Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 25

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777064 7-May-2017 10:15

Rikkitic:

Our small population is often used as an excuse to justify the rorting by Sky and others, not just for sport. But our population isn't small at all. With Australia and the Pacific Islands (our natural family members, just as America has states), it is probably around 30 million. We do not have a 'small' population. We are victims of artificial geographical boundaries which make no sense in the age of the Internet and exist purely to line the pockets of content producers so they can keep reselling the same thing in different localities. Fix that and sport (along with everything else) will suddenly become financially viable here, not to mention much, much cheaper. No market there for NZ sport? The islands would love it and even in Australia there would be many fans.

Can you please advise in numbers, dollar numbers, how Sky is rorting? They aren't, thats not my opinion, its fact, read the publically available financials and tell nee where they are charging as much as they can, what the market will bear.

NZ population is 5 million, Sky NZ do not buy rights for Australia or the pacific islands nor do they do business there, they do business in NZ. Australia and Pacific have their one TV systems, and those systems buy rights, and they play the sports, including NZ based sports

Content producers. That is not Sky. That is the sports industry. Their pockets are being lined, I agree. If they released a geography free service, where there are no restrictions, that will be great. BUT, they will still want the same cash that they get now. The geographic issue is probably just more convenient to be honest, they just want their money, so as TV distributors are generally country bound, its probably easier to keep the rights payments country bound as well. But if they decided a formula of population per country is used to share global rights, you can guarantee that the total rights for say rugby, or any other sport is unchanged.

Are we being ripped off? probably, but its by the sports, not the distributors.

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1777066 7-May-2017 10:18

tdgeek:
petes117:

tdgeek:

Sky has stopped buying rights, or been outbid. EPL, Golf, Black Caps to name ones off the top of my head. If Sky bought rights, it has to make them exclusive, as would be the case for anyone else. Given the internet there is no barrier to competition, as there is no need for massive infrastructure, call centres, dishes. The ability to setup a Netflix for Sport is extremely easy compared to what Sky has had to do with satellite.

Why does it have to be exclusive rights?

Passes are a good option, but the risk is how many people are needed to make one pass worthwhile? If I needed four passes that cost me $20 each, and I still miss out on other sports or niche channels, its easy to justify the whole package. Now, if our population was 25 million, that would be a great deal easier

Yes agreed it's easy to justify the whole package if you want to watch everything. But that's our only option right now, there's no other choice. If passes are available worldwide from any provider, then it's not just the 5 million or so kiwis as potential customers.

It is vote with your wallet. Sky cant drop prices, so thats no issue (unless they dropped services) They make $15 per month per subscriber, thats all. Drop prices a piddly $20 a month and they are running at a loss. Sky could say to the major sports providers, we will pay 20% less. They will say no. We are too small, they know we have no wiggle room so we will have to pay. We dont have the population to spread the load.

Exactly, follow this hypothetical to its conclusion...Sky says to the sports providers, we will pay 20% less. They will say no. So they will sell the rights to someone else, or to multiple other parties. We the customers will get more choice. And Sky either pays less for non-exclusive rights and retains the customers who want everything and niche sports/channels, they may lose some customers at first yes, but they have other features to entice customers other than sport.

However it's a risk they have no incentive to take, hence the exclusive rights and high prices. Pains me to say it but a little government intervention here might be appropriate to "unbundle the lines" so to speak, and enforce non-exclusive rights.

If anyone bought Rugby rights for NZ and it wasn't exclusive, then it loses value. If Netflix released the latest and greatest TV series, yet it also was on TV1, TV2, TV3, Sky, Lightbox, Hulu, its valueless, as the rights payments offer no benefit.

Sky cant see worldwide passes, not unless it buys worldwide rights, and that would be HUGE to put it mildly. Sky operates in NZ. There are not 5 million customers here. Remove, kids, remove non sport people, remove sports people but not that sport, remove those who cannot or will not pay. Not that many left

If Sky paid 20% less, for non exclusive, and others also bought the rights, they will all lose and the incentive to buy Sky drops, the incentive to buy the other competitor drops as surely it still wont be cheap, plus these that have Sky for other reasons wont buy. he low low population means that I pay a little subsidy so you can watch rugby, you pay a little subsidy so I can watch F1. Factor in that hey great I do enjoy casually watching other sports, kids channels, niche channels, recording, convenience, and it becomes a bit easier to accept the bill.

Yes, the bill is not cheap. But unless Sky is rorting, it costs what it costs, and I doubt that passes can help for such a small country.

