TV Money Long Term

[Kopper]

Wholly reliant? I don't agree with that at all. Like or loath them, Sky are still the best option for all TV package privision beyond the scope of what you get with Freeview. I know a lot of people who pay a token amount for Sky TV, but don't have movies and sport. Including myself.

I agree with the token amount comment. A lot of people do it. But if you're right why is Sky paying for the rights at all. Why not have 10m customers pay the nominal amount?
Why pay substantially more for less? This economic behaviour is indicative of someone who can't do without the product they're selling.

 

[Abertawe]

I agree with the token amount comment. A lot of people do it. But if you're right why is Sky paying for the rights at all. Why not have 10m customers pay the nominal amount?
Why pay substantially more for less? This economic behaviour is indicative of someone who can't do without the product they're selling.

The fuck are you banging on about?

 

[Pagnell]

I agree with the token amount comment. A lot of people do it. But if you're right why is Sky paying for the rights at all. Why not have 10m customers pay the nominal amount?
Why pay substantially more for less? This economic behaviour is indicative of someone who can't do without the product they're selling.

Because, presumably, at this moment at time at least, they make more money from sports subscriptions than they pay out for the various licenses to sell it.

And if you agree with my token comment, you're effectively saying your wholly reliant claim is inaccurate.

 

[Kopper]

Because, presumably, at this moment at time at least, they make more money from sports subscriptions than they pay out for the various licenses to sell it.

And if you agree with my token comment, you're effectively saying your wholly reliant claim is inaccurate.

Sky is reliant on showing football matches. If they didn't need it, they wouldn't pay for it.
Paying for the basic package is neither here nor there. It doesn't contribute to the point you're trying to make. In fact it detract from it. If you're saying a lot of Sky's customers pay for the basic package, then how can Sky be making money on Sports subscription?

 

[Pagnell]

Sky is reliant on showing football matches. If they didn't need it, they wouldn't pay for it.
Paying for the basic package is neither here nor there.

What you're effectively saying here is that a broadcaster providing access to a service they need to pay a license for has to equate to them relying on it. That's nonsensical. It could simply be the difference between making a decent profit and making a large profit.

If you're saying a lot of Sky's customers pay for the basic package, then how can Sky be making money on Sports subscription?

By the people who DO pay for the sports package spending more money on the sports subscription than Sky pay out in licenses for it.

 

[Kopper]

What you're effectively saying here is that a broadcaster providing access to a service they need to pay a license for has to equate to them relying on it. That's nonsenical It could simply be the difference between making a decent profit and making a large profit.



By the people who DO pay for the sports package spending more money on the sports subscription than Sky pay out in licenses for it.

Let's not concentrate on what I'm effectively saying and focus on what I'm actually saying. Sky paid 70% more for the television rights than it did for the previous deal.
Sky doesn't release their sky sport subscriber numbers, but it's estimated to be around 3m. At £50 a pop that's £5.4bn over the course of the deal. Selling those rights globally could add several billion pounds to that figure. Sky was willing to pay £4.2bn for it's share. Over half of the gross figure it stands to generate. Sky can't pass all of the cost onto it's subscribers as we're in a global recession and those subscribers (in any event) haven't seen a 70% bump in their pay packets. Neither has Sky added the equivalent amount of subscribers to offset the cost.
With this being said, it doesn't take a genius to work out Sky's profits on sports related products have taken a severe hit. Most of those losses will be absorbed in other areas of the business.
If anything of comparable cost had seen a 70 percent increase, Sky would've jettisoned it. But the real question is would Sky pay for another increase in the 19/20 season?
I believe the answer is yes.
And by that time Sky will be making an actual loss on it's rights deal.

Which would make your tenuous claim Sky isn't wholly reliant on football, redundant.

 

[Pagnell]

This is fucking painful. At the very least you worded the original post badly with your use of the word "wholly", but to be perfectly frank my levels of giveafuckness have reduced to the point where I was barely able to make this response.

