VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm sure I've said before that I have Virgin (Sky Sports and Movies), Now TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime. I don't view these things as ideological, as you appear to do so, and each represents value in their own way.

I do believe that Sky offers better value than Netflix for my viewing habits - I consider such a view completely subjective yet uncontroversial. Others will feel differently. I think that's why they've got millions of customers averaging £500 a year to subscribe vs millions paying Netflix £96 a year or so.

I'm fortunate enough to be unaffected by the forthcoming recession, indeed not commuting makes me better off, however if I were Virgin TV and Sky Sports would be the last product to go. Until streamers can make sports rights viable this will remain the case.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------



I fail to see how you can describe an average consumer, with relatively ordinary viewing habits, observing prices go up as having a 'depressing take'.

It may be depressing for your rose tinted streaming future however as consumer costs go up consumer demand falls. That takes me back to 'Economics 101'.

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------



Exactly. I'm happy for everyone - whether they watch television linear, on Freeview, on satellite or cable, on pay-tv or free to air, or through streaming.

There's only one user getting depressed about all this.

Interesting that you, the self acclaimed economist, still receives Sky Cinema and Sky Sports through Virgin when you can get it cheaper through Now TV.

There is nothing ideological about this. It's about what is best value to the consumer.

Incidentally, the 'depressing take' was my observation on your comment, not on consumer choice. Read it again.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Interesting that you, the self acclaimed economist, still receives Sky Cinema and Sky Sports through Virgin when you can get it cheaper through Now TV.

I can’t, thank you for your concern over my personal finances. You’ve decided to make assumptions about my Virgin Media bundle that are flawed.

There is nothing ideological about this. It's about what is best value to the consumer.

Incidentally, the 'depressing take' was my observation on your comment, not on consumer choice. Read it again.

It’s entirely ideological. You struggle with the concept that rational consumers making choices in the marketplace find value from Sky. There’s absolutely no basis for that view whatsoever, considering they have millions of customers directly from Sky or Now TV and indirectly subscribing to their services through Virgin or BT.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------



I’ll humour you though...

Three Unlimited Data £18
BT 500MB £58
Now TV Sky Sports £33
Now TV Sky Movies £12
BT Sports £25.

Already exceeded the RRP of Ultimate Oomph and can’t even record, have no basic entertainment or kids channels.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I can’t, thank you for your concern over my personal finances. You’ve decided to make assumptions about my Virgin Media bundle that are flawed.



It’s entirely ideological. You struggle with the concept that rational consumers making choices in the marketplace find value from Sky. There’s absolutely no basis for that view whatsoever, considering they have millions of customers directly from Sky or Now TV and indirectly subscribing to their services through Virgin or BT.

I certainly don't struggle with that concept, jfman. It's just that I think the streamers give much better value.

---------- Post added at 09:20 ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ll humour you though...

Three Unlimited Data £18
BT 500MB £58
Now TV Sky Sports £33
Now TV Sky Movies £12
BT Sports £25.

Already exceeded the RRP of Ultimate Oomph and can’t even record, have no basic entertainment or kids channels.

OK, apologies for that, then. I had assumed that as a regular contributor to the Cable Forum that you subscribed to Virgin Media.

People come for the argu..err banter.

[jfman]

I do have Virgin Media as confirmed in a number of posts. By “humouring” you Old Boy I’ve demonstrated that my package with Virgin is cheaper than the like for like alternatives contrary to your claim.

I know you struggle with the concept people get value from Sky or Virgin Media over streamers, which I believed was down to your poor judgement, but I stand corrected if it’s caused by failing eyesight.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I do have Virgin Media as confirmed in a number of posts. By “humouring” you Old Boy I’ve demonstrated that my package with Virgin is cheaper than the like for like alternatives contrary to your claim.

I know you struggle with the concept people get value from Sky or Virgin Media over streamers, which I believed was down to your poor judgement, but I stand corrected if it’s caused by failing eyesight.

H'mm. Interesting play.

I have acknowledged in previous posts that sport is expensive and my assertion that streamers are better value clearly does not cover that. However, I remain convinced that prices for sport will come down over time, once the Sky/BT stranglehold on the footie is breached.

I have no problem whatsoever in understanding the value people get from Sky and VM. What I am saying is that the streamers are better value. Sport excepted, of course, we don't disagree on that.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you paying less for TV content than before the streamers came along? To me, it seems like more cost and more choice than ever before.

While we have both the streamers and the TV channels, I agree, but once we can get everything we want from the streamers, many of us won't be bothering at all with the TV channels. They are just too expensive and inflexible.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

H'mm. Interesting play.

There's very little interesting about the fact I subscribe to the cheapest service available for my needs. I challenge you to find me like for like products - if they're out there I'll happily subscribe.

