Coincidence?

dreadpiratethomas:

 

Its possible they're just adding in margin so they can bundle it further later down the track - i.e. Voda broadband customers get it for half price. Not economic at $50 per month all up, much more doable at $100 per month, and a de facto way of getting around the merger restriction.

 

I thought part of the issue, aside from sport, was disadvantaging non Voda Sky customers? If Sky raised the price then cut it to Voda customers that will go down like a lead balloon.

I feel that Fanpass wasn't worth it. On the plus side, it got back some revenue from those that left Sky. On the negative side, its allowing more to leave Sky with less sports pain.

The $100 makes Fanpass about the same price as Basic, Sport, HD and MySky. An experiment that didn't work out, and fair enough.So they priced it out of the market, perhaps a lesser evil than cancelling it. Thats psychologically a harsher outcome for users. 

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

sonyxperiageek:

 

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

 

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

 

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

 

BUT she consistently dodged the question of 'bundled' content that "no-one wants".

If they had a Rugby-Only package even if only via their satellite box channel, how much would it cost to give them the same percentage return on the rugby?

IMHO most people would pay $20-$25/month happily for Rugby-Only, but Sky persist in forcing all the add-on channels and costs simply because they can.

Can you imagine if McD/KFC/BK/Wendy's (pick your favourite) was the only Fast Food outlet in the country and they decided that they wouldn't offer an option to only buy a burger alone, but insisted on only selling a "Family Pack" with optional extras (but no substitutions)... how many people would go in and pay the $29.99 for the "Family Pack" when all they wanted was a burger, fries and a drink?

Who would be happy to just throw away the 'content' they didn't want/need (and couldn't legally share) and say 'Well I guess it cost a lot to run a Fast Food outlet and pay for all the staff and basic ingredients so its only fair they force me to buy the whole Family Pack to make their 'necessary' margin... I guess I could just not buy any burgers ever if I didn't think this was fair..."

Now, with this in mind, does Sky's packaging still look 'fair' and 'reasonable'?

sonyxperiageek:

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

tdgeek:

 

The $100 makes Fanpass about the same price as Basic, Sport, HD and MySky. An experiment that didn't work out, and fair enough.So they priced it out of the market, perhaps a lesser evil than cancelling it. Thats psychologically a harsher outcome for users. 

 

See the Sky Deals thread. You can get My Sky + Basic + Sport + HD ticket and get change from $50 (or two premium packages for $59). Deal only last one year, but nothing stops you canceling and signing up one month later. The difference though is there is a 6 month minimum contract (ETF is 100%). Thus the revenue for the six months is $250, rather than $100 if you get one month of Fan Pass to watch the Lions tour.

PhantomNVD:

 

sonyxperiageek:

 

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

 

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

 

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

 

 

 

 

BUT she consistently dodged the question of 'bundled' content that "no-one wants".

 

If they had a Rugby-Only package even if only via their satellite box channel, how much would it cost to give them the same percentage return on the rugby?

 

 

 

IMHO most people would pay $20-$25/month happily for Rugby-Only, but Sky persist in forcing all the add-on channels and costs simply because they can.

 

 

 

Can you imagine if McD/KFC/BK/Wendy's (pick your favourite) was the only Fast Food outlet in the country and they decided that they wouldn't offer an option to only buy a burger alone, but insisted on only selling a "Family Pack" with optional extras (but no substitutions)... how many people would go in and pay the $29.99 for the "Family Pack" when all they wanted was a burger, fries and a drink?

 

Who would be happy to just throw away the 'content' they didn't want/need (and couldn't legally share) and say 'Well I guess it cost a lot to run a Fast Food outlet and pay for all the staff and basic ingredients so its only fair they force me to buy the whole Family Pack to make their 'necessary' margin... I guess I could just not buy any burgers ever if I didn't think this was fair..."

 

 

 

Now, with this in mind, does Sky's packaging still look 'fair' and 'reasonable'?

 

Well... would it look more reasonable if they kept the current pricing relatively the same, but just offered you rugby? 

