• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BT Sports Channel (Part 2)
<<
<
92 of 345
>>
>
batdude_uk1
16-10-2013
I was trying to get BT Sport on a second box, but apparently that is not allowed, it is only one box per household I was told over the phone, (we are with Sky, and wanted it via that method), which is incredibly annoying.
centuryporter
16-10-2013
Just checked my BT bill and found out I've been charged for BT sports channel that were supposedly free to by broadband users.... I'm not impressed...
ShaunW
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“I was a dual Sky Sports and ESPN subscriber for many years, but when BT came along I didn't sign up. I know a number of people who were the same.

I was simply put off by the activation fee and lack of multi room. If they were to get those things changed, I would seriously consider changing my mind.”

Ditto, BT seem to have alienated a lot of customers, maybe they should poach some Sky business executives who seem to be doing quite well out of the new arrangement.

Under the new deal, in which BSkyB paid an additional £220m during the three month period, Sky Sports has seen viewing figures for the first 23 live games rise by 20% compared to the equivalent number of fixtures last season.

Mr Darroch said: "We have made a very good start to the year... (and) were particularly pleased with the continued strong performance in home communications.

"Quarterly growth in broadband was up on last year taking us past the five million customer milestone.

"In all, 36% of customers now choose to take all three of TV, broadband and telephony from Sky, over half a million more than last year.


http://news.sky.com/story/1155641/bs...rns-on-economy
derek500
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by ShaunW:
“
[i]Under the new deal, in which BSkyB paid an additional £220m during the three month period, Sky Sports has seen viewing figures for the first 23 live games rise by 20% compared to the equivalent number of fixtures last season.”

Losing the less popular Saturday lunchtime slot to BT and gaining ESPN's evening one has paid dividends.

Quote:
“Sky said that TV viewing of the first 23 live Premier League games were up 20% year on year, which excludes viewing on mobile devices.

"The rise has come from across the board," said the BSkyB chief executive, Jeremy Darroch. "Core viewing to our live channels is [85%] up with the switch from Saturday lunch to Saturday evening matches [under the new TV rights deal] which has been a big part of the schedule."”

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...premier-league
mlt11
17-10-2013
We've been told many times that the main reason for the BT Sports Channel is to boost BT's broadband business.

Well in Q3 (ie the 3 months to 30 September 2013) the number of Sky broadband customers actually rose by 111,000 - slightly faster than Q3 2012 when the number of Sky broadband customers rose by 102,000.

So there is no evidence of the BT Sports Channel inducing any movement at all of customers from Sky broadband to BT broadband.

Of course we'll have to wait for BT's own results to see the numbers for BT broadband. BT broadband could have grown more strongly than before by taking more customers from other broadband providers. Plus, of course, the BT Sports Channel will be inducing broadband upgrades to fibre.

But if the expectation was that the BT Sports Channel would induce switching from Sky broadband to BT broadband there has not been any such impact.

Link - page 7:

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/p...ss_release.pdf
fodg09
17-10-2013
On the broadband front, it's worth noting that Darroch said in the conference call that he thought considering the amount of noise around broadband in the quarter that the overall broadband market probably grew and that he therefore expected BT and Talk Talk to post good broadband numbers. Also seemed to imply Sky's broadband adds figure of 111,000 included subscribers to the newly launched broadband offering in Ireland (which it did not for the equivalent quarter last year).

Overall though he said they were expecting a tough quarter considering the BT launch but that as it turned out they were very happy with it.
mlt11
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by fodg09:
“On the broadband front, it's worth noting that Darroch said in the conference call that he thought considering the amount of noise around broadband in the quarter that the overall broadband market probably grew and that he therefore expected BT and Talk Talk to post good broadband numbers. Also seemed to imply Sky's broadband adds figure of 111,000 included subscribers to the newly launched broadband offering in Ireland (which it did not for the equivalent quarter last year).

Overall though he said they were expecting a tough quarter considering the BT launch but that as it turned out they were very happy with it.”

OK, thanks - haven't listened to the call yet!
mogzyboy
17-10-2013
When are BT's results due out?
whedon247
17-10-2013
im a sky BB customer but i hope BT do well because i love BT sports and dont want it to go anywhere.
mlt11
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by mogzyboy:
“When are BT's results due out?”

31st October (results for the quarter to 30 Sept).
channelsurfer
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by fodg09:
“. Also seemed to imply Sky's broadband adds figure of 111,000 included subscribers to the newly launched broadband offering in Ireland (which it did not for the equivalent quarter last year).

Ove.”

yes they are heavily promoting broadband here and it wasnt available this time last year. I would say that there was a good few irish subscribers taking it since launch.
gomezz
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Well in Q3 (ie the 3 months to 30 September 2013) the number of Sky broadband customers actually rose by 111,000 - slightly faster than Q3 2012 when the number of Sky broadband customers rose by 102,000.”

