Quote:
Originally Posted by bamav
I suppose it depends on what your interests are. I personally don't think it's value for money as I don't watch sport all the time. I just watch some football when it's my team, or a European game. So I'm having to fork out the same amount of money as someone who has the channel on every hour of the day.
I feel it's over-priced with far too many adverts, which should really be covering the bulk of their costs.
Sky could quite easily cut quite a considerable amount off their subscription rates for sport and still make a comfortable profit for future investments; ie buying rights, etc. Just because Sky have created an artificially high bidding system for sports does not give them retrospective right to over-charge in the first place.
If the lowered sub and wholesale costs, they would get more subscribers which would give then more power with advertisers. Might even balance out for them in the long term, and they come out looking better for it.
|
BIB, I agree fully, they really should make the prices fairer. They get to keep prices high by claiming they save people money by not having to go to live matches (no known link, just what CS used to tell me). Whilst it "saves" money on the odd live game (work time permitting) I go to see in Northampton, I wonder if I would ever spend money to go to Durham to watch a cricket game, seeings as I live in Cambridge, I doubt I ever will. Ergo, I feel I am missing out on I would never have watched otherwise. Sky Sports is a massive rip-off for me and does not "save" me money. Sky seemingly want to give people the "saving money" guff just to keep subscribers high and can seemingly push advertising prices up
