Hats off to Netflix whether people like their content or not I am just thankful they are changing the landscape and allowing people to choose cheaper alternatives, have far more choice and can cherry pick what they want to watch and when to watch it. I subscribed to SKY for 17 years, I wouldn't go back but I do opt in and out of NOW TV, Netflix and Amazon because I prefer watching a whole series at once, I have become too impatient to stay with a series over 8, 10 or 16 weeks. Strange as it seems with so much more choice I am not watching more just better and my bank balance benefits too.
Whether SKY lose or keep HBO is no longer a concern, it is still going to be available in some form. Personally if I had the full HBO package here for £15 a month I would be opting into that also because they are more than TV. Some of their sports documentaries and non action sport shows are great and obviously they have a large catalogue of movies too. My hunch for next year is that Disney may buy Netflix, their CEO is moving aside and Netflix Reed Hastings is favoured by Disney a marraige made in heaven as Disney combined with Netflix would mahe them the largest streaming service in the world with a catalogue of content that would satisfy an awful lot of people. I think this is what concerns SKY most of all, the US giants have a whole new world of opportunities opened up to them, they no longer are dependent on the traditional rights distribution model.
I think there is going to be a massive shake up for sport primarily. Up to now in the UK, sport packages have been subsidised by the basic package options (as in you can't get sport without the other guff in the basic package too). As Netflix/Amazon change this landscape there is going to be less money available for the Sport broadcasters to spend on rights. One of two things will happen, cost for sport to the subscriber will go up to cover the costs, or the amount paid to buy the rights will plummet.
Personally I think the rights costs are going to have to fall & the sports broadcasters will have to support themselves entirely. They'll have to offer value for money as stand alone options to keep a lot of their subscribers. There will always be the fanatics and the rich who'll pay regardless, but the normal guy is already being priced out.
I'd also like to see regulators stepping in and disallowing the double/tripple/quad play bundles offered by the suppliers. It doesn't seem right that they can employ loss leading tactics to keep prices high for essentials like broadband to cover the cost of luxury things like sport. Those not wanting sport are still contributing to it with their broadband subscription. There should be a legal requirement for the services to be separate and self supporting.
The CL was a prime example and it has had very little effect, if any. Looking at it from a business perspective it makes perfect sense. I would not be surprised if Sky cut back on the PL rights going into the next tender, potentially a 50-50 split with BT or whoever else.
It's generally accepted within the industry that Sky overpaid for the PL rights because they were scared of BT,Next time round will be very interesting...
The only problem with this suggestion is whether the UK market can support another premium standalone sports provider on top of Sky and BT.
Even if BEIN Sports have bottomless pockets they have to make a business decision as to whether they can get a reasonable return on any investment. There is no business sense in simply adopting a "reckless" strategy otherwise you risk becoming the next OnDigital.
BEIN Sports don't have bottomless pockets and are losing to the order of 250 to 300 million euros a year in the french market and according to this article Qatar would like to 'relieve themselves of this weight which displeases some at the top'
beIN are in trouble. They tried it alone in Australia and had to concede defeat and sign a wholesale deal with Foxtel to stay up because despite the fact they had some good rights packages, they weren't getting the numbers to make it work.
Same goes for France, where they were at war with Canal+ Groupe for years until they did a wholesale exclusive deal with CANALSAT because they were losing money on a massive scale.
Also, beIN (As mentioned) have said the UK market isn't for them. With the money BT can throw around, Sky are already on the ropes, beIN would have to have billions at the ready to come in with no assurances they'd break even, nevermind make profit in 10 years say. That is commercial suicide in any world.
I also agree with a poster saying 50/50 split for the next PL rights between BT & Sky. I think it could be even 60/40 to BT because of Sky's decision to pay what they have for this cycle of PL rights and the fact it was a bridge too far and the fact its going to be a hard thing to get back up from for a while to come.
I see them making an offer for the UCL but only what they can pay, because remember if they make a stupid high offer just to f___ with BT only to find they won, they've got a 3 year rights cycle to pay for that they more than likely just cannot afford in any way, shape or form. And then what?
The test for SKY is that HBO Ceo Richard Plepler wants to control distribution more tightly and has said he likes the Netflix model. Two observations he made is that having a stand alone service outside of the cable eco system allows them to retain the whole $15 dollar subscription instead of sharing it with a cable carrier. He acknowledged it will be a much slower process to build revenue but ultimately the Netflix model is one he thinks fits best as they control international distribution of their original content. How does that bode for SKY when they pay just £275 million for a 5 year contract. HBO would need far less subscribers than Netflix in the UK to make significant gains. There is also a strong possibility that Netflix could be bought by Disney which would make them by far the biggest OTTP.
