The increase in broadband speeds has made a big difference in recent years. Whereas previously unless you had fibre, you needed a dish and set top box to watch extra channels, now with most people having decent broadband, it can all be streamed from the internet and watched using a Smart TV, Chromecast etc
Yeah this is about reaching more people so they can keep pushing up their subscriber base (which is what matters to their shareholders). It might be the start of a dish-free business model, but I think it still means having a set-top-box (STB) under the TV.
NowTV is Sky's version of Netflix and Amazon. They see the STB business as 'premium', hence why the price points are so much higher. And the next generation of viewers don't understand that when they can be entertained for free on FB, YT and on cheap subscriptions like Amazon and Netflix. NowTV is still more expensive than both of those I think.
I’ve been banging on about this for a while, it’s something I really want to see happen but I fear the UK rights are going to be prohibitively expensive for the international companies. It means the world to Sky to have these rights, but are they really worth 6bn to Facebook?
Probably not - but if FB take one package, and Amazon take another, that’ll be a huge dent in Sky’s hugely important blanket coverage. They require the majority of games to get people to spend so much. They’re on 5 packages now, if they go down to 3 I think they’re in deep, deep trouble. Especially as FB will almost certainly run the games on an advertising model and not charge a subscription. They’re struggling to get to the under 30 demographic and this really won’t help.
Easy to see why Murdoch was happy to dump Sky on Disney.
No. I've never given Sky a penny. I'd always much rather watch live, I'll put up with something on free-to-air TV if I have to, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay for a second-rate experience.
The increase in broadband speeds has made a big difference in recent years. Whereas previously unless you had fibre, you needed a dish and set top box to watch extra channels, now with most people having decent broadband, it can all be streamed from the internet and watched using a Smart TV, Chromecast etc
Aren’t Sky also going the streaming route soon?
Hope not, sky go is absolutely awful
I find SKY Go quite good in terms of picture and usually watch it at home (As use my parents account from when I used to live there) - Whats rubbish is the fact your forced to use Internet Explorer now when Chrome (my preferred browser) FireFox used to be compatible yet both got removed for some reason!!
Facebook own oculus, which is what started the whole Virtual reality drive. I really think VR will come into its own with live sports and entertainment events. It completely makes sense Facebook bidding for the rights, there’s a real growing market in the states for premier league football too.
Tv eventually is going to completely move online, which is why net neutrality is so important moving forward so that providers can’t basically become package tv providers like sky and bt where you pay your internet provider to access certain websites.
Amazon, Netflix etc are swimming in cash. They could blow SKY out of sight with any bid if they wanted to. That's why SKY are selling up to Disney - getting out whilst they can.
I’ve been banging on about this for a while, it’s something I really want to see happen but I fear the UK rights are going to be prohibitively expensive for the international companies. It means the world to Sky to have these rights, but are they really worth 6bn to Facebook?
Probably not - but if FB take one package, and Amazon take another, that’ll be a huge dent in Sky’s hugely important blanket coverage. They require the majority of games to get people to spend so much. They’re on 5 packages now, if they go down to 3 I think they’re in deep, deep trouble. Especially as FB will almost certainly run the games on an advertising model and not charge a subscription. They’re struggling to get to the under 30 demographic and this really won’t help.
Easy to see why Murdoch was happy to dump Sky on Disney.
I couldn't understand why Murdoch wanted to get full control of Sky at a time where their model was under so much threat. I was wondering... what does he know that we don't?
Disney want to take on Netflix with their own service. I'm dying to know what they intend to do with Sky to make that happen!
I would love it if Sky decided not to bid for the football and the Premier League ended up with a few hundred million over four years rather than £4-5bn
I don't know, but I care, because shutting the door and sitting down to watch football on tv with a point of beer and huge pack of crisps is one of life's greatest pleasures. Paying Sky for the privilege was worth it when they had a monopoly, but in the last few years they have charged more and provided less. I'm sure monopolies are supposed to be bad for the consumer, but all competition has done is push up prices and reduce quality and now it's going to get worse.
Depends on how you look at it. There are more games on now than when Sky had a monopoly, so technically they are not providing (much) less, although the price is still stupidly high.
