4 ms·

This seems like they are aiming to increase profit margins instead of increasing the supply and decreasing the price. Considering that increasing the supply is

by mrtksn 6mo ago

This seems like they are aiming to increase profit margins instead of increasing the supply and decreasing the price. Considering that increasing the supply is trivial in digital products, maybe they are competing in a saturated market? Spaniards attitudes can be quite different from the American ones, Americans just pay for everything for convenience, in Spain you probably need to match the price of the IPTV to steal their customers. Apparently IPTV costs 20 to 60 Euros per year, the legal option is over 100 euros per month. To match the IPTV they need 20x price reduction. This would mean that they need sign in 20x more Spaniards to break even with the current situation. Are there 20x more Spaniards pirating the LaLiga than paying? Even in Spain I don’t think so.

Swizec 6mo ago
> This would mean that they need sign in 20x more Spaniards to break even with the current situation. Are there 20x more Spaniards pirating the LaLiga than paying? Even in Spain I don’t think so. Is it possible the product just isn’t worth the price they want to charge? Entirely likely. On average at population scale, people are shockingly good at voting with their wallets.
- mrtksn 6mo ago
  I agree, maybe people who play with a ball and their managers should get a pay cut instead of trying to optimize revenue streams through draconian measures.
fluoridation 6mo ago
> Apparently IPTV costs 20 to 60 Euros per year, the legal option is over 100 euros per month. To match the IPTV they need 20x price reduction. Uh... Huh? How is EUR 20 * 20 approximately EUR 100?
- mrtksn 6mo ago
  If you do the maths correctly it’s in that range, roughly. (100*12 months) = 1200 euros/year 1200/60 = 20 so 20x difference between the most expensive IPTV and the cheapest legal option. You can go with the 20 EUR IPTV vs the 200 EUR legal option and it would be 120x difference but probably the quality would be the same so let’s stick with the 20x.
  - fluoridation 6mo ago
    Oh, per year. Duh. My bad. I just be tired, it's the second time in a few minutes that I've completely misread something.
    - mrtksn 6mo ago
      No worries :) I shouldn't have been mixing months and years type subscriptions in first place.

by mrtksn 6mo ago

Swizec 6mo ago

> This would mean that they need sign in 20x more Spaniards to break even with the current situation. Are there 20x more Spaniards pirating the LaLiga than paying? Even in Spain I don’t think so. Is it possible the product just isn’t worth the price they want to charge? Entirely likely. On average at population scale, people are shockingly good at voting with their wallets.

mrtksn 6mo ago
I agree, maybe people who play with a ball and their managers should get a pay cut instead of trying to optimize revenue streams through draconian measures.

fluoridation 6mo ago

> Apparently IPTV costs 20 to 60 Euros per year, the legal option is over 100 euros per month. To match the IPTV they need 20x price reduction. Uh... Huh? How is EUR 20 * 20 approximately EUR 100?

mrtksn 6mo ago
If you do the maths correctly it’s in that range, roughly. (100*12 months) = 1200 euros/year 1200/60 = 20 so 20x difference between the most expensive IPTV and the cheapest legal option. You can go with the 20 EUR IPTV vs the 200 EUR legal option and it would be 120x difference but probably the quality would be the same so let’s stick with the 20x.
- fluoridation 6mo ago
  Oh, per year. Duh. My bad. I just be tired, it's the second time in a few minutes that I've completely misread something.
  - mrtksn 6mo ago
    No worries :) I shouldn't have been mixing months and years type subscriptions in first place.