Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999494)

I'm not sure what post you are referring to here. It is true that I have said in the past that Sky is under threat from the global players, but now that Comcast have taken over, this has diminished somewhat.

I have also criticised Sky for the lack of original content and I have said that with new streaming services being set up such as Disney+, a lot of the programmes it currently screens will migrate to those services. Whole channels, such as Sky Cinema Disney, the Disney Channel and Disney XD are under threat by that one new streaming service.

The Comcast takeover is a help to Sky because it has a library of its own, but I don't think they should be too laid back about that situation. This is a rapidly changing market.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999524)

So Disney , Fox and HBO remove their content deals from Comcast , Sky UK and Sky in Europe how much do they then save ? Because I'd imagine it's significant amounts.

That's money they can then redistribute as they see fit with things like more original content and more movies etc.

I'm pretty sure we'll also see more purchases , I think Discovery would be a great addition for Comcast.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 35999518)

I said it wasn't about changing subscription service or one particular series. Most companies want to look good, some put a lot of effort into managing their image. Often it can be because they have a virtual monopoly of their market. Even if it doesn't pay immediate rewards a good company image may have long term benefits. Some actions can have a cumulative effect.

Some people don't use the services of certain businesses because they don't like something about them. Whether they are too big, environmental credentials, who owns the company. Many, for instance,may not now have a problem with Sky due to its change of ownership. Sky values its image, why else do that Sky Ocean Rescue thing, or fund a cycling team despite never showing the sport on their own sports channels?

I haven't been in Asda since Walmart bought them. I have avoided other companies because I didn't like their business practices, some of those companies later changed and I returned. So it's not nobody. I'm not saying it's a large percentage, but it can be a significant minority who think about stuff like that. And if you are trying to maximise your assets you want to at least try to attract everybody.

Timing of information release is as important as the information itself, e.g. there's the burying of certain news on a bad news day so that it won't be paid attention to. I'm not saying this is that, just that it's an example of timing being important.

So in the grand scheme of things, I can see a company spreading out good news press releases, it's a low effort strategy, it allows each piece of good news to be recognised rather than buried in a wave of information.

This might not be happening, I could be wrong, it's just a possibility, a suggestion.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999538)

If Warner , Disney/Fox remove content from Comcast/Sky then Comcast/Sky no longer pays them the fees it currently does meaning a lot of money they currently outlay is saved allowing them to invest in their own original content as opposed to buying third party.

What's hard to understand about that , I've reread your post and must admit I'm struggling to understand what you are on about.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999538)

If Warner , Disney/Fox remove content from Comcast/Sky then Comcast/Sky no longer pays them the fees it currently does meaning a lot of money they currently outlay is saved allowing them to invest in their own original content as opposed to buying third party.

What's hard to understand about that , I've reread your post and must admit I'm struggling to understand what you are on about.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999542)

Well, I'm having some trouble understanding your point, too. You say that Disney and the like will lose money by taking their programmes back for themselves, which is true, and it's already happening to Netflix. What you are forgetting is that the streaming services will be recouping that money with the new subscriptions they will be getting as the new services roll out.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999544)

I said nothing of the sort I said Comcast save money as they are no longer paying these third party contracts allowing them to plough money into their own content.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999544)

I said nothing of the sort I said Comcast save money as they are no longer paying these third party contracts allowing them to plough money into their own content.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999552)

Oh, I see, thank you. I don't disagree with that, but I do have concern that Sky is only doubling the money it puts into its originals. I think they need to do much better than that, although they will at least have the Comcast library to fall back on.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35999543)

What you are forgetting is that streaming services could recoup that money with new subscriptions. There is reasonable risk in giving up guaranteed income for a contract period then relying on your own sales.

Where does the 'new' money come from? Pay-tv has a fixed pot of revenue to be shared out - content providers going down the direct to subscriber route is just a different way of controlling the distribution of it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35999576)

“Only doubling”. You are acting as if Sky are the only Comcast arm engaged in content production. You are simply continuing to distort facts, evidence, reality and economics to evidence your extreme vision of the future.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999552)

Oh, I see, thank you. I don't disagree with that, but I do have concern that Sky is only doubling the money it puts into its originals. I think they need to do much better than that, although they will at least have the Comcast library to fall back on.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999578)

I am not missing that fact, jfman, I have already stated that streaming services could give broadcast rights to TV providers and even to other streaming services.

However, that does not appear to be what is happening. We are already seeing Disney take back their shows from Netflix, for example. What makes you think they will renew their contracts with Sky and others when they run out?

The money will be made from the new subscription services, as I said before, and those that provide an advertisement option will also make money from those commercials.

---------- Post added at 07:37 ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 ----------



Sky already has access to Comcast shows, but that isn't sufficient to substitute for the tribe that is shown on the existing Sky channels. Subscriber growth will only be enjoyed if Sky is able to demonstrate quality as well as quantity against the vast choice available from the streamers.