Comments on: Mobile Rights to Premier League Footie Decline in Value

By: Carlo Longino

Carlo Longino — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:32:37 +0000

A Reuters story on the Guardian site (http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-5946460,00.html) says it was a consortium of Sky and two News Corp. tabloids (The Sun and News of the World) got the mobile rights, while Sky and BT got the internet rights. I’d say that makes it sound like they’re going to forgo the operators and go off-portal, though that will be costly for users.

I think the point stands, though — 10m between five operators for this sort of content should have been a no-brainer.

By: Russell Buckley

Russell Buckley — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:14:15 +0000

JT – The point I was making was that with web video alone being so much bigger than 3 years ago, how come the whole package wasn’t worth more? You’d have thought that web video alone would have increased its value.

As far as mobile video is concerned, if you read my stuff, you’ll know I’m very bearish about the market and err on the side of scepticism. What I was suggesting is that operators are actually bullish about this and surely, they should have been investing in it, if that’s their position.

My view is that, if anything is going to work on mobile video, it’s going to be footie and therefore, the operators should be having a punt on this one.

Russell

By: jt

jt — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:07:02 +0000

You state that “web-based video booming through the sound barrier”? Which I don’t disagree with. YouTube, video Podcasts etc. are definitely changing the face of how the Internet is used.

But, web-based video and mobile video are distinctly different. I see the fact that “near live” mobile content declining in value is bang on. “Near Live” video coverage of sports sounds like a marketing pipe dream to me. Tiny screens, unreliable coverage, little to zero social interaction. It sounds too much like a square peg in a round hole to me.