Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Amazing how the countries that they still have a market presence in they don't have a Sky like force to compete with isn't it?
Setanta's screw up was assuming that if they paid Sky-rates for the content they'd get sky-level subscriber numbers.
Instead they came up against the complete un-willingness for subscribers to subscribe to multiple sports channels.
Setanta's business model was only unrealistic because of Sky being such a dominant force meaning that customers who are used to getting all their premium content in one channel package didn't want to subscribe to any others so they couldn't reach the subscriber numbers needed to make it profitable.
|
but as has been pointed by Broadbandings sky's monopoly was ended a few years ago as regards premiership football coverage so why didn't /couldn't setanta take advantage of this ,give potential customers what they wanted like red button access to matches ,decent commentators ,if the only reason lack of funds then that's hardly sky's fault