Of all the marketing of arts in our country is still the most relevant price differentiation. There is no such problem that domestic tariff master price list and would not try to solve by setting the lowest, compared with competitors prices. In less than ten years of price wars is difficult to find the telecommunications industry sector, not endless bleeding of price collapses, regular “shares” and fabulous discounts. Not spared this scourge and pay-TV sector.
Anatomy problems
dumping as the primary source of system features many consumer markets worth looking at the short-lived “Gilded Age” of modern Ukraine. Throughout 2003-2009, the inflated credit money households pushed up demand for all sorts of services, including pay TV. Seeking to have the largest possible share of the market at a stage of rapid growth, the company made a choice in favor of increasing the subscriber base at the expense of operational efficiency. Extensive growth mechanisms fond management companies, as was easy to learn and use, suitable for the purposes of intra-fighting, creating ideal breeding ground for various corruption schemes, which constitute an important part of real life companies.
economic crisis in 2009 and the subsequent “landing” most consumer markets could not change the rules of the game. Obvious problems in the long term, paradoxically stimulate and shareholders, and the management is still inflating subscriber base at any cost, now with the purpose of selling “successful” business at the highest price. The main, if not the only tool increasing its value remains aggressive marketing on the brink of a foul, good taste and common sense.
addition primitive price competition is not a scene out gradually, and other factors. In the context of the protracted crisis, Internet access is only the telecommunications sector, which shows a marked increase. Economics dictates broadband network providers fill their “pipe” attractive to subscribers as possible “heavy” and, most importantly, physically located in the territory of content. Otherwise, they experience significant size of payments to foreign providers.
Traditionallybroadband providers solved this problem by creating inside and outside their networks various “faylopomoyki” chock full of pirated multimedia content. With increasing combat this phenomenon is growing in popularity began to gain TV broadcast as a tool to attract and retain broadband subscribers. To date, only official licenses and only IPTV-broadcast has about hundreds of providers across the country. The amount of illegal broadcasters using IPTV technology and OTT, measured in hundreds. With rare exceptions, every how-ever mature broadband operator in Ukraine provides its subscribers access to traditional television content, adding to it a version with high-definition video on demand and other advanced options.
business model access to television via broadband network allows, if necessary, subsidize services TV watching through the base of Internet access services. Obviously, this is a different situation and business model than that of operators of cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasting networks, which provide one single service. Compete “head” among themselves, they can not even theoretically.
Source: Indicators of indicative prices for pay-TV services, Telecommunication Chamber of Ukraine
Finally, on the market have a more noticeable impact players whose economically unjustified behavior is caused by non-economic goals and objectives. Primal duality Ukrainian television means that the economy is less than in the actions of a specific market subject, the more the policy. Continually increasing degree domestic and foreign life brings to life the conspiracy theories. For several reasons, especially well accepted theory similar to companies with Russian roots.
For example, during 2011-12′s suspicions aroused satellite platform operator “Lybyd TV.” The biggest concern is his obvious connection with the Russian operator “Tricolor TV” and the possible connection with the company “Gazprom”. “Tricolor TV” has established itself as an extremely aggressive player, the subjugation of satellite pay-TV market in Russia with the help of incredibly low prices. As for “Gazprom”, it is usually regarded as the unofficial representative of the Russian state, which in principle is not interested in money (they have one, and so is) when it comes to media influence, but is constantly involved in foreign adventures. As predicted in last year’s publications ProIT, the Russians failed to repeat the success of “Tricolor TV” in Ukraine. Judging by their last steps, they still do not have access to the bins homeland. So what version of participation in the project “Lybyd TV” can be considered money Gazprom has not found confirmation.
But if the last time the troublemaker, the company “NTV-Ukraine”, part of “Gazprom” is a legal fact. It proposed in October, prices set a new record, leaving the competition far behind and is much higher. Which coincided with the development of conflict between Ukraine and Russia over relations with the EU, this step is one of the oldest operators DTH-made CIS observers to wonder about its underpinnings.
