Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

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

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 25

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777293 7-May-2017 18:38

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 watched the AJ fight. I saw the Stuff video clips on the Parker fight. I see 100,000 unhappy watchers! But I hear your point. the boxing is a bit different though, there are no rights, they get the revenue, and its split between Duco and Sky. But Sky Sport is superior value compared to boxing.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1777299 7-May-2017 18:42

tdgeek:

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.

Brian Gaynor's analysis of rugby as a business has NZ Rugby posting a loss. Players will get 35% of revenue in the new agreement.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/brian-gaynor/news/article.cfm?a_id=14&objectid=11847059

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777300 7-May-2017 18:43

ockel:

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?

Yep, and for me add in F1, Grand Slam Tennis and MotoGP. The end result, is will I pay more? Will, I pay a bit less, but its value for me to pay a bulk Sky and get other stuff as well?

The 40M has been quoted here a couple of times? Wow. How many would subscribe in NZ?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777301 7-May-2017 18:45

dafman:

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.

Thats the issue. Forget Parker, what about all the rugger players? Each team has probably 30 contracted players, Then the AB's, then the support staff let alone travel. Its a lot of cost. And of the 5 million in NZ, what we can pay?

quickymart

14964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14003

ID Verified

#1777302 7-May-2017 18:45

How did Sky Sport survive back in the "olden days" of one UHF sports channel then?
Mind you, (affordable) broadband internet didn't really exist back then, so I guess they didn't really have much competition...

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777305 7-May-2017 18:48

Jaxson:

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.

They bid, and as you say, others would. While you could argue its a monopoly (its not really as anyone can buy), the end result is cost. Sky doesnt bid, then markup 400%.

Govt cannot get into this. If so, I want F1 and MotoGP paid for thanks. Plus tennis. Plus Cartoon Network. Plus Nike if thats also found to be expensive

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777309 7-May-2017 18:53

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.

I have not seen any grumbling. Apart from the trendy Sky haters. What is a nationally significant sport? Not rugby. Its our No.1 sport, but its not like cricket in India. We have many spots that kiwis play in and excel in. Rugby is No.1 but not near a majority as cricket would be in India. Its more a significant minority, numbers wise. I cannot see the Govt getting into that, what a minefield. Its even been criticised here that our taxes should not be used to pay for others sporting fix.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1777335 7-May-2017 19:26

I for one can't be bothered with which grown adult/team got to beat another grown adult/team at a GAME.

Anyone campaigning to use my tax dollars to pay for your hobby would definitely not get my vote. I pay for my own hobbies, and am happy to do so, not expecting anyone else to have to chip in either.

'National sport' or not, there is no justification for expecting others to pay for YOUR hobbies. If the teams can't get sponsorship or viewer numbers, they are not 'worth' their professional career wage, and shout get a job like anyone else. If they ARE, then the people who care to support them will do so.

Actors (for example) also simply perform for their audience... But who here feels we they should subsidise the cost of movies so that all can go to every movie for cheap/free? If the movie (and its actors/director/crew) is good enough we pay what we feel it is 'worth' to us, and movie cinemas find ways to meet the market's needs, and Actors are paid (or not) according to their udience appeal.

This seems fair.

One might easily argue that NetFlix has the fee most are willing to pay, and that 'pirates' prevent actors making what they are really worth... this should be exactly the argument for sport... if they thought he was 'worth' paying for, that boxer would be making far more from people who would WANT to support him? Use the give-a-little idea and offer clients the option to pay "what you think it's worth" for the SD stream... see the FB numbers tank, and the TRUE value of the event... oh wait, they just canned FanPass didn't they...

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1777358 7-May-2017 20:15

PhantomNVD: I for one can't be bothered with which grown adult/team got to beat another grown adult/team at a GAME.

Anyone campaigning to use my tax dollars to pay for your hobby would definitely not get my vote. I pay for my own hobbies, and am happy to do so, not expecting anyone else to have to chip in either.

'National sport' or not, there is no justification for expecting others to pay for YOUR hobbies. If the teams can't get sponsorship or viewer numbers, they are not 'worth' their professional career wage, and shout get a job like anyone else. If they ARE, then the people who care to support them will do so.

Actors (for example) also simply perform for their audience... But who here feels we they should subsidise the cost of movies so that all can go to every movie for cheap/free? If the movie (and its actors/director/crew) is good enough we pay what we feel it is 'worth' to us, and movie cinemas find ways to meet the market's needs, and Actors are paid (or not) according to their udience appeal.

This seems fair.

One might easily argue that NetFlix has the fee most are willing to pay, and that 'pirates' prevent actors making what they are really worth... this should be exactly the argument for sport... if they thought he was 'worth' paying for, that boxer would be making far more from people who would WANT to support him? Use the give-a-little idea and offer clients the option to pay "what you think it's worth" for the SD stream... see the FB numbers tank, and the TRUE value of the event... oh wait, they just canned FanPass didn't they...

Exactly. Sports and pasttimes are just hobbies. When sport becomes attractive enough for spectators it becomes entertainment. Just another form of entertainment. However you should try expressing your view to the Commerce Commission who, in their ineptitude, believe that sport is a very special type of entertainment that needs to be protected separately. Spark et al seem to have convinced them that sport is "special". But not just any sport - only those sports that people want to watch. Bad analysis written to match a prejudged decision.

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

petes117

371 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 40

#1777523 8-May-2017 09:12

PhantomNVD: I for one can't be bothered with which grown adult/team got to beat another grown adult/team at a GAME.