Sky are nowhere remotely near being unable to "afford" what they are spending on PL rights (or sports rights as a whole) - in the sense of potentially running out of cash.
Last year Sky (UK) made an Operating Profit of £1,500m. We'll have to see what that figure is this year with the new PL contract but it will certainly be at least £1,000m and probably about £1,200m.
So, if they wanted to, they could spend another £1,200m on rights on top of what they spend now and still break-even (even if the additional spend generated literally no extra revenue at all). For context BT is spending "only" £299m per year on CL/EL. So Sky could very easily "afford" to bid that kind of amount.
But the point is that the above isn't really relevant - because it's not a question of not being able to afford it - the question is what is the most profitable course to take? The amount they will bid for PL or CL or any sports rights will depend on how much the rights are worth to them - ie how much revenue they can generate from them (or how much revenue they will lose if they lose existing rights).
BT can of course "afford" to outbid Sky in the sense that BT's profits as a whole are higher than Sky's - although BT's profits from its Consumer Division - ie the part of its business which is competing with Sky - (ie phone + broadband + TV) are lower than Sky's. But again this isn't relevant here either - because BT, like Sky, will bid for rights based upon how much they think the rights are worth to them.
Both of them are attempting to maximise profits - and that is what will drive bidding decisions for both companies. Neither is currently anywhere remotely near being unable to "afford" what they are paying for rights - in the sense of running out of cash.
With regards to the SPL specifically, its not really going to drive subscribers from outside of Scotland (obviously there will always be some Scottish fans who now live in England.)
Therefore I don't think the value would be that much to Sky.
On the other hand it does give hours of football of a top flight British League, and it does have the Old Firm derby.
I don't think the entertainment value of each individual game plays a part, but it might be said that the fact that it just seems a bit too easy for Celtic might play a part. I expect Rangers to eventually challenge for the title over the coming few years though.
£18.75m per year is the rumour of how much the SPFl deal per season is worth. Does anyone seriously think there is a way to get more money out of a deal?
As I pointed out in my earlier post that if HBO were making the decision to launch a stand alone service here or in Europe now, thy wouldn't. However projecting forward 3-5 years where major contracts are up for renewal there is a strong case for HBO launching a streaming service. You must remember that in the US they operate on both the cable platform and as a stand alone streaming service. You also have to take into consideration that the dal with AT&T is likely to be approved next year and who is to say AT&T don't want to extend their communications footprint further. THe other possibility that cannot be discounted is that SKY itself may be bought. Two things are very much in play, the low pound and the share price is £400 down making SKY a very attractive proposition. I wouldn't rule out ITV being in the sights of a major player either. You also have Disney on the horizon which may bid for Netflix.
Infrastructure and subscription management are now in place for HBO so the UK would be an add on not a stand alone opration. Just 2.2 million subscribers would deliver HBO in one year what they get from the SKY over 5 years, yes costs have to be taken into consideration but £200 million is an awful lot of money in the bank to play with.
As I pointed out if the decision were now then NO. However I'm not even sure that SKY itself won't be bought out never mind HBO being a stand alone service down the line.
Sky are nowhere remotely near being unable to "afford" what they are spending on PL rights (or sports rights as a whole) - in the sense of potentially running out of cash.
Last year Sky (UK) made an Operating Profit of £1,500m. We'll have to see what that figure is this year with the new PL contract but it will certainly be at least £1,000m and probably about £1,200m.
So, if they wanted to, they could spend another £1,200m on rights on top of what they spend now and still break-even (even if the additional spend generated literally no extra revenue at all). For context BT is spending "only" £299m per year on CL/EL. So Sky could very easily "afford" to bid that kind of amount.
But the point is that the above isn't really relevant - because it's not a question of not being able to afford it - the question is what is the most profitable course to take? The amount they will bid for PL or CL or any sports rights will depend on how much the rights are worth to them - ie how much revenue they can generate from them (or how much revenue they will lose if they lose existing rights).
BT can of course "afford" to outbid Sky in the sense that BT's profits as a whole are higher than Sky's - although BT's profits from its Consumer Division - ie the part of its business which is competing with Sky - (ie phone + broadband + TV) are lower than Sky's. But again this isn't relevant here either - because BT, like Sky, will bid for rights based upon how much they think the rights are worth to them.