swan, crayfish and pike in finding consensus
A comprehensive picture of the state of affairs has a round table “How to overcome the negative effects on the pay-TV market in Ukraine?” held October 23, 2013 in the exhibition EEBC-2013. He gathered all market participants, without exception, including the Media Group, operators of software services in all environments (traditional cable, satellite, OTT and IPTV, ether), representatives of the authorities. Sufficient to enumerate all who took the time and desire to send their representatives – Media Group “Ukraine” company “Will”, “Torsat”, “Divan-TV”, “NTV-Ukraine”, “Triolan», Discovery, Viasat, Megogo, Association holders and content providers (APPC), the All-Ukrainian Association of cable television and telecommunication networks (VAOKTB), Association “Ukrteleset” Russian “First Channel. World Network “), the State Intellectual Property Service, NCCR, ACU – to assess the importance of the stated theme. The National Council for Radio and Television acted as patron activities, but prolonged sitting is not allowed its members, as well as a number of experts to take part in it.
as “highlights” at the round table were presented the so-called indicative prices for television content designed Telecommunications Chamber to supply a number of players. The idea of ??such prices for a long time already in the air as a way to put a little substance, in fact, the talk in the spirit of “the fool!” In a more or less meaningful plane. This requires at least-what that quantitative targets, objective and scientifically sound. One of the initiators of the indicative prices, the president of “Will” Sergey Boyko, chairman and acting as he could, in his report have tried to make these calculations worthy sound. However, further discussion is not given up hope of consensus.
Source: Indicators of indicative prices for pay-TV services, Telecommunication Chamber of Ukraine
first everyone was entirely “for”, then not have been calls to take the offered prices as dogma and allow deviation from them by 10-15%. Then it was a question as to prevent even a “zero price” in the price lists. Part speakers suspected Mr. Boyko insincerity, blaming “Will” in the regular dumping. As an example, the company’s actions in the Donetsk region, where analogue television services are offered at a rate of 1 hryvnia per year. In other cases, five cents per month enjoy access to 173 channels of digital television it when connected to the promotional package of Internet access.
Mr. Boyko as he could, fighting off these accusations, pointing to the temporary nature of the dumping promotional offers. Such proposals, he argued, is a classical marketing, the operator subsidizes transition party, hoping to recover their costs at the end of the period of favorable conditions. In turn, as adherents of “real” dumping he called “NTV-Ukraine” and “Triolan” whose representatives were also present in the hall.
This proposal was gladly accepted to attend. Judging by the reaction of the audience, both companies were able to alienate many. Especially got the Russians, who were accused of sabotage against Ukraine information, targeted market collapse and other grievous sins. “Triolan” look if a lesser evil, then slightly smaller. In turn, representatives of both companies did not avoid the debate and offered their own arguments.
the course of the play were affected by the theme of piracy and relationships with owners. Judging from the replicas and recriminations, the market is difficult to find a player whose business practices impeccable looks into the eyes of competitors and colleagues. Surrealism is happening clearly illustrated project manager DIVAN.tv Mr. Kolodyuk. His emotional speech about the inadmissibility of “piracy” has caused a snide reminder representatives of media groups that just that he himself does. Contribute to the atmosphere of madness made easy Representative another OTT-project, MEGOGO. According to him, the primary cause of wrongful practices access to unlicensed content is the inadequacy of the proposed conditions of users. To effectively combat the “pirates”, he urged all to rethink their approaches and offer the audience even more favorable conditions. Puzzled questions from the audience were left without a clear answer: whether it is a free distribution of content, or even offered to subsidize its viewers?
On the role of the speech can claim meaningful short remark representative of the Antimonopoly Committee. He drew the attention of all present, that they are doing nothing more than a discussion of the so-called agreed prices or, in other words, the cartel agreement. Any form negotiate these prices is fraught with competition and suppression may be considered an offense. Judging by the nervous laughter that greeted the participants obvious remarks, this idea is simply not occurred to them.
Final decisionsroundtable are the same declarative anybody noncommittal character, like all the previous ones. The reason for this lies on the surface. First, it is an inherent conflict of interest between market participants, who are desperately fighting for the same money the same subscribers. Secondly, it is the absence of a functioning regulator and, more broadly, an effective system of compulsion to abide by the law. Thirdly, the coexistence in one product market companies with fundamentally different business models, which leads to different limits of the possible for them.
In such a situation will not work or self-organization mechanisms, nor indicative prices. Conceptually, you can try some order to restore within a single segment, such as TTF-broadcasting or DTH-platforms. On the other hand, each of these operators directly competes other platforms, technologies and business models, so allocate them offline segment impossible.
only force capable of providing at least the relative order in the market, anyway, is the state. And he, again, so far seen only one more or less obvious interest: monitoring the information sphere of the country. Inability to resist legitimate players rampant dumping creates a springboard for a “third force”, disorganized and unconnected. Does this help the country? Good question …
No comments:
Post a Comment