| Quote from: WWWombat |
Presumably the point of the advertising is to persuade more people to care. Just like the advertising of Superfast (whether retail advertising of BT Infinity, or generic advertising of each superfast-XXX county) is meant to persuade people to swap to a fibre-based product.
Both market shares are improving, so the advertising is having an effect. Are the shares improving fast enough to say the campaigns are successful? Hard for us to know that.
Certainly BT's aim is to both improve their market share for phone & broadband, to create a market share for TV, and to improve the income per subscriber (ARPU). Spending on both the rollout of fibre and on the sports rights are their chosen vehicles for achieving this; I see no problem in either... yet I am not a subscriber to BT Infinity, and wouldn't choose to jump there for access to BT sports. I am not their target market, but I understand what they are aiming for.
|
They were growing anyway.
Is BT sport a selling point? yes. But I dont give it the same value as sky sports. BT sport is ok if you like rugby or the top 4 EPL teams.
However lets look at it another way. The 2/3 FTTC rollout capital spending if it was doubled, instead of BT sports would that have been as effective as BT sports, I think probably not. As harsh as that sounds.
BT dont care if you get FTTC or FTTP even tho the latter is better, the former still allow's them to advertise fibre due to sloppy ASA regulation and compete with the likes of VM. In other words FTTC is "good enough". They can advertise up to 76mbit as only 10% of consumers are required to achieve that speed. With that said I think their spending in BT sports wont break even with current strategy. The tell tale signs of this is how BT have been raising line costs since.
