[Albion] Paul barber q&a matchday thread

[dazzer6666]

So they dismiss it then! I don't think so.

Who is dismissing what ? The majority of the revenue is going to the clubs (shared equally, not game by game), not Sky/BT/Amazon. Anything the broadcasters get is a drop in the ocean compared to their subscription revenue.

 

[clapham_gull]

How can you say Sky have no interest in PPV when major boxing events are sold on that basis?

Because I work in the industry. Sky have all the technology to do deliver how they damn well like, but also the control over the PL to package it up how they like too. If they thought PPV would bring the money in they would be doing it now.

So they dismiss it then! I don't think so.

I don't work for Sky but have visited their premises on a "technical tour". Sky don't dismiss anything and know exactly how their viewers "consume" television in the way other broadcasters dream about.

As an "offering", I think Sky have been guilty in the past of making it too complicated. They have PPV, subscription and another other service (NowTv) with different branding.

On top of that there are mobile and tablet apps for both brands somewhat competing for space.

Sky's business model works around subscription for now although that might change.

They tried the PPV model a few years ago but it failed. What works in the UK for boxing doesn't instantly work for football.

If you disagree I'd suggest you write a letter to them and tell them where they are going wrong.

 

[drew]

You are wrong and its not "me" saying it.

With football their business model currently revolves around lengthy subscriptions.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying? Are you implying the price wasn't set by the broadcasters and if not, who did set the fee? Are you suggesting it was the clubs or maybe the Government had a hand in it?

Also, I'm not saying Sky are about to change their business model for football. However, the current situation with the pandemic and the fact fans don't go to games has presented to them a new revenue stream. It might not be as significant as the subscription model and when fans are back in stadiums, it probably wouldn't even be sustainable (on the basis that for most fans of clubs like ours, those that would be willing to pay the PPV now are, in the main, the fans that will be at the stadium when they open) but if they sell only 50k PPV for the 5 games outside of their contractual obligation then that is £750k per game week extra for probably very minimal additional costs. What commercial business will not consider that even if they are only getting an proportion with the clubs?

EDIT:
I was writing this as you were posting your reply.

 

[Swansman]

This continual reference to fans as customers as if it is derogatory is often used as a stick to beat him. If my memory is right, the phrase was something along the lines of that the club should treat their fans as if they are customers, ie that they have choice rather than the fact we are a captive audience. We have one of the best match day experiences, padded seats, quality pies, good choice of beers, interest free DD,

Perhaps if fans were treated as customers back in the 80s we wouldn't have been caged in and the fatal consequences of that might never have happened!

Would I still go if we didn't have the padded seats, pies etc, of course I would but I enjoy it more because we do have them.

How?

The "cages" were the result of hooliganism, the hooliganism the result of unemployment and societal anger & frustration, the societal problems the result of politics... and the fatal consequences of those cages the result of terrible policing. I dont see how quality pies would have changed any of that. I don't necessarily disagree (or agree) with your overall point but I seriously doubt that being seen as a walking wallet rather than a football fan would have helped **** all with those issues.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying? Are you implying the price wasn't set by the broadcasters and if not, who did set the fee?

Also, I'm not saying Sky are about to change their business model for football. However, the current situation with the pandemic and the fact fans don't go to games has presented to them a new revenue stream. It might not be as significant as the subscription model and when fans are back in stadiums, it probably wouldn't even be sustainable (on the basis that for most fans of clubs like ours, those that would be willing to pay the PPV now are, in the main, the fans that will be at the stadium when they open) but if they sell only 50k PPV for the 5 games outside of their contractual obligation then that is £750k per game week extra for probably very minimal additional costs. What commercial business will not consider that?

EDIT:
I was writing this as you were posting your reply.

It's not a 'contractual obligation' though is it - it's something Sky have paid for and the basis of the PL's massive revenue. Sky have no rights to broadcast any more games unless the PL let them (ie sell that right to them) - hence most of the PPV revenue going to the clubs, not Sky.........the clubs will get some PPV revenue instead of ticket revenue for now (although it's a lot less)

I can see a demand for a PPV model post-Covid though - but the clubs would need to be pretty careful with this to avoid compromising matchday attendances.

 

[drew]

How?

The "cages" were the result of hooliganism, the hooliganism the result of unemployment and societal anger & frustration, the societal problems the result of politics... and the fatal consequences of those cages the result of terrible policing. I dont see how quality pies would have changed any of that. I don't necessarily disagree (or agree) with your overall point but I seriously doubt that being seen as a walking wallet rather than a football fan would have helped **** all with those issues.