Lets say Foxtel or Sky UK (unrelated company) expanded their sports to NZ via streaming. They still have to pay the same rights fees, as the greedy sports providers don't want a drop in revenue. They need then to setup CDN with NZ telcos; or fund their own servers here, staff that, repair that, etc. There is no getting away from

1. Sports providers want their cash

2. Too few in NZ to spread the cost effectively.

These two problems are Skys problems, and if someone else took over Sky, or competed, its then their problem.

You make the comment that sports providers are greedy. Are they? In the case of the NZRU they don't make much, if any profit. So are they greedy, or is it someone in their supply chain that's "greedy". The obvious group to focus on in the NZRU is the players, but they're operating in an international market, commanding international prices. The problem for Skyis that they don't operate in the same market so their margins are squeezed, which forces them to charge what they charge to make a rerun on their investment.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1777081 7-May-2017 10:46

I don't know who the greedy one is but I do know that someone is. The ridiculous sums involved go somewhere.

I also have doubts about the exclusivity argument. With the exception of a few hugely overpriced AB T-shirts, most high end goods can be found in multiple shops. Nike shoes are not exclusive to one retailer only (at least, I don't think so). The same is true of most desirable (=expensive) products. Why not TV content? There are different ways of competing. Some would choose to pay more and watch without ads. Others might prefer their ads during breaks in the action, or overlaid, or any number of other imaginative ways. Some channels could offer additional incentives to attract viewers. Put up with a 1-day delay and get it cheaper, like day-old bread (a useful concept that seems unknown here). The 'exclusive or nothing' argument doesn't wash. This is just laziness and lack of imagination. Free market competition works in other areas. A big merger was just prevented because of monopoly fears. So why are content monopolies allowed? There are many different ways of presenting content. Having the same thing available on multiple channels does not kill the industry, it just forces some long-overdue change.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1777099 7-May-2017 11:34

To require sports fans in this country to be beholden to a small (by global media standards) locally-owned monopoly company, charging exorbitant prices - relative to the rest of the developed world - is a model so fundamentally past its time, we can only hope it is finally moving into its death throes.

Take the Parker fight last night. A mediocre event with a whopping $50 price tag to watch - pricing that can only be described as an obscene joke.

This morning, the usual day after stories about Sky taking the little guys to court (live streamers), while other punters, those with the know how, simply hooked into the free overseas streams.

stagnant16

206 posts

Master Geek

#1777127 7-May-2017 11:57

dafman:

Take the Parker fight last night. A mediocre event with a whopping $50 price tag to watch - pricing that can only be described as an obscene joke.

Canelo vs. Chavez is $69.99 USD.

The absolute nerve of it.

I'd suggest $50 is a bargain!

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#1777128 7-May-2017 11:57

After I received the e-mail from Sky I was so incensed I hopped on a flight to New Delhi and I can now watch the Rugby for a sixth of the cost of FanPass ;)

sonyxperiageek

2958 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1777136 7-May-2017 12:47

Rikkitic:

I don't know who the greedy one is but I do know that someone is. The ridiculous sums involved go somewhere.

I also have doubts about the exclusivity argument. With the exception of a few hugely overpriced AB T-shirts, most high end goods can be found in multiple shops. Nike shoes are not exclusive to one retailer only (at least, I don't think so). The same is true of most desirable (=expensive) products. Why not TV content? There are different ways of competing. Some would choose to pay more and watch without ads. Others might prefer their ads during breaks in the action, or overlaid, or any number of other imaginative ways. Some channels could offer additional incentives to attract viewers. Put up with a 1-day delay and get it cheaper, like day-old bread (a useful concept that seems unknown here). The 'exclusive or nothing' argument doesn't wash. This is just laziness and lack of imagination. Free market competition works in other areas. A big merger was just prevented because of monopoly fears. So why are content monopolies allowed? There are many different ways of presenting content. Having the same thing available on multiple channels does not kill the industry, it just forces some long-overdue change.

They do sort of have a delay channel and it's Prime. Plus it's free to air too for that matter.

Sony

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Bobdn

222 posts

Master Geek

#1777137 7-May-2017 12:49

dafman:

To require sports fans in this country to be beholden to a small (by global media standards) locally-owned monopoly company, charging exorbitant prices - relative to the rest of the developed world - is a model so fundamentally past its time, we can only hope it is finally moving into its death throes.

Take the Parker fight last night. A mediocre event with a whopping $50 price tag to watch - pricing that can only be described as an obscene joke.

This morning, the usual day after stories about Sky taking the little guys to court (live streamers), while other punters, those with the know how, simply hooked into the free overseas streams.

