Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
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.
|
I am pleased that you are so happy, Andy. But if everybody thought like this, nothing would ever change.
There is a better way, and just because a product is the same wholesale price to all suppliers does not mean that providers cannot differentiate their service from their competitors. You can use different price structures, choose which channels you will make available and even create new channels using programmes that exist on a number of different channels that are available elsewhere.
You may be happy to pay higher prices and have less choice, or to go without if the price is too high, but for me that is definitely not good enough. I think many would subscribe to that.
But as long as you are happy, Andy, hey!
---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
In response to passingbat and Old Boy, but in no particular order...
Status quo means " the existing state of affairs". The existing state of affairs is that streaming services exist. Using them is hardly a " way around the problem" either.
And since you haven't done the sort of extensive market research that Sky, Virgin, Netflix et al have, I don't see how you can so confidently say that your view is that of "most people".
I'd also question your use of the word "needs", because you mean "wants", and we can't always have what we want, but I reckon you probably have enough of what you need.
We also have the highest quality free to air programming of anywhere in the World, imo.
I'm sorry that you begrudge paying premium prices for premium content, but I've had half price Sky Sports for the last 6 months because differentiation works for the consumer.
|
I didn't say that I begrudged paying more for premium content, because I don't. But I certainly begrudge paying the highest price in the world because of the greed and divisive practices of certain companies.