I might be wrong here, but since reading this post here sports, especially rugby, command a very high price. Now in order for Sky to stay in business they would have to pass this cost on to us, the consumers. Like the article mentioned, in other countries, this cost can be shared between many customers simply because their country has a bigger population than us. NZ only has 4.6 million people then you gotta minus the kids etc. and you're left with who will pay for Sky Sports. It also goes on to say that if Sky went down, potentially no one in NZ would want to buy the sports rights because then they too will potentially be in the same position as Sky now. Again, I could be completely off, but that article has now made me think twice about blaming Sky instead of blaming the sporting codes. 

PhantomNVD:

 

sonyxperiageek:

 

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

 

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

 

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

 

 

 

 

BUT she consistently dodged the question of 'bundled' content that "no-one wants".

 

If they had a Rugby-Only package even if only via their satellite box channel, how much would it cost to give them the same percentage return on the rugby?

 

 

 

IMHO most people would pay $20-$25/month happily for Rugby-Only, but Sky persist in forcing all the add-on channels and costs simply because they can.

 

 

 

Can you imagine if McD/KFC/BK/Wendy's (pick your favourite) was the only Fast Food outlet in the country and they decided that they wouldn't offer an option to only buy a burger alone, but insisted on only selling a "Family Pack" with optional extras (but no substitutions)... how many people would go in and pay the $29.99 for the "Family Pack" when all they wanted was a burger, fries and a drink?

 

Who would be happy to just throw away the 'content' they didn't want/need (and couldn't legally share) and say 'Well I guess it cost a lot to run a Fast Food outlet and pay for all the staff and basic ingredients so its only fair they force me to buy the whole Family Pack to make their 'necessary' margin... I guess I could just not buy any burgers ever if I didn't think this was fair..."

 

 

 

Now, with this in mind, does Sky's packaging still look 'fair' and 'reasonable'?

 

why the hell would i want pay $20-$25 a month for rugby when i pay that for all the sport i can watch, in fact they could remove the rugby and it wouldnt worry me . If im watching tv then it's on sport 24/7 and im usually recording 2 channels while im watching a 3rd. i know that there is the $50 for the basics but that is a small price for what it would cost me to pay for individual sports.

vexxxboy:

PhantomNVD:

sonyxperiageek:

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

 

BUT she consistently dodged the question of 'bundled' content that "no-one wants".

If they had a Rugby-Only package even if only via their satellite box channel, how much would it cost to give them the same percentage return on the rugby?

 

IMHO most people would pay $20-$25/month happily for Rugby-Only, but Sky persist in forcing all the add-on channels and costs simply because they can.

 

Can you imagine if McD/KFC/BK/Wendy's (pick your favourite) was the only Fast Food outlet in the country and they decided that they wouldn't offer an option to only buy a burger alone, but insisted on only selling a "Family Pack" with optional extras (but no substitutions)... how many people would go in and pay the $29.99 for the "Family Pack" when all they wanted was a burger, fries and a drink?

Who would be happy to just throw away the 'content' they didn't want/need (and couldn't legally share) and say 'Well I guess it cost a lot to run a Fast Food outlet and pay for all the staff and basic ingredients so its only fair they force me to buy the whole Family Pack to make their 'necessary' margin... I guess I could just not buy any burgers ever if I didn't think this was fair..."

 

Now, with this in mind, does Sky's packaging still look 'fair' and 'reasonable'?

 

why the hell would i want pay $20-$25 a month for rugby when i pay that for all the sport i can watch, in fact they could remove the rugby and it wouldnt worry me . If im watching tv then it's on sport 24/7 and im usually recording 2 channels while im watching a 3rd. i know that there is the $50 for the basics but that is a small price for what it would cost me to pay for individual sports.

stinger:

 

tdgeek:

 

The $100 makes Fanpass about the same price as Basic, Sport, HD and MySky. An experiment that didn't work out, and fair enough.So they priced it out of the market, perhaps a lesser evil than cancelling it. Thats psychologically a harsher outcome for users. 

