View Single Post
Old 13-06-2021, 11:52   #283
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,589
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future of television

Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.

Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
It’s certainly a mystery I’m yet to have a compelling argument in favour of.

If the true aim is for everyone to become the “next Netflix” retailing to millions of subscribers on their own then joining a wholesale bundle is only going to hit revenue hard in the long run.

While Sky can probably make it work with one or two platforms at substantially more than they offer third parties there isn’t enough potential for price rises to go further.
I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
Nobody disputes the convenience of everything on one box OB, but I fail to see what world “streamers” take their content from Sky, establish direct customer relationships and then put the content back in an integrated package from Sky.

The whole point of the exercise is to make money and therefore not rely on the pennies per month per subscriber that Sky routinely hand out to third parties.
'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?

It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.

As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.

This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.
__________________
Forumbox.co.uk
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote