Premiership rejects BT TV offer

[longlivethecrumbie]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

It's supplemented by their other elements but also people will buy more Prime packages to view rugby/football or whatever sport it is. It also isn't limited to this country, as BT is. Amazon operates all over the world so you may be an expat and (possibly) get access to the rugby through Prime overseas.

Sure, they will possibly ramp the cost up at some point, but it's still considerably less than BT/Sky.

Also, the likelihood is that the presenters and comms from BT are likely to move over to Amazon - most are freelancers anyway.

[RagingBull]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

Well let’s put it this way
Amazon made like 280 billion in the last reported year compared to BT 22 billion

[Scott1]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

Yes because BT sports customers would be charged the same even if there was no rugby.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

Amazon Prime had 15 million subscribers last year (and supposedly has had a significant uptake in subscribers in lockdown due to increased online shopping)

BT sport has around 1 million subscribers I believe.

So that means all told Amazon needs one fifteenth of the profit margin of BT to make it viable.

Amazon however doesn't primarily use it's streaming services to bring in profit. Instead it uses them to bring in customers for their primary business online shopping. With free next day delivery and already competitive prices their business model is based on attracting people to sign up to prime and then use the membership.

This is very successful to them and therefore they can spend pocket change to them buying more rights to sports as it gives access to another group of customers for the other side of the business.

Amazon video is not competing with BT & Sky either it's competitors are Netflix and Disney+. Both of these utilize low cost, high subscriber models which are opposite to Sky and BT.



For the above I really don't see rugby coverage making a blind bit of difference to the subscription costs

[chipnchase]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

Amazon Prime had 15 million subscribers last year (and supposedly has had a significant uptake in subscribers in lockdown due to increased online shopping)

BT sport has around 1 million subscribers I believe.

So that means all told Amazon needs one fifteenth of the profit margin of BT to make it viable.

Amazon however doesn't primarily use it's streaming services to bring in profit. Instead it uses them to bring in customers for their primary business online shopping. With free next day delivery and already competitive prices their business model is based on attracting people to sign up to prime and then use the membership.

This is very successful to them and therefore they can spend pocket change to them buying more rights to sports as it gives access to another group of customers for the other side of the business.

Amazon video is not competing with BT & Sky either it's competitors are Netflix and Disney+. Both of these utilize low cost, high subscriber models which are opposite to Sky and BT.



For the above I really don't see rugby coverage making a blind bit of difference to the subscription costs

Netflix have never moved into the sports market for good reason, they are more interested in creating their own content. Disney+ already own their own content and back catalogue and this is in effect free money for them rather than selling films, etc as one offs.

Amazon really are in a market of their own.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Netflix have never moved into the sports market for good reason, they are more interested in creating their own content. Disney+ already own their own content and back catalogue and this is in effect free money for them rather than selling films, etc as one offs.

Amazon really are in a market of their own.

Agree with that but their streaming services are closer competitors than either BT or Sky, hence why I think pricing structure would remain similar.

[ourla]

Amazon Prime had 15 million subscribers last year (and supposedly has had a significant uptake in subscribers in lockdown due to increased online shopping)

BT sport has around 1 million subscribers I believe.

So that means all told Amazon needs one fifteenth of the profit margin of BT to make it viable.

But surely the question is how much more revenue through subscribers will Amazon get. Anybody who is already subscribing will get it gratis. So how many will subscribe purely on account of the rugby? There still needs to be enough upside to justify the £40m.

Amazon however doesn't primarily use it's streaming services to bring in profit. Instead it uses them to bring in customers for their primary business online shopping.

Not convinced about this. I don't see the leap from I like to watch rugby to I'm going to start buying stuff from Amazon. Everybody already knows about Amazon, it's unlikely that them screening rugby is suddenly going to bring in new shoppers.

Amazon video is not competing with BT & Sky either it's competitors are Netflix and Disney+. Both of these utilize low cost, high subscriber models which are opposite to Sky and BT.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see much difference ultimately. It's just cost v content. If Netflix showed Prem football or rugby they wouldn't charge the same.

What amazes me actually - I don't like to mention it too often in case it gets removed - is that Prem rugby put up recordings of all their games a day or so after the event. It suggests non-live games have very little value.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting it doesn't make sense for Amazon. They've clearly done well for themselves over the years. And maybe BT are taking a fat margin or have a poor business model or have a very inefficient business... I don't know... though it vaguely interests me as a consumer.

