General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2019)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This is no argument at all. And where did you get a figure of £6bn?

The rights are £5bn. Of course Amazon will want to blow Sky out the water in a blind auction. Plus return a profit to shareholders. Six is the least they'd require in revenue, not accounting for VAT.

Far from being no argument at all it's proof that Amazon don't believe the economic model exists where they can make profits on it! They're experts in business after all as you keep reminding me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The rights are £5bn. Of course Amazon will want to blow Sky out the water in a blind auction. Plus return a profit to shareholders. Six is the least they'd require in revenue, not accounting for VAT.

Far from being no argument at all it's proof that Amazon don't believe the economic model exists where they can make profits on it! They're experts in business after all as you keep reminding me.

Exactly, the rights are £5bn. I never said Amazon would offer Premiership football for free if they won the rights. Yet again, you have twisted what I have said.

I had in mind a discount for Prime subscribers, say, a tenner a month. They would make that money up through increased retail sales, selling on the rights to show certain matches on other outlets, etc.. I am really surprised that you cannot see the opportunities here.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Exactly, the rights are £5bn. I never said Amazon would offer Premiership football for free if they won the rights. Yet again, you have twisted what I have said.

I had in mind a discount for Prime subscribers, say, a tenner a month. They would make that money up through increased retail sales, selling on the rights to show certain matches on other outlets, etc.. I am really surprised that you cannot see the opportunities here.

I'm surprised that they don't, to be honest, if you and your back of cigarette paper calculations (that you haven't revealed) make it such a no-brainer.

How many million existing Prime subscribers will qualify for your offer with negligible, if any, increased retail sales as a result?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm surprised that they don't, to be honest, if you and your back of cigarette paper calculations (that you haven't revealed) make it such a no-brainer.

How many million existing Prime subscribers will qualify for your offer with negligible, if any, increased retail sales as a result?

There must be many people out there who do not subscribe to Prime. Adding the football to their offering would be an incentive with discounted footie.

I would imagine that there would also be football only options as well for those who did not take Prime, but without the discount.

There are various ways this could work. You just need to think about it rather than employ that knee-jerk reaction of yours.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There must be many people out there who do not subscribe to Prime. Adding the football to their offering would be an incentive with discounted footie.

I would imagine that there would also be football only options as well for those who did not take Prime, but without the discount.

There are various ways this could work. You just need to think about it rather than employ that knee-jerk reaction of yours.

There's various ways this could work but none that Amazon (or any other streamer for that matter) felt incentivised enough to pay £5bn, or more, in order to test out. I fail to see why you consider this point as somewhat irrelevant.

What's the point in a football only option without Prime? and if it did exist will it cost more than the Now TV pass - if so there will be less demand for it. So there will be no 'new' customers to Amazon's football service it'll entirely be a subset of those that Sky presently monetise.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There must be many people out there who do not subscribe to Prime. Adding the football to their offering would be an incentive with discounted footie.

I would imagine that there would also be football only options as well for those who did not take Prime, but without the discount.

There are various ways this could work. You just need to think about it rather than employ that knee-jerk reaction of yours.

Not in a month of Sundays...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

Not in a month of Sundays...

Amazon Prime uptake is at 6 million homes in the UK.

With their bargain bucket Premiership rights I'm very confident this will rise, however by gaining all the low hanging fruit for relatively little it makes £5bn higher risk and lower reward in 2022-2025 if they will be relying on upselling tat.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Amazon Prime uptake is at 6 million homes in the UK.

With their bargain bucket Premiership rights I'm very confident this will rise, however by gaining all the low hanging fruit for relatively little it makes £5bn higher risk and lower reward in 2022-2025 if they will be relying on upselling tat.

Bargain bucket Premiership rights..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's various ways this could work but none that Amazon (or any other streamer for that matter) felt incentivised enough to pay £5bn, or more, in order to test out. I fail to see why you consider this point as somewhat irrelevant.

What's the point in a football only option without Prime? and if it did exist will it cost more than the Now TV pass - if so there will be less demand for it. So there will be no 'new' customers to Amazon's football service it'll entirely be a subset of those that Sky presently monetise.

Well, Sky and BT think it's worth it, don't they?

A football only option would be provided at the price Amazon thought was appropriate, but with Prime, they could get the football subsription cheaper The point, of course, would be to make money, either directly from the football subscription, or both directly and by encouraging sales with Prime.

Just to clarify, the reduced football subscription would be paid on top of the £79pa Prime subscription, just in case you are under any misapprehension about that.

And I repeat, the fact that Amazon haven't taken the plunge into Premiership rights so far does not mean they never will. Broadband coverage is improving and has been given a further boost by the Johnson government. I haven't a clue why you don't find that to be significant.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, Sky and BT think it's worth it, don't they?

A football only option would be provided at the price Amazon thought was appropriate, but with Prime, they could get the football subsription cheaper The point, of course, would be to make money, either directly from the football subscription, or both directly and by encouraging sales with Prime.

Just to clarify, the reduced football subscription would be paid on top of the £79pa Prime subscription, just in case you are under any misapprehension about that.

