General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2018)

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t understand yours. And no, I clearly wasn’t saying that.

I’ll put it as simply as I can.

13 million people pay £24 into a pot, which gets unevenly distributed among third parties, after covering some platform and equipment costs. For that everyone gets almost everything.

TV companies decide they don’t like their share of the pot and so launch their own separate platforms at £6 each.

Now to achieve the previous total pot value they need 52 million individual subscriptions. I don’t believe that market exists unless some households take four (or more) subscriptions and this group will be worse off by paying the same (or more) for less content.

If the six Hollywood companies currently share the proceeds of the £24 pot, which makes it they get £4 each, if spread evenly, why do the companies need 52 million subscribers? They need 13m people paying £4 each, for their own streamers to achieve the same as before.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

If the six Hollywood companies currently share the proceeds of the £24 pot, which makes it they get £4 each, if spread evenly, why do the companies need 52 million subscribers? They need 13m people paying £4 each, for their own streamers to achieve the same as before.

Each individually yes.

For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions, and households taking multiple subscriptions. I don’t believe that market exists at the level required to achieve the current pot value.

That said, each of the six companies (keeping with the hypothetical numbers for ease) believes it can command a greater share and/or force competitors out of the market altogether they’ll rationally see this is a good thing however to a consumer this is less content and less choice. You predicted above a small core of broadcast services I’d go further and predict a small core of subscription services as opposed to a vast array of choice and competition.

I’ll address one point by Old Boy above before leaving this aside (I’m sure we’d all agree that the conversation is circular, looking at it from different points of view that aren’t likely to reconcile).

I’m quite sure streaming services will be the future as global content providers vertically integrate end to end distribution, that’s not what I’ve ever questioned, I’m saying that most people will be worse off for it if they want to maintain an equivalent service to they get now.

If it was about method of delivery they could work with Sky/Virgin/BT but it isn’t- it’s about driving profits upwards. That comes from the customer base.

If you think there’s tens of millions of potential subscribers outside the pay-tv market desperate to jump in at sub £8 a month then fine. If Virgin stripped TV XL out my package I’d save something like £23 a month and to maintain my current viewing I’d have to get BT Sport at a higher monthly cost. If you think that wouldn’t be the same with a £5 provider here, an £8 provider there and it wouldn’t suddenly add up to more for the vast majority then we just fundamentally disagree about the market as a whole.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Each individually yes.

For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions, and households taking multiple subscriptions. I don’t believe that market exists at the level required to achieve the current pot value.

That said, each of the six companies (keeping with the hypothetical numbers for ease) believes it can command a greater share and/or force competitors out of the market altogether they’ll rationally see this is a good thing however to a consumer this is less content and less choice. You predicted above a small core of broadcast services I’d go further and predict a small core of subscription services as opposed to a vast array of choice and competition.

I’ll address one point by Old Boy above before leaving this aside (I’m sure we’d all agree that the conversation is circular, looking at it from different points of view that aren’t likely to reconcile).

I’m quite sure streaming services will be the future as global content providers vertically integrate end to end distribution, that’s not what I’ve ever questioned, I’m saying that most people will be worse off for it if they want to maintain an equivalent service to they get now.

If it was about method of delivery they could work with Sky/Virgin/BT but it isn’t- it’s about driving profits upwards. That comes from the customer base.

If you think there’s tens of millions of potential subscribers outside the pay-tv market desperate to jump in at sub £8 a month then fine. If Virgin stripped TV XL out my package I’d save something like £23 a month and to maintain my current viewing I’d have to get BT Sport at a higher monthly cost. If you think that wouldn’t be the same with a £5 provider here, an £8 provider there and it wouldn’t suddenly add up to more for the vast majority then we just fundamentally disagree about the market as a whole.

Well, since Netflix and Amazon became available, we have far more choice than before, and my perception is that traditional TV channels have less good content these days.You appear to think that people will not go for multiple subscriptions in a big way, but they already do! I know so many people now who have Netflix and Amazon, and I would wager that many CF members also have Now TV.

If the traditional channels were no longer there, subscribers would have more money available to throw at other streaming services. The 'Full House' of the future will probably be a package of streaming services rather than tv channels and we will be paying out roughly the same.

Of course, everyone is different and they will make different choices. Some will decide to subscribe only to one service and change over to another later in the year. People like me would subscribe to all the services providing a lot of good dramas, documentaries.and wildlife programmes. I would see myself in the future as subscribing to Starz, Discovery and HBO in addition to what I have now, which would be cheaper than now. I wouldn't bother with Disney if it was all kids stuff as there won't be any children in my house, but I would be interested in other programmes if they are made available on that service.

So I do believe that multiple subscriptions will be the norm in future, although many of us may well be paying one operator such as Sky, Virgin or BT, to get them all.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I really do think that Virgin, Sky and BT will offer bundles of streaming services rather than scheduled linear channels in the future, so your fears should prove unwarranted.

As I said earlier, more streaming services means more choice. You don't have to take them all if you have to pay a subscription.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------



If you are on a limited income, you might not be able to afford Netflix, but you might just stretch to Starz, which is half the price and appears to offer a good range of content.

I think it is sports that give the most cause for concern, but maybe a major disrupter such as Amazon may force change for the better.

Only interested in sports, which are too expensive anyway (particularly as you are forced to take ordinary channels, some of which are available on free view, as a base before adding sports channels)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Only interested in sports, which are too expensive anyway (particularly as you are forced to take ordinary channels, some of which are available on free view, as a base before adding sports channels)

Now TV already permits you to subscribe to their sports package without having to take other channels. As streaming becomes the norm, I think people will be able to fine tune their viewing so that if they don't want certain types of programme such as dramas or reality tv, then they won't need to subscribe to them.

