Streamlining channel packages
 

According to this article, skinny packages are set to become more popular in the US, and over here, too, there is increasing talk of allowing subscribers to choose which channels they wish to view.

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/20170923...#axzz4tUhMx800

Out of interest, I counted the number of popular non-premium channels (excluding children's channels) listed in TV & Satellite Week, and then considered how many of these neither my wife nor I ever watch.

Amazingly, I found that over the course of the last three years, we have only ever watched at least one programme from 42 out of the 72 channels, and I have counted in that number channels rarely viewed.

So effectively, I am paying for 30 channels I never watch and don't need. I wonder how much that adds to my bill?

Given the concerns raised on this forum about price rises, perhaps VM should start thinking about offering a skinny package with only the most popular channels included. This would be a real bargain compared with what we are paying now, and would attract customers from other platforms to cable. I think that without such an initiative, an increasing exodus of cable TV subscribers will happen before long.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

Service providers make money from channels that have to pay them for carriage/epg space. Then they make money from customers by selling them packages filled with such channels, that are promoted on quantity rather than quality.

I can't see either Virgin or Sky willingly going down this route, unless the parameters start changing dramatically.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

Yes, that's the point. The more prices go up, the more subscribers will start leaving, and the skinny package idea is one way of retaining their custom and also attracting new customers to the platform.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

The other issue is that advertising revenue for non premium channels is based on channel "reach" rather than actual viewing figures. So when a channel offers advertising space to an agency they have to base the offer on potential customers. The higher this figure the more revenue can be generated. Channels that are part of a large pack therefore get more money from their advertising than ones that don't.

A consequence of any move like this will be minority channels will dissapear at the expence of the big boys, who will just hoover up other channels & either merge or close them & give us less choice in the long run.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

I accept that, but of course if the big players like Sky and Virgin do not adapt to what their customers want, those viewers will be lost anyway.

As you know, I have said on a different thread that the broadcast channels are ultimately doomed because alternatives are becoming available which are better, give the viewer more flexibility and choice, without constant interruptions from advertisements.

I'm afraid the minority channels will be the first to go under, but I cannot see an alternative that will work. Most of them are pretty low brow anyway, to say the least.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

The broadcast channels offer one thing you'll never see on the likes of Netflix or Amazon and that's UK content and I'm not just referring to dramas.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

I think you will find that the streaming players will offer more and more as time goes on, and progress will be quick. Who would have thought five years ago that Amazon would start adding TV channels, let alone bidding for Premier League rights?

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

No chance they are global players rather than UK specific and as such their content is geared towards a global market.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

If that was true, why would Amazon be expressing a high level of interest in our Premier League Football?

The global players do have to adapt to local conditions, otherwise they would not be seen as relevant in those countries taking the service. In fact, the EU is requiring a minimum amount of content produced in each EU country to be provided as a condition of being allowed to operate within the EU.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

Premier League football a rumour put out there by the Daily Mail , it must be right then.

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

The gospel truth by the sheep that believe it.;):D

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

It's been reported quite widely, actually. Here's something just the other day from The Independent. Is that newspaper reliable enough for you?;)


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-a7960721.html

---------- Post added at 15:45 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Oh, Den, you are one immovable object! Tell me, do you only believe in fake news or do you disbelieve everything you read? I'd really love to know. :Sprint:

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

So a Chief Executive within a football club is speculating the streaming companies will plough into Premier League Football. Wonder if he has a vested interest in receiving more money.:D

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

Being reported quite widely does not mean one should take it as gospel as remembering when one is reading newspapers remember the old motto of 95% is ******** and the other 5% is somewhere near the truth.;)

---------- Post added at 05:49 ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 ----------

Read my first answer and all will be revealed OB.;):D

Re: Streamlining channel packages
 

I never said it was gospel, Den. I was simply responding to the implied criticism of the article being in the Daily Mail.

However, I do think it is rather more likely that the gist of a story that appears in a range of newpapers including the quality dailies has some truth in it than ideas that randomly come into your head, Den! :D

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

The Chief Executive of the Premier League has also intimated the same thing.


http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-a7960721.html