Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Sky has always marketed itself based on quantity of content (in the past, this was number of channels, and exclusive content on some of them). Once they’ve got the most stuff, they can charge a premium for the service and can afford lower shares from the content providers, at least initially. When they come to dominate the market they turn the tables and it suddenly gets a fair bit more expensive for content providers to access the platform.
However, as streamers can access customers directly in a way linear channel providers can’t, I think Sky will have a harder time repeating the strategy that served them so well last time around.
|
The same strategy should work for Sky with the streamers. The key is the content, and you can see why Sky like to integrate this with its other packages. It seems to be what people are increasingly demanding - all content easily accessible from one box.
Certain CF members excepted, of course.
---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
"He gave the example of “the sub-35 year-olds,” and said that half of this age group in the UK do not engage with national broadcasters on a regular basis, instead opting for YouTube."
The trend of sub-35 year olds preferring YouTube to broadcasters will be a problem for all broadcasters, whatever the platform. Growing up with short form videos and TikTok content doesn't really help to develop their attention span.
|
Happily, attention spans tend to increase with age! They will adopt the streamers more readily as they get older and they won’t be bothering with inflexible TV channels.