- This topic has 108 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I suspect that (in these days of unlimited high-speed broadband) a lot of casual punters will switch to the £9.99 online package. Given this, would it not be a lot better for RUK to have those subscribers all paying an extra £3 for the TV channel? I guess it depends on the ration of hard-core punters vs casual punters. As a casual punter myself, I couldn’t ever justify £20pm, but I would consider £9.99 being that I have an 8mb unltd internet package anyway.
- Total Posts 17716
But, in my opinion, anyone with a serious approach to betting on horse racing can afford to pay a fiver a week for a quality service, and I’ll be disappointed if RUK doesn’t survive.
Well put indeed
Furthermore it strikes me as a little strange that the naysayers here, all of whom I suspect are punters, and therefore by definition have sufficient disposable income to feck around betting the horses are complaining about having to part with a paltry fiver a week in order to make their punting experience more enjoyable, and who knows perhaps even helping make it more profitable to the tune of a tenner a week.
Racing is a minority interest and niche market as evidenced by the current 55,000 subscribers to RUK and the postulated post-Setanta figure of 35,000. Given these small audiences a) we should be grateful we have an independent dedicated racing channel at all and b) given the overheads associated with outside broadcasting that limited audience can hardly expect to receive their entertainment for a pittance.
Sky Sports has a worldwide audience into many millions I’d imagine (don’t subscribe myself) showing for the most part ‘popular’ sports such as Golf and Cricket and therefore any comparison with the ‘value’ of its subscription to that of RUK is invalid.
The Internet is a terrific resource but its one drawback is we have a generation evolving that expects all information, entertainment and knowledge should be free or, at worst, as cheap as possible.
Anyone recall what the monthly subs was to the original pre-ATR1 Racing Channel. I suspect it was £20 too, ten years ago.
It’s precisely because racing is a minority sport that it needs to be circumspect with its charges, and not demand what is, to all but the all-day viewer, a punitive price. The original Racing Channel was aired as part of the then £13 a month basic Sky package, which covered a great deal more than just horseracing.
As someone in that middle ground, in that I am interested in horse racing, but have no wish to watch it all day, every day, I won’t be subscribing – and I’d suggest there are many more like me than like you. 12.99 for Setanta with its other attractions was tolerable; £20 for maybe a couple of hours viewing a month isn’t.It’s noticeable that the virginmedia Q & A on Setanta and other sports channels mentions all sports channels except RUK – http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/setanta.php
It seems to me that virginmedia don’t yet know if they will be charging extra for RUK only now even though it was free with Setanta Sports Pack which was free with the XL TV Pack.
Personally I’ll pay, as it’s an essential for full time punting, but I confess that I’m surprised by the decision to revert to £20 per month immediately.
When RUK started out, they had no other resources and presumably the £20 charge was necessary to cover costs. But they now have a 50% share in Turf TV and can presumably expect to generate profits from that – and that business also provides them with income that is independent of private subscriber fees.
As their press release also mention 2000+ pubs providing further income not connected to Setanta, their overall financial position now must surely be much healthier than when they started out in 2004.
I’ve always been told that the key to a successful business is to hold onto existing customers, because it costs ten times as much to find new ones as to keep an old one. So it seems to me that it would have been sensible to try to keep 50,000+ subscribers at £10, rather than drive many of them away by reverting to £20. Once the new direct debits are in place, then, if necessary, slowly increase the price each year, a process that Sky have successfully employed for the last fifteen years!
AP
Judging by the half dozen on here extolling the virtues of Racing UK I think I might have been inclined to have put it up to £50/month. I suspect it is only good value because you can easily afford to pay it – in another words typical of the ‘i’m alright Jack’ society we live in.
Judging by the half dozen on here extolling the virtues of Racing UK I think I might have been inclined to have put it up to £50/month. I suspect it is only good value because you can easily afford to pay it – in another words typical of the ‘i’m alright Jack’ society we live in.
More of a delineation between hardcore and casual punter imo.
Judging by the half dozen on here extolling the virtues of Racing UK I think I might have been inclined to have put it up to £50/month. I suspect it is only good value because you can easily afford to pay it – in another words typical of the ‘i’m alright Jack’ society we live in.
