VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

Originally Posted by jfman

Something that’d cost Virgin hundreds of millions of pounds per year and bring no additional content to the party.

Come on now, if Old Boy thinks it’s a great idea, then not only is it actually a great idea, it’s going to happen, probably in about 5 years time.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Phunkenstein

And even those deals outside of ad supported catch-up tv are for a small (in the case of Ch5) or rotating (in the case of CH4) library of 'box set' content, not the whole shebang - as jfman states, it would cost an extraordinary amount especially if the three PSBs are willing to give up potentially lucrative ad revenue they could likely get from the free apps. If catalogue content is such an issue, Virgin would be better off trying to bundle something like Britbox... it provides the service with a lot of content that people may want to watch and would help Britbox scale.

Exactly there is Acorn tv now as that's new that could be something for VM to look at AMC own it and LG are on good terms with AMC.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Come on now, if Old Boy thinks it’s a great idea, then not only is it actually a great idea, it’s going to happen, probably in about 5 years time.

I would have thought it would be quite popular. But Britbox or Acorn with no extra charge would be a good alternative.

If they could provide Hayu and BT Sport at no extra charge, they could do the same here. Sooner or later, they will have to start thinking about packages of streaming services/players in the same way as we have bouquets of channels.

Sky gets it. They provide Sky Box Sets and Netflix at a lesser charge than they would cost separately, for example.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I would have thought it would be quite popular. But Britbox or Acorn with no extra charge would be a good alternative.

If they could provide Hayu and BT Sport at no extra charge, they could do the same here. Sooner or later, they will have to start thinking about packages of streaming services/players in the same way as we have bouquets of channels.

Sky gets it. They provide Sky Box Sets and Netflix at a lesser charge than they would cost separately, for example.

Of course it would be popular. I love people who give me free stuff.

The question is a simple economic one. Does Virgin Media's financial outlay in your scenario result in more subscribers at the top tier, such that in the end they make more money, not less.

I think it is very unlikely, and clearly so do they. If it was such an obvious winner, they would already be doing it.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I would have thought it would be quite popular. But Britbox or Acorn with no extra charge would be a good alternative.

If they could provide Hayu and BT Sport at no extra charge, they could do the same here. Sooner or later, they will have to start thinking about packages of streaming services/players in the same way as we have bouquets of channels.

Sky gets it. They provide Sky Box Sets and Netflix at a lesser charge than they would cost separately, for example.

I can see where you're coming from but ultimately it's down to if VM would see it as a way of boosting their tv subs and revenue.

[jfman]

And as I’ve said all along. If there was anything in it Virgin (or Sky) could have funded linear television variants without adverts for decades now.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course it would be popular. I love people who give me free stuff.

The question is a simple economic one. Does Virgin Media's financial outlay in your scenario result in more subscribers at the top tier, such that in the end they make more money, not less.

I think it is very unlikely, and clearly so do they. If it was such an obvious winner, they would already be doing it.

It is about providing packages which customers value, Chris. The cost would come from subscribers, obviously, but overall costs could be kept the same, for example by taking out those channels that very few viewers actually watch.

If they were able to do that for BT Sport....

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

And as I’ve said all along. If there was anything in it Virgin (or Sky) could have funded linear television variants without adverts for decades now.

Yes, but remember that streamers and players are becoming more popular now as the media scene transforms. It is only a matter of time before Sky and Virgin come to realise that streamers are becoming more popular than TV channels.

[Phunkenstein]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is about providing packages which customers value, Chris. The cost would come from subscribers, obviously, but overall costs could be kept the same, for example by taking out those channels that very few viewers actually watch.

If they were able to do that for BT Sport....

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------



Yes, but remember that streamers and players are becoming more popular now as the media scene transforms. It is only a matter of time before Sky and Virgin come to realise that streamers are becoming more popular than TV channels.

Well given they both sell broadband, manage traffic on said broadband services, resell streaming providers, run comprehensive tv and tv to go platforms (which will likely track viewing and search metadata) and in the case of Sky, own a suite of OTT services across Europe, I would suspect they have a pretty good idea already of how pay tv is doing these days!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is about providing packages which customers value, Chris. The cost would come from subscribers, obviously, but overall costs could be kept the same, for example by taking out those channels that very few viewers actually watch.

If they were able to do that for BT Sport.....

BT Sport when it was able to show live sport was a premium channel. The less popular channels are not. They may well be paying VM to be on the platform, so removing them could increase costs to subscribers. And I'm sure VM constantly reviews its portfolio of channels.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is about providing packages which customers value, Chris. The cost would come from subscribers, obviously, but overall costs could be kept the same, for example by taking out those channels that very few viewers actually watch.

Niche channels often have to pay for carriage, they don’t get paid by VM.

It’s amazing how easy everything seems from the comfort of your armchair.

[jfman]

The BT Sport comparison is a red herring. This gave BT (and ESPN, Setanta) fixed revenue from a subscriber base far less likely to subscribe than their counterparts on the Sky platform. It was an easy win. Virgin get to bundle Premiership football without having to take a risk on the rights, and worry about how to sell them to Sky customers.

For streaming services, especially where the broadcaster relies heavily on advertising revenue, the calculation becomes far more complex.

For Virgin, or Sky, there's no new content.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is about providing packages which customers value, Chris. The cost would come from subscribers, obviously, but overall costs could be kept the same, for example by taking out those channels that very few viewers actually watch.

If they were able to do that for BT Sport....[COLOR="Silver"]

.

I'm pretty sure VM know a lot more than us mere mortals on this forum as to what their customers watch and don't watch.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

I'm pretty sure VM know a lot more than us mere mortals on this forum as to what their customers watch and don't watch.

You just have to "believe" more...

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You just have to "believe" more...

[Horizon]

Just to come back to this from last week:

Originally Posted by jfman

My point - not specific to Netflix but the wider streaming industry - was that the hype and market valuations have no link to the underlying business models. The article goes on to say this is a staple of the technology sector just try not to be the last guy holding the shares when it all goes under.

Although I can not and nether can anyone else, say which streamers will be successful in the long term, do you not accept that the film/tv industry is going through a systemic change and it will likley be streamers which will be the winners overall, rather than traditional tv channels and cinemas. That is not hype, but a massive shift in how the media industry does business.

Streamers are/will be the business model.

Originally Posted by jfman

“Deep pockets” are no substitute for an underlying profitable business model.

I do agree with you that being a cheap affordable luxury means the virus doesn’t present a risk to streaming services in itself. Pay-tv (the market that streaming is part of) wasn’t hit in 2008.

On profits, if the streamers emulate Malone's way of doing business, they will always be in debt and never in profit, something we've spoken about before. And no, I'm not thrilled with that way of doing business, but I suppose not paying taxes is very "profitable".