on earth they're going to handle HBO shows without pushing them all up to 90 minute slots, I have no idea.

Terrible. We have I think about 15 minutes of commercials per hour of programming in the US and none on pay channels.

Premium channels come in packages here and the more channels you get, the better deal you get. So, HBO alone (which includes the main HBO, and like 6 other more specialized HBO channels AND HBO On-Demand) will be $10/month. Right now Time/Warner cable is offering 4 major pay channels of your choice (choice HBO, Showtime, Starz!, Cinemax, Encore) for something like only $33/month, and each of those is, like HBO, a package of multiple related channels. Generally, only HBO, Showtime and Starz! are worth it, though. Cinemax is owned by HBO but generally shows lesser movies or at least less famous movies. Back in the 1980's, Cinemax was actually where they put all of the really classy movies - art house fare, foreign films, etc., but now it's mostly crap and where the terms Skinemax comes from, for all of the late-night soft-core sex movies they air.

[red snow]

Not really over the moon about this as a UK resident for pretty much the same reasons Wert stated. Luckily I currently have sky 1 with my broadband/cable package (may not have it when I move in 2012) but you can't get the HD service. My main gripe is that it wont be available on iplayer a legit way of watching streaming TV and, more importantly, a way that my viewing the show can actually be added to viewing figures (as opposed to the draconian average boxes).

The bright side is that sky 1 does treat it's shows incredibly well eg Lost, 24, BSG etc and we can pretty much be guaranteed to have episodes airing the following day from the US transmission. This will cut illegal downloads for those with sky 1 as it's nigh on impossible to download a show and have it watxhed before going to work. Those without sky1 (and geeks) will be heading to the torrents, no doubt unless the digital rights bill becomes super effective.

I would have preferred the iplayer option. I'll try and watch it on sky 1 but i hate being dictated when to watch a show and the adverts don't help. Whatever solution I find, I will wind up buying the box set (unless the show is shit) as I figure DVD sales also count as a legitimate £viweing figure". It was the DVD sales that ultimately made them regret canning Rome and helped Firefly get a movie.

[BigFatCoward]

i currently pay £58 a month for the full sky package, this includes every sports, movies and HD channel.

it isn't cheap, but the alternative sucks so what can you do.

But, sky showed The Pacific on one of its movie channels without ad breaks, they showed each episode every night for a week at the same time to help build up a following. so if they go with that it'd help.

[Slick Mongoose]

DVD it is, then. Sigh.

[Padraig]

Hmmm. I wonder did they buy the Irish HBO rights while they were at it. :(

Sky UK is available over here, so it might get them a few more subscribers.

[theMountainGoat]

I am not at all surprised by this news, with the BBC cutting programmes and projects all over the place to reduce spending it was clear they no longer had any involvement with GoT when the factsheet left them off the list of stakeholders. As for Sky I think they absolutely had to go for this because those shows they have been relying on for the last few years, Lost, BSG, 24, they have all finished and they had literally nothing to replace them. This means they will be taking a lot of programming from FX who had been showing True Blood, Eastbound & Down, reruns of The Wire and probably some other HBO stuff as well.

For me I have a full Sky subscription, mainly for the movies and NFL, so I am already set, but it is a shame that this will reduce the total possible audience in the UK and will increase the amount of people who illegally download it.

[Ms Lannister]

@SerMountainGoat

I think you have hit it on the head. People who don't have Sky and want to see the show will just download it. I have Sky at home, but let's be honest, if there is a gap of more than a few days from when the show airs in the US to when it débuts in the UK, many many people will be looking to Bit Torrent (myself included). On a sidenote, these artificial barriers that media companies throw up between different regions infuriate me and they are basically obsolete with the advent of fast connections to the internet. OK I'll get off my soapbox now :)

[Black Wizard]

If Sky puts AGOT on the Sky Player there will be no need to subscribe.iF they don't I'll just watch it on tvcorn.com or something like that.

[Ran]

Pod,

Irish broadcast rights were included in the Sky deal, according to a knowledgable person I spoke with about it, so it'll definitely be airing in Ireland.