Hooliganism in the UK became prevalent in the 1960s. Not sure that was a period of high unemployment!.

 

[drew]

It's not a 'contractual obligation' though is it - it's something Sky have paid for and the basis of the PL's massive revenue. Sky have no rights to broadcast any more games unless the PL let them (ie sell that right to them) - hence most of the PPV revenue going to the clubs, not Sky.........the clubs will get some PPV revenue instead of ticket revenue for now (although it's a lot less)

I can see a demand for a PPV model post-Covid though - but the clubs would need to be pretty careful with this to avoid compromising matchday attendances.

Obligation was probably the wrong word, I'm referring to the games that they are already allowed to show under the terms of their contract with the EPL.

 

[dazzer6666]

Obligation was probably the wrong word, I'm referring to the games that they are already allowed to show under the terms of their contract with the EPL.

Yes - but the point is if Sky want to show more games and have the revenue, they'll need to pay the clubs more money - they can't decide to show extra games and simply keep the 14.95 or whatever. It's the club's product, not theirs (hence the PPV revenue going mostly to the clubs, not the broadcasters)

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying? Are you implying the price wasn't set by the broadcasters and if not, who did set the fee? Are you suggesting it was the clubs or maybe the Government had a hand in it?

Also, I'm not saying Sky are about to change their business model for football. However, the current situation with the pandemic and the fact fans don't go to games has presented to them a new revenue stream. It might not be as significant as the subscription model and when fans are back in stadiums, it probably wouldn't even be sustainable (on the basis that for most fans of clubs like ours, those that would be willing to pay the PPV now are, in the main, the fans that will be at the stadium when they open) but if they sell only 50k PPV for the 5 games outside their contractual obligation than that is £750k per game week extra for probably very minimal additional costs. What commercial business will not consider that even if they are only getting a proportion with the clubs?

EDIT:
I was writing this as you were posting your reply.

Sky would have modelled the whole thing. PPV could eat into subscriptions quite easily.

Also, a PPV view front there is less space for advertising.

Even though the profits go the PL, the price was set by Sky and Sky only. If the PL became involved there would be an instant legal challenge.

Seeing as Sky has been asked to do this and are making no money from it, at the forefront of their thinking would be the question:

How does this eat into our subscription model ? Not only now but later.

Looking at this cynically, I suspect (on the basis the decision had to be made in weeks) Sky have set the price high to protect their other services in the short term. Making the service "premium" to differentiate.

It's not simply another "revenue stream". As new delivery methods become available in the television companies have a habit of acting in a very cannibalistic way whilst value is driven from "exclusivity".

What that means in layman terms is different parts of the business are fighting over the same content.

You get the same decisions being made in any big production house and broadcaster.

1) Do we put in out on own service ?
2) Do we need to build that service ?
3) Do we make more money selling it to Netflix ?
4) How does giving it to other services (including internal ones like NowTV) affect the Sky brand going forward.

.. with different people in the business having different opinions.

 

[amexer]

Whilst reluctant to doubt what Barber said about PPV. Albion voted for, without knowing they were going to charge £14.95 . In that case, what were reasons for Leicester voting against ?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Edited as realized it was wrong.

 

[clapham_gull]

Whilst reluctant to doubt what Barber said about PPV. Albion voted for, without knowing they were going to charge £14.95 . In that case, what were reasons for Leicester voting against ?

Who knows ?

With the power of Sky it a case of we'll put them on PPV (set the price, but give you the profits) or we will take them off.

Probably Leicester were thinking there was another option to discussed, but the other clubs realised pragmaticaly there wasn't.

 

[Stat Brother]

Edited as realized it was wrong.

You're new

Next time just dig your heels and scream everyone else is wrong.




#TheNSCWay.

 

[dazzer6666]

For those that missed it...


https://twitter.com/officialbhafc/status/1316439125021523968?s=21

 

[Wozza]

Oh. Nothing in my inbox. Tidying my sock drawer tonight, anyway.

If anyone wants to ask one of these, please feel free....

[SNIP]

9) What level of TV presentation can fans expect for their money? Same number of cameras etc as a regular broadcast match? Proper build-up? Post-match interviews? Top-level pundits in the studio? And if you don’t know, how did you agree to £14.95? And why should we?

I see there was NO build-up before the Chelsea match yesterday.

PPV is a rip-off.