Does that include the O2 customer base ... or what was left of it after so many bailed?
mlt11
17-10-2013
Originally Posted by gomezz:
“Does that include the O2 customer base ... or what was left of it after so many bailed?”

The acquisition of the O2 customer base was accounted for in Q2.

So none of the 111,000 net growth in Q3 relates to the acquisition of O2 customers.
Judio
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“But if the expectation was that the BT Sports Channel would induce switching from Sky broadband to BT broadband there has not been any such impact.”

But did Sky not have an offer of free broadband for TV subscribers which could have influenced these numbers
1andrew1
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“OK, thanks - haven't listened to the call yet!”

Interesting article here from the FT Lex column. Points out that Sky's revenues are rising but its profits decreasing, due to increased costs in content and marketing. Its average revenue per customer per annum has also decreased by £10. In essence, seems to suggest that Sky is still a strong performer but that its profitability may have peaked. Looking into the future, if BT spends heavily on marketing it will be forced to raise its investment here too and the costs of the Champions League will certainly rise; they have not done so since 2008.
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/arti...-or-treat.html
samburrows
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by Judio:
“But did Sky not have an offer of free broadband for TV subscribers which could have influenced these numbers”

Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Interesting article here from the FT Lex column. Points out that Sky's revenues are rising but its profits decreasing, due to increased costs in content and marketing. Its average revenue per customer per annum has also decreased by £10. In essence, seems to suggest that Sky is still a strong performer but that its profitability may have peaked. Looking into the future, if BT spends heavily on marketing it will be forced to raise its investment here too and the costs of the Champions League will certainly rise; they have not done so since 2008.
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/arti...-or-treat.html”

I think you're both highlighting an incredibly important point. I - and many others I know - are currently enjoying 12 months free broadband from Sky for resigning up with Sky Sports in August. I'm sure it's had the desired effect in holding broadband churn back, but at what financial cost? A loss of £10 ARPU is significant, and would look like a direct cost correlation to increasingly generous retention deals. How long can they keep this up for? Is their strategy to try and ride out the next couple of years and hope that the BT Board blinks first?
mlt11
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Interesting article here from the FT Lex column. Points out that Sky's revenues are rising but its profits decreasing, due to increased costs in content and marketing. Its average revenue per customer per annum has also decreased by £10. In essence, seems to suggest that Sky is still a strong performer but that its profitability may have peaked. Looking into the future, if BT spends heavily on marketing it will be forced to raise its investment here too and the costs of the Champions League will certainly rise; they have not done so since 2008.
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/arti...-or-treat.html”

Originally Posted by samburrows:
“I think you're both highlighting an incredibly important point. I - and many others I know - are currently enjoying 12 months free broadband from Sky for resigning up with Sky Sports in August. I'm sure it's had the desired effect in holding broadband churn back, but at what financial cost? A loss of £10 ARPU is significant, and would look like a direct cost correlation to increasingly generous retention deals. How long can they keep this up for? Is their strategy to try and ride out the next couple of years and hope that the BT Board blinks first?”

The £10 reduction in ARPU is entirely because of the effect of the O2 broadband customers acquired in the previous quarter - most of whom don't have TV.

Bringing in a significant chunk of people who don't have TV means overall average ARPU is bound to fall - because broadband ARPU is massively lower than TV ARPU.

Without the effect of the O2 broadband customers, ARPU would be precisely unchanged at £569 (after allowing for ESPN cessation).

See table on page 8 of link below.

Revenues in the quarter are actually strong - up 7%. Adjusted operating profit is down because of:

1) The new PL contract

2) Extra investment of £70m this year in connected TVs - ie the small boxes to connect TVs to the internet - 642,000 connected in the quarter

Sky would argue that:

1) Only happens every 3 years - ie next year and the year after PL costs are flat

2) Is a one-off additional cost this year

..... and therefore that as long as revenues keep growing that profits will also grow again next year and the year after.

However I do think these numbers beg a big question about the CL auction - ie does Sky really want to spend what would be required to win 100% of CL rights (as discussed on the other thread) - ie that would mean another massive cost rise in 2015/16 before the likelihood of another PL cost rise in 2016/17.

ie They've only got one year of guaranteed flat content costs (ie 2014/15) - they must be expecting a significant CL cost rise in 2015/16 even if they just retain existing rights - though increase not remotely on PL scale.

