Large bundles of Channels
 

Are the large bundles of Channels from the likes of VM and Sky sustainable long term ?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Well there are over 15 million people who buy bundles just from those two so its going to need a significant sea change for things to change IMO MM.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Those answering "No" must present a viable alternative ;)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Isn't Freeview and an OTT service a viable option for many ? ;)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Surely nobody can watch 90% of the channels they subscribe to, I know i don't on XL. If they could allow customers to pick and choose rather than 'bundles', however guess it isn't profitable. I'm looking to downgrade as most channels worth watching are on Freeview ( VMs constant price rises are of course another factor).

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Paying for channels you don't watch or want has always been a pain in the neck. Does this kind of thing go on in other industries? I must pay for about 200 channels I don't want in order to get access to about the 20 I do want. As services like TV Player grow, pay TV must do a rethink as to how they bundle and sell their packages.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

A lot of the smaller channels are not sustainable without the support of other more popular channels, the majority of people appear to be happy to pay more to get the popular channels even though they don't watch the majority of the smaller channels

We would be worse off if the smaller minority channels were forced to close if they had to stand alone, back to almost the days of only BBC and ITV

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

The cost of Sporting rights will see to that , if the likes of Discovery can get squeezed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...-channel-prov/

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Spot on mate, we are lumbered with a load of total tosh imo, lets have quality, over quantity, personally i think the days are numbered for tv packages filled with rubbish that no one wants.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

The argument has always been that the more popular channels subsidise the more niche channels.

If people were allowed to drop the niche channels that they don't watch, they would either close or be forced to need extra revenue per subscriber to survive.

This would lead to less choice for the same money and/or the niche channel/s* that you do watch closing or actually costing more.

* We all are in the minority on some occasions. It's not the case that lots of people are always in the majority and a small group of people are always in the minority, these groups are interchangeable.

For example, I don't need the children's channels any longer. If I and others could pay a little less, they may become unsustainable and close or the remaining viewers would need to cough up more. This would negate any savings made by them getting rid of any channels that they don't want.

In essence, pack prices wouldn't go down (as if they would ever do this anyway!), but the number of channels available to you (whether you watch them or not) would reduce.

If any channels were removed due to being unsustainable, this would make the platform less attractive, meaning that VM may well have to actually increase prices for less channels as customer numbers dwindle & the benefits of economies of scale are reduced.

Having said all this, I've voted "don't know" as the emerging OTT services are gaining more and more popularity and could be a game changer.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

If I went to a resturant for a meal and was told I had to pay for 4 others to be able to get one I'd have something to say about it.

"Niche" channels? Meh, they already have an alternative platform to broadcast on, it's called YouTube. They can also get funding via Google ads and subscriptions via that platform.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

If Discovery, National Geographic and Fox came onto freeview i would drop pay tv in a flash

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Assuming that everyone that watch these niche channels have broadband

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

^ this.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

The end result is likely to be that you will pay the same, but not have access to some of the less popular channels. At least this way you have the choice now and in the future.

It is true that things are changing with OTT providers, YouTube etc.

I doubt that they will be going FTA any time soon, although some pay channel operators are now showing some of their older material on unbranded FTA channels specially created to wring the last bit of revenue out of them.

This is a good example to use.

If everybody could drop these channels, you would either lose access to them or have to pay more as the subsidy from others would stop. This would negate the saving made by you from ceasing to subscribe to channels you don't need.

The end result would likely be the same price for less channels!

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

l cannot see that happening anytime soon.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Even if you could get all 5 for less than the price of one?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

If I could get all 5 for less than the price of 1 I would expect 5 portions of carp to be put in front of me and would refuse to pay, wouldn't eat and go elsewhere.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Nice to see that some of us still have principles!

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

This is interesting from Canada where the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ordered cable providers to offer a pick & pay TV service.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/pubs/pick&pay_infographic_ENG.pdf

So the basic package costs $25 Canadian dollars per month (£15.00). Bell Canada have been one of the first companies to fully embrace a la carte and are charging between $4 and $7 Canadian dollars per additional channel (£2.40 and £4.20). Customers can however choose to add 10 channels for $20 Canadian dollars (£12.00).

http://www.bell.ca/Fibe-TV/Fibe-Prog...icon-container

Here's some info on what the other Canadian cable companies are planning to offer and charge:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle28951724/

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have been flooded with complaints since the launch of the service. Whilst they ordered this a la carte style TV service they did not set out what prices cable companies should be charging for individual channels. Most consumers are finding the new service, when adding just the channels they want, more expensive than their previous bundled TV. Consumers are also complaining that some cable companies are tying the basic "Skinny basic TV package" to expensive broadband and phoneline rental packages. There's also been leaked memo's from some of the cable companies showing customer service staff have been advised to talk the service down and attempt to migrate customers enquiring about the service onto other more expensive packages.

