Tata Sky DTH: For All Football Lovers!
- Thread starter hitman050
- Start date
- Replies 117
- Views 29,539
Not true at all really. In the states they have Fox Soccer Channel, GOL TV and Setanta Sports. That is as far from a football loving country as you can possibly get.
You must be smoking weed if you think that the Indian market is similar to the U.S market.
There is no such thing as transponder shortage in U.S. The per capita income of an american is way more than an indian. The ARPU of Dth and cable companies is vastly superior than ours. The U.S is largely made of immigrants from all over the world and europeans form a significant part so the market is there to be exploited. Soccer is the number 1 sport in the world and the U.S market is the best thing if you are looking at making money.
we live in a global world where delinking rights is all you need to beam a foreign channel in. With our population, that is certainly viable. It just needs these mugs at Tata Sky to open their eyes and learn how to encourage consumers to spend more on their entertainment.
I agree with you about the last part but on what basis did you conclude that just because of our population a football channel will be a success ? A population alone is not a parameter to decide it's commercial viability. A lot of dynamics are involved in it.
You must be smoking weed if you think that the Indian market is similar to the U.S market.
There is no such thing as transponder shortage in U.S. The per capita income of an american is way more than an indian. The ARPU of Dth and cable companies is vastly superior than ours. The U.S is largely made of immigrants from all over the world and europeans form a significant part so the market is there to be exploited. Soccer is the number 1 sport in the world and the U.S market is the best thing if you are looking at making money.
we live in a global world where delinking rights is all you need to beam a foreign channel in. With our population, that is certainly viable. It just needs these mugs at Tata Sky to open their eyes and learn how to encourage consumers to spend more on their entertainment.
I agree with you about the last part but on what basis did you conclude that just because of our population a football channel will be a success ? A population alone is not a parameter to decide it's commercial viability. A lot of dynamics are involved in it.
You must be smoking weed if you think that the Indian market is similar to the U.S market.
There is no such thing as transponder shortage in U.S. The per capita income of an american is way more than an indian. The ARPU of Dth and cable companies is vastly superior than ours. The U.S is largely made of immigrants from all over the world and europeans form a significant part so the market is there to be exploited. Soccer is the number 1 sport in the world and the U.S market is the best thing if you are looking at making money.
please go see some stats on "sacker" viewership in america before spouting this nonsense. "Sacker" is the most played youth sport in the states, but its viewership is abysmal. Your little immigrant theories fall flat on their face, I'm afraid.
As for the comparison, it's based purely on numbers. Based on your assesment of things, I would imagine any channel in Sri Lanka should not be viable. Small, relatively poor population, why do they bother having TV there? Please do spend some time observing the world around you, sir.
I agree with you about the last part but on what basis did you conclude that just because of our population a football channel will be a success ? A population alone is not a parameter to decide it's commercial viability. A lot of dynamics are involved in it.
Profound. But there's a much simpler logic to it when you're talking about viability of TV channels. It's something like this: 1% of 1.2 billion is greater than 80% of 1 million. Population sort of inherently becomes a measure of commerical viability, because a large customer base is appealing to advertizers and content providers alike. There is virtually no grographical cost attached to customer acquisitions in this regard, so the viability is fairly self evident. Again, think of this in terms of existing foreign channels and not Indian channels and it makes very basic sense. Marginal revenue, with little or no significant investment.
There is no such thing as transponder shortage in U.S. The per capita income of an american is way more than an indian. The ARPU of Dth and cable companies is vastly superior than ours. The U.S is largely made of immigrants from all over the world and europeans form a significant part so the market is there to be exploited. Soccer is the number 1 sport in the world and the U.S market is the best thing if you are looking at making money.
please go see some stats on "sacker" viewership in america before spouting this nonsense. "Sacker" is the most played youth sport in the states, but its viewership is abysmal. Your little immigrant theories fall flat on their face, I'm afraid.
As for the comparison, it's based purely on numbers. Based on your assesment of things, I would imagine any channel in Sri Lanka should not be viable. Small, relatively poor population, why do they bother having TV there? Please do spend some time observing the world around you, sir.
I agree with you about the last part but on what basis did you conclude that just because of our population a football channel will be a success ? A population alone is not a parameter to decide it's commercial viability. A lot of dynamics are involved in it.