Both of them are attempting to maximise profits - and that is what will drive bidding decisions for both companies. Neither is currently anywhere remotely near being unable to "afford" what they are paying for rights - in the sense of running out of cash.
The decision will depend on how other subscriptions and overall revenue are affected. BT entered sports bidding to address the loss of market share in their broadband to SKY. SKY bid high in the last round to protect their overall subscription base. It's a delicate situation for both BT and SKY if both lost the EPL rights to a foreign buyer then there wouldn't be much change in the overall broadband market share. If however SKY lost the rights to BT then there is every chance they would lose a lot of broadband subscribers with it. Then as I have posted earlier there is likely to be many changes in the US with AT&T taking control of Time Warner and Disney could well bid for Netflix.
With regard to beIN, they are cutting costs across the board. It is well known that the whole Al Jazeera [The Island] network was a luxury of the Qatari government. A change of leader and more prudent approach forced by lower oil prices (the Qatar government reportedly requires $65 per barrel to balance the books; currently trading at $48) means that the loss making is no longer affordable. Just look at how beIN subscriptions have escalated in price.
Edit: Having watched the dross this Premiership weekend, is the value of rights really that high?
I get the impression that the major golf tournaments are big subscription drivers throughout the year. Sky always seems to push them a lot.
Also, I get the impression that boxing is on the rise, it's a big topic of discussion among my friends at least. I wonder if Sky will look to expand the sport so there are more than 5-6 decent fight nights a year.
Infrastructure and subscription management are now in place for HBO so the UK would be an add on not a stand alone opration. Just 2.2 million subscribers would deliver HBO in one year what they get from the SKY over 5 years, yes costs have to be taken into consideration but £200 million is an awful lot of money in the bank to play with.
I know this is a favourite of yours, but I honestly don't see much demand for a stand alone HBO, especially not 2m.
Their content is available via Sky in ad supported linear or ad free on demand.
Atlantic's monthly reach is around 5m so about 2m homes/subscribers. Do you expect many if those will pay more for a separate subscription and will they have the means to watch on their TV's?
Has HBO content brought millions of subscribers to Sky or has it just strengthened the proposition?
Also Atlantic's best viewing figures are not just HBO. In fact, apart from GOT (which is down to its last 14 or so episodes) and now Westworld, Sky's originals bring in more viewers.
I know this is a favourite of yours, but I honestly don't see much demand for a stand alone HBO, especially not 2m.
Their content is available via Sky in ad supported linear or ad free on demand.
Atlantic's monthly reach is around 5m so about 2m homes/subscribers. Do you expect many if those will pay more for a separate subscription and will they have the means to watch on their TV's?
Has HBO content brought millions of subscribers to Sky or has it just strengthened the proposition?
Also Atlantic's best viewing figures are not just HBO. In fact, apart from GOT (which is down to its last 14 or so episodes) and now Westworld, Sky's originals bring in more viewers.
If you read my post you will see that I don't state the HBO position in isolation to SKY, I look at the overall picture, the view from HBO CEO himself who when launching a stand alone service in the US, it's most important market stated that he likes the Netflix model and wants control over regional distribution. He said of cable that being tied to traditional cable means you are giving away 50% of your $15 subscription. I think the CEO's view is far more important than mine or should I just ignore him.
My reference to SKY is that 2.2 million subscribers to the HBO platform would deliver £1.375 billion compared to the £275 million but I also pointed out that the HBO model is different in the US from SKY Atlantic which here only concentrates on TV. They are part of Time Warner which has been subject to a bid by AT&T of which everyone expects will not be opposed by the regulators. HBO could add a catalogue of movies and sport. Netflix have built up over 6 million subscribers in the UK. Is it really a stretch to think HBO couldn't attract a 1/3rd of that? Even 1 million would deliver almost three times the revenue. In isolation it wouldn't work but now that infrastructure and subscription management is in place it could.
With regard to the reach of SKY again I point out that people are now far more inclined to look at alternatives to SKY and may in fact still favour SKY but through NOW TV and have Netflix, Amazon and SKY's Now TV for the entry price of SKY's basic bundle on satelllite/cable. One only has to look at what is happening in the US where the whole cable system is being fragmented with smaller and cheaper bundles bieng offered through Dish, Direct TV, Comcast variations.