I have acknowledged in previous posts that sport is expensive and my assertion that streamers are better value clearly does not cover that. However, I remain convinced that prices for sport will come down over time, once the Sky/BT stranglehold on the footie is breached.

I have no problem whatsoever in understanding the value people get from Sky and VM. What I am saying is that the streamers are better value. Sport excepted, of course, we don't disagree on that.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------



While we have both the streamers and the TV channels, I agree, but once we can get everything we want from the streamers, many of us won't be bothering at all with the TV channels. They are just too expensive and inflexible.

You've exempted sport, which is frankly ridiculous as it carries by far the highest value of any rights out there. Pay tv companies don't apply these arbitrarily - they do so because they provide the greatest opportunity to extract value (and profits for shareholders).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's very little interesting about the fact I subscribe to the cheapest service available for my needs. I challenge you to find me like for like products - if they're out there I'll happily subscribe.



You've exempted sport, which is frankly ridiculous as it carries by far the highest value of any rights out there. Pay tv companies don't apply these arbitrarily - they do so because they provide the greatest opportunity to extract value (and profits for shareholders).

I have always exempted sport, jfman. I am not alone in finding the watching of other people playing games extremely boring.

Given that sport is your passion, your choice of Virgin to watch it is understandable, of course.

Hopefully, there will be better times ahead.

[jfman]

“Better times ahead”?

This is where you’re running along the wrong track Old Boy. You assume that there’s something wrong with the present. Unless streaming lowers the costs to end users - and I see no evidence of how - the consumers are relatively well served by the current marketplace taking products from Now TV Sports at the low end to full package Sky/Virgin/BT at the top.

Thus far you’ve offered no business model other than “deep pockets”.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

“Better times ahead”?

This is where you’re running along the wrong track Old Boy. You assume that there’s something wrong with the present. Unless streaming lowers the costs to end users - and I see no evidence of how - the consumers are relatively well served by the current marketplace taking products from Now TV Sports at the low end to full package Sky/Virgin/BT at the top.

Thus far you’ve offered no business model other than “deep pockets”.

I've explained that previously. Let's wait and see rather than forever going round in circles.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've explained that previously. Let's wait and see rather than forever going round in circles.

This is the thing Old Boy.

You haven't explained this in any detail at any point. Please find one explanation and copy and paste it - this shouldn't be a particularly arduous task for someone as passionate as yourself about streaming to do, given you've spent six years making the same points over and over all I'm asking you to do is justify your position once.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This is the thing Old Boy.

You haven't explained this in any detail at any point. Please find one explanation and copy and paste it - this shouldn't be a particularly arduous task for someone as passionate as yourself about streaming to do, given you've spent six years making the same points over and over all I'm asking you to do is justify your position once.

Well, I have explained various ways of reducing cost to consumers, so this would be a second, not a first explanation. I am not trawling through a huge wad of posts to play this game - you can do that if you have enough hours in the day.

I have explained previously that Sky's approach is to charge the maximum possible price and keep all the rights to itself. The example I gave before set out how Amazon, with its retail arm, could sell other products on the back of sports rights. It would gain additional Prime customers, encouraging them to shop on Amazon's site, and it could market football paraphernalia on the actual football channel site. It could grant non-exclusive rights of some matches to the terrestrial channels to generate further income, as well as allowing highlights to be shown on other channels after the event.

Sky's approach is not the only one. Instead of charging sky high prices for these matches, they could reduce the price and make it accessible to more people. They could also offer a range of packages which might attract more uptake.

Amazon might even offer football as a loss leader to promote other parts of its business, as it did for the rights already acquired to screen the Premier league matches. Amazon gave us those matches at no extra charge, something that I dare say Sky would never have contemplated.

I think the mistake people are making is to imagine that Amazon would operate in the same way as Sky does, fleecing customers for all its worth. I don't think it needs to be like that and I believe that Amazon would have a different approach.

Of course, it would be different for other streamers such as DAZN, who do not have a retail arm, but for them it would be more of a straight forward question of whether it would be worth it for them, drawing on their experience of acquiring rights for sport elsewhere. There would still be the other areas of flexibility on price and awarding non-exclusive rights, etc, though. I'm not sure whether DAZN's pockets are deep enough to take on Sky and BT, but Amazon has no such problems.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Interesting that you, the self acclaimed economist, still receives Sky Cinema and Sky Sports through Virgin when you can get it cheaper through Now TV.

There is nothing ideological about this. It's about what is best value to the consumer.

Incidentally, the 'depressing take' was my observation on your comment, not on consumer choice. Read it again.