 

[G-Dragon]

I think you're overstating how easy it is to get a good quality stream. It's not as if you fire up Youtube and search for the game you want.

It is actually that easy (if not easier) if you know the sites

 

[johnnytodd]

This is fucking painful. At the very least you worded the original post badly with your use of the word "wholly", but to be perfectly frank my levels of giveafuckness have reduced to the point where I was barely able to make this response.

Admit your wrong and that would be the end of it.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

The interesting point down the line is the current discussions that companies may not be able to charge phone line prices in addition to broadband price if broadband user now uses mobile and never uses landline.

Its something being suggested and would seriously hit BT who probably then couldn't afford the rights.

But maybe a middle east station would try its hand then

 

[Humongous Fungus]

Are people forgetting sky charge a subscription fee as well as having endless adverts? They're not struggling for cash.

 

[Pagnell]

The interesting point down the line is the current discussions that companies may not be able to charge phone line prices in addition to broadband price if broadband user now uses mobile and never uses landline.

Its something being suggested and would seriously hit BT who probably then couldn't afford the rights.

But maybe a middle east station would try its hand then

This is something that has pissed me off for years. The only reason we have a phone line is for broadband, we don't even have a landline phone plugged in. When I heard I could be saving £17 a month I was happy, but you know BT will simply make it up from elsewhere, even if you're not a BT customer.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Sky will make a loss on subscribers vs rights in the next few years, however this will be offset by increases to Sky Movies subscriptions and other products, as well as increased advertising revenues, which will cancel out the loses. They have also lost the CL rights and some cricket rights, freeing up more cash for football. Anyone noticed the amount of repeats on Sky Sports programming?

I have a feeling within the next few years, they may lose the contract rights to cricket as a whole plus other rights deals on other sports, freeing up more cash for football in a bidding war to win back CL rights.

So those who pay for Sky Sports will receive more football coverage, but they will lose other sports to rival broadcasters, meaning those who want to see cricket etc shell out to BT sport (or another incarnation that appears). This may also open the doors for another sports subscription service, possibly Virgin Sports in the near future. In the end, the punters will be shelling out more on 2 or 3 separate subscriptions, or just choosing the 1 for a slight increase. It's already happening with BT Sports

This will go on until you have 4 or 5 different sports broadcasters paying ridiculous rights deals until which point, a couple of them will eventually go bust, and the money will no longer be there.

 

[JimJams]

Why would they get an increase in Sky Movies subscribers? With the ever growing popularity of streaming services such as Netflix I don't see why their market share would increase.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Why would they get an increase in Sky Movies subscribers? With the ever growing popularity of streaming services such as Netflix I don't see why their market share would increase.

Wrongly worded. I meant they would increase the subscription cost

Anyway, the main trade off for big increases in Football rights deals is bidding less for other deals (Cricket in Australia now on BT Sports) and losing rights to them free's up the funds for larger football bids, as well as Advertising payments increasing

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Did a test last night and watched the boxing on Ace Stream. I found it an absolute ballache setting it up (mainly cuz I didjn't really know what I was doing) but once it was set up alll was good, quality was superb too. Still too much of a ballache setting it up to worry Sky though.

Middle manager at EMI circa 1999: Worry about Napster? Us? It takes 40 minutes to download a single 128kbps mp3, and my phone was engaged the whole time! Not a chance!

Regarding the other discussion:

Sky are obviously not "wholly reliant" on Premier League TV rights, but it has been the central tentpole of their broadcasting business since the company (or its predecessor) became relevant. A future incarnation of the company without those rights (which would entail wiping both massive subscription revenues and massive rights expenditures off the balance sheet) would be predicated on such a radically different model that it is foolhardy (though fun, possibly) to speak in absolutes about exactly what that would entail. Factor in the 'bundled' broadband and telephone packages and one is left with a Gordian knot. But it would clearly be a seismic shift for the entire UK broadcasting sector.