Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I don’t understand yours. And no, I clearly wasn’t saying that.
I’ll put it as simply as I can.
13 million people pay £24 into a pot, which gets unevenly distributed among third parties, after covering some platform and equipment costs. For that everyone gets almost everything.
TV companies decide they don’t like their share of the pot and so launch their own separate platforms at £6 each.
Now to achieve the previous total pot value they need 52 million individual subscriptions. I don’t believe that market exists unless some households take four (or more) subscriptions and this group will be worse off by paying the same (or more) for less content.
|
I guess it depends what model you use. One thing you cannot deny is, from the punter's point of view, if you cannot afford a Sky satellite subscription, Now TV will look quire attractive.
In the future, people will be able to subscribe to the streaming services they want. You can ignore the fact that people will see the attraction of that if you like, but you will be proved wrong.
Streaming is the future, like it or not.