Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I'm not sure you are joining the dots. If the number of pay-tv channels reduced substantially due to the DTC trend, would you be prepared to pay the same as now for what was left?
|
That would depend on what (if any) alternative content is made available and what the alternative product mix is in the marketplace at similar price point.
The average consumer doesn’t have unlimited disposable income, and has a massive range of competing interests.
Is anyone else offering BT Sport for example - Sky it’s £25 a month. On BT it’s £15 a month. My marginal cost of Maxit above a standalone broadband package is less than this and nobody else can match Virgin’s speeds in my area.
Quote:
The only way I can see of VM being able to compensate is to offer all the streamers and integrate them as much as possible to the VM system, allowing customers easier access to what they want to see.
So if, yes if, there was a substantial reduction of TV channels, in line with the new developing trend, what do you think would happen?
|
Ultimately costs are being driven up for end users across the board making a less attractive Sky/Virgin offering paradoxically more attractive relative to the rest of the market. Far from the new “low cost” future previously prophesied we are being asked to spend £5 here and £10 there for largely interchangeable minority interest “General Entertainment”.
The savings aren’t there for Virgin to significantly reduce the costs their service so likely they’ll just keep increasing the cost of broadband - ultimately for many users they don’t have a choice of a competing FTTP offering.
For Sky they can do the same on the basis of their exclusive content - in particular sports.