Discussion Tata Play will downgrade 50% monthly packs

[Harsha1996]

Tata Play to downgrade 50% monthly packs to stem churn - The Economic Times

The move, the first by any distribution platform operator, will result in monthly savings of ₹30-100 for subscribers, while further reducing the company's average revenue per user (ARPU). However, Tata Play believes that given the state of the economy and churn the pay-TV industry had witnessed...

m.economictimes.com

 

[iDJ]

Expecting Star Sports free during IPL because of the above article.

 

[Dinesh daruvuru 1998]

Tata Play to downgrade 50% monthly packs to stem churn - The Economic Times

The move, the first by any distribution platform operator, will result in monthly savings of ₹30-100 for subscribers, while further reducing the company's average revenue per user (ARPU). However, Tata Play believes that given the state of the economy and churn the pay-TV industry had witnessed...

m.economictimes.com

Is anyone gets price slash on packs from yesterday

 

[dino29]

Tata Play is still blaming NTO for subscriber churn while this is not actually true.

 

[anikamathur02]

Tata Play is still blaming NTO for subscriber churn while this is not actually true.

So what's the truth between subscribers churn

 

[iDJ]

Tata Play is still blaming NTO for subscriber churn while this is not actually true.

How are honestly priced broadcasters like Discovery and Times doing?

 

[dino29]

How are honestly priced broadcasters like Discovery and Times doing?

They r doing fine. Broadcasters need to improve content and keep pricing affordable to compete in current entertainment landscape where viewers have so many options to choose from. Also a clear content strategy is needed to reach out to concerned audience , this is most important alongwith pricing of the channel . Unfortunately reinventing seems to b lacking amongst most channels.

Also since many big broadcasters have priced the channels on higher side (as compared to what was charged in pre NTO period thru advance payment agreements) hence even smaller broadcasters with reasonable pricing i believe have seen decline in subscription numbers. Reason being people tend to save money for more important thereby not subscribing to less viewed chs. Bigger broadcasters r still reporting rise in subscription revenue bcoz of high prices but they want old system back bcoz it gave them advance payments + more reach and ad revenue as well.

All in all as i have discussed earlier that NTO itself is good for all stakeholders, just that broadcasters and operators need to implement in it correct way. Broadcasters r still looking to push bouquet and offer discount on it (till capping limit which is allowed) and keep a-la-carte chs priced high. They would have further given discount on bouquet and kept standalone chs expensive but then same cannot b done under NTO rules as if they reduce bouquet prices then standalone prices should also b reduced. If they had strong confidence in content of their channels and right strategy to reach to desired audience then they would have kept all prices affordable

Operators also earning good revenue bcoz earlier profits came thru buying bouquet/s at lower price for long term from broadcasters and selling it to subscribers with good margin, now NCF is fllling the gap alongwith 20% margin earned on price of bouquet / channels. Ofcourse then there r other services / things which generate revenue like VAS chs, ads on home chs, carriage fee etc. Operators r also wanting old system back so that churn is reduced which is result of flawed pricing decided by broadcasters and thus operators r fearing that in future they might not register same growth as urban/niche subscribers will disconnect their services. There is potential to grow in semi urban or rural areas where tv penetration is on upward path but this will not generate much ARPU.

All in all it is a very interlinked and complex story but broadcasters have simple solution to it, if only they make corrections and implement NTO in proper manner else everyone is at loss