My post also has to be taken in the context of the thread which is concerned with the importance of sporting rights. SKY have built up a huge base of subscribers over two decades with relatively light competition, With the arrival of Netflix, just as in the US PAY TV has become more fragmented. Studios to their cost ignored the threat of Netflix, they didn't understand the model, not only that they didn't understand how people wanted to view their entertainment. So sport has largely has driven SKY's subscription base without the need to care too much about entertainment, sport largely drove subscriptions and with it broadband too.
The battle between SKY and BT is a direct result of broadband share but SKY more so than BT have to fight on three fronts, entertainment, sport and broadband and is it out of the question that AT&T once the merger with Time Warner goes through not look to the UK not just for PAY TV but broadband too.
I get the impression that the major golf tournaments are big subscription drivers throughout the year. Sky always seems to push them a lot.
Also, I get the impression that boxing is on the rise, it's a big topic of discussion among my friends at least. I wonder if Sky will look to expand the sport so there are more than 5-6 decent fight nights a year.
Boxing is on the Box Nation channel - going free to BT Sports subscribers from January
Surely the likes of Netflix et al makes sports rights more important not less. Sport is about the only thing they can offer that online streaming services can't!
Yeah, that's the way I would have looked at it as well. The ONLY reason I have SKY is for the sport. Netflix plus the terrestrial channels have more than enough for me in the non-sport genres. I have never taken SKY movies in 20+ years with them and the thought of Border Control episodes from 2003 doesn't seem that enticing. So, if they don't keep acquiring sports' rights I don't see what they're future is. Possibly, they are just signalling to the sports' federations that the crazy-money days are over.
I think Sky is fast approaching a point where people just won't pay any more for sports, the next football deal could be very interesting as I doubt subscribers will stand for yet another price rise.
However I never thought the next PL rights would top £5bn, but it did.
When the PL can get maximum out of broadcasting rights, there will in turn be a sizable number of customers who would subscribe to BT/Sky.
In layman's terms, the broadcasters' biggest problem is demand has exceeded supply. You can talk about tactics, what the managers have said pre-match, combined XIs, transfer rumours, salaries, but a match is only 90 minutes long. And you can just watch that online, without the bloated coverage.
I think it'll come to a point where Saturday 3pm kick-offs will just be televised.
I think it'll come to a point where Saturday 3pm kick-offs will just be televised.
If the Premier League thinks domestic tv revenues are going to remain static, then there is a good chance this will happen, so they have more packages to sell.
As tv companies here legally can't show 3pm games on a Saturday, I wonder if the games would be shifted to 2pm on Sundays instead - which gives a big build up to the 4pm game of the week.
I get the impression that the major golf tournaments are big subscription drivers throughout the year. Sky always seems to push them a lot.
Also, I get the impression that boxing is on the rise, it's a big topic of discussion among my friends at least. I wonder if Sky will look to expand the sport so there are more than 5-6 decent fight nights a year.
The four or five "decent" events a year are now usually PPV which is a totally separate entity for Sky. It's worth noting that Sky apparently spend less on boxing than they do on the WWE contract.
“Sport is very important, obviously football is very important, but relatively, every day it is less important than it was and that allows us to make more choices about how much we spend, where we invest and where we choose not to,” Darroch said, according to the Bloomberg news agency................."
To my mind, this confirms again that, despite suggestions here, the possibility of every Premier League match being shown live on TV is remote, because Sky simply don't want to show that - it won't bring in any more subscribers and will just dilute what they already have. It also fits in with the kind of things they've said in other interviews - there's a small audience that would happily watch darts every night of the week, and they could show that, but they don't want to because it would be overkill.
I don't think so, it pulls in a decent audience, many of whom probably don't watch many other sports, and it's relatively cheap. I think what this means is that they'll prioritise exclusive quality content - which I think would include the Super League - but not buy stuff for the sake of buying it.
I think what did for Setanta in this country was the contract they signed for domestic rugby in 2009 - they simply bought it for the sake of it but none of it was absolutely out of the top drawer and Sky weren't that bothered to lose it. That's the kind of thing that Sky won't be doing, they want exclusive, first choice stuff but aren't bothered about the stuff that's "nice to have".
Sky saying they'll be 'more selective' is essentially them saying they spunked too much money on the PL and so have to let some rights go by the wayside because they can't afford to pay for it.