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/p...ss_release.pdf
derek500
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“However I do think these numbers beg a big question about the CL auction - ie does Sky really want to spend what would be required to win 100% of CL rights (as discussed on the other thread) - ie that would mean another massive cost rise in 2015/16 before the likelihood of another PL cost rise in 2016/17.

ie They've only got one year of guaranteed flat content costs (ie 2014/15) - they must be expecting a significant CL cost rise in 2015/16 even if they just retain existing rights - though increase not remotely on PL scale.”

Could losing the CL to say BT/ITV be a blessing in disguise for Sky? Especially if BT pay a fortune and don't get a substantial uplift in subscribers.

Or would it be a total disaster?
mogzyboy
18-10-2013
It certainly wouldn't make me consider cancelling my SS sub, that's for sure.
mlt11
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Could losing the CL to say BT/ITV be a blessing in disguise for Sky? Especially if BT pay a fortune and don't get a substantial uplift in subscribers.

Or would it be a total disaster?”

The CL is Sky's 2nd most important rights contract so its loss would have to be considered a very major setback.

But it wouldn't be a total disaster - Sky's other rights are strong and extensive enough that in practice very few would actually cancel.

However I think the most important thing would be the knock-on consequences - it would give BT a massive boost and it would significantly ramp up the pressure on Sky as far as the next PL auction is concerned.

ie whilst Sky retains CL, they can afford to lose some PL games without much adverse effect - but lose CL and then lose some PL as well and the whole market dynamics could change.

But everything has a price - if BT puts in a blockbuster bid and takes CL off Sky then in turn it raises the question how much would BT then be willing to put into the PL.

Also bear in mind the next CL rights contract won't actually start until after the next PL auction takes place.
casinoman13
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“The CL is Sky's 2nd most important rights contract so its loss would have to be considered a very major setback.

But it wouldn't be a total disaster - Sky's other rights are strong and extensive enough that in practice very few would actually cancel.

However I think the most important thing would be the knock-on consequences - it would give BT a massive boost and it would significantly ramp up the pressure on Sky as far as the next PL auction is concerned.

ie whilst Sky retains CL, they can afford to lose some PL games without much adverse effect - but lose CL and then lose some PL as well and the whole market dynamics could change.

But everything has a price - if BT puts in a blockbuster bid and takes CL off Sky then in turn it raises the question how much would BT then be willing to put into the PL.

Also bear in mind the next CL rights contract won't actually start until after the next PL auction takes place.”

That I think is such an important point.

Surely BT would want to increase their 38 games not keep the same or maybe even lose them?

Would BT not getting any rights really be such a bad thing for BT knowing that if Sky retained the rights they would be at a much higher cost which then could have a adverse effect on them for the next round of PL rights?

I think BT would be more than happy to get Europa Cup rights for which they could easily blow ITV out of the water knowing full well they will be offering more for their rights to retain?

Ive said this before but there is no way they would end up with the extremely poor rights ESPN had to have with ITV, infact at very worse they could end with an even split or at least first picks.
RobSmithS
18-10-2013
Quickly put, I'm thinking the next PL auction would be construed so as both broadcasters save face.

(i.e last auction amount of games were increased so result was Sky had one more, BT 38 (so looking more bolstered than ESPN's 23 for their last couple of years).
The Wanderer
18-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“That I think is such an important point.

Surely BT would want to increase their 38 games not keep the same or maybe even lose them?

Would BT not getting any rights really be such a bad thing for BT knowing that if Sky retained the rights they would be at a much higher cost which then could have a adverse effect on them for the next round of PL rights?

I think BT would be more than happy to get Europa Cup rights for which they could easily blow ITV out of the water knowing full well they will be offering more for their rights to retain?

Ive said this before but there is no way they would end up with the extremely poor rights ESPN had to have with ITV, infact at very worse they could end with an even split or at least first picks.”

Considering BT seemed to bid for a lot more than they actually won for the 2013-16 period, I think they would want to increase their current amount.

As for Europa League, I expect them to get more than they have at the moment but still think ITV will keep first pick matches, but whether or that's exclusive I don't know. All guess work though
gemma-the-husky
19-10-2013
Ive moved to BT. Not too bothered about the football although i enjoyed todays game.

The MLB and CFB is great, and the WSOP is on as well at odd times. ESPN channel mostly.
Hup_73
20-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“But everything has a price - if BT puts in a blockbuster bid and takes CL off Sky then in turn it raises the question how much would BT then be willing to put into the PL.
.”

I think this is the key point - although it doesn't seem this way, neither company has a bottomless pit of money. CL rights will be sold for a much higher amount of money than previously and the company that loses out might have more money available as other big rights come available.

Consequently if BT gets premium CL rights I think they'll look to maintain their PL rights, but if they don't get CL then I can see them going big on PL (because they'll have more budget to allow them to do that).
<<
<
92 of 345
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map