Sky & Content

Forums › Sky and IGLOO › Sky & Content

ronw

362 posts

Ultimate Geek

Topic # 102724 21-May-2012 11:28
Reading Stuff Technology this morning there is a suggestion that the high price TV channels pay for content is because of our fragmented purchasing by individual channels. There is a hint there that Sky may end up being the sole purchaser of content for all NZ TV Channels. That would really worry me and seems to have come out of left field. I would not like to see such an organisation having sole control of all programming by dint of being the sole organisation allowed to make TV purchases. I presume the idea would be to buy content keep what they want and offer the rest to other channels. Anyone else understand what is going on here? Samsung Galaxy SIV rooted Samsung P1000 7" Tablet Samsung 8.9" Tablet Asus Nexus Tablet 7.0 ASUS eee Transformer with dock

Ragnor

6888 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 628268 21-May-2012 11:32
Stuff is a tabloid "newspaper" and you can't take half the stories seriously.

ronw

362 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 628270 21-May-2012 11:34
That is plainly silly you have ignored the content altogether Ragnor: Stuff is a tabloid "newspaper" and you can't take half the stories seriously. Samsung Galaxy SIV rooted Samsung P1000 7" Tablet Samsung 8.9" Tablet Asus Nexus Tablet 7.0 ASUS eee Transformer with dock

tdgeek

1698 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Telecom NZ

Reply # 628274 21-May-2012 11:44
Ragnor is right, and I scanned the webpage and dont reach your conclusion. Why would we have the highest price per capita?? We are a country with probably just 1.2 million homes. We have no buying power at all.

Ragnor

6888 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 628276 21-May-2012 11:46
This is the story you're referring to? http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6956793/Who-wants-to-see-a-rerun-on-television It's an opinion piece for a start! Then there is this part (below) which doesn't appear to be a cited quote from anyone, just appears to be made up by the author: Sky's dominance of the pay- television market could have a silver lining for viewers if it were able to act as a Pharmac-like monopsony, using monopoly buyer power to force cheap programming deals from overseas studios. Here's the actual ComCom report on the TVNZ and Sky IGLOO partnership on which the opinion piece is very loosely based.. http://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/Business-Competition/Enforcement-Outcomes/Investigation-report-TVNZ-Sky-16-May-2012.pdf An example from the report: The section on content rights/access finds that even though skytv is buying more first run rights, free to air tv is still picking up the majority of first run rights for tv series.

ronw

362 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 628280 21-May-2012 11:57
the trick is with this stories is to work out what the article is trying to tell you. Many stories in paper are factual and for reasons cannot be stated as that. You need to link the story to 1. Amy Adams National minister saying it was good Commerce Commission looking into SKY 2. Ross Patterson rumoured to not be replaced as Government is unhappy with the enquiry in to Sky 3. The relationship between Sky and Government and the fact that said Government dislikes TVNZ and would probably be very happy with anything that diminishes TVNZ Ragnor: This is the story you're referring to? http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6956793/Who-wants-to-see-a-rerun-on-television It's an opinion piece for a start! Then there is this part (below) which doesn't appear to be a cited quote from anyone, just appears to be made up by the author: Sky's dominance of the pay- television market could have a silver lining for viewers if it were able to act as a Pharmac-like monopsony, using monopoly buyer power to force cheap programming deals from overseas studios. Samsung Galaxy SIV rooted Samsung P1000 7" Tablet Samsung 8.9" Tablet Asus Nexus Tablet 7.0 ASUS eee Transformer with dock

Ragnor

6888 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 628286 21-May-2012 12:13
Do you understand the difference between an editorial/opinion piece and a regular news article? A regular news article presents factual information about a situation/event and has a timeliness connected to it. It is objective because no opinion or conclusions are included. An editorial is the authors or newspapers personal opinion on a subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_piece

ronw

362 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 628344 21-May-2012 13:59
yes very well but if you don't understand what I am referring to then I give up. Ragnor: Do you understand the difference between an editorial/opinion piece and a regular news article? A regular news article presents factual information about a situation/event and has a timeliness connected to it. It is objective because no opinion or conclusions are included. An editorial is the authors or newspapers personal opinion on a subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_piece Samsung Galaxy SIV rooted Samsung P1000 7" Tablet Samsung 8.9" Tablet Asus Nexus Tablet 7.0 ASUS eee Transformer with dock

itxtme

791 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 628390 21-May-2012 15:04
Ragnor: This is the story you're referring to? http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6956793/Who-wants-to-see-a-rerun-on-television It's an opinion piece for a start! Then there is this part (below) which doesn't appear to be a cited quote from anyone, just appears to be made up by the author: Sky's dominance of the pay- television market could have a silver lining for viewers if it were able to act as a Pharmac-like monopsony, using monopoly buyer power to force cheap programming deals from overseas studios. Here's the actual ComCom report on the TVNZ and Sky IGLOO partnership on which the opinion piece is very loosely based.. http://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/Business-Competition/Enforcement-Outcomes/Investigation-report-TVNZ-Sky-16-May-2012.pdf An example from the report: The section on content rights/access finds that even though skytv is buying more first run rights, free to air tv is still picking up the majority of first run rights for tv series. That comparison to pharmac makes me laugh out loud. How can you force the studio of one particular show to lower their prices, if you want that show you want that show, unlike in the drug industry, nobody else makes THAT show.

Ragnor

6888 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 628439 21-May-2012 16:12
Yeah and... One national buyer that's a government run agency for life saving drugs/pharmaceuticals makes good sense. One national buyer that's a public/private company buying entertainment content doesn't make sense. I'm sure the author just pulled that one out of thin air for sensationalisms sake, it's not mentioned in the ComCom report that prompted the writing of the opinion piece in the first place that I can see.

JimmyH

752 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 628605 21-May-2012 21:52
Ragnor is essentially correct - that isn't remotely a news story or a story that is grounded in fact or any serious proposal. It isn't news at all. It's an opinion piece with a columnist flying a speculative kite to try and pad out the word count on an article.