So having said you don't disagree with it, you then spend the next paragraph disagreeing with it. While Sky will know how many of the connected boxes were tuned the the correct channel, that's all they know. The BARB figures will still be more accurate, even for niche sports on low-reach channels, because the sample method is better.

And it is the method that is key.
As any statistician will tell you, increasing the sample size beyond a certain point doesn't increase the accuracy of the data significantly, it just gives you more data.

BARB samples around 6,500 households. If it sampled 65,000 the data wouldn't be ten times more accurate, it would only be around three times more accurate.

If the data from the Sky boxes was sampled in as accurate a way as BARB data, then it would be fifty times more accurate (from a sample size more than 1,000 times greater).

But most of the data from Sky boxes is "bad data". It tells you nothing at all.


Actively trying to get netball fans on the panel would also be wholly unscientific. But statistically the panel would already include 15-20 households where someone plays netball regularly, because the panel is representative of the greater population.

I haven't seen any netball ratings, but I'd guess that BARB probably reports figures of 15-40,000 for a live game.

Bit in bold - I don't think so!

Just because there are two possible states doesn't make the probability of them 50% each.

(though this actually validates the rest of your point if Sky doesn't know if the TV is actually on or off - how can the data be identifying who is actually watching something)

My non-Sky receiver "controls" the TV via its HDMI lead so that it is not possible for one to be on/off without the other; my older boxes used to do similar via the scart.

I didn't realise Sky boxes were so far behind

There was speculation the PGA Championship - the final golf major - with the rights up on Sky... Nothing has been officially announced about a new deal but I see Sky have been running promos saying that in 2017 they will have all four majors...

Here is a naughty thought. BT played a blinder in getting SKY to massively overbid for the premier league. With the Champions league rights coming up early next year I wonder whether BT would almost consider losing them but by doing that make SKY makr another massive bid to regain them at a time when the network can probably ill afford it....Therefore making it much easier for BT to pick off other sports........

My own view is BT Sport will retain the rights with a caviat some games will be on terrestrial tv.......

to quote Kevin Keegan I would LOVE IT though if BT could push SKY someway towards financial meltdown

I'm not anti sky. I've loved their devotion to sport over the last 25 years. Its cost me but some of the sport I've seen would never have been possible in the 80's
I remember when trans world sport was the highlight of the week.

However I do think they have pushed things too far. This latest PL deal is ridiculous.

I have a number of issues with Sky but wanting them to go into financial meltdown would cost thousands of people their jobs, cost the economy alot of revenue Sky brings to via tax etc and reduce creative chances to writers, producers not to mention mean the loss of programming ranging from drama to sport and films.
So no, just no!

BT won't give up the UCL without a fight. Its a huge contract and one they worked hard for months on prep to acquire. They won't then roll over and give it up just to mess with Sky.
Sky paid what they did for the PL, they know they screwed up in doing that and are paying for it (in more ways than one) now and will be for a while yet.

The interesting thing will be if Sky struggle with keeping the rights they have when the premier league auction returns for the new rights in the next year or two.
Ian.

Its going to be a tight squeeze thats for sure. I do expect Sky will lose a few packs to BT simply because Sky can't afford to go like they have.

On other important factor is the drop in sterling where paying for US content will cost an extra 15-20% even before new contracts are negotiated.

Aren't BT pretty happy with their CL rights? And I doubt that Sky are that bothered about not having them given the money they spent on the PL rights and that they used to split them with ITV anyway.

It seems to me that we've reached a bit of an equilibrium with sports rights. As long as Sky keeps hold of PL, cricket, F1 and golf majors they're happy. Any ambitions to monopolize all popular sports must have ended by now. And as long as BT have enough rights to make their channel reasonably attractive they retain a bargaining chip that stops Sky from blackmailing them.

I think BT would be more than happy to keep what they got although it never works out that way, as for Sky i doubt they would even consider paying as far over the price as what they did a few years ago.

Maybe just try and keep a few decent packages but not like they have now....noway!!

They made a huge mistake and i still think were surprised when they ended up as many packages as what they did.

Off course at the next round with Sky perhaps being so vulnerable it could open the door to more outsiders bidding?

Yeah can see Sky going all out to keep the Sunday Afternoon and Monday / Friday night matches if nothing else it would be a blow for them if they were to lose them. Can actually see Eurosport putting a bid in for at least one of the packages.

As for Cricket can see BT and one of the terrestrial channels joining up with a serious bid against sky. BT for the test series and the terrestrial for the shorter 20/20 games. If the big bash league coverage does well can see it been channel 5.