Being a 'little guy" as you describe it is no defence. It's like saying NZ retail stores, which is another sector under siege, are being mean for prosecuting individual shoplifters.

These little guys have the potential to stream media to thousands.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/80250556/joseph-parker-fight-illegally-broadcast-to-more-than-100000-viewers

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1777143 7-May-2017 13:19

Yabanize:

Why are they able to let overseas people watch our teams play Rugby (rugby pass.com) so much cheaper then we are? $119 USD for 1 year at the moment.

If they did a Fan Pass that was just rugby and no other sports would it be cheaper?

Recall that rugby pass.com is brought to you by the people that did EPL in NZ. And didnt renew the rights (did they even bid?) cos it wasnt economic for them and their partner Spark. EPL is not exactly fringe in NZ - and the renewal rights for NZ didnt have the same sort of sports inflation that SANZAR has enjoyed (or the EPL in Australia). Cost $199 per season (and had increased each year from when PMP launched in NZ).

So now this crowd is taking a punt on buying the rugby rights for SE Asia. Not exactly a huge rugby market. What do you think the rights for those markets costs? Compare that to the NZ40-50m pa for the rights in NZ. Will CSM get enough subscribers to renew the rights for SEAsian rugby? Only time will tell. But its track record with EPL, Golf and Top14 rugby in NZ is pretty spotty.

There used to be a FanPass option for just rugby - or at least for the Super15. The season pass cost something like $300 (I recall it was $300 for NRL and something similar for Formula 1). Putting that in context it costs USD199 for the NFL (17 week regular season and playoffs). Either it wasnt economic or it wasnt popular cos it wasnt offered in subsequent years. Maybe it'll come back next year.

Would it be cheaper? Would you pay $300 for a the Super15? And how much would you pay for International Rugby? And how much would you pay for NPC? Six Nations? RWC?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1777153 7-May-2017 14:06

Bobdn:

dafman:

To require sports fans in this country to be beholden to a small (by global media standards) locally-owned monopoly company, charging exorbitant prices - relative to the rest of the developed world - is a model so fundamentally past its time, we can only hope it is finally moving into its death throes.

Take the Parker fight last night. A mediocre event with a whopping $50 price tag to watch - pricing that can only be described as an obscene joke.

This morning, the usual day after stories about Sky taking the little guys to court (live streamers), while other punters, those with the know how, simply hooked into the free overseas streams.

Being a 'little guy" as you describe it is no defence. It's like saying NZ retail stores, which is another sector under siege, are being mean for prosecuting individual shoplifters.

These little guys have the potential to stream media to thousands.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/80250556/joseph-parker-fight-illegally-broadcast-to-more-than-100000-viewers

I like this quote from Lonergan "It takes money out of Duco's revenue streams, and obviously the more money we have, the more we can afford to pay Joseph Parker."

Memo to Lonergan - based on last night's performance, I think you probably pay him too much already.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1777224 7-May-2017 17:31

The reality is, that as much as we want to dump on sky, they've successfully bid for rights that have been offered under a geo-locked, single broadcaster model.

If Sky didn't win them, someone else would, and we'd still have a monopoly situation on options to view.

I don't know if that's something government wants to get involved with or not, but that's the environment this industry still runs under.

Ultimately the rights holders are a bit slow to realise there could be a bigger market selling direct to users, and/or eventually companies like Sky are just not going to be able to pay those rates due to dwindling subscriber/customer numbers.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1777226 7-May-2017 17:33

Jaxson:

I don't know if that's something government wants to get involved with or not, but that's the environment this industry still runs under.

It actually comes down to the voters of NZ, eg the public. But certainly there is a lot of grumbling going on about it.

We do have an election this year after all. Not sure if they want it to be another election issue, although I guess it will take peoples minds off the housing crisis. I could be a cheap distraction for the government to legislate to get the rights for all nationally significant sports.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777279 7-May-2017 18:25

Rikkitic:

I don't know who the greedy one is but I do know that someone is. The ridiculous sums involved go somewhere.

I also have doubts about the exclusivity argument. With the exception of a few hugely overpriced AB T-shirts, most high end goods can be found in multiple shops. Nike shoes are not exclusive to one retailer only (at least, I don't think so). The same is true of most desirable (=expensive) products. Why not TV content? There are different ways of competing. Some would choose to pay more and watch without ads. Others might prefer their ads during breaks in the action, or overlaid, or any number of other imaginative ways. Some channels could offer additional incentives to attract viewers. Put up with a 1-day delay and get it cheaper, like day-old bread (a useful concept that seems unknown here). The 'exclusive or nothing' argument doesn't wash. This is just laziness and lack of imagination. Free market competition works in other areas. A big merger was just prevented because of monopoly fears. So why are content monopolies allowed? There are many different ways of presenting content. Having the same thing available on multiple channels does not kill the industry, it just forces some long-overdue change.