I didn't realise that. However, they did lose the Champions League, which was annoying, especially as it coincided with yet another price rise.
There is also the piracy streaming to take into account. The more the whole package becomes the more tempting it will be for people to stream for free, or via a subscription to a piracy service.
Sky and BT must be spending a small fortune fighting Piracy and I don’t think they will win.
There might be more and more games televised now, but how many people really want to watch them? Stoke vs Palace, WBA vs Burnley, Southampton vs Swansea, Huddersfield vs Newcastle etc
Amazon, Netflix etc are swimming in cash. They could blow SKY out of sight with any bid if they wanted to. That's why SKY are selling up to Disney - getting out whilst they can.
I though that Netflix were actually swimming in debt. I heard USD 20 billion at least, as they are funding expansion and content through borrowing.
There might be more and more games televised now, but how many people really want to watch them? Stoke vs Palace, WBA vs Burnley, Southampton vs Swansea, Huddersfield vs Newcastle etc
That’s the problem and the reason as to why they have so many packages, each with some worth watching games and a load of rubbish.
Amazon, Netflix etc are swimming in cash. They could blow SKY out of sight with any bid if they wanted to. That's why SKY are selling up to Disney - getting out whilst they can.
I though that Netflix were actually swimming in debt. I heard USD 20 billion at least, as they are funding expansion and content through borrowing.
You could be right re debt but if banks and investors are throwing money at Netflix who gobble it up, it's the same thing.
The Premier League may have to box a bit clever with the next bidding round. Spreading the various packages around too thinly to get the maximum cash may backfire. They may have to accept lower bids to keep the packages down to 2 broadcasters as if it's spread around 3 or 4, I think more people with stop buying.
Sky have been sweating the asset way too long in my view price and content wise. The movie subscription isn't worth it making it now no better than amazon and Netflix. If you aren't bothered about watching live premier league, then it's only really a few American tv shows which one assumes could be got elsewhere. I am sorely tempted to get a couple of PVR digital satellite boxes and blow them off. Just need to find game of thrones and walking dead somehow
I would love it if Sky decided not to bid for the football and the Premier League ended up with a few hundred million over four years rather than £4-5bn
Well they basically let BT Sport have the Champions League didnt they for a stupid inflated price - Of course SKY got nothing in return yet they've not really lost out
(Of course the Premier League is a different matter and is their main selling point)
There’s streaming services elsewhere that are quite successful. I worked with a German company last year that were intent on being the “Netflix of sports” and got loads of rights to broadcast in Germany. Seems to be how things are going.
There might be more and more games televised now, but how many people really want to watch them? Stoke vs Palace, WBA vs Burnley, Southampton vs Swansea, Huddersfield vs Newcastle etc
That’s the problem and the reason as to why they have so many packages, each with some worth watching games and a load of rubbish.
Once a year, when we're watching Charlton on TV, the tension is intense. We're only a moment away from heartbreak or ecstasy. And that's how it is for anyone watching their own clubs on TV. And the broadcasters know that. They play on it. But they also know that 75% of the audience is neutral.
It's essential for the broadcasters to have the entire PL involved, not just the most-supported teams, and it's also key to stopping the clubs from selling their own games. The clubs know that too - they make more money out of broadcasters than they would from their own (TV) ticket sales.
So how do you keep people interested in Stoke v West Brom when the support base is less than 100k?
Fantasy Football and betting. It's bare faced too: "It matters more if there's money on it."
By finding ways to keep us interested, by literally giving us a stake in the outcome, we are much more inclined to keep watching, and to keep paying. It's an eco-system Murdoch and co. have built and it runs perfectly.
At the heart of it is the match. Then you have the peripheral gambling models which have somehow circumvented the gambling rules on advertising, then you have the media all selling it (The Times and The Sun primarily, with the smaller papers trying to copy them because that's what people seem to want) and it's all designed to keep people talking about it.
They even have a rolling advert channel that most men my age default to! It's genius really, because hardly anybody has noticed that one company is relentlessly selling you the same product.
That will change, and I wonder if the PL are wary of that. Can Amazon create as much hype as the Murdoch machine?
