Cable TV industry needs more time to mature
Long dominated by monopolistic entities, the industry can only improve by new providers emerging and offering better services and options
For decades Thailand’s cable TV industry was dominated by a few major providers, with TrueVisions having the lion’s share recently thanks largely to its control of “premium content”, especially its English Premier League football broadcast rights. Things changed this year when newcomer CTH beat TrueVisions to acquire the EPL rights and consumers foresaw an alternative to the True monopoly. Besides CTH, other players like GMMZ and RS also hold European football broadcast rights. At first glance, the emergence of new providers was a promising sign for consumers, but it’s still too early to say whether having more providers automatically translates to consumer benefits.
Have we reached the point of this being a buyer’s market? Not quite, to judge from viewers’ reactions. Fans of European football now realise that competition among the providers hasn’t benefited them much. They must pay around Bt2,800 a month to view the major football leagues and buy at least three receiver boxes.
Although CTH’s subscription fee is slightly lower that that of TrueVisions, some subscribers are reluctant to shun TrueVisions, whose service still has more to offer in terms of sports, movies and reality TV shows. CTH, they find, doesn’t yet offer sufficient quantity or quality. To be fair, CTH has to create its other programming from scratch. It took TrueVisions years to provide so-called “premium” programming. Its dominance since the merger of UTV and IBC gave birth to UBC in 1997 allows it to monopolise the market by default. That gives it enormous bargaining power in negotiations with overseas content providers.
The best strategy for the new providers was to get “magnet” shows. In the case of CTH, that meant English football, while RS went for Spain’s La Liga. While they strive to boost quantity to draw new subscribers, shows are repeated often. They might have more than 100 channels, but is this what consumers really want?
Having more providers doesn’t give consumers a greater choice. The rule of supply and demand is not always applicable. Consumers are still looking for better service. One of the major drawbacks to what’s available is that the platforms are not yet synchronised, so consumers must have extra receiver boxes or satellite dishes every time they sign up with a new provider. The pay-per-view option, introduced in Thailand more than a decade ago, has gained little traction among cable operators. Most still prefer “bulk” sales rather than on-demand options. Perhaps they should take a hint from the success of Barclay’s Premier Live Mobile application on AIS. In little more than a week, 200,000 subscribers took up the option for Premier League football on-demand only. The willingness to pay for a particular option might be as close as we get to confirming readiness for on-demand or pay-per-view options.
Thailand’s cable industry has gradually evolved, but more will be needed before we reach the point of owning one receiver box for all, with an a la carte programme menu. Technology is no longer a barrier. It is now up to the providers to evolve. There is hope. Recall that, a decade ago, a similar scenario required a flat monthly fee for a mobile phone on top of the airtime fee. The buyer’s market has not yet arrived, but it will eventually.
