Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 57

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853165 27-Aug-2017 08:14

Benoire:

I believe if they didn't aggregate it across the subs, they wouldn't have enough capital to actually compete on some of the sports... Its a tactical decision on their part to force subsidisation of the sports channels for Skys benefit so they can bid higher or bid for more sports.

I dont follow what you mean. Sky buys the sports rights it currently buys from each of the rights owners. Sky chooses to aggregate them to the subscribers.

That does end up being a sizeable cost per subscriber, but you get a lot in return. If you follow three sports big time and enjoy others, its not bad value.

It would be very messy to have an F1 channel, MOTOGP channel and so on, each at a smaller cost. I think thats what you mean?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1853169 27-Aug-2017 08:29

Seems Fairfax are on a campaign to kill Sky...not sure why its their business...they seem way to busy promoting LAbour.

Sky

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1853171 27-Aug-2017 08:31

Pumpedd:

Seems Fairfax are on a campaign to kill Sky...not sure why its their business...they seem way to busy promoting LAbour.

Sky

Most likely because Sky is suing them for so called piracy. i.e. Stuff used some video in their news fed.

Regards,

Old3eyes

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853174 27-Aug-2017 08:42

End of the day, if someone has to pay the sports rights owners the bags of cash that is currently the case, there his no escaping it.

As to the article, 5 times cheaper is rubbish. If you compared Basic to SVOD, yes, at 2.5x

If they removed the sport subsidy, Basic would be cheap, so its comparable. But you dont move from Sky with Sport to Netflix and continue enjoying your similar content, thats pretty bizarre.

And why do so many that dont have Sky, dont want Sky, whine about it? It should be of zero interest to them.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1853192 27-Aug-2017 10:02

tdgeek:

Benoire:

I believe if they didn't aggregate it across the subs, they wouldn't have enough capital to actually compete on some of the sports... Its a tactical decision on their part to force subsidisation of the sports channels for Skys benefit so they can bid higher or bid for more sports.

I dont follow what you mean. Sky buys the sports rights it currently buys from each of the rights owners. Sky chooses to aggregate them to the subscribers.

That does end up being a sizeable cost per subscriber, but you get a lot in return. If you follow three sports big time and enjoy others, its not bad value.

It would be very messy to have an F1 channel, MOTOGP channel and so on, each at a smaller cost. I think thats what you mean?

What I was referring to was the issue of aggregation vs actual cost. If Sky went to the policy of charging what Sport actually cost, how many will actually take up the offer if it was $60/70 per month? If the subs for sport reduced, that would give them less capital to be able to bid for the sports they show ergo losing more sports and potentially subs... Aggregation hides this cost amongst all subscribers which means that the additional $25 or so for Sport doesn't seem unreasonable as you're already paying quite a bit... Does that make more sense?

ascroft

437 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 177

#1853198 27-Aug-2017 10:16

Biggest measure of Sky future success is still for me average age of their customers... I would bet it keeps going up as they don't have a proposition in the market for the next generation let alone the one after that.

They are the classic incumbent sweating their assets and keeping prices high for as long as possible. Presumably they have done the numbers to see if they could remake themselves in the future as a sport only offering over the internet. Key question is how much revenue would be lost versus uptake in customers vs cost reduction. For all we know they may be ready to do that, but why not make as much money as possible for as long as possible - esp. if you have a stranglehold on sports.

For right now, if I were them, I would have continued with their previous Fanpass offering - would be surprised if it would have been cannabilising too many people with the set top boxes and it gives them options for the future and keep in good with the Govt. I used it intermittently and it seemed to work pretty well. I think they gave up on that too soon.

I suspect they lost direction with Murdoch sold out - not a fan of that lot but their input loss would have been a blow.

Mark

"Artificial Intelligence" - aka Machine Learning 2.0

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1853203 27-Aug-2017 10:33

networkn:

I hope they can find a way to optimize their offering to lower their prices, but at $3 a day, which is less than a cup of coffee, it's not a terrible value, if you watch some of the content.

I reckon my $3 coffee is way better value:

- it's the same price as all other coffees

- the person serving my coffee does not hold me in contempt

- I don't have to put my coffee down continuously to watch advertisements between sips.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853206 27-Aug-2017 10:41

dafman:

networkn:

I hope they can find a way to optimize their offering to lower their prices, but at $3 a day, which is less than a cup of coffee, it's not a terrible value, if you watch some of the content.

I reckon my $3 coffee is way better value:

- it's the same price as all other coffees

- the person serving my coffee does not hold me in contempt

- I don't have to put my coffee down continuously to watch advertisements between sips.

- I've found upto a 40% difference in my coffee prices depending on where I consume it.

- I know plenty of snotty baristas

- Often where I get my coffee I hear other peoples conversations and there are people smoking outside. I get my coffee from a variety of places.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1853210 27-Aug-2017 10:55

networkn:

dafman:

networkn:

I hope they can find a way to optimize their offering to lower their prices, but at $3 a day, which is less than a cup of coffee, it's not a terrible value, if you watch some of the content.

I reckon my $3 coffee is way better value:

- it's the same price as all other coffees

- the person serving my coffee does not hold me in contempt

- I don't have to put my coffee down continuously to watch advertisements between sips.

- I've found upto a 40% difference in my coffee prices depending on where I consume it.

- I know plenty of snotty baristas

- Often where I get my coffee I hear other peoples conversations and there are people smoking outside. I get my coffee from a variety of places.

Wish I could get a coffee for $3!!!!

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1853225 27-Aug-2017 11:49

http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/78650703/250-coffee-unlikely-to-become-the-norm-industry-association-says

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853232 27-Aug-2017 12:10

bunnungs cafe is cheap. But their food selection is poor.

Richard rich.ms

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1853237 27-Aug-2017 12:37

> silly claim by Sky > cost of Sky > cost of sports > Sky is greedy > cost of coffee > coffee price won't go down > Bunnings (a hardware store) is not a good place to get food > FUG (stay on subject) kicks in > all Geekzone users banned

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1853336 27-Aug-2017 17:31

Maybe more sports will eventually go the way of football (especially EPL) on Sky. What was once free is now offered as a $16.10/month add on.

Imagine that, another company* outbids Sky then offers it back to them as a channel. Sky says to customers "the premium Rugby Channel was available for a small fee in addition to Sky Sports, however rugby was only a small component of our overall Sports offering so therefore we will not be reducing the cost of Sky Sports. Also, if you now want to watch Super Rugby / All Blacks you can subscribe to our new premium channel for $3x.xx per month".

* Highly unlikely that would happen if it was Amazon due to their web services infrastructure already in place..

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853368 27-Aug-2017 19:25

Benoire:

tdgeek:

Benoire:

I believe if they didn't aggregate it across the subs, they wouldn't have enough capital to actually compete on some of the sports... Its a tactical decision on their part to force subsidisation of the sports channels for Skys benefit so they can bid higher or bid for more sports.

I dont follow what you mean. Sky buys the sports rights it currently buys from each of the rights owners. Sky chooses to aggregate them to the subscribers.

That does end up being a sizeable cost per subscriber, but you get a lot in return. If you follow three sports big time and enjoy others, its not bad value.

It would be very messy to have an F