Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
Anyone who doesn't have an issue with the price of sport, after the outrageous price hike in the last PL rights sale, clearly has way more money than sense IMHO. Customers will end up paying for it one way or another.
|
Ok, I have a problem with the advertised price of Sky Sports, and I won't pay it. But, I recognise the right of Sky, Virgin and others to charge those prices and accept that it is for me to decide whether or not I pay them.
Your point that most people are unhappy with this arrangement is not evidenced by the fact that these companies still feel able to charge these prices, and subscriber numbers remain high - albeit a minority are cord cutting.
My point is this. Because Sky and Virgin offer differing products within the same market place th consumer is able to play them off against each other to his advantage. I, for example, was able to get a good deal with Virgin for Sky Sports because they recognised that I could move to Sky if they didn't do their best to keep me. If both companies offered exactly the same product then it wouldn't work in the way you think it would. It wouldn't mean that they would compete on price. It would mean that they would set their prices at a similar level and stop offering discounts on the basis that there wouldn't really be anywhere else for you to go. We know this because that is what has happened in every industry where there is no differentiation. It would mean Sky would have no reason to experiment with 3d because it wouldn't gain them custom. It would mean Virgin wouldn't try to continually improve their broadband speed because it wouldn't put them ahead of the competition.
Companies must be allowed to innovate, because that's when the consumer really benefits, and the only way to incentivise that is to allow them to earn from their unique aspects without being required to share them with the largest competitor.
Nobody is forced to take their products, nor is anybody entitled to receive them.