mss
Contributor
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 753
No, HD box...
- Thread starter sumitpaul54
- Start date
- Replies: Replies 45
- Views: Views 6,174
Bro, currently operators r losing revenue as due to pricing of channels being on higher side many people r switching to DD Free Dish and OTT or even those continuing r opting for less channels. This decrease in subscriber base and less subscription of channels is causing downfall in ARPU . To address this concern broadcasters need to price the channels affordably. Apart from this still operators r earning good income from carriage fee, various types of ads on home channels /boot up screen/ EPG etc. Also thru NCF they r earning lot of revenue.
NTO rules is not the issue but how broadcasters adopt the same is the concern
OTT is way way better, atleast you can pay to watch no ads, here you are paying so much and still your viewing experience is annoying with ads on channels, big logos blocking view and now banner ads on STB
OTT has lot less running cost involved compared to satellite broadcast hence comparisons cannot be drawn about their pricing/revenue strategy
Harsha1996
Contributor
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2021
- Messages
- 549
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1,088
- Joined
- 1 May 2011
- Messages
- 5,964
- Reaction score
- 9,646
Its not added on Sports HD Channels, that explains that its just for Advt purpose.
iDJ
Contributor
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 15,544
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 30,719
It isn't causing any inconveniences to 99% of the users.
Harsha1996
Contributor
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2021
- Messages
- 549
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1,088
Bro do you think 20 rupees per channel say sports channel is expensive....
Look at star sports they bought ipl rights for 20k cr... How can they price lower than this.... In past Tataplay used to sell sports channel for 60 Rs per month... Which is 2rs for a day.... But now... Less than 1rs. For same channel... With more expensive rights....
The problem is regulation why only paytv has more regulations where ott doesn't have any regulations.... Why not soap, paste they don't have any pricing regulations... Operators will price channels based on the market and competitors pricing.... But here the scope of pricing staretgy is restricted...
If an operator is providing premium service say Tataplay or airtel they want a premium pricing... Here there is no scope for that that's why this kind of ads... Cost cutting strategies and all...
Even from customer side also... Regulation is bad....
Confusing packs... More restrictions...
Simply
Even if a customer want premium service and ready to pay more for that... There is no provider to do that.. Because of regulation..
Last edited:
Buddy we have discussed this earlier too. Don't see anything from just a surface point of view. I have myself said that pricing should match up with content on offer and deciding on standalone or bouquet depends on lot of factors. Essentially interest of all stakeholders have to be kept in mind. Giving key driver channels at somewhat high price on standalone basis is fine but that does not mean that it should be priced at Rs. 60 while in bouquet cost for it comes down to Rs. 10. Broadcasters need to subscribers proper choice to opt for channels via either mode rather than pushing for viewers to opt for bouquet thus rendering a-la-carte option to be just there for namesake. Broadcasters need to find a balance to earn revenue thru subscription and ad revenue and device pricing strategy accordingly.
If broadcasters come up with right strategy it will benefits viewers and thus operators will see increase in subscriber base and revenue.
We all know what happened in Pre NTO days when things were left upto "market forces" and Star Sports SD/HDused to cost Rs. 60/65 and Rs. 75 respectively. This is why it was essential to come up with NTO Rules and have a rationale for pricing of channels.
Operators already have lot of options to generate high revenue and provide good services....need of the hour is to address issue of making subscribers stuck to their platform and opt for more channels, finding solutions to this is joint responsibility of broadcasters and operators.
Pre NTO broadcasters were making lots of money thru long term advance agreement with operators thus offering them channels at huge discounts which then operators gave to us maintaining big profit margin between what channels costed to them vs at what point they sold it to subscribers. So it is a wrong assumption in common people that earlier prices were low bcoz of No NCF, it was still somewhat affordable as discounts were offered by broadcasters on bouquet thru long term agreement with operators but still regular DPO bouquet prices offered by operators remained high as operators earned good profit margin while operators also came up with special discounted DPO bouquet wherein again they managed to earn good profits. You all might clearly remember how operators hugely inflated a-la-carte channel prices and top up prices in those days to discourage people from opting for these.
So this "market forces" argument does not hold any merit as it just reduces option available to subscribers to opt for their channels at affordable price and broadcasters / operators simply push channels onto us making good revenue. Similarly broadcasters / operators telling NTO rules r nor good is not the correct statement to make, these rules r excellent but operators / broadcasters do not like it and find ways to simply project it in wrong manner. If NTO rules r adopted in right spirit it will benefit all stakeholders
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 3,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 11,816
No one left to provide premium service in DTH industry 