[iheartseverus]

I'm a U.S. viewer, so I'm curious. I've seen it mentioned several times in these threads that BBC did...something...to the HBO series 'Rome,' that apparently botched it badly. I loved that series, have seen it again and again, first on HBO here and then via Netflix rentals. What exactly did the BBC do to the series?

[RAddichio]

This is both good and bad news.

Good news: Sky treat their shows with respect. They show first-run shows in good timeslots, very well-advertised, almost always within 1-2 weeks of US transmission, sometimes within 1-2 days of US transmission. They kept BSG in a prime-time slot for almost its entire run despite getting insanely low ratings for it (about 300,000 per week) simply because they liked it. This news means that UK fans will see Thrones very soon after US transmission and it won't have been screwed over like the BBC did to Rome.

Bad news: Sky is a minority cable/satellite channel. They have 9 million subscribers, but their audience figures for dramas struggle to get about 1-2 million at the outside. They also put a lot of advert breaks in their shows, far more than terrastrial channels. This also means that UK fans who want to see the show will have to go and subscribe to Sky to do it, which will be annoying, expensive and for some people, unaffordable.

Overall assessment: mixed. What the BBC did to Rome was completely unnecessary and sabotaged the chances of the show being a success. Them making the same mistake with Thrones was unlikely, but now even that small possibility has gone. OTOH, the potential UK audience figures for Thrones have been slashed by roughly 75-80%. The magazine cover stories and high profile that would have accompanied the show debuting on the BBC are now a lot less likely to happen, and the show's overall profile in the UK will be much lower as a result. But it will be treated with more respect.

HBO is also a premium channel in the US. Many new subscribers will probably be persuaded to sign up for at least a yr, in order to view Game of Thrones. Was GRRM concerned 'GoT' would meet the same fate as 'Rome' in hands of the BBC?

Sky appears to be making positive inroads into acquiring a larger UK market share. They've recently commissioned a 2nd series for Chris Ryan's exciting action adventure 'Strike Back' starring Richard Armitage. BTW, in his smoldering righteous indignation mode that actor would make a compelling Stannis Barratheon.

[Padraig]

Thanks Ran. Pretty much expected that. Sky bundles these islands together if at all possible. Pity.

Was GRRM concerned 'GoT' would meet the same fate as 'Rome' in hands of the BBC?

I doubt it. Lessons learned and all that.

[williamjm]

Good news: Sky treat their shows with respect. They show first-run shows in good timeslots, very well-advertised, almost always within 1-2 weeks of US transmission, sometimes within 1-2 days of US transmission. They kept BSG in a prime-time slot for almost its entire run despite getting insanely low ratings for it (about 300,000 per week) simply because they liked it. This news means that UK fans will see Thrones very soon after US transmission and it won't have been screwed over like the BBC did to Rome.

I used to have Sky and I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree they always treat their shows with respect. I still remember the time they manage to put huge spoilers in their trailers for three of their season finales in a single week (including Buffy, at the time their most popular show), I can just imagine them showing what happens to Ned in the last episode of season 1 in the trailers for it. Then there were the endless adverts and occasionally deliberately showing episodes in completely the wrong order. On the plus side, I do agree that they put shows in good prime-time slots and show them promptly, sometimes even before the US (BSG season 1 was shown three months in advance if I remember correctly).

Despite their flaws I'd still subscribe to them if I could since they do show a lot of good TV, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to put up a satellite dish here and there's no cable either.

Premium channels come in packages here and the more channels you get, the better deal you get. So, HBO alone (which includes the main HBO, and like 6 other more specialized HBO channels AND HBO On-Demand) will be $10/month.

To be fair, it isn't a premium channel in the same way as HBO, Sky is the UK's satellite TV provider and for the subscription they'll give you several hundred channels, including their main entertainment channel Sky One, which is what GoT will be on.

If Sky puts AGOT on the Sky Player there will be no need to subscribe.

I would guess if they're paying so much money to HBO they'll also get the internet streaming rights as well.

I was just looking at how much they charge to watch online, it seems to be £15 a month to watch 20-odd channels or £1.50 to watch an individual episode (although I don't know if every show will be the same price for an episode). If it is the same per-episode price for GoT then it would certainly be a cheaper way to watch it legally than buying the DVDs.