Still very early to say how things are going to pan out as the service isn't fully implemented until December. It's a good idea by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission but it's clearly open to abuse. They would really need to set a must pay price for individual channels other wise cable companies could simply over price the channels effectively strangling the service from birth.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Thanks for that Chad, I found that an interesting read.

It was as predicted would happen if such a system were introduced here, but is this because economies of scale, bulk buying, cross subsidy etc were no longer at play or because the Canadian cable company were being greedy and awkward.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Here's more info:

http://playbackonline.ca/2016/09/08/...-crtc-hearing/

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Thanks again, it looks like the former as opposed to the latter.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

People are fed up of getting fleeced and paying for lots of Channels they never watch.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

But inertia and indolence is deeply embedded MM as many won't change and won't even phone up retentions to get a much better deal so personally l don't think things will change that much.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

They already are changing Den.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Perhaps in America but certainly not that much over here MM but alas you are probably more knowledgeable then l on the subject.:)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

I wouldn't bet on it ;)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Don't you keep telling us the majority of Sky's additions are Now TV subscribers (smaller bundles ) , BT now has over 2.5 million subs (Pay TV lite). None of the providers give us breakdowns of whose subscribing to what so it's difficult to know just how many are taking the top packages.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

From what l read and hear the vast majority on the top packages are not downgrading that much MM but as you say its very hard to get a complete breakdown from any of the providers and they ain't likely to change that stance anytime soon.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

When you compare the cost of subscribing to bundles of channels with that of Netflix and Amazon, I think it is fairly straight forward to imagine where this will end.

There is so much repetition and low quality material on our broadcast channels, and at specified times rather than on demand, I simply cannot believe that people will continue to put up with this for too much longer. TV audiences deserve better than this.

Just watch what happens when one of the big players such as Netflix or Amazon get their hands on the Premier League rights! I think that may prove to be a tipping point.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Do they currently show any live material?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

No they only stream pre-recorded programmes/movies

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Ahhh right, so it would be a change to their business model to introduce live football etc.

Nothing to stop them doing this though.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

There is, its called money..................:)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Aye, that little problem keeps popping up in all areas of life :D

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

You also aren't tied to the box your provider says you must use , it's cheaper to update to the latest technology , you aren't forced to have expensive multiroom subs to watch in another room etc etc etc.

Oh and you don't have to pay a kings ransom to watch in superior picture quality.:D

I almost wish I hated Sport.:D

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Never say never!

http://tbivision.com/news/2016/10/di...sports/656311/

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

How about those answering yes present the reasoning why they believe things will stay the same ?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Because it's popular.

As nicely illustrated by Chad, people say they want less but they aren't willing to pay for it.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

But you can already get less , Now TV offers a small channel range at a fraction of the cost of the regular Sky and Virgin Media packages as do over the top services like Amazon and Netflix via On Demand content.

There's a reason Sky are clinging onto Sport for dear life , the ironic part being that it's sport that's causing it the most issues.

I'm not for one minute suggesting there will be a mass exodus from traditional pay tv although things will have to change , in my opinion we'll see more and more less watched channels feeling the squeeze as the likes of Sky look to reduce costs with bundles of pay channels becoming smaller.

I would say NO because most of those channels there is nothing but rubbish on now!!

Why should ppl be forced to pay for crap they dont want?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

There are plenty of good programmes out there, but they are spread too thinly. However, by selecting the basic Virgin package of channels, and adding Netflix, Amazon and Now TV, you get a very good choice of programmes at a fraction of the cost we are paying now.

If premiership football and film rights got scooped up by Netflix, the landscape would be transformed.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

No churn figures ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37640609

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

So your thoughts on that MM?.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

I am not surprised that Sky wouldn't want to divulge this sort of negative nformation! However, if instead of concentrating on fleecing its customers it could pay more attention to the quality of their content on the likes of Sky 1, 2 and Living, people may be less likely to ditch their subscriptions.