Anyone campaigning to use my tax dollars to pay for your hobby would definitely not get my vote. I pay for my own hobbies, and am happy to do so, not expecting anyone else to have to chip in either.

'National sport' or not, there is no justification for expecting others to pay for YOUR hobbies. If the teams can't get sponsorship or viewer numbers, they are not 'worth' their professional career wage, and shout get a job like anyone else. If they ARE, then the people who care to support them will do so.

Actors (for example) also simply perform for their audience... But who here feels we they should subsidise the cost of movies so that all can go to every movie for cheap/free? If the movie (and its actors/director/crew) is good enough we pay what we feel it is 'worth' to us, and movie cinemas find ways to meet the market's needs, and Actors are paid (or not) according to their udience appeal.

This seems fair.

One might easily argue that NetFlix has the fee most are willing to pay, and that 'pirates' prevent actors making what they are really worth... this should be exactly the argument for sport... if they thought he was 'worth' paying for, that boxer would be making far more from people who would WANT to support him? Use the give-a-little idea and offer clients the option to pay "what you think it's worth" for the SD stream... see the FB numbers tank, and the TRUE value of the event... oh wait, they just canned FanPass didn't they...

We actually already do subsidise actors... remember the fuss over The Hobbit's $153million worth of tax rebates and grants over 2011-2014? It happened, and it helped employ and entertain lot of people.

I work in the video gaming industry and would love a grant, but it's just a game right?

However in this case with Sky the government doesn't need to subsidise anything, merely enforce non-exclusivity to encourage competition.

edit: clarified my stance

trig42

5893 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2100

ID Verified

#1777545 8-May-2017 09:53

quickymart:

How did Sky Sport survive back in the "olden days" of one UHF sports channel then?
Mind you, (affordable) broadband internet didn't really exist back then, so I guess they didn't really have much competition...

Pretty sure that 'back in the day' when there were only 3 UHF channels, Rugby was on TVNZ (One Sport).

Sky didn't get the rugby rights until well after Satellite was launched. Cricket came after that, Netball a lot after that.

I have calmed down a bit after the shock of seeing them nearly double the price of something I was about to buy. I still think they are doing it wrong, but they do have to maximise returns for their shareholders.

My Opinion - they should stop Sky Basic subsidising Sport, and charge everyone what the sport is actually costing them (plus margin). If that is all sports, or split out into a few individual sports, plus a 'generic' sports channel is up to them, but if they are saying that the cost of providing 4 sports channels is $99 a month (ignore transmission costs - they exist for both formats), then they should be charging that $99 to everyone, not just the poor saps who want to get it online rather than having a Sky box in their lounge.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777549 8-May-2017 10:04

trig42:

quickymart:

How did Sky Sport survive back in the "olden days" of one UHF sports channel then?
Mind you, (affordable) broadband internet didn't really exist back then, so I guess they didn't really have much competition...

Pretty sure that 'back in the day' when there were only 3 UHF channels, Rugby was on TVNZ (One Sport).

Sky didn't get the rugby rights until well after Satellite was launched. Cricket came after that, Netball a lot after that.

I have calmed down a bit after the shock of seeing them nearly double the price of something I was about to buy. I still think they are doing it wrong, but they do have to maximise returns for their shareholders.

My Opinion - they should stop Sky Basic subsidising Sport, and charge everyone what the sport is actually costing them (plus margin). If that is all sports, or split out into a few individual sports, plus a 'generic' sports channel is up to them, but if they are saying that the cost of providing 4 sports channels is $99 a month (ignore transmission costs - they exist for both formats), then they should be charging that $99 to everyone, not just the poor saps who want to get it online rather than having a Sky box in their lounge.

They did this before with fanpass when it was first started. They did break out a sport but then people said it still cost to much and they would rather have a mix of sports.

Damned if i do, damned if you don't.

No matter what sky does you will always get the "i want it but i don't want to pay for it and if i do have to pay then i want it for well below cost". All this "the government should step in and create laws etc" won't work either, all that will do is stop investment into NZ sports, see a lot of people losing jobs *cough cough spark news today*.

If you want sports then pay for it, if you don't want sports then don't. But sports lovers can't expect to get it below cost with prices that "the codes/players" now demand.

Anyone is open to bid for the games etc but like I said before. Companies that have found out that it's not cheap and people don't like paying what it really costs to supply them with the coverage.

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169
Inactive user

#1777553 8-May-2017 10:11

quickymart:

How did Sky Sport survive back in the "olden days" of one UHF sports channel then?
Mind you, (affordable) broadband internet didn't really exist back then, so I guess they didn't really have much competition...

Often they would show Sports on the Movies or News channels when two live events happened at the same time, or there was an overrun. At other times, an event would be delayed until the first live event was finished. It's amazing to think we survived with only one sports channel. Now we can have up to 7 channels (excluding Trackside) that can all be showing live sports.

trig42:

My Opinion - they should stop Sky Basic subsidising Sport, and charge everyone what the sport is actually costing them (plus margin). If that is all sports, or split out into a few individual sports, plus a 'generic' sports channel is up to them, but if they are saying that the cost of providing 4 sports channels is $99 a month (ignore transmission costs - they exist for both formats), then they should be charging that $99 to everyone, not just the poor saps who want to get it online rather than having a Sky box in their lounge.

If you look at the deals in the Sky Deals thread, you can get Basic + Sports + My Sky on a six month contract for $39.95 per month (plus $9.99 for an HD ticket, prices apply for one year). Foxtel Play also can offer one pack + sports for A$39 per month. Sky is clearly gouging customers that want to only watch the Lions Tour next month.