VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As repeated ad nauseum, the most likely time for this will be 2022, provided of course, super fast broadband is rolled out across the country by then, which has always been the assumption.

Whose assumption, and why are they assuming that?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Whose assumption, and why are they assuming that?

There was a spate of articles about this last year, and based on a fair bit of information I have read from various sources, this formed part of my 'prediction' that Den is referring to. You will recall that the FA was courting the streaming services in the last round of bidding, but the inadequate coverage of broadband in the UK is likely to have put them off this time around.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, of course Amazon will charge for it. Whether that results in higher cost to the consumer, we would have to see.

Higher rights costs get passed to the consumer. That’s a simple economic fact. The only chance the costs to the end user would come down is if they could bring new customers in to spread the costs across a larger customer base. As Sky have had twenty years ton develop their base (including Sky Sports subscribers on other platforms) I consider this unlikely in the extreme.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Higher rights costs get passed to the consumer. That’s a simple economic fact. The only chance the costs to the end user would come down is if they could bring new customers in to spread the costs across a larger customer base. As Sky have had twenty years ton develop their base (including Sky Sports subscribers on other platforms) I consider this unlikely in the extreme.

There are different things they could do, including the addition of smaller, more affordable packages showing a more limited number of games, sharing content with other platforms, linking the football option with offers and discounts in other areas of their activities, etc. It is not as straight forward as you suggest. Amazon have the resources to pull this off if they choose to do so.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There are different things they could do, including the addition of smaller, more affordable packages showing a more limited number of games, sharing content with other platforms, linking the football option with offers and discounts in other areas of their activities, etc. It is not as straight forward as you suggest. Amazon have the resources to pull this off if they choose to do so.

Nor is the glorious streaming future you portray as simple as you suggest. You’ve brought up a lot of variables there which, if profit yielding, begs the question why Sky haven’t tried it?

Nobody has suggested that Amazon don’t have the resources, what I am questioning is whether or not it’s the most effective use of £1.5bn a year and how simultaneously Amazon make a profit yet the consumer pays less. It’s speculative at best.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nor is the glorious streaming future you portray as simple as you suggest. You’ve brought up a lot of variables there which, if profit yielding, begs the question why Sky haven’t tried it?

Nobody has suggested that Amazon don’t have the resources, what I am questioning is whether or not it’s the most effective use of £1.5bn a year and how simultaneously Amazon make a profit yet the consumer pays less. It’s speculative at best.

That Amazon is interested is not in doubt. That's why they stuck their toe in the water and successfully bid for one of the smaller packages this time around.

I'm not surprised that you cannot see how different ways of structuring income streams might prove more successful. It's always easier to look at possibilities in terms of binary choices. However, success often comes to people and organisations that have imagination.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That Amazon is interested is not in doubt. That's why they stuck their toe in the water and successfully bid for one of the smaller packages this time around.

I'm not surprised that you cannot see how different ways of structuring income streams might prove more successful. It's always easier to look at possibilities in terms of binary choices. However, success often comes to people and organisations that have imagination.

Hahaha subtle insult there.

Amazon didn't so much stick their toe in the water as got handed the rights by the FAPL who are desperate to introduce an 'online' element. You seem to forget (or deliberately omit) the reserve price for the packages wasn't met in the first round of bidding.

Success may 'often' come to people and organisations with imagination. Failure always comes to organisations that have business models that do not work. Setanta Sports and soon to be Eleven Sports being examples, one in the 'old' world and one in the 'new' world the principle remains the same. Streaming technology doesn't exempt new entrants from the basics of economics.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by jfman

Hahaha subtle insult there.

Amazon didn't so much stick their toe in the water as got handed the rights by the FAPL who are desperate to introduce an 'online' element. You seem to forget (or deliberately omit) the reserve price for the packages wasn't met in the first round of bidding.

Success may 'often' come to people and organisations with imagination. Failure always comes to organisations that have business models that do not work. Setanta Sports and soon to be Eleven Sports being examples, one in the 'old' world and one in the 'new' world the principle remains the same. Streaming technology doesn't exempt new entrants from the basics of economics.

