Traditional Subscription TV... On it's death bed?

[Gimpymoo]

Referring to Cable and Satellite subscriptions with yearly contracts paid per month.

Are we at that crossroads yet where subscription numbers are falling or have we already been there for a while?

With sooo many "over the top" services people can subscribe to (no yearly contract), is there still high demand for traditional subscription television?

From a "quality" aspect (overall, not programming quality), I do think Cable/Satellite serves a purpose as the internet based offerings are still lacking quality wise (some still standard def for crying out loud, some 720p).

For me, one thing I have found with the over the top services is the apparent lack of ability to SKIP adverts sometimes. Most do but for on-deman on NowTV, you cannot skip some stuff.

I am not saying these services are dead but as the decline started?

 

[Gimpymoo]

speaking to friends who work in the industry sub numbers are still climbing slowly but cost per aqusition is on the up, most people who want it already have it so thres a smaller and smaller pool of potential customers to chase

You still have a generation I guess who move into their first home and get subscription TV as it is what they remember as a kid when they were at home.

The difference is, 25 years ago, TV/On demand over IP was far from a "replacement" for linear TV, even on-demand was limited to Cable for the most part and even then was basic PPV.

Today, it is much more difficult to justify value from the cost the providers charge when some people will have their own subsriptions for Netflix and the like. The same customers also likely place more value in their Netflix sub than their whole subscription TV package.

I think for sports its still the only option.

Sports seems the only sector where linear TV is still viable at present however, am I wrong in thinking younger people are becoming less interested in sport as a hobby as to watch or participate?

 

[Gimpymoo]

25 years ago....... that was 1994.

Yeah, I did not mean to go that far back

Side note though, in the late nineties, my local Cable operator DID have VOD in the form of PPV like I said, they had something called "Front Row"...

 

[Gimpymoo]

What your clip shows isn't VOD though. It's simply multi-start PPV.

True

 

[Gimpymoo]

If Now TV wasn't such garbage picture quality then it would probably get my cash more often. I use it for Sports day pass as I only watch the odd game, and it always reminds me how poor the quality is.

Unskippable adverts when launching on-demand content put me off NowTV.

Do they still do that?

 

[Gimpymoo]

Sky need to be very careful that’s they don’t trip up in their main subscription offering via satellite. If they go too far they’ll lose their main subscription customers who bring in far more than their Now TV subs.

That is like Blockbuster not wanting to go too far into DVD by post incase it eats too much into their bricks and mortar stores...

Surely it is more a case of getting your foot in the door BEFORE everyone jumps ship and keeping your brand relevant.

Sky TV via satellite is not attractive to the younger demographic, surely pushing the NowTV model is more than in their best interests? However, pushing an half baked version will only mean Netflix/Amazon gain even more market share?

 

[Gimpymoo]

1080p via streaming is coming.

At this stage though, should they not be looking at 4K? It is a game of catchup at this point I guess.

At some point, without doubt, Sky will have to pull the trigger on a fully featured TV over IP service with all the bells and whistles BUT it is like a long distance race, when do you decide the time to push? Goto too soon, go too early... risk and reward with regards protecting their established business model but go too late and you Thomas Cook it.

Anyone know what happened to Sky's fully "Over the top" subscription TV over IP service?

 

[Gimpymoo]

Is it potentially that nowtv 1080p would actually be better quality than a sky HD box itself

Current NowTV uses terrible compression so if using that as the measuring stick, NO

 

[Gimpymoo]

You can have Sky Sports for half that. £22 for entertainment and £18 for sports.

The problem is, with the the current financial climate, lack of pay rises over many years, that £40 total eats into an household income more and more as years go by.

Yes, I understand that is not Sky's problem but still something to be considered I believe, especially when as a demographic, subscription TV was for a long time, associated with those on lower incomes as it was cheap entertainment.

 

[Gimpymoo]

On game of thrones illegal rips of the show were better quality than what was aired on NowTV.

LOL

Sky are trying to protect their outdated business model. When I first saw SkyQ, my immediate thought was last throw of the dice.

Once they have rinsed SkyQ, they will offer a decent ipTV offering with the Sky brand.

I do not see what their long term plan is for NowTV. Seems badly managed to me or under invested. NowTV is simply not good enough to be the main hub of your family viewing. I think that is by design though, make of that what you will.

Even IF 1080p happens, what about 4K?

 

[Gimpymoo]

Still rubbish.

DAZN in the US is $9.99 month and some of the content on that would be 100s in the UK

DEM Foot to ball players and greedy suits (Football and Sky) need paying somehow