Don’t agree. We would all like to it to be cheaper and it is in the interest of all punters and everyone in racing that the sport is exposed to as many people as possible. I just happen to think it represents good value for £20 a month.
As someone in that middle ground, in that I am interested in horse racing, but have no wish to watch it all day, every day, I won’t be subscribing – and I’d suggest there are many more like me than like you. 12.99 for Setanta with its other attractions was tolerable; £20 for maybe a couple of hours viewing a month isn’t.
I certainly don’t watch it all day every day, even at the height of the NH season, hence being in agreement with the idea of seasonal subscriptions.
Like circuitous debates on what constitutes value in a horse race, the value of RUK is in the eye or wallet of the beholder, so we’ll call it a draw.
Suffice to say I don’t subscribe to Sky Sports as having little interest in other sports, other than cricket, it seems ‘bad value’ to me.
Thanks for the clarification on The Racing Channel subs. Could have sworn it was on top of the basic Sky Package but I was a late comer to satellite so doubt I had the pleasure of watching Compo and co. in their cosy scout hut for much more than a year.
TDK would I be correct in thinking that your employer pays your sub as it is a tool of your trade?
TDK, can you point to any of the following that makes it good value :-
Constant replays
Poor website that only shows 7 day replays
Less channels in the package
Price hike
lack of horse racing programmes
When Setanta/RUK package started I was quick to subscribe so that I could a) watch the racing reviews when I got home from work and b) follow my beloved Cambridge United in their excellent Blue Square coverage.
It has been great value and I’d probably keep it up even with the increased price as I’ve enjoyed RUK so much.
I was lucky enough to be a guest on ATR yesterday (their International slot 12.45-2) and was impressed by their professional team as well. You easily forget that it wasn’t just Zoe and I but a director and production team working their socks off to get the best, most up to date, news out there.
We are all very lucky to have dedicated racing TV channels and I’d rather have a few less bets to pay for them.
The Racing Channel was indeed £20 per month & that didn’t included the races that were on TV (& in some cases, depending on contracts, it didn’t show the extra races that weren’t on tv ie, cheltenham festival etc).
It only scrapped the subscription when it lost most of the racing to old ATR.
So it was £20 per month in 1995(?) and it’s still £20 per month in 2009!
Bluechariot – yes, but I would be happy to pay for it myself at £20 a month.
Graeme – I’m not going to claim it is
better
value than it was when it was half the price – clearly that isn’t the case.
As stated previously, I think the quality of the presenters is very high for a specialist channel and this is now taken for granted by viewers. I also don’t agree about endless replays. I use the replay progammes to watch and rewatch races. What do you want instead? Looped Stannah Stairlift and Ocean Finance commercials a la ATR?
I have to agree the re-runs are one of the key features of RUK. When you get home from racing in the evening the replays are usually running and you can catch up on the days racing straight away.
Whereas with ATR you have to wait until the following morning, which invariably means having to set the recorder, because they often start the repays after I have set off racing.
I would much rather ATR showed looped replays after UK /Irish racing than showing, in my view, totally meaningless US racing.
Fair enough i take the point on board with regards to replays being a good thing for subscribers(and better than watching American races due to a lack of punting opportunity), and understand people get in to see the replays. Wouldn’t people want to see additional programmes though ? If you look at ATR, their coverage starts at 11:30am with some very handy phone guests and good presenters.
Bluechariot – yes, but I would be happy to pay for it myself at £20 a month.
But obviously you are not going to so another meaningless statement.
Wouldn’t people want to see additional programmes though ? If you look at ATR, their coverage starts at 11:30am with some very handy phone guests and good presenters.
I am sure most would welcome additional programming but it again comes down to cost and it would need to be funded from somewhere.
The obvious funding source would be bookmaker sponsorship – however if they follow that route there will then be those who will be on here complaining about "selling out" to bookmakers and being in their pocket – almost a case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Clearly RUK have recognised their funding is finite and have decided to concentrate in the live coverage as a priority.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.