Completely agree basically nobody wanted the packages at least not at the reserve price , a bit embarrassing for the Premier League considering they thought all the streamers would be interested. Let’s not forget the press had speculated Amazon , Facebook , Twitter the list goes on.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Completely agree basically nobody wanted the packages at least not at the reserve price , a bit embarrassing for the Premier League considering they thought all the streamers would be interested. Let’s not forget the press had speculated Amazon , Facebook , Twitter the list goes on.

It cost Richard Scudamore his job it was that bad!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Completely agree basically nobody wanted the packages at least not at the reserve price , a bit embarrassing for the Premier League considering they thought all the streamers would be interested. Let’s not forget the press had speculated Amazon , Facebook , Twitter the list goes on.

And OB was their leading cheerleader.

Sorry OB.

[jfman]

As I sit here with my lack of imagination let's also remember that Sky made exactly the same judgement call by bidding less than the previous auction for a broadly similar set of rights. Arguably they bet their whole business model on the basis that no new entrant would make significant inroads.

Some TV/movie rights holders will try to take control of their content end to end, and hope to fluke becoming the next Netflix and gain significant market share. The problem is Netflix are already there, and they're relying on people buying multiple add-ons. It's a circular argument but the basics apply.

New entrants need to identify where they can get money from the existing pay-tv customer base or identify consumers outside the market that they can get to buy their product. The former is getting price squeezed, the latter has multiple choices - Amazon, Netflix and Now TV that they currently choose not to pay for. Is Starzplay the answer? If that's the answer the question most definitely isn't "what's the most compelling pay-tv product I can buy for less than a tenner?".

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by jfman

As I sit here with my lack of imagination let's also remember that Sky made exactly the same judgement call by bidding less than the previous auction for a broadly similar set of rights. Arguably they bet their whole business model on the basis that no new entrant would make significant inroads.

Some TV/movie rights holders will try to take control of their content end to end, and hope to fluke becoming the next Netflix and gain significant market share. The problem is Netflix are already there, and they're relying on people buying multiple add-ons. It's a circular argument but the basics apply.

New entrants need to identify where they can get money from the existing pay-tv customer base or identify consumers outside the market that they can get to buy their product. The former is getting price squeezed, the latter has multiple choices - Amazon, Netflix and Now TV that they currently choose not to pay for. Is Starzplay the answer? If that's the answer the question most definitely isn't "what's the most compelling pay-tv product I can buy for less than a tenner?".

Sky reducing the size of their bids had a lot to do with BT sports reigning in their interest.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Sky reducing the size of their bids had a lot to do with BT sports reigning in their interest.

True, but it also meant they believed nobody would be willing to pay the amounts paid last time. The price paid in 2016-19 is in the public domain and a new entrant (or BT) would surely bid more.

Sky on the other hand looked around and were confident this didn’t exist. Their wholesale deal with BT helping out that aspect.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

As I sit here with my lack of imagination let's also remember that Sky made exactly the same judgement call by bidding less than the previous auction for a broadly similar set of rights. Arguably they bet their whole business model on the basis that no new entrant would make significant inroads.

Some TV/movie rights holders will try to take control of their content end to end, and hope to fluke becoming the next Netflix and gain significant market share. The problem is Netflix are already there, and they're relying on people buying multiple add-ons. It's a circular argument but the basics apply.

New entrants need to identify where they can get money from the existing pay-tv customer base or identify consumers outside the market that they can get to buy their product. The former is getting price squeezed, the latter has multiple choices - Amazon, Netflix and Now TV that they currently choose not to pay for. Is Starzplay the answer? If that's the answer the question most definitely isn't "what's the most compelling pay-tv product I can buy for less than a tenner?".

And yet, here comes another one. This does not seem to be going the way you are seeing things, jfman. The streaming services are increasing in number and will take over from the pay tv channels, providing more choice for less.

Sky knows it. The BBC knows it. Both are planning ahead for that very eventuality.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...nclude-europe/

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And yet, here comes another one. This does not seem to be going the way you are seeing things, jfman. The streaming services are increasing in number and will take over from the pay tv channels, providing more choice for less.

Sky knows it. The BBC knows it. Both are planning ahead for that very eventuality.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...nclude-europe/

Bollocks but you know that anyway OB.