SKY TV have recently lost a court case which potentially means anyone can now watch Premier League games via different TV providers outside of the UK.
(This is a visual metaphor for a fair fight. (Jesus, I sound like those pants Barclays ads.))
This is a major blow for SKY as they've pretty much had it their own way for a while now. They are a financial powerhouse compared to the hamstrung BBC, have the heritage and experience over pretenders like Setanta and as such have been in the driving seat for a while.
But good old Karen Murphy has buggered it up for them. In the short term at least...
Now if I worked at SKY's advertising agency I'd see this as a massive opportunity. Overnight they've gone from a position of ultimate power and instead are now sat alongside a host of overseas TV providers most people have never heard of.
The advertising challenge was: If you want all this football, subscribe to SKY.
This is now irrelevant and they need a new proposition.
The advertising challenge is now: If you want all this football from a trusted source, subscribe to SKY as we're better than our competitors because...
... and it's this because that can have such rich substantiation attached to it.
You see, the Jamie Redknapp's of this world have never really been a selling point of SKY. They've been a bonus on top of the access to the football. Now that access has been democratised, the remainder of the SKY offering has become the main selling point.
Offering access to the football isn't enough any more, it's the other stuff that'll make SKY desirable over other providers.
What SKY need to do is figure out if all this other stuff (the ex players; the presenters; the technology etc) is good enough to compete with the overseas providers. If so, then there's their strategy right there. If not, then it's a signal to us that they've abused their position of power and competition from others will make them stronger.