Profound. But there's a much simpler logic to it when you're talking about viability of TV channels. It's something like this: 1% of 1.2 billion is greater than 80% of 1 million. Population sort of inherently becomes a measure of commerical viability, because a large customer base is appealing to advertizers and content providers alike. There is virtually no grographical cost attached to customer acquisitions in this regard, so the viability is fairly self evident. Again, think of this in terms of existing foreign channels and not Indian channels and it makes very basic sense. Marginal revenue, with little or no significant investment.
please go see some stats on \"sacker\" viewership in america before spouting this nonsense. \"Sacker\" is the most played youth sport in the states, but its viewership is abysmal. Your little immigrant theories fall flat on their face, I'm afraid.
I have seen a lot of stupid posts on the various forums i use but this one really takes the biscuit.
Just shows how clueless you are when you say that soccer viewership in the U.S is abysmal. Why don't you show me those stats , sir ? Oh and is "sacker" an american accent for soccer ? If yes then i'm sorry as it lends no credibility to your post. Just to see how popular soccer is in U.S just check out this ; BigSoccer
As for the comparison, it's based purely on numbers. Based on your assesment of things, I would imagine any channel in Sri Lanka should not be viable. Small, relatively poor population, why do they bother having TV there? Please do spend some time observing the world around you, sir.
Another ridiculous example and in my response i'll just say that launching a cricket channel in china would be a success. Hope that helps.
Profound. But there's a much simpler logic to it when you're talking about viability of TV channels. It's something like this: 1% of 1.2 billion is greater than 80% of 1 million. Population sort of inherently becomes a measure of commerical viability, because a large customer base is appealing to advertizers and content providers alike.
Again i will say that launching a cricket channel in china will be a success. Still persisting with your theory about Population sort of inherently becoming a measure of commerical viability, ?
There is virtually no geographical cost attached to customer acquisitions in this regard, so the viability is fairly self evident. Again, think of this in terms of existing foreign channels and not Indian channels and it makes very basic sense. Marginal revenue, with little or no significant investment.
Your argument is incredibly flawed as once again you think that launching a football channel is same as launching Star movies or HBO in India. You last statement is shocking as i fail to see how a new channel may not require significant investment. A little bit of banter on the forum is fun but i just feel that you have completely misunderstood my original post.
I have seen a lot of stupid posts on the various forums i use but this one really takes the biscuit.
Just shows how clueless you are when you say that soccer viewership in the U.S is abysmal. Why don't you show me those stats , sir ? Oh and is "sacker" an american accent for soccer ? If yes then i'm sorry as it lends no credibility to your post. Just to see how popular soccer is in U.S just check out this ; BigSoccer
As for the comparison, it's based purely on numbers. Based on your assesment of things, I would imagine any channel in Sri Lanka should not be viable. Small, relatively poor population, why do they bother having TV there? Please do spend some time observing the world around you, sir.
Another ridiculous example and in my response i'll just say that launching a cricket channel in china would be a success. Hope that helps.
Profound. But there's a much simpler logic to it when you're talking about viability of TV channels. It's something like this: 1% of 1.2 billion is greater than 80% of 1 million. Population sort of inherently becomes a measure of commerical viability, because a large customer base is appealing to advertizers and content providers alike.
Again i will say that launching a cricket channel in china will be a success. Still persisting with your theory about Population sort of inherently becoming a measure of commerical viability, ?
There is virtually no geographical cost attached to customer acquisitions in this regard, so the viability is fairly self evident. Again, think of this in terms of existing foreign channels and not Indian channels and it makes very basic sense. Marginal revenue, with little or no significant investment.
Your argument is incredibly flawed as once again you think that launching a football channel is same as launching Star movies or HBO in India. You last statement is shocking as i fail to see how a new channel may not require significant investment. A little bit of banter on the forum is fun but i just feel that you have completely misunderstood my original post.
I have seen a lot of stupid posts on the various forums i use but this one really takes the biscuit.