I resent having to pay for scores of channels I will never watch because I have no interest in them. What a waste of my money that is.

[jfman]

...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

The point is that these scores of channels get pennies multiplied by 13 million, as do the channels you watch. Once everyone starts to be selective and opt out the prices will go up. The fact this gives Sky and Virgin a strong negotiating position means you may pay less overall.

Spot on.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Now TV already permits you to subscribe to their sports package without having to take other channels. As streaming becomes the norm, I think people will be able to fine tune their viewing so that if they don't want certain types of programme such as dramas or reality tv, then they won't need to subscribe to them.

I resent having to pay for scores of channels I will never watch because I have no interest in them. What a waste of my money that is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Now TV doesn't have the facility to record?

If that is indeed the case it is of absolutely no use to me at all - I time shift virtually everything I watch sometimes by 15-20 mins (so I don't have to wait for the 2nd half) sometimes by days or even weeks as I am then free to watch a recorded programme.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

Each individually yes.

For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions, and households taking multiple subscriptions. I don’t believe that market exists at the level required to achieve the current pot value..

I'm not following you here. What do you mean when you say "For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions"?

If the Hollywood companies each have a share of that £24 pot as presently, whether evenly distributed or not, they only get a share of that £24, not all of it each. So, if the £24 channel bundle were eliminated, the companies still only need the same amount of direct subscribers to make up the numbers, which is a share of £24, not all of it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Now TV doesn't have the facility to record?

If that is indeed the case it is of absolutely no use to me at all - I time shift virtually everything I watch sometimes by 15-20 mins (so I don't have to wait for the 2nd half) sometimes by days or even weeks as I am then free to watch a recorded programme.

No, it doesn't but the programmes are held on demand. However, I do not have the sports pack, so that may be different.

Things may change when Sky goes IPTV.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, it doesn't but the programmes are held on demand. However, I do not have the sports pack, so that may be different.

Things may change when Sky goes IPTV.

I don't know but I seriously doubt any sports are included in the on demand section of Now TV - certainly aren't in the on demand section on virgin

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I'm not following you here. What do you mean when you say "For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions"?

If the Hollywood companies each have a share of that £24 pot as presently, whether evenly distributed or not, they only get a share of that £24, not all of it each. So, if the £24 channel bundle were eliminated, the companies still only need the same amount of direct subscribers to make up the numbers, which is a share of £24, not all of it.

I think maybe jfman is making too many assumptions. There are many possibilities and who knows how this will all end. However, I think there will be at least half a dozen major streaming services available to us in the next few years, once superfast broadband has been rolled out all over the country.

You've only got to look at what's happening in the US to realise we have a way to go yet before we catch up with them!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I'm not following you here. What do you mean when you say "For all of them to make the same that requires more subscriptions"?

If the Hollywood companies each have a share of that £24 pot as presently, whether evenly distributed or not, they only get a share of that £24, not all of it each. So, if the £24 channel bundle were eliminated, the companies still only need the same amount of direct subscribers to make up the numbers, which is a share of £24, not all of it.

The market as a whole would need to sell far more than 13m subscriptions in total to match the combined revenue levels, and would rely on most subscribers taking a number of the options available negating any “savings” made for the end user.

[muppetman11]

Yes let's look at those US Services

Sling TV - Owner Dish Network
DirecTV Now - Owner DirecTV (ATT)
Xfinity Instant TV Owner Comcast
PlayStation Vue Owner Sony
Hulu Owner Numerous Movie Studios

All of which have traditional TV services or supply the content.

Won't be long before the price of these services is getting up near that of more traditional pay TV.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

The market as a whole would need to sell far more than 13m subscriptions in total to match the combined revenue levels, and would rely on most subscribers taking a number of the options available negating any “savings” made for the end user.

No it wouldn't.

Ok, pretend the Sky £24 channel bundle is distributed as follows:

Disney gets £6 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £78000000
AT&T gets £6 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £78000000
Viacom/CBS gets £4 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £52000000
Comcast gets £4 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £52000000
Fox gets £2 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £26000000
Sony gets £2 per subscriber - multiplied by 13m subscribers is £26000000

Now, if the Hollywood companies stop receiving a share of that £24 channel bundle and the bundle is eliminated and they all launch DTC streamers at the same price as before, the figures don't change.

So, a Disney streamer costing £6 per month, only needs the same 13m subscribers to get the same dosh, the £78000000. But what I think you are saying, is that the companies will likely charge more for their streamers, than what they currently share between them from channel bundles, thus increasing the cost to consumers. Is that a fair summing up of your position?

They don't need 52 million subscribers, so i don't know where you're getting that from. For Sony to still get the same revenue as before, the £26000000, and charging £10 per month for its streamer, it only needs 2,600,000 subscribers not 13m.

What is the unknown and going back to Old Boy's remarks about the £60 Full House bundle, is, if each of those six streamers each charge £10 per month for their streamers and you add on the cost of the broadband and sports too (for those that want to pay for it)on top of that, how many would subscribe?

I don't know the answer to that and neither do the Hollywood companies, hence their anxiousness about streaming. At the moment, they are guaranteed a share of the channel bundle pot, in a DTC streaming world, they've got to go out and get their own punters for their services. No guarantees at all.

We do not know how many streamers there will be and don't forget our British services too, or at what cost they will. Until the consolidation in the States is finished among the media/telecom/tech cos, there are too many unknowns at the moment.