General Large bundles of Channels

muppetman11 · 07-10-2016, 10:41

Are the large bundles of Channels from the likes of VM and Sky sustainable long term ?

denphone · 07-10-2016, 10:47

Well there are over 15 million people who buy bundles just from those two so its going to need a significant sea change for things to change IMO MM.

spiderplant · 07-10-2016, 11:02

Those answering "No" must present a viable alternative

muppetman11 · 07-10-2016, 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Those answering "No" must present a viable alternative

Isn't Freeview and an OTT service a viable option for many ?

Mr K · 07-10-2016, 12:09

Surely nobody can watch 90% of the channels they subscribe to, I know i don't on XL. If they could allow customers to pick and choose rather than 'bundles', however guess it isn't profitable. I'm looking to downgrade as most channels worth watching are on Freeview ( VMs constant price rises are of course another factor).

Chad · 07-10-2016, 12:50

Paying for channels you don't watch or want has always been a pain in the neck. Does this kind of thing go on in other industries? I must pay for about 200 channels I don't want in order to get access to about the 20 I do want. As services like TV Player grow, pay TV must do a rethink as to how they bundle and sell their packages.

toady · 07-10-2016, 13:02

A lot of the smaller channels are not sustainable without the support of other more popular channels, the majority of people appear to be happy to pay more to get the popular channels even though they don't watch the majority of the smaller channels

We would be worse off if the smaller minority channels were forced to close if they had to stand alone, back to almost the days of only BBC and ITV

muppetman11 · 07-10-2016, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by toady

A lot of the smaller channels are not sustainable without the support of other more popular channels, the majority of people appear to be happy to pay more to get the popular channels even though they don't watch the majority of the smaller channels

We would be worse off if the smaller minority channels were forced to close if they had to stand alone, back to almost the days of only BBC and ITV

The cost of Sporting rights will see to that , if the likes of Discovery can get squeezed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...-channel-prov/

Mad Max · 07-10-2016, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

Paying for channels you don't watch or want has always been a pain in the neck. Does this kind of thing go on in other industries? I must pay for about 200 channels I don't want in order to get access to about the 20 I do want. As services like TV Player grow, pay TV must do a rethink as to how they bundle and sell their packages.

Spot on mate, we are lumbered with a load of total tosh imo, lets have quality, over quantity, personally i think the days are numbered for tv packages filled with rubbish that no one wants.

RichardCoulter · 07-10-2016, 16:56

The argument has always been that the more popular channels subsidise the more niche channels.

If people were allowed to drop the niche channels that they don't watch, they would either close or be forced to need extra revenue per subscriber to survive.

This would lead to less choice for the same money and/or the niche channel/s* that you do watch closing or actually costing more.

* We all are in the minority on some occasions. It's not the case that lots of people are always in the majority and a small group of people are always in the minority, these groups are interchangeable.

For example, I don't need the children's channels any longer. If I and others could pay a little less, they may become unsustainable and close or the remaining viewers would need to cough up more. This would negate any savings made by them getting rid of any channels that they don't want.

In essence, pack prices wouldn't go down (as if they would ever do this anyway!), but the number of channels available to you (whether you watch them or not) would reduce.

If any channels were removed due to being unsustainable, this would make the platform less attractive, meaning that VM may well have to actually increase prices for less channels as customer numbers dwindle & the benefits of economies of scale are reduced.

Having said all this, I've voted "don't know" as the emerging OTT services are gaining more and more popularity and could be a game changer.

pip08456 · 07-10-2016, 17:10

If I went to a resturant for a meal and was told I had to pay for 4 others to be able to get one I'd have something to say about it.

"Niche" channels? Meh, they already have an alternative platform to broadcast on, it's called YouTube. They can also get funding via Google ads and subscriptions via that platform.

DJSADERS · 07-10-2016, 17:11

If Discovery, National Geographic and Fox came onto freeview i would drop pay tv in a flash

toady · 07-10-2016, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

"Niche" channels? Meh, they already have an alternative platform to broadcast on, it's called YouTube. They can also get funding via Google ads and subscriptions via that platform.

Assuming that everyone that watch these niche channels have broadband

heero_yuy · 07-10-2016, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJSADERS

If Discovery, National Geographic and Fox came onto freeview i would drop pay tv in a flash

^ this.

RichardCoulter · 07-10-2016, 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

If I went to a resturant for a meal and was told I had to pay for 4 others to be able to get one I'd have something to say about it.

"Niche" channels? Meh, they already have an alternative platform to broadcast on, it's called YouTube. They can also get funding via Google ads and subscriptions via that platform.

The end result is likely to be that you will pay the same, but not have access to some of the less popular channels. At least this way you have the choice now and in the future.

It is true that things are changing with OTT providers, YouTube etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJSADERS

If Discovery, National Geographic and Fox came onto freeview i would drop pay tv in a flash

I doubt that they will be going FTA any time soon, although some pay channel operators are now showing some of their older material on unbranded FTA channels specially created to wring the last bit of revenue out of them.

This is a good example to use.

If everybody could drop these channels, you would either lose access to them or have to pay more as the subsidy from others would stop. This would negate the saving made by you from ceasing to subscribe to channels you don't need.

The end result would likely be the same price for less channels!