Great if Eurosport did win a package because it is available on both BT and Sky platforms

SKY want EVERYTHING their own way in the communications market. and yes wishing financial meltdown was probably a bit over the top in my comment but I am so glad the "new kid on the block" is giving SKY a bloody nose.....

I think this season has shown that BT having that Sat 5.30pm slot has given Sky some scheduling headaches in terms of weekends prior to European midweeks. I'm not sure in the grand scheme of things that they'd have wanted to have so many marquee games in the 12.30 Sat slot, but they've had no option at times. So, whilst the Sunday 4pm slot brings with it the all important first picks (and with it the option to fiddle around with games and timeslots) it has lost a little of its appeal this season, and on alot of weekends the big games have been done and dusted before Sunday has rolled around.

The Big Bash partnership between BT and Five could be interesting if it leads to a more formal partnership over bigger rights. I would hope that Five becomes the terrestrial highlights provider for next Winters Ashes, to tie in with it being the home of Home Test highlights.

And, as others have noted, if BT felt under pressure to have a more accessible platform in which to show certain CL games, including the Final, then Five could be that platform. It would be huge for Five, it would get rid of any issues UEFA may have as regards FTA coverage in the UK, and would give us a possible alternative route back to the old Sky/ITV model which seemed to work pretty well.

OK but would Five be prepared to pay £5m a game for live Champions League? I guess this is the minimum to even be in the ballpark when it comes to bidding.

Apart from showing a few England qualifiers years ago, Five have no history in paying any sort of big money for sports rights.

IMO Sky still consider PL rights to be an essential part of their wider business strategy. Not having all the packages isn't that much of an issue for them as they've been able to blend decent Championship fixtures into the mix but losing all Saturday football would be a blow. The 12:30 games work as a good feed into Soccer Saturday. More important though is that they retain as many of the important fixtures as possible.

I've been proved wrong about things before but i'm absolutely certain that no broadcast only company is going to pick off PL rights at the current prices. It wouldn't make business sense for anyone that isn't also selling pay tv/broadband/phone packages.

With at least an extra 22 games per season added to the next set of rights, I fully expect to see SKY at least maintain the number of games have now with BT picking up most of the the extra 22 matches which would give them 2 games most weekends.

I doubt Sky will really want many extra games, perhaps just a couple so they can say they have "more games than ever" etc..... I expect the big battle will over the packages with the best picks.

I have to agree with this. I think BT are more focussed in having some Premier League 'first picks' as opposed to the Sky strategy of going for the lions share. BT got a better time slot for nowhere near the increase in costs that Sky paid and I believe they're actually quite happy to remain the 'secondary' partner. I think if they were remotely interested in blowing Sky out of the water they would have done it in the last tender.

Regarding the outsider possibility... it's only natural that people will look to Eurosport and beIN Sports but I think the status quo will be maintained. I don't think Sky will actually want any more games because more games = more of a diluted product because the additional games will feature lower teams.

Following on from this debate - I would take it from the other point of view for a minute. Whilst with hindsight it is easy to say Sky spent too much but no one know how much other bidders bid. I believe most packs went to a 2nd round so may have been closer than anyone thought. (Others may have more detail on this to confirm/dispute).

However with Sky spending £1.4bn per year on the PL, combined with how much it would take to dislodge Sky from the rights next time, would Sky not be in prime position to keep their rights for 2019-2022. This as any competitor would have to go to £1.6bn per year minimum to take the rights off Sky (depending on how much of a gap the PL insist on in the bidding). Who can realistically come up with those figues and somehow make a profit.

So if Sky then keep the rights they have now (ignoring for a minute the changes to 190 games we know about) for roughly the same amount (i.e without inflation), it could then be argued that Sky took a short term hit for long term gain.
Last edited by kincorth01 : 05-12-2016 at 19:10

The bidding may not go as high as last time

I think the next time tckecricket rights come up will be interesting though. If sky lose even the big cricket rights while BT keep the UEFA contract then I expect sky will go aggressive on Keeping as much of the Premier league as possible. Part of the problem is sky had a monopoly on sport rights for so long seeing off both ITV digital and Setanta that BT been strong has shocked them and I am not sure they know what to do about it.

With technology improving all the time I don't think Netflix and amazon can be rbidding on future premier league rights possibly in partnership with an overseas broadcaster after all no one will have predicted BT bidding before 2012

The problem Netflix etc would have is that they would have to up their prices a lot. Sky and BT subsidise sport from their other income streams. Non-sport TV subscribers, landline, broadband, mobile. Netflix would have to charge a fortune to turn a profit.