General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you think that the non-sports streamers are costlier than Sky? I don’t buy that, although it’s true that if you subscribe to them all at the same time, that is more expensive.

I think the proviso that you subscribe to them all at the same time is the only fair way of comparing costs.

Sky's entertainment content has been fragmented since Disney + started thereby increasing prices for those fans of Fox content.

The costs of Sky Entertainment (or Now TV entertainment pack) on its own have always been cheaper than Sky Entertainment & Disney Plus.

With the advent of HBO Plus in the future, costs for existing content are only likely to increase. There won't be consolidation between Comcast, Warner Brothers Discovery, Walt Disney, Amazon and Apple even if there is consolidation amongst other providers.

[nialli]

Originally Posted by 1701-e

And sky sports subscribers await a price reduction lol

Like the one we never saw when Sky lost the Champions and Europa League games to BT? I won't be holding my breath

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think the proviso that you subscribe to them all at the same time is the only fair way of comparing costs.

Indeed.

The type of user who goes from one streamer to another every month isn’t having a representative experience of a Sky/Virgin pay-tv subscriber before this revolution.

They are also undesirable for the streamer in any case. Imagine the losses if everyone did that.

[nialli]

I do it all the time. One in, one out every few months. The only problem I get is Sky Atlantic on Now - any new HBO series are only available in a blink-or-you'll-miss-it short window.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nialli

I do it all the time. One in, one out every few months. The only problem I get is Sky Atlantic on Now - any new HBO series are only available in a blink-or-you'll-miss-it short window.

I can see some people on this forum doing it, but I don't think this kind of approach is typical.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by nialli

I do it all the time. One in, one out every few months. The only problem I get is Sky Atlantic on Now - any new HBO series are only available in a blink-or-you'll-miss-it short window.

I do the same, the only one I keep is Now TV for the same reason as you, Sky Atlantic.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed.

The type of user who goes from one streamer to another every month isn’t having a representative experience of a Sky/Virgin pay-tv subscriber before this revolution.

They are also undesirable for the streamer in any case. Imagine the losses if everyone did that.

Agreed. It's not a viable solution for most people to adopt this approach as there would be no streaming market left!

[1701-e]

Originally Posted by nialli

Like the one we never saw when Sky lost the Champions and Europa League games to BT? I won't be holding my breath

Exactly... They must be feeling the squeeze if they didn't bid enough

[johnasimmons]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

I do the same, the only one I keep is Now TV for the same reason as you, Sky Atlantic.

I do the same as well

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1701-e

Exactly... They must be feeling the squeeze if they didn't bid enough

They will be - certainly if these new entrants insist upon pushing rights values beyond where even they can make a return.

This isn’t new in the pay-tv market. ITV Digital with Football League rights, Setanta with EPL rights.

Sky (and BT) have naturally focussed on what gets bread and butter, year round subscriptions. Something that none of the minority interest content elsewhere provides (and with the best will in the world to international football, it doesn’t either).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think the proviso that you subscribe to them all at the same time is the only fair way of comparing costs.

Sky's entertainment content has been fragmented since Disney + started thereby increasing prices for those fans of Fox content.

The costs of Sky Entertainment (or Now TV entertainment pack) on its own have always been cheaper than Sky Entertainment & Disney Plus.

With the advent of HBO Plus in the future, costs for existing content are only likely to increase. There won't be consolidation between Comcast, Warner Brothers Discovery, Walt Disney, Amazon and Apple even if there is consolidation amongst other providers.

It's not appropriate to compare costs alone. You have to take into account the amount of content you watch from the streamers and the quality of that content (in terms of your personal choices). If you compare the costs of ALL the streamers when you might only need, say three of them, you are not getting the true cost to the individual.

It is obvious that the more good quality content that is available, the more it will cost. But that's not the same as saying the streamers are more expensive, particularly if you have the choice of what you subscribe to.

The same principle applies to the channels. You wouldn't count the cost of a Sky subscription with the premium channels included if you were not interested in watching sport or films.

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed.

The type of user who goes from one streamer to another every month isn’t having a representative experience of a Sky/Virgin pay-tv subscriber before this revolution.

They are also undesirable for the streamer in any case. Imagine the losses if everyone did that.

I don't think many change their streamers every month, but I would imagine that those who vary their subscriptions stick with a streamer until they've seen what they want to see, and then change to another streamer. That change might come after several months or maybe over a couple of years, but that way you can see content from multiple streamers, but spread over a period of time. That represents very good value for money to me.

I think the Sky channels represent poor value for money in terms of their content.

[jfman]

Let me get this straight - to get the depth and breadth of content that used to be available routinely in packages from incumbent pay-tv providers customers will have to wait months and years until they decide to move on to whatever streamer now holds the content for it to be cheaper?

And this is a better solution?

Priceless.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Let me get this straight - to get the depth and breadth of content that used to be available routinely in packages from incumbent pay-tv providers customers will have to wait months and years until they decide to move on to whatever streamer now holds the content for it to be cheaper?

And this is a better solution?

Priceless.

What ‘depth and breadth’ are you referring to? The streamers cater for just about everything, but you only pay for what you want.

As streaming becomes ever more established, you will find an increasing number of AVOD services as well.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What ‘depth and breadth’ are you referring to? The streamers cater for just about everything, but you only pay for what you want.

All of the content previously on incumbent providers that is now on a streaming/minority interest services.

You do indeed "only pay for the content you watch" however with the lost economies of scale that incumbent providers had costs rise for the end users. Or they have sub-optimal experiences like you suggest above with less choice on a given day. Instead having to meticulously plan which streaming services to have on a given month being the narrow set of circumstances where costs are actually saves.

As streaming becomes ever more established, you will find an increasing number of AVOD services as well.

And I'll be no better off.

[1andrew1]

I see the FT is reporting that Access Industries is likely to inject another £140m into loss-making DAZN just a few months after the streamer's last bailout.

I'm struggling to see who's winning in this brave new world apart from the sports bodies perhaps.