And I repeat, the fact that Amazon haven't taken the plunge into Premiership rights so far does not mean they never will. Broadband coverage is improving and has been given a further boost by the Johnson government. I haven't a clue why you don't find that to be significant.

Ah back to the Sky/BT can do it... anyone can line. Again - despite the value of the rights dropping last time Amazon felt they couldn't.

Superfast broadband coverage is already at 95%, as I've asked before, is the Amazon business model going to be so precarious that the 5% will make or break it? If so, we won't see a bid blowing anyone out the water. Boris Johnson has made a statement, with no financial commitment at this stage, and no solutions offered to the letter ISPA sent him.

If the reduced football price is for those who already have Prime, who exactly are they football only to? Everyone would opt for the Prime version. I'm not convinced you've thought this through, but then again, I doubt that surprises you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah back to the Sky/BT can do it... anyone can line. Again - despite the value of the rights dropping last time Amazon felt they couldn't.

Superfast broadband coverage is already at 95%, as I've asked before, is the Amazon business model going to be so precarious that the 5% will make or break it? If so, we won't see a bid blowing anyone out the water. Boris Johnson has made a statement, with no financial commitment at this stage, and no solutions offered to the letter ISPA sent him.

If the reduced football price is for those who already have Prime, who exactly are they football only to? Everyone would opt for the Prime version. I'm not convinced you've thought this through, but then again, I doubt that surprises you.

It's because fast broadband coverage is improving that streamers will be more interested in providing sports by that method. That should be self evident...

'Amazon felt they couldn't'! I did not see that reported anywhere. What Amazon did was to purchase those 'bargain basement rights' to test it out first. I'm sure that they will be pawing over the results with great interest.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's because fast broadband coverage is improving that streamers will be more interested in providing sports by that method. That should be self evident...

'Amazon felt they couldn't'! I did not see that reported anywhere. What Amazon did was to purchase those 'bargain basement rights' to test it out first. I'm sure that they will be pawing over the results with great interest.

Amazon didn't bid more than Sky did for 2016-19, that's self evident from the fact they didn't win. I don't need a digital marketing blogger to explain that to me, it's observable fact on it's own.

So you're accepting that the Amazon business model is 'make or break' on the 5% of the country that don't yet have the option of superfast speeds? I'm not convinced that's going to give the returns on £6bn of investment that they would want to see.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Amazon didn't bid more than Sky did for 2016-19, that's self evident from the fact they didn't win. I don't need a digital marketing blogger to explain that to me, it's observable fact on it's own.

So you're accepting that the Amazon business model is 'make or break' on the 5% of the country that don't yet have the option of superfast speeds? I'm not convinced that's going to give the returns on £6bn of investment that they would want to see.

I think you are missing something somewhere, jfman.

The fact that our fast broadband coverage has improved and continues to improve is adequate reason for the streamers to become interested.

Amazon decided to bid for the least attractive package to test the waters.

The returns on investment would be made the same way as Sky and BT are making them. They recoup the money from football subscriptions but also by drawing more people into the Prime service. Selling on selected matches to other channels will also add to the financial yield.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you are missing something somewhere, jfman.

The fact that our fast broadband coverage has improved and continues to improve is adequate reason for the streamers to become interested.

Amazon decided to bid for the least attractive package to test the waters.

The returns on investment would be made the same way as Sky and BT are making them. They recoup the money from football subscriptions but also by drawing more people into the Prime service. Selling on selected matches to other channels will also add to the financial yield.

On the contrary - you are missing something. If it's that easy - why didn't they do it in the first round of bidding?

Sky/BT are selling products alongside - basic TV packages, landline, broadband, mobile which are all revenue generators and must have products that ensures they retain a significant market share. Products that millions of households are paying for month in, month out. So it's far from clean cut that Amazon could do the same, indeed their own business strategists appear to have doubted it for 2019-22.

I'm not convinced the 5% of households who can't yet get superfast broadband will make any difference. Indeed - we don't know how many of these could get the baseline for Amazon video through ADSL2+ or 3/4G.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

On the contrary - you are missing something. If it's that easy - why didn't they do it in the first round of bidding?

Sky/BT are selling products alongside - basic TV packages, landline, broadband, mobile which are all revenue generators and must have products that ensures they retain a significant market share. Products that millions of households are paying for month in, month out. So it's far from clean cut that Amazon could do the same, indeed their own business strategists appear to have doubted it for 2019-22.

I'm not convinced the 5% of households who can't yet get superfast broadband will make any difference. Indeed - we don't know how many of these could get the baseline for Amazon video through ADSL2+ or 3/4G.

It’s not really helping that you are not addressing my answers. I’ve already explained that Amazon is most likely to have been testing the waters this time around. This makes perfect sense. Why would they invest all that money without doing a trial run first?

I acknowledge what you have said about Sky’s additional services, but you haven’t commented on the fact that Amazon is essentially a retail business, so there is an opportunity there to link football subscriptions with sales and takeup of Amazon Prime.

As for broadband, is your comment actually admitting that the distribution of super-fast broadband actually has a way to go yet?