Hell, Sky's last rebrand was basically the same as the recent Premier League rebrand (the PL dumped sponsors in order to sell themselves, note how the colour schemes and fonts are the same across Sky, the Fantasy app/ website, FIFA 18 etc).
I think the PL want Sky to win for that reason. And I think they'd rather get into bed with the streamers on the worldwide rights instead.
There might be more and more games televised now, but how many people really want to watch them? Stoke vs Palace, WBA vs Burnley, Southampton vs Swansea, Huddersfield vs Newcastle etc
That’s the problem and the reason as to why they have so many packages, each with some worth watching games and a load of rubbish.
Once a year, when we're watching Charlton on TV, the tension is intense. We're only a moment away from heartbreak or ecstasy. And that's how it is for anyone watching their own clubs on TV. And the broadcasters know that. They play on it. But they also know that 75% of the audience is neutral.
It's essential for the broadcasters to have the entire PL involved, not just the most-supported teams, and it's also key to stopping the clubs from selling their own games. The clubs know that too - they make more money out of broadcasters than they would from their own (TV) ticket sales.
So how do you keep people interested in Stoke v West Brom when the support base is less than 100k?
Fantasy Football and betting. It's bare faced too: "It matters more if there's money on it."
By finding ways to keep us interested, by literally giving us a stake in the outcome, we are much more inclined to keep watching, and to keep paying. It's an eco-system Murdoch and co. have built and it runs perfectly.
At the heart of it is the match. Then you have the peripheral gambling models which have somehow circumvented the gambling rules on advertising, then you have the media all selling it (The Times and The Sun primarily, with the smaller papers trying to copy them because that's what people seem to want) and it's all designed to keep people talking about it.
They even have a rolling advert channel that most men my age default to! It's genius really, because hardly anybody has noticed that one company is relentlessly selling you the same product.
That will change, and I wonder if the PL are wary of that. Can Amazon create as much hype as the Murdoch machine?
Hell, Sky's last rebrand was basically the same as the recent Premier League rebrand (the PL dumped sponsors in order to sell themselves, note how the colour schemes and fonts are the same across Sky, the Fantasy app/ website, FIFA 18 etc).
I think the PL want Sky to win for that reason. And I think they'd rather get into bed with the streamers on the worldwide rights instead.
Nice write-up. Someone clearly knows their onions...
I could not care less and I don't have Sky meaning the only Premier League football I watch is MOTD hi-lights.
It still does not stop me coming into a thread like this though and seeing what is being discussed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but... if you care enough to open the thread and read the discussion, it implies you probably could care quite a lot less! I mean, I have never opened a cricket thread...
No. I've never given Sky a penny. I'd always much rather watch live, I'll put up with something on free-to-air TV if I have to, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay for a second-rate experience.
That's exactly my point. We argue about the money in football and how the working mans game is being destroyed, yet argue the toss about who has the rights. I too have never been (knowingly) part of the Murdoch regime, and hopefully never will. The sooner people give SKY/BT Sports the elbow, the better
So if Facebook win the rights to one or more of the packages does that mean we can only watch the game on the Facebook page ? I hope not.
Me too.......I assume one would have to sign up to Facebook.......something I have successfully refrained from doing for many a year?
Get a short term email address (https://temp-mail.org/) and create an account in the name SoundAs. That's probably all you'd have to do. No friend requests, no image uploads.
I honestly don’t understand any of this.....blissful in my ignorance!
I’m stuck on a train so here’s a brief explanation:
Every few years the Premier League sell the rights to football on tv in the UK (2019-2022 is now up for sale).
There are seven packages of games: Package 1 = Man U v Man City, Man U v Arsenal and so on. Package 7 = Palace v Stoke, Palace v West Brom, Palace v anyone really
Currently, BT own package 2 and package 6, so they get some pretty good games (Man City v Spurs) and some Stoke games. It cost them a billion quid or something.
Sky spent £3-4bn on the other five packages. They’re no longer allowed to own all the games like they used to (back then it was five packages until the competition commission intervened).
In January, anyone who wants to show the football can bid for any of those packages. For the first time, Sky are facing competition from far richer companies and the possibility of the packages being shared among more than two providers. And this screw their business model massively, because they CANNOT lower their prices, and need to show growth.