 

 

See the Sky Deals thread. You can get My Sky + Basic + Sport + HD ticket and get change from $50 (or two premium packages for $59). Deal only last one year, but nothing stops you canceling and signing up one month later. The difference though is there is a 6 month minimum contract (ETF is 100%). Thus the revenue for the six months is $250, rather than $100 if you get one month of Fan Pass to watch the Lions tour.

 

 

 

I have that deal. My post wasn't about the deal, about the reason I feel they dropped FP

PhantomNVD:

 

sonyxperiageek:

 

SheriffNZ:

sonyxperiageek: Too stressful for her maybe? She sounded in control speaking to Veitch on radio the other day.

What did she say on the radio? I wanted to listen but wasn't able to in the end.

 

Listen in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CuPAvlho8

 

I guess those callers didn't understand how much Sky has to pay for sporting broadcast rights.

 

 

 

 

BUT she consistently dodged the question of 'bundled' content that "no-one wants".

 

If they had a Rugby-Only package even if only via their satellite box channel, how much would it cost to give them the same percentage return on the rugby?

 

 

 

IMHO most people would pay $20-$25/month happily for Rugby-Only, but Sky persist in forcing all the add-on channels and costs simply because they can.

 

 

 

Can you imagine if McD/KFC/BK/Wendy's (pick your favourite) was the only Fast Food outlet in the country and they decided that they wouldn't offer an option to only buy a burger alone, but insisted on only selling a "Family Pack" with optional extras (but no substitutions)... how many people would go in and pay the $29.99 for the "Family Pack" when all they wanted was a burger, fries and a drink?

 

Who would be happy to just throw away the 'content' they didn't want/need (and couldn't legally share) and say 'Well I guess it cost a lot to run a Fast Food outlet and pay for all the staff and basic ingredients so its only fair they force me to buy the whole Family Pack to make their 'necessary' margin... I guess I could just not buy any burgers ever if I didn't think this was fair..."

 

 

 

Now, with this in mind, does Sky's packaging still look 'fair' and 'reasonable'?

 

Once again I'll contend that your thinking misses the major point.  Its not about headline price and its not about bundles of content that you do not watch.  Its about what you watch and how much UTILITY you place in that content that you consume.  I've previously stated my analysis on the Cost Per Viewing Hour for the average Sky household.  Its not terribly much.  I've also tried to break it down apportioning costs across the bundles to see what the high value (Sport and Movies) vs general entertainment CPVH might be.  Its about what you use.  You dont look at Netflix and say for $13/mth I have access to 1000 shows and movies - ergo you dont look at Sky and say for $80 (the average ARPU) I have access to 35,000 hours per month.  The key is how much you watch and whether that is any value.

Personally I dont watch any rugby.  I do however watch 8 games of rugby league per week.  On top of that I watch 7 hours of general entertainment.  So about 19 hours of content per week (or 82 hours per month).  For me that works out to be $1.50 per hour of watching.  Seems like a bargain to me.  But maybe not to the guy living next door.  He might only think its worth $1/hour to watch and so wouldnt subscribe.  Fair enough.  And I dont give a rats that there is more than 34,000 hours per month that I dont watch.  Woop dee.  I get value out of that which I consume.

The same sort of thinking has to occur for FanPass.  How many hours would you watch in a month - and what is the CPVH - and is that of value to the individual (or household).  One game a week just wouldnt be worthwhile IMHO - but 8 games a week, easy.

I bought 5 x 1 day passes in the last 12 months to see 5 specific sporting events. $15.00 x 5 = $75.00

4 of the events I want to see are in a 6 month window (actually a 4 month window) so the cheapest way on Fan Pass, will be to get 1 x 6 month pass and 1 x 1 month pass for the 5th event later in the year.
330.00 + $100.00 = $430.00 to see what I use to pay $75.00 for.

$75 increased to $429.00 is the increase in cost to me to stick with Fan Pass