Nowt to do with being more selective to focus on entertainment. Anyone actually believing that might need help of some kind!
It's a delicate situation for both BT and SKY if both lost the EPL rights to a foreign buyer then there wouldn't be much change in the overall broadband market share.
That may sound OK for Sky as far as broadband is concerned but it would be disastrous for Sky's overall business.
Sky doesn't report profit by segment but from what they have disclosed the proportion of their operating profit which comes from broadband / phone is approx 15%. In contrast approx 85% comes from TV.
That's not to say that broadband / phone isn't important - it generates some profit and its bundling helps the TV business by tieing people in, creating inertia and thus reducing churn. And of course there are economies of scale etc.
But even so, broadband / phone is very much a secondary consideration for Sky.
With BT it's the other way around in the sense that phone / broadband was the original core business and they then (originally) added TV to reduce phone / broadband churn.
So - in the above sense - Sky's and BT's businesses are mirror images in terms of their consumer markets (BT also, separately, also operates in other markets).
However, I think, proportionately, TV is now more important to BT than phone / broadband is to Sky - because the Champions League has taken BT's TV business to another level with BT's TV platform growing subscribers by 60% over the last 2 years - a phenomenal rate of growth.
The other key point is that TV offers far greater potential for revenue generation. It's possible to charge people £50 / £60 / £70 for TV whereas it's never going to be possible to charge at that kind of level for phone / broadband. Thus the potential with phone / broadband is capped much lower than it is with TV.
Comments
I think there is going to be a massive shake up for sport primarily. Up to now in the UK, sport packages have been subsidised by the basic package options (as in you can't get sport without the other guff in the basic package too). As Netflix/Amazon change this landscape there is going to be less money available for the Sport broadcasters to spend on rights. One of two things will happen, cost for sport to the subscriber will go up to cover the costs, or the amount paid to buy the rights will plummet.
Personally I think the rights costs are going to have to fall & the sports broadcasters will have to support themselves entirely. They'll have to offer value for money as stand alone options to keep a lot of their subscribers. There will always be the fanatics and the rich who'll pay regardless, but the normal guy is already being priced out.
I'd also like to see regulators stepping in and disallowing the double/tripple/quad play bundles offered by the suppliers. It doesn't seem right that they can employ loss leading tactics to keep prices high for essentials like broadband to cover the cost of luxury things like sport. Those not wanting sport are still contributing to it with their broadband subscription. There should be a legal requirement for the services to be separate and self supporting.
Same goes for France, where they were at war with Canal+ Groupe for years until they did a wholesale exclusive deal with CANALSAT because they were losing money on a massive scale.
Also, beIN (As mentioned) have said the UK market isn't for them. With the money BT can throw around, Sky are already on the ropes, beIN would have to have billions at the ready to come in with no assurances they'd break even, nevermind make profit in 10 years say. That is commercial suicide in any world.
I also agree with a poster saying 50/50 split for the next PL rights between BT & Sky. I think it could be even 60/40 to BT because of Sky's decision to pay what they have for this cycle of PL rights and the fact it was a bridge too far and the fact its going to be a hard thing to get back up from for a while to come.
I see them making an offer for the UCL but only what they can pay, because remember if they make a stupid high offer just to f___ with BT only to find they won, they've got a 3 year rights cycle to pay for that they more than likely just cannot afford in any way, shape or form. And then what?
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/09/28/hbo-netherlands-pulls-plug-ziggo-gets-programmes/
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/11/02/ziggo-announces-new-hbo-product/
Last year Sky (UK) made an Operating Profit of £1,500m. We'll have to see what that figure is this year with the new PL contract but it will certainly be at least £1,000m and probably about £1,200m.
So, if they wanted to, they could spend another £1,200m on rights on top of what they spend now and still break-even (even if the additional spend generated literally no extra revenue at all). For context BT is spending "only" £299m per year on CL/EL. So Sky could very easily "afford" to bid that kind of amount.
But the point is that the above isn't really relevant - because it's not a question of not being able to afford it - the question is what is the most profitable course to take? The amount they will bid for PL or CL or any sports rights will depend on how much the rights are worth to them - ie how much revenue they can generate from them (or how much revenue they will lose if they lose existing rights).
BT can of course "afford" to outbid Sky in the sense that BT's profits as a whole are higher than Sky's - although BT's profits from its Consumer Division - ie the part of its business which is competing with Sky - (ie phone + broadband + TV) are lower than Sky's. But again this isn't relevant here either - because BT, like Sky, will bid for rights based upon how much they think the rights are worth to them.