As @ForeverAddickted says, this means you will need multiple subscriptions if you want all games and it could get expensive or tricky
BUT... this is the way TV is going (we are old school with our viewing habits). And it also means that the days of paying £100+ to one company may come to an end. You could pay Netflix, Amazon and BT around £10 quid a month each and get 50% of games. That would be a fraction of the cost of Sky's complete set approach. Especially if Facebook get involved and show games for free on their platform.
Much obliged Jimmy........that made interesting reading. Life moves on at such a rapid pace for us old ‘uns, it seems that no sooner do you sign up to some deal or another than some new offer comes along from a rival company! I just can’t keep up with it all and now have no idea whether or not I have a good deal with Sky.........I wouldn’t mind betting I don’t. It’s going the same way as utility companies......there’s that many, that confusion reigns, to the point that most people have little or no idea if they are getting the best deal or not. I readily admit I don’t and I bet many of you out there can’t hold hand on heart and say you do.
Comments
NowTV is Sky's version of Netflix and Amazon. They see the STB business as 'premium', hence why the price points are so much higher. And the next generation of viewers don't understand that when they can be entertained for free on FB, YT and on cheap subscriptions like Amazon and Netflix. NowTV is still more expensive than both of those I think.
No. I've never given Sky a penny. I'd always much rather watch live, I'll put up with something on free-to-air TV if I have to, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay for a second-rate experience.
Tv eventually is going to completely move online, which is why net neutrality is so important moving forward so that providers can’t basically become package tv providers like sky and bt where you pay your internet provider to access certain websites.
Disney want to take on Netflix with their own service. I'm dying to know what they intend to do with Sky to make that happen!
Sky and BT must be spending a small fortune fighting Piracy and I don’t think they will win.
The Premier League may have to box a bit clever with the next bidding round. Spreading the various packages around too thinly to get the maximum cash may backfire. They may have to accept lower bids to keep the packages down to 2 broadcasters as if it's spread around 3 or 4, I think more people with stop buying.
(Of course the Premier League is a different matter and is their main selling point)
It's essential for the broadcasters to have the entire PL involved, not just the most-supported teams, and it's also key to stopping the clubs from selling their own games. The clubs know that too - they make more money out of broadcasters than they would from their own (TV) ticket sales.
So how do you keep people interested in Stoke v West Brom when the support base is less than 100k?
Fantasy Football and betting. It's bare faced too: "It matters more if there's money on it."
By finding ways to keep us interested, by literally giving us a stake in the outcome, we are much more inclined to keep watching, and to keep paying. It's an eco-system Murdoch and co. have built and it runs perfectly.
At the heart of it is the match. Then you have the peripheral gambling models which have somehow circumvented the gambling rules on advertising, then you have the media all selling it (The Times and The Sun primarily, with the smaller papers trying to copy them because that's what people seem to want) and it's all designed to keep people talking about it.
They even have a rolling advert channel that most men my age default to! It's genius really, because hardly anybody has noticed that one company is relentlessly selling you the same product.
That will change, and I wonder if the PL are wary of that. Can Amazon create as much hype as the Murdoch machine?
Hell, Sky's last rebrand was basically the same as the recent Premier League rebrand (the PL dumped sponsors in order to sell themselves, note how the colour schemes and fonts are the same across Sky, the Fantasy app/ website, FIFA 18 etc).
I think the PL want Sky to win for that reason. And I think they'd rather get into bed with the streamers on the worldwide rights instead.
It still does not stop me coming into a thread like this though and seeing what is being discussed.
We argue about the money in football and how the working mans game is being destroyed, yet argue the toss about who has the rights.
I too have never been (knowingly) part of the Murdoch regime, and hopefully never will.
The sooner people give SKY/BT Sports the elbow, the better
Life moves on at such a rapid pace for us old ‘uns, it seems that no sooner do you sign up to some deal or another than some new offer comes along from a rival company!
I just can’t keep up with it all and now have no idea whether or not I have a good deal with Sky.........I wouldn’t mind betting I don’t.
It’s going the same way as utility companies......there’s that many, that confusion reigns, to the point that most people have little or no idea if they are getting the best deal or not. I readily admit I don’t and I bet many of you out there can’t hold hand on heart and say you do.