I do agree. Live sport though does demand a premium. But it does ask the question, where does the money go. Someone said twice that Rugby NZ doesnt make any money. It may be that they don't, but that revenue is high, but costs are high. Id lie to think they plough a lot back to grassroots rugby. But SANZAR? IVESCO who runs V8 Supercars was about to be dropped by Sky a few years ago, due to unrealistic costs. As someone said earlier today, we live in a world of international salaries and costs, but we dont have the population to spread it around. If we dropped geographic restrictions, these sports bodies wont what a drop in revenue, so I dont see a drop in costs to us, aka subscriptions. While in that scenario, our low population wont matter, the takers wont want the take to drop.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777290 7-May-2017 18:35

dafman:

To require sports fans in this country to be beholden to a small (by global media standards) locally-owned monopoly company, charging exorbitant prices - relative to the rest of the developed world - is a model so fundamentally past its time, we can only hope it is finally moving into its death throes.

Take the Parker fight last night. A mediocre event with a whopping $50 price tag to watch - pricing that can only be described as an obscene joke.

This morning, the usual day after stories about Sky taking the little guys to court (live streamers), while other punters, those with the know how, simply hooked into the free overseas streams.

Please advise how the bespoken monopoly (Sky I assume), can bring things back to a more acceptable pricing. Just give us a monthly acceptable sub that covers sport

The model is past its time? Explain. Why was no one giving us OD and streaming when Sky was created?? Who allowed rural people who cannot get TV to get TV? Who paid for exclusive rights for rugby, but played it on delayed coverage on Prime for free? When satellite came in it was ground breaking. I doubt then that Sky thought, "OMG, streaming is around the corner" These days, streaming is the go. Although you wont always get issue free, uninterrupted HD streaming. Either due to buffering, your connection, the source connection (ever watched India Black Caps cricket last year?) Should live streaming be live, except for 10 to 20 minutes, so its essentially HDD driven, it would be good. Sky created an infrastructure based on high costs. There was no other option then. Now, they need to evaluate, how can we hang on, or do we drop satellite and go all streaming? Thats their choice, and then it will happen. But to call it a failed model is silly. Turboprops were silly, analogue TV was silly, dialup was silly.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1777292 7-May-2017 18:38

mattwnz:

Jaxson:

I don't know if that's something government wants to get involved with or not, but that's the environment this industry still runs under.

It actually comes down to the voters of NZ, eg the public. But certainly there is a lot of grumbling going on about it.

We do have an election this year after all. Not sure if they want it to be another election issue, although I guess it will take peoples minds off the housing crisis. I could be a cheap distraction for the government to legislate to get the rights for all nationally significant sports.

Ah the fallacy of nationally significant sports and anti-siphoning. Great vote grabber but it takes years to repair the damage.

The current situation with Cricket Australia is absolutely fascinating. It looks like CA will be lucky to get the same level of revenue for cricket rights given anti-siphoning provisions in Australia. Contrast that with AFL and NFL bodies who are making money hand-over-fist with media rights. At least CA will get more revenue from Big Bash League given its not a "nationally significant sport".

So Channel Ten cant afford to buy the cricket rights, Channel Seven doesnt want them and the only buyer left is Channel Nine. The wonderful legislation that makes cricket (involving the national team) only accessible to FTA broadcasters means only one buyer. And Cricket Australia will lose out. Good for the consumer? Doubtful. Nine can lowball on offer on its own terms (delayed? highlights? fewer cameras and toys like RTS?) to the possible detriment of the viewer. Great huh?

So who decides what sport is nationally significant? You? The public on some straw poll? The pollies? MCH or ComCom. Ministry for Sport and Recreation? All Blacks would get the nod but not Super18. Should the Warriors be classed as nationally significant? Or the Breakers? They are NZ teams in Trans Tasman competitions. One would think not nationally significant. How about Hockey or Bowls? I'm seriously doubting that a FTA broadcaster, which either rarely or never broadcast these sports, would step up and show them if they were classed as nationally significant. Ergo the public loses out vis a vis the current situation. Thankfully the draft bill was defeated - it would overturn years of analysis by Ministerial Departments in favour of what a politician thinks is a good idea.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 25