People are becoming less enamoured about subscribing to pay TV channels when the Freeview offering is so much better. Reality TV is less popular now and has lost its surprise/disgust factor.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Sky 1 is one of the best if not the best performing pay tv Entertainment channel according to Barb viewing figures , I can think of a whole load of channels I'd gladly lose before the ones you mention.

I struggle to ascertain how you believe Sky is the only one to be fleecing its customers I've just had a quick look on Virgin Medias website and their prices seem to be in a similar ball park. My own personal view is they are all getting to expensive hence my belief things will need to change with the way they all bundle and sell their TV packages.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

You say things need to change MM but the these companies obviously don't share your sentiments and l cannot see it changing anytime soon.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Things have already started to change Den , expect more going forward.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Got to agree. There's companies offering real alternatives to the big bundled packages.

Plusnet customers with broadband and line rental can add Plusnet TV for £5.00 per month. For your £5.00 you get a Youview box, all Freeview channels plus Alibi, Animal Planet, CI, Comedy Central, Discovery, E!, Eurosport, Eurosport 2, Gold, History, Investigation Discovery, Lifetime, MTV, Nat Geo, Nat Geo Wild, Sony Channel, SyFy, TLC, Universal and W.

EE customers with broadband and line rental can get EETV added to their package. Total cost £27.50 per month including the line rental. You get their PVR and Freeview channels however their box supports NOW TV & TV Player Plus meaning customers can easily access the UK's top pay TV channels.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Indeed, Sky 1 is Sky's most popular channel (because Atlantic is only available on direct subscription to Sky on two platforms). However, the content on that channel is disappointing and people are demanding better by ditching their subscriptions.

Netflix and Amazon provide much better value, IMHO.

I did not say that Sky was the only company fleecing its customers, although my perception is that they are the worst culprits.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Please tell me a pay tv Entertainment channel that beats Sky One on the content front , as for worst culprits how many times have Virgin increased prices within the last 12 months ? They are all as bad as each other.

As for Netflix and Amazon shows we'll never know how many UK viewers they get as they don't disclose that information.

I agree Netflix and Amazon represent pretty good value for money.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

On your first point, I think Fox is my favourite, but I agree that Sky 1 is probably the best (if you exclude the premium channels). However, that is my point. The content on the pay channels is poor when compared with the best of the terrestrials, and I think a lot of people who subscribe to pay tv for the first time are surprised at the small amount of additional choice that is of good quality that they can access.

My comment about Sky 'fleecing' its customers was a passing comment rather than one that was central to the argument, and I know that a lot of us have negative views about Sky in that respect. I accept that you may not agree that Sky is the worst culprit.

My point was not about viewing figures for Netflix and Amazon. I am simply pointing out that they are better value for money, and people are likely to come round to that view unless content on the pay tv is improved.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

The availability or otherwise of Sky Atlantic won't make much difference. Sky1 gets four times as many viewers as Atlantic.

Sky News, Sky Sports News and Pick all give Sky1 a run for its money, though.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

I don't disagree about the OTT providers being decent value for money do you think I'd have started this thread if I thought traditional pay tv was value for money for me.

My point is in a create your own bundle world I'd be choosing the Sky Entertainment channels over the majority of its competing pay tv Entertainment channels.

I read your posts and I'm astonished you even continue with Pay TV when your so happy with the online providers , my only current reason for keeping pay tv is sport however I know you've said you don't watch that.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Wonders how advertising revenue is worked out? If you can say your channel is "available" to so many millions via bundling on the major distributors compared to knowing your channel is only subscribed to by so many thousand.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Do you mean across all platforms or just on satellite, Spiderplant?

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

All platforms. See BARB data.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

So that accounts for Atlantic's poor ratings compared with other Sky channels. I would imagine that if you confine the audience figures to satellite viewers only, Atlantic will have a very respectable score indeed.

Since I acquired access to Sky Atlantic material through my Roku, I have been blown away by the quality and number of programmes I have missed. Sky 1 doesn't come close.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Even if Sky Atlantic was available across all the platforms Sky 1 is its viewing figures would generally still be lower.

The majority of the content shown on Sky Atlantic is aimed at adults as opposed to the many family shows available on Sky 1.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Don't know about the rest but i've just had a look at what's on Sky 1 tonight and it's utter dross imo, The Simpsons, Modern Family, Don't tell the Bride etc etc, aye right enough......

