Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Well, for a start, I would expect other players to do this differently from Sky. At the moment, for example, if you would be happy to watch your kind of sport occasionally, you have to subscribe to the full sports monty offered by Sky or BT. If a more limited amount of sport was also available for less, this would attract more subscribers. Just as the US telcos have adopted 'skinny bundles' to attract those who cannot or will not pay for a more comprehensive set of channels, the global beasts will be set on maximising income to keep prices low and may also offer loss leaders.
Sky has an attitude which means that it tries to draw everyone to its platform by denying content to others and bolstering prices to what the market can take. That will not necessarily be the same model used by streaming services, who can be expected to be more flexible to make lower prices possible.
There are different approaches to this that would benefit consumers as I have discussed before, which will concentrate on increasing viewers not only on their own platform but also by seeking alternative platforms to maximise income.
|
The trouble is people watch other sport to Premier League football.
I myself watch Rugby Union, Rugby League, Cricket regularly as well as golf, American football occasionally.
Being able to get my fill of these sports from 2 sources (BT and Sky) is the cheapest way when you consider the cost of streaming - Australian Rugby League was offered at over £20pm, imagine how much all these other sports would cost me at that rate?
I would have thought streamers would start low and increase subs when you are hooked or to apathetic to unsubscribe. So if £20pm for a part of one sport is cheap heaven I am glad I won't be around when linear channels disappear.
---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------
The real problem with sky/VM is I have to pay a base subscription of over £20pm for the basic channels I never watch.