Both of them are attempting to maximise profits - and that is what will drive bidding decisions for both companies. Neither is currently anywhere remotely near being unable to "afford" what they are paying for rights - in the sense of running out of cash.
Therefore I don't think the value would be that much to Sky.
On the other hand it does give hours of football of a top flight British League, and it does have the Old Firm derby.
I don't think the entertainment value of each individual game plays a part, but it might be said that the fact that it just seems a bit too easy for Celtic might play a part. I expect Rangers to eventually challenge for the title over the coming few years though.
£18.75m per year is the rumour of how much the SPFl deal per season is worth. Does anyone seriously think there is a way to get more money out of a deal?
As I pointed out in my earlier post that if HBO were making the decision to launch a stand alone service here or in Europe now, thy wouldn't. However projecting forward 3-5 years where major contracts are up for renewal there is a strong case for HBO launching a streaming service. You must remember that in the US they operate on both the cable platform and as a stand alone streaming service. You also have to take into consideration that the dal with AT&T is likely to be approved next year and who is to say AT&T don't want to extend their communications footprint further. THe other possibility that cannot be discounted is that SKY itself may be bought. Two things are very much in play, the low pound and the share price is £400 down making SKY a very attractive proposition. I wouldn't rule out ITV being in the sights of a major player either. You also have Disney on the horizon which may bid for Netflix.
Infrastructure and subscription management are now in place for HBO so the UK would be an add on not a stand alone opration. Just 2.2 million subscribers would deliver HBO in one year what they get from the SKY over 5 years, yes costs have to be taken into consideration but £200 million is an awful lot of money in the bank to play with.
As I pointed out if the decision were now then NO. However I'm not even sure that SKY itself won't be bought out never mind HBO being a stand alone service down the line.
The decision will depend on how other subscriptions and overall revenue are affected. BT entered sports bidding to address the loss of market share in their broadband to SKY. SKY bid high in the last round to protect their overall subscription base. It's a delicate situation for both BT and SKY if both lost the EPL rights to a foreign buyer then there wouldn't be much change in the overall broadband market share. If however SKY lost the rights to BT then there is every chance they would lose a lot of broadband subscribers with it. Then as I have posted earlier there is likely to be many changes in the US with AT&T taking control of Time Warner and Disney could well bid for Netflix.
Edit: Having watched the dross this Premiership weekend, is the value of rights really that high?
Also, I get the impression that boxing is on the rise, it's a big topic of discussion among my friends at least. I wonder if Sky will look to expand the sport so there are more than 5-6 decent fight nights a year.
I know this is a favourite of yours, but I honestly don't see much demand for a stand alone HBO, especially not 2m.
Their content is available via Sky in ad supported linear or ad free on demand.
Atlantic's monthly reach is around 5m so about 2m homes/subscribers. Do you expect many if those will pay more for a separate subscription and will they have the means to watch on their TV's?
Has HBO content brought millions of subscribers to Sky or has it just strengthened the proposition?
Also Atlantic's best viewing figures are not just HBO. In fact, apart from GOT (which is down to its last 14 or so episodes) and now Westworld, Sky's originals bring in more viewers.
If you read my post you will see that I don't state the HBO position in isolation to SKY, I look at the overall picture, the view from HBO CEO himself who when launching a stand alone service in the US, it's most important market stated that he likes the Netflix model and wants control over regional distribution. He said of cable that being tied to traditional cable means you are giving away 50% of your $15 subscription. I think the CEO's view is far more important than mine or should I just ignore him.
My reference to SKY is that 2.2 million subscribers to the HBO platform would deliver £1.375 billion compared to the £275 million but I also pointed out that the HBO model is different in the US from SKY Atlantic which here only concentrates on TV. They are part of Time Warner which has been subject to a bid by AT&T of which everyone expects will not be opposed by the regulators. HBO could add a catalogue of movies and sport. Netflix have built up over 6 million subscribers in the UK. Is it really a stretch to think HBO couldn't attract a 1/3rd of that? Even 1 million would deliver almost three times the revenue. In isolation it wouldn't work but now that infrastructure and subscription management is in place it could.
