Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35984685)

I would be happy to sign a 12 month contract for sky sports only if I could, unfortunately they are allowed to make you pay for a load of rubbish channels I never watch - most of which are on freeview anyway.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984686)

From time to time Now TV do offers on Sky Sports for 9/12 months that average £20 a month. Usually around the F1 season start and Christmas.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35984685)

I would be happy to sign a 12 month contract for sky sports only if I could, unfortunately they are allowed to make you pay for a load of rubbish channels I never watch - most of which are on freeview anyway.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984697)

Precisely a product currently on the market, old boy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984700)

At a whopping price, though. Sky have priced a lot of people who want to see football out of the game.

Lower the price, get more customers, make more money.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35984702)

Sky has a team of pricing analysts who calculate the prices that maximise profit.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35984702)

Sky has a team of pricing analysts who calculate the prices that maximise profit.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984707)

Another way of saying the maximum they can get away with.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984700)

At a whopping price, though. Sky have priced a lot of people who want to see football out of the game.

Lower the price, get more customers, make more money.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984705)

Strange how OB very much espouses free market economics and yet criticises Sky for making a reasonable profit and for setting their prices too high.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984707)

Another way of saying the maximum they can get away with.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35984708)

Just like any other company then.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35984717)

Only if those customers are actually there. As has been pointed out Sky routinely charge £20 a month on Now TV for sports only, and heavily discount their premium product from time to time to attract new customers and retain existing customers on an ad hoc basis.

At £15 a month a service selling only Premiership football would need 8.3 million subscribers per month just to cover the costs of the rights. This ignores production costs, marketing costs and taxes. Are there enough people out there willing to pay this just for Premiership football and nothing else?

Does a £15 price point really introduce it to a significantly bigger market than £20 for an all round sports product?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35984601)

All the more reason to get rid of the TV license.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35984719)

Not at all. I am simply saying that there are different approaches to pricing.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------



Got it in one, pip. Sky has form.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------



True, but that's where competition comes in and sooner or later, competition will bring those prices down.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------



That is a very inflexible approach. There are opportunities to provide 'skinny' bundles of selected matches over the year at a reduced price which would attract more customers, enable other TV channels to purchase non-exclusive rights to a limited number of selected games, etc. It is not just a stark case of 15 quid a month for 8.3 million subscribers. You haven't even added income from advertisements into that figure.

As far as Amazon is concerned, because Prime is linked to their retail operation, it is quite possible that they may be happy to simply break even if it brought in more customers for their central business.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35984756)

You'd hope so but I'm sure the BBC will be fine with simply charging people twice instead