Just shows how clueless you are when you say that soccer viewership in the U.S is abysmal. Why don't you show me those stats , sir ? Oh and is \"sacker\" an american accent for soccer ? If yes then i'm sorry as it lends no credibility to your post. Just to see how popular soccer is in U.S just check out this ; BigSoccer
Hahaha.. brilliant. Urmm.. ever lived in the States? I would imagine not if you're posting forums as evidence of yanks being "into" football. Give them anything to talk about and they yap. Google yank football viewership stats for all I care - what I say is based on reading the WSJ about a year ago, which was comparing finances of the 3 big sports and "sacker" (this would be a wisconsin accent, FYI)
Another ridiculous example and in my response i'll just say that launching a cricket channel in china would be a success. Hope that helps.
I'm not advocating a kabbadi channel accross the Americas, I'm advocating a football channel in India. Where no investment is made in India. Try some basic economics courses.
Again i will say that launching a cricket channel in china will be a success. Still persisting with your theory about Population sort of inherently becoming a measure of commerical viability, ?
Human stupidity really is limitless. Context. Go look up what it means.
Your argument is incredibly flawed as once again you think that launching a football channel is same as launching Star movies or HBO in India. You last statement is shocking as i fail to see how a new channel may not require significant investment.
I never said anything about HBO or Star Movies. And if you think I'm talking about a "new channe" you've clearly been thinking too hard about what you're going to say next and not thinking enough about what I am saying. I never said anything about launching a "new" channel, just the "new" launch of an existing channel in India. i.e. Setanta Sports, for example.
A little bit of banter on the forum is fun.
Finally something we agree on.
Just shows how clueless you are when you say that soccer viewership in the U.S is abysmal. Why don't you show me those stats , sir ? Oh and is \"sacker\" an american accent for soccer ? If yes then i'm sorry as it lends no credibility to your post. Just to see how popular soccer is in U.S just check out this ; BigSoccer
Hahaha.. brilliant. Urmm.. ever lived in the States? I would imagine not if you're posting forums as evidence of yanks being "into" football. Give them anything to talk about and they yap. Google yank football viewership stats for all I care - what I say is based on reading the WSJ about a year ago, which was comparing finances of the 3 big sports and "sacker" (this would be a wisconsin accent, FYI)
Another ridiculous example and in my response i'll just say that launching a cricket channel in china would be a success. Hope that helps.
I'm not advocating a kabbadi channel accross the Americas, I'm advocating a football channel in India. Where no investment is made in India. Try some basic economics courses.
Again i will say that launching a cricket channel in china will be a success. Still persisting with your theory about Population sort of inherently becoming a measure of commerical viability, ?
Human stupidity really is limitless. Context. Go look up what it means.
Your argument is incredibly flawed as once again you think that launching a football channel is same as launching Star movies or HBO in India. You last statement is shocking as i fail to see how a new channel may not require significant investment.
I never said anything about HBO or Star Movies. And if you think I'm talking about a "new channe" you've clearly been thinking too hard about what you're going to say next and not thinking enough about what I am saying. I never said anything about launching a "new" channel, just the "new" launch of an existing channel in India. i.e. Setanta Sports, for example.
A little bit of banter on the forum is fun.
Finally something we agree on.
Hahaha.. brilliant. Urmm.. ever lived in the States? I would imagine not if you're posting forums as evidence of yanks being "into" football. Give them anything to talk about and they yap.
What has living in the U.S got to do with making your point valid ? Your are still talking nonsense when you generalize a small section of americans you have spoken to that of the entire people living in america , oh yes and that includes non amercians who love to watch soccer over there.
Google yank football viewership stats for all I care - what I say is based on reading the WSJ about a year ago, which was comparing finances of the 3 big sports and "sacker" (this would be a wisconsin accent, FYI)
You have got your head so high up america's arse that you are still not able to see what i'm saying. If you think that the viewership is only confined to amercians and MLS then it's no point arguing. It's funny to see you mention a report on finances in wall street journal. Soccer will always be playing catch up with other popular american sports coz it was compared with the MLS whereas i was talking about general soccer viewership which includes the Champion's League ( the most watched competiton over the entire world FYI ) , the Barclays Premier league (again most watched league in the world) , La Liga , Serie A , french league , bundesliga , the international qualifiers and friendlies and other european leagues. Living in the U.S i hope you do know that the coverage of world soccer there is amazing.
I'm not advocating a kabbadi channel accross the Americas, I'm advocating a football channel in India. Where no investment is made in India. Try some basic economics courses.
