Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35970147)

No it wouldn't.

Ok, pretend the Sky £24 channel bundle is distributed as follows:

Disney gets £6 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £78000000
AT&T gets £6 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £78000000
Viacom/CBS gets £4 per subscriber - multiplied 13m subscribers is £52000000
Comcast gets £4 per subscriber - multiplied 13m subscribers is £52000000
Fox gets £2 per subscriber - multiplied 13m subscribers is £26000000
Sony gets £2 per subscriber - per subscriber - multiplied 13m subscribers is £26000000

Now, if the Hollywood companies stop receiving a share of that £24 channel bundle and the bundle is eliminated and they all launch DTC streamers at the same price as before, the figures don't change.

So, a Disney streamer costing £6 per month, only needs the same 13m subscribers to get the same dosh, the £78000000. But what I think you are saying, is that the companies will likely charge more for their streamers, than what they currently share between them from channel bundles, thus increasing the cost to consumers. Is that a fair summing up of your position?

They don't need 52 million subscribers, so i don't know where you're getting that from.

What is the unknown and going back to Old Boy's remarks about the £60 Full House bundle, is, if each of those six streamers each charge £10 per month for their streamers and you add on the cost of the broadband and sports too (for those that want to pay for it)on top of that, how many would subscribe?

I don't know the answer to that and neither do the Hollywood companies, hence their anxiousness about streaming. At the moment, they are guaranteed a share of the channel bundle pot, in a DTC streaming world, they've got to go out and get their own punters for their services. No guarantees at all.

We do not know how many streamers there will be and don't forget our British services too, or at what cost they will. Until the consolidation in the States is finished among the media/telecom/tech cos, there are too many unknowns at the moment.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35970151)

And I also wouldn't envisage Disney selling anywhere near 13 million subscriptions in the UK.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35970151)

And I also wouldn't envisage Disney selling anywhere near 13 million subscriptions in the UK.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35970148)

You’ve sold 78 million subscriptions in the example above.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35970153)

None of them would, which is where the pricing point will end up much higher and number of subscribers much lower. Those who do subscribe will have to make up for lost advertising revenue, and to top it all off your ISP will have to invest more money in infrastructure and pass that cost onto you for entry into this streaming utopia.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35970162)

But taken by the same 13m people. They each take the six streamers each.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35970152)

Not a hope in hell l would say MM.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35970164)

Except that you ignore other options available. For example, you could have a free or reduced price advertising option. They can still agree arrangements to allow free-to view channels to show specific series or films. Plenty of money making arrangements that can be explored.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35970166)

Families with children will be tempted to subscribe, Den! I suspect they will have an adult option as well, so that will add to the numbers.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35970171)

And if you think that is going to get them 13 million UK subscribers then l am not sure what planet you are on as they will be lucky to get half a million subscribers at a tenner each.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35970174)

I think maybe you underestimate the popularity of Disney, Den.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35970167)

None of this is quantifiable, and certainly non-exclusive arrangements don’t point towards millions of subscribers wanting to pay for your “must have” content.

It’s far more likely they’ll just raise prices among the customers most likely to take the service - who happen to be the ones who benefit most from the current arrangements.

If it was simply about streaming they’d work with current providers. It’s about control and ultimately profits.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35970174)

I think maybe you underestimate the popularity of Disney, Den.