With regard to the reach of SKY again I point out that people are now far more inclined to look at alternatives to SKY and may in fact still favour SKY but through NOW TV and have Netflix, Amazon and SKY's Now TV for the entry price of SKY's basic bundle on satelllite/cable. One only has to look at what is happening in the US where the whole cable system is being fragmented with smaller and cheaper bundles bieng offered through Dish, Direct TV, Comcast variations.
My post also has to be taken in the context of the thread which is concerned with the importance of sporting rights. SKY have built up a huge base of subscribers over two decades with relatively light competition, With the arrival of Netflix, just as in the US PAY TV has become more fragmented. Studios to their cost ignored the threat of Netflix, they didn't understand the model, not only that they didn't understand how people wanted to view their entertainment. So sport has largely has driven SKY's subscription base without the need to care too much about entertainment, sport largely drove subscriptions and with it broadband too.
The battle between SKY and BT is a direct result of broadband share but SKY more so than BT have to fight on three fronts, entertainment, sport and broadband and is it out of the question that AT&T once the merger with Time Warner goes through not look to the UK not just for PAY TV but broadband too.
Boxing is on the Box Nation channel - going free to BT Sports subscribers from January
http://www.a516digital.com/2016/11/bt-fights-back-with-revamped-tv-service.html
Yeah, that's the way I would have looked at it as well. The ONLY reason I have SKY is for the sport. Netflix plus the terrestrial channels have more than enough for me in the non-sport genres. I have never taken SKY movies in 20+ years with them and the thought of Border Control episodes from 2003 doesn't seem that enticing. So, if they don't keep acquiring sports' rights I don't see what they're future is. Possibly, they are just signalling to the sports' federations that the crazy-money days are over.
When the PL can get maximum out of broadcasting rights, there will in turn be a sizable number of customers who would subscribe to BT/Sky.
In layman's terms, the broadcasters' biggest problem is demand has exceeded supply. You can talk about tactics, what the managers have said pre-match, combined XIs, transfer rumours, salaries, but a match is only 90 minutes long. And you can just watch that online, without the bloated coverage.
I think it'll come to a point where Saturday 3pm kick-offs will just be televised.
If the Premier League thinks domestic tv revenues are going to remain static, then there is a good chance this will happen, so they have more packages to sell.
As tv companies here legally can't show 3pm games on a Saturday, I wonder if the games would be shifted to 2pm on Sundays instead - which gives a big build up to the 4pm game of the week.
To my mind, this confirms again that, despite suggestions here, the possibility of every Premier League match being shown live on TV is remote, because Sky simply don't want to show that - it won't bring in any more subscribers and will just dilute what they already have. It also fits in with the kind of things they've said in other interviews - there's a small audience that would happily watch darts every night of the week, and they could show that, but they don't want to because it would be overkill.
I don't think so, it pulls in a decent audience, many of whom probably don't watch many other sports, and it's relatively cheap. I think what this means is that they'll prioritise exclusive quality content - which I think would include the Super League - but not buy stuff for the sake of buying it.
I think what did for Setanta in this country was the contract they signed for domestic rugby in 2009 - they simply bought it for the sake of it but none of it was absolutely out of the top drawer and Sky weren't that bothered to lose it. That's the kind of thing that Sky won't be doing, they want exclusive, first choice stuff but aren't bothered about the stuff that's "nice to have".
Ha! This!
That may sound OK for Sky as far as broadband is concerned but it would be disastrous for Sky's overall business.
Sky doesn't report profit by segment but from what they have disclosed the proportion of their operating profit which comes from broadband / phone is approx 15%. In contrast approx 85% comes from TV.
That's not to say that broadband / phone isn't important - it generates some profit and its bundling helps the TV business by tieing people in, creating inertia and thus reducing churn. And of course there are economies of scale etc.
But even so, broadband / phone is very much a secondary consideration for Sky.
With BT it's the other way around in the sense that phone / broadband was the original core business and they then (originally) added TV to reduce phone / broadband churn.
So - in the above sense - Sky's and BT's businesses are mirror images in terms of their consumer markets (BT also, separately, also operates in other markets).
However, I think, proportionately, TV is now more important to BT than phone / broadband is to Sky - because the Champions League has taken BT's TV business to another level with BT's TV platform growing subscribers by 60% over the last 2 years - a phenomenal rate of growth.
The other key point is that TV offers far greater potential for revenue generation. It's possible to charge people £50 / £60 / £70 for TV whereas it's never going to be possible to charge at that kind of level for phone / broadband. Thus the potential with phone / broadband is capped much lower than it is with TV.