No investment is made ? Espn Star sports were just fooling around since the time they have been showing football , right.The same for tensports who show quite a lot of football too.
If any investment is needed , it is at the grass roots level where the facilities and structure has to be improved to promote the game among Indian children. You have still not properly answered my question about why a football channel in india will be a success. The only answer you have so far come up with is , as a investment which is hilarious.It's ironic that you mention about economic courses but fail to take into account other factors behind launching a football channel. As a investment people with large money can even launch a Gilli-Danda channel.
Human stupidity really is limitless. Context. Go look up what it means.
I was only answering in the language you understand.
I never said anything about HBO or Star Movies. And if you think I'm talking about a "new channel" you've clearly been thinking too hard about what you're going to say next and not thinking enough about what I am saying. I never said anything about launching a "new" channel, just the "new" launch of an existing channel in India. i.e. Setanta Sports, for example.
I admit that i took your existing channels thing in the wrong context. So apologies on that part.
But are still not able to grasp this and again you display your myopic thinking. How exactly would launching setanta sports in india be a good thing when almost all the important telecast rights are with other sports channels ? What are they going to show on their channel ? Irish rugby and the irish football which indians will definitely prefer over EPL ? What sense does it make ? FYI setanta sports is not an exclusive football channel and it shows other sports as well. Having lived in the U.S i hope you know that football telecast rights over there are distributed over a number of sports channels as against the few here. So if setanta have won the telecast rights it makes a hell lot of sense to launch their channel in the U.S rather than selling those to other sports channels.
Finally something we agree on.
What has living in the U.S got to do with making your point valid ? Your are still talking nonsense when you generalize a small section of americans you have spoken to that of the entire people living in america , oh yes and that includes non amercians who love to watch soccer over there.
Google yank football viewership stats for all I care - what I say is based on reading the WSJ about a year ago, which was comparing finances of the 3 big sports and "sacker" (this would be a wisconsin accent, FYI)
You have got your head so high up america's arse that you are still not able to see what i'm saying. If you think that the viewership is only confined to amercians and MLS then it's no point arguing. It's funny to see you mention a report on finances in wall street journal. Soccer will always be playing catch up with other popular american sports coz it was compared with the MLS whereas i was talking about general soccer viewership which includes the Champion's League ( the most watched competiton over the entire world FYI ) , the Barclays Premier league (again most watched league in the world) , La Liga , Serie A , french league , bundesliga , the international qualifiers and friendlies and other european leagues. Living in the U.S i hope you do know that the coverage of world soccer there is amazing.
I'm not advocating a kabbadi channel accross the Americas, I'm advocating a football channel in India. Where no investment is made in India. Try some basic economics courses.
No investment is made ? Espn Star sports were just fooling around since the time they have been showing football , right.The same for tensports who show quite a lot of football too.
If any investment is needed , it is at the grass roots level where the facilities and structure has to be improved to promote the game among Indian children. You have still not properly answered my question about why a football channel in india will be a success. The only answer you have so far come up with is , as a investment which is hilarious.It's ironic that you mention about economic courses but fail to take into account other factors behind launching a football channel. As a investment people with large money can even launch a Gilli-Danda channel. Human stupidity really is limitless. Context. Go look up what it means.
I was only answering in the language you understand.
I never said anything about HBO or Star Movies. And if you think I'm talking about a "new channel" you've clearly been thinking too hard about what you're going to say next and not thinking enough about what I am saying. I never said anything about launching a "new" channel, just the "new" launch of an existing channel in India. i.e. Setanta Sports, for example.
I admit that i took your existing channels thing in the wrong context. So apologies on that part.
But are still not able to grasp this and again you display your myopic thinking. How exactly would launching setanta sports in india be a good thing when almost all the important telecast rights are with other sports channels ? What are they going to show on their channel ? Irish rugby and the irish football which indians will definitely prefer over EPL ? What sense does it make ? FYI setanta sports is not an exclusive football channel and it shows other sports as well. Having lived in the U.S i hope you know that football telecast rights over there are distributed over a number of sports channels as against the few here. So if setanta have won the telecast rights it makes a hell lot of sense to launch their channel in the U.S rather than selling those to other sports channels.
Finally something we agree on.