[LittleBigG]

Not convinced about this. I don't see the leap from I like to watch rugby to I'm going to start buying stuff from Amazon. Everybody already knows about Amazon, it's unlikely that them screening rugby is suddenly going to bring in new shoppers.

As someone who works closely with ecommerce you would be amazed how effective "nudge" tactics can be (not guaranteed, but if you get it right you hit the jackpot!). Everybody may know about Amazon but there are still loads of people who do not regularly use Amazon, and there is a close relationship between added benefits and increased sales

Watching rugby also spans all age ranges, but there is still a skew in the demographics of who uses ecommerce sites to the younger generations. Amazon will have done loads of analytics on their own data and will be pretty confident at this point to know what does work; it could potentially have a nice little boost in people venturing into the unknown

I'm also pretty willing to bet that any offering through Sky/BT Sport/elsewhere would be at a similar cost to what BT are charging now, rather than the cost of Prime, which would make getting Prime additionally attractive

Also, to cap it off, Amazon is so massive that this is literally just "f**k it, let's do it" money. They already have most of the infrastructure to just give this a a shot (AWS wouldn't even notice the additional load) and if it doesn't work as they hope, they will just can it off when the renewal comes up like they have with some other punts that have turned out to be a dud

[Ian Cant]

I prefer to be at the grounds for games but enjoy watching the other teams on BT.
I’m watching City on Amazon Prime at the moment but give credit to BT as during Lockdowns and Tier 3 all Tigers’ Premiership games have been available so no complaints about the red button.
At the moment most teams need the assurance of having some finance from TV so mess up a deal and it will be a nightmare!
Crowds, in the numbers that will make teams like Tigers, financially viable probably won’t be back until 2021-2022 season!
For those interested, Sky and BT both do deals if you are will to hassle!
As we don’t watch hardly any films Sky do pretty good deals for Sport and as we are with BT for broadband we get a decent deal from them which works out slightly cheaper than getting Sky to include BT Sport.

[teds]

While I do shop at Amazon sometimes, the way they treat most of their staff and the way they don’t pay as much tax as the competition - put as tactfully as I could - means I’ll have to do some soul searching if it’s a choice between Amazon to watch Tigers or not.... Frankly, I don’t fancy Tigers chances.

[Old Hob]

Teds- your feelings are modest compared to mine. I loathe this outfit. Immoral and rotten to the core, a part of the FAANG group that has massive power and no responsibility they are what used to be called the unacceptable face of capitalism. They pay only lip service to any ethical considerations and then only when forced to their only real motivation is greed.

[kk20gb30]

The hierarchy of Premiership Rugby are still deluded enough to believe an all out bidding war for TV Rights could ensue.Well anything is possible , and obviously they are in possession of many more facts and attitudes of potential suitors.Should this be however, a simple case of brinkmanship it is a very dangerous game to play given the current times - Sky or Amazon's millions may not be forthcoming.

[Coops]

Reading last night, appears that BT are willing to forego any COVID related compensation claims if their existing contract is extended. The deal is moving closer to a new deal, even though it could be for less money £37m instead of £40m.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

It would be harsh on BT which have done a better job than Sky were doing, (cant stand Dayglo or Doyle though), whose to say Amazon wouldn't up it again.
I only have a BT subscription at present as all our league games will be on, once that's finished, I'll be off, I don't have Prime but if the rugby went there at the same cost I would be tempted for what else it offers.

Like others I think Amazon are not exactly a force for good, but the convenience makes me hold my nose as I add to basket.

Haven't worked out yet why BT dont just have a rugby subscription, ie that's all you can watch, I barely watch any of the rest, but would pay a lesser subscription, maybe, just for rugby.

[ay2oh]

Well if I can save about £280 a year on a channel that I only use for rugby currently then I will be very happy.
I already use Amazon Prime so the saving will be more.
That's basically pays for my Season ticket.

BT pays 40m for Prem rugby and charge punters £25 per month.

Amazon pays the same and charge £7.99 per month.

I can't see how that can work? Am I missing something?

I would guess that Amazon prime has many more customers than BT sport