You possibly can, but as you cannot record from NowTV it would be useless for my needs (and a lot of others I am sure)

Streaming getting involved in Sports Rights is bound to increase the cost to the user, as sky/BT will try to retain their shares whilst streamers will have to bid big to capture anything apart from low-hanging fruit.

In the medium term (say 10-15 years) customers will need to pay more for what they currently get as linear tv/streaming battle it out

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, I have explained various ways of reducing cost to consumers, so this would be a second, not a first explanation. I am not trawling through a huge wad of posts to play this game - you can do that if you have enough hours in the day.

I have explained previously that Sky's approach is to charge the maximum possible price and keep all the rights to itself. The example I gave before set out how Amazon, with its retail arm, could sell other products on the back of sports rights. It would gain additional Prime customers, encouraging them to shop on Amazon's site, and it could market football paraphernalia on the actual football channel site. It could grant non-exclusive rights of some matches to the terrestrial channels to generate further income, as well as allowing highlights to be shown on other channels after the event.

Sky's approach is not the only one. Instead of charging sky high prices for these matches, they could reduce the price and make it accessible to more people. They could also offer a range of packages which might attract more uptake.

Amazon might even offer football as a loss leader to promote other parts of its business, as it did for the rights already acquired to screen the Premier league matches. Amazon gave us those matches at no extra charge, something that I dare say Sky would never have contemplated.

I think the mistake people are making is to imagine that Amazon would operate in the same way as Sky does, fleecing customers for all its worth. I don't think it needs to be like that and I believe that Amazon would have a different approach.

Of course, it would be different for other streamers such as DAZN, who do not have a retail arm, but for them it would be more of a straight forward question of whether it would be worth it for them, drawing on their experience of acquiring rights for sport elsewhere. There would still be the other areas of flexibility on price and awarding non-exclusive rights, etc, though. I'm not sure whether DAZN's pockets are deep enough to take on Sky and BT, but Amazon has no such problems.

You really are talking through your ar*e - sky and BT both paused my sports subs for over 3 months as there were no EPL matches on.

Despite taking no money, the sports channels remained available so I was able to view past recordings and also watch live matches as they became available without any payment.

Additionally, when EPL restarted, I was treated to over 20 extra EPL matches on Sky and 15 or so extra on BT - at no extra cost.

Hardly fits with your assessment of Sky!

[ozsat]

It is another £3 to get Now TV in full HD.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ll humour you though...

Three Unlimited Data £18
BT 500MB £58
Now TV Sky Sports £33
Now TV Sky Movies £12
BT Sports £25.

Already exceeded the RRP of Ultimate Oomph and can’t even record, have no basic entertainment or kids channels.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, I have explained various ways of reducing cost to consumers, so this would be a second, not a first explanation. I am not trawling through a huge wad of posts to play this game - you can do that if you have enough hours in the day.

I have explained previously that Sky's approach is to charge the maximum possible price and keep all the rights to itself. The example I gave before set out how Amazon, with its retail arm, could sell other products on the back of sports rights. It would gain additional Prime customers, encouraging them to shop on Amazon's site, and it could market football paraphernalia on the actual football channel site. It could grant non-exclusive rights of some matches to the terrestrial channels to generate further income, as well as allowing highlights to be shown on other channels after the event.

None of these look like particularly efficient mechanisms of recouping £4.5bn and making profit over and above that. I assume their calculators weren't working before they decided to not make a substantive bid for the rights in 2018.

Sky's approach is not the only one. Instead of charging sky high prices for these matches, they could reduce the price and make it accessible to more people. They could also offer a range of packages which might attract more uptake.

Amazon might even offer football as a loss leader to promote other parts of its business, as it did for the rights already acquired to screen the Premier league matches. Amazon gave us those matches at no extra charge, something that I dare say Sky would never have contemplated.

Easy to give something away when you got the rights for peanuts.

I think the mistake people are making is to imagine that Amazon would operate in the same way as Sky does, fleecing customers for all its worth. I don't think it needs to be like that and I believe that Amazon would have a different approach.

Of course, it would be different for other streamers such as DAZN, who do not have a retail arm, but for them it would be more of a straight forward question of whether it would be worth it for them, drawing on their experience of acquiring rights for sport elsewhere. There would still be the other areas of flexibility on price and awarding non-exclusive rights, etc, though. I'm not sure whether DAZN's pockets are deep enough to take on Sky and BT, but Amazon has no such problems.

The mistake is believing that Amazon are some kind of benign philanthropic organisation out there to give away free football, or that even if they were the UK would be their main target market and not the US, Germany or other major markets. Anyone spending £4.5bn on football rights is going to recoup the majority of that £4.5bn through selling a premium sports subscription.

Amazon already have 6.7m Prime subscribers - the low hanging fruit - and this number would need to be substantially driven up as a 'loss leader' to recoup the cost of the rights.