[TV] PPV price point - what would you be prepared to pay?

[Cadiz Seagull]

A fiver seems reasonable to me considering the vast majority will already be paying as much as a hundred pounds a month already for Sky and/or BT.

Are the vast majority already doing that? I'd be very surprised if they are.

I'm certainly not, but I may well be in the minority. I don't have Sky so I buy NOW TV passes when the Albion are on and because I am with Plusnet I can add BT Sport for £10 per month but I wouldn't do that for a month with no Albion game

 

[Whitechapel]

I would have paid £15/£20 a month.

One of the problems with the PPV is the fact that teams who aren’t shown on Sky are punished by having to pay more often.

 

[clapham_gull]

I wouldn't pay to watch any games not involving Brighton and Hove Albion but would pay the £14.95 to watch a Brighton match if I had no other option , it's way too expensive but the persons responsible for the price point just know there will be enough mugs like me to make it a very lucrative business .

As I've posted on another thread, Sky won't be making any money and the PL don't have an input on the price because that would be illegal.

Sky aren't pushing to do this, it's come from the clubs and the govermment.

So what's going on ?

Sky's financial model (at the moment) is based on subscription. I stongly suspect that Sky have set the price high so they don't lose subscribers to this service. If the price is set at fiver, some viewers may prefer to take that a purchase or leave it route.

That further upsets the advertisers (on the sports channels) if viewers are turning to PPV where advertising opportunites are limited.

What may look on the surface like an additional revenue stream for Sky is nothing of the sort. They will see it as "competition" to their existing services in the short term.

 

[Official Old Man]

There are still a few issues to sort out. For instance, I don't have BT so how will I get to watch any match they show?
For me £5 would get me booking every match.
Remember, every PL match already has full camera coverage for overseas TV so there is very little extra expense.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

No, there has to be a limit on tv football spend. I have Now tv sport and BT Sport and that’s my limit. Not interested in PPV, Amazon or anything else.

 

[studio150]

I assume we are still talking about the 8 or 10 cameras that Sky/BT use for PL coverage for PPV rather than the one camera that is used on the EFL platform or for domestic cricket streaming,
There is also the consideration of how long, just while fans are excluded from grounds, when fans are allowed back, albeit in much reduced numbers and then when back to full capacity.

When back to full capacity I would not be paying £15 or £10 a game, given that I will usually be in the ground, Yes currently if on Sky/BT I will record and watch back later, I wouldn't want to pay £570 to record all our league games.

On reduced capacity if I didn't get a ticket then yes, but if at the ground then no.

While excluded yes providing I'm free to watch live.

 

[Jim D]

Happy to pay £14.95 per game for Brighton matches that aren't showing on sky, BT or prime.

 

[Audax]

No. It constantly astounds me how the TV companies can honestly expect us to believe the short-duration passes / PPV prices are value for money in comparison to the longer duration options. And this £15 PPV options for single matches is an absolute rip off.

Just using NOW TV as an example:

- Sky Sports 1 month pass = £34. That's just over £1 per day.
- Sky Sports day pass = £10. A nearly 10-fold price multiplier.

OK, I get it that a short term pass needs to be higher priced. Firstly, because it's standard marketing - you make the longer term subs options more attractive by offering a discount. Secondly, I also get that by having multiple purchases across that same time period the company will incur more costs (card fees etc) in relation to those purchases.

But: a 10x price hike is taking the proverbial piss and offering it to me in a pint glass.

To then expect us to pay £15 for a 90 minute football match is adding bull dung and serving it in a cocktail glass.

No, you won't catch me being willing to pay £15. Or £10. Maybe £5 if it was, say, a key game in the late season. Apart from anything else, watching on TV does not offer anything like the value you get out of attending at the stadium. I get that they need to recoup some cash for the clubs, and I might be willing to support that if the package was right. But I personally think going down the route of PPV for individual games is the wrong way to go about it, especially at the price proposed.

Instead, I think they should allow each club to stream any non-televised matches. Allow the clubs to figure out appropriate pricing structures, but ideally I'd suggest they look at "all non-televised matches for rest of the season" packages at prices that make sense as well as individual games at no more than £5 a game.

 

[Hotchilidog]

No. It constantly astounds me how the TV companies can honestly expect us to believe the short-duration passes / PPV prices are value for money in comparison to the longer duration options. And this £15 PPV options for single matches is an absolute rip off.

Just using NOW TV as an example:

- Sky Sports 1 month pass = £34. That's just over £1 per day.
- Sky Sports day pass = £10. A nearly 10-fold price multiplier.

OK, I get it that a short term pass needs to be higher priced. Firstly, because it's standard marketing - you make the longer term subs options more attractive by offering a discount. Secondly, I also get that by having multiple purchases across that same time period the company will incur more costs (card fees etc) in relation to those purchases.

But: a 10x price hike is taking the proverbial piss and offering it to me in a pint glass.

To then expect us to pay £15 for a 90 minute football match is adding bull dung and serving it in a cocktail glass.

No, you won't catch me being willing to pay £15. Or £10. Maybe £5 if it was, say, a key game in the late season. Apart from anything else, watching on TV does not offer anything like the value you get out of attending at the stadium. I get that they need to recoup some cash for the clubs, and I might be willing to support that if the package was right. But I personally think going down the route of PPV for individual games is the wrong way to go about it, especially at the price proposed.

Instead, I think they should allow each club to stream any non-televised matches. Allow the clubs to figure out appropriate pricing structures, but ideally I'd suggest they look at "all non-televised matches for rest of the season" packages at prices that make sense as well as individual games at no more than £5 a game.

A big fat THIS!!!

 

[dazzer6666]

14.95 is passable for one of our games, particularly away. It’s similar to a cinema ticket (and I won’t spend £30 on two ounces of pick n mix) and for me at least it’ll usually be more than just me watching it.

I wouldn’t pay it very often as a neutral though, regardless of who is playing

Not sure how they could price in a premium to watch your own club though, so average it out at a tenner and they’ll get a lot more from me I suspect. If there was a day pass for £14.95 that included our games plus any others that’d be good, or even the first game of the day at £10 and any others at a decent discount.

 

[Jesus Gul]

a fiver - I think everyone wins at that price point

 

[Insel affe]

If I said I supported Palace could I pay 10p in the pound ?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I will be paying for all our games at £15.
I will get to see all our home and away games for the price of my refunded Home only season ticket.

If it was in a regular season, I probably wouldn't be springing £15 for every away game though, £10 would be about right. I will often get a NOWTV day pass when an away game is on SKy

 

[zefarelly]

No, there has to be a limit on tv football spend. I have Now tv sport and BT Sport and that’s my limit. Not interested in PPV, Amazon or anything else.

We've done this rationalisation as a family for TV, phones and tinterweb. It's crept up; to a ridiculous amount in recent years, mnow capped thankfully.

the tinterweb TC package with virgin gives us sky and BT and eurosport, so most sport . . . I'm not interested in many games not involving BHA, and certainly won't spend on PPV unless it is a BHA game, even then only if its a good game/time to get moneys worth.

to watch LeMans for the weekend last year cost us about £10.

A lot more bang per buck than kickball

 

[BNthree]

I voted for "the occasional one here and there" but if it was cheaper (say £5-£8) I'd watch a lot more. At £15 I'll only be watching interesting or "big" games. West Brom or Burnley etc doesn't qualify for that but if it were a fiver I'd probably watch them.

 

[Greeko]

Unless I misheard what PB said the other night then £5 a match would be a total non starter as the production costs for each match are six figures so it would require at least 20,000 subscribers for the broadcasters to even get their money back.

 

[Bob!]

I'd probably buy at around £7.50.

Not at £15

 

[The Large One]

Unless I misheard what PB said the other night then £5 a match would be a total non starter as the production costs for each match are six figures so it would require at least 20,000 subscribers for the broadcasters to even get their money back.

Not sure I heard that.

If he did say it, then £14.95 is also a non-starter.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Unless I misheard what PB said the other night then £5 a match would be a total non starter as the production costs for each match are six figures so it would require at least 20,000 subscribers for the broadcasters to even get their money back.

Exactly. He said multi cameras (8+), the pundits talking crap before and h/t would make it dearer than that for starters.

Make it a 'budget' show with one camera and no talkers.....£4.99 it is!

Your Aldi PPV

 

[zefarelly]

£15 for Burnley vs West Brom

you could buy a bottle of wine a brush and sample pot of gloss, paint something and watch it dry whilst drinking the wine, a far more entertaining way to use 2 hours.