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Good point, I hadn't considered that at all. :dunce:

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Come on admit it we know you watch Don't tell the bride.;)

To be honest I rarely use the TV Guide these days , I tend to either book a series link from a trailer or browse the new series section on my Sky Q box and setup from there.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

My point exactly. If you decide to PAY to watch your TV, you should be able to expect better than this.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

For someone who tells us the TV guide is dying you really do seem to struggle with finding the good stuff , the PVR allows you to set recordings of the shows you like in fact most of them now recommend content for you. I prefer to look at what a channel offers me over the course of a year.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Well the old boy Muppetman loves Modern Family if l rightly remember so you are in his bad books now you know MM.:eeek::Yikes::D

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Actually, I am very good at finding the good stuff. I have more programmes that I can watch through my recordings, Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

What I am saying is that we have far too much dross on the most 'popular' pay TV channels, and if they don't smarten up their acts, people will be abandoning scheduled pay TV in droves. It appears that this trend has (rather belatedly) just started. It probably explains why there are so many deals going at the moment for those considering abandoning ship.

The future is on demand and my prediction about the decline of broadcast linear TV is unchanged.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...699901&page=66

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

I've been called for watching far worse :D

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

No l don't think you will see a decline in the normal linear TV channels OB as has been explained to you before.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

An explanation that I do not accept, I'm afraid, Den. ;)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

l suppose with you OB its like you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink as its all been explained to you the reasons why but alas you still don't seem to accept it.;)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Whilst linear channels both terrestrial and pay will be here for a very long while it's a brave man who predicts there won't be a decline in them.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Is our revered MM predicting it then??.:)

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

It's pretty simple economics Den , look at the large amounts of money Sky now has to pay for its latest Premier League rights they have already stated that savings need to be made then add in the pressure of people leaving going to cheaper alternatives and it's easy to see any of the subscription channels that don't perform well face being offered less money or worse still cut.

My opinion for what it is worth is that traditional pay tv will be around for many years to come however I wouldn't be surprised further down the line if we see the amount of pay channels reducing with some moving content to On Demand and some being axed due to poor viewing numbers. I think we'll smaller bundles of pay channels available alongside the terrestrial ones with increased amounts of On Demand.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

I think it's obvious, Den, and I don't understand why people can't see that things change over time.

The choice between scheduled TV channels full of reality and other dumbed down TV simply won't survive the test of time when you look at the better alternatives available on demand.

The new generation will show the way, and all of us old'uns will just fall into line.

Not a question of whether, but when.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Hey, what's this? The 2016 Ofcom CMR is out! Let's see what it says...

"Time spent watching broadcast TV continued to decline in 2015, but more slowly than the accelerated decline of the last two years."

"The proportion of GB adults claiming to use on-demand services accelerated between 2010 and 2013 but slowed considerably between 2014 and 2015"

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Blip? 🙄

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

Exactly this, going forward many people have and will realise that paying for bundles of channels is not what they want, they want to choose what channels they want to watch and only pay for those channels. There is too much smoke and mirrors on this, most channels show rubbish no one wants to watch, then you get groups of channels from companies, that show the same shows but just rotate the schedules on different channels on different days.
premium sky/BT channels aside if you audited all the channels and what they show that is available on other channels at some point during a calendar month, you could throw over half of the channels away.
Then if you took the channels that have less than a 1000 people watching them at some time during 8 am - 8 pm you might be left with about less than 40 channels.
Freesat/freeview and now tv is many people's choice these days, if BT ever make their channels available on a casual basis via their freeview box it could be the end for VM as a TV supplier.

---------- Post added at 07:53 ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 ----------

Yes but I've done loads of surveys over viewing habits via yougov which is obviously where of com get their data from, and:
1. They base live tv viewing on watching a program for at least 5 minutes, which isn't a good representation.
2. There are currently more live TV sports than ever before, this is something that tends to be watched live and isn't available via Netflix and Amazon so it really keeps the average up.
3. The questions they ask are retarded, it's as if they don't understand what is they are researching, and as such the answer to the question isn't really correct.

Re: Large bundles of Channels
 

"Obviously"? There are many broadcasters and advertisers that might want that data.

Ofcom use several different methods to collect the data. There's more detail in the report if you're interested.

Seems pretty sensible to me. You have to put a cut-off somewhere to exclude people flicking through stuff just to see what's on.

You really need to read the report. Sport is the genre that declined most!

Pretty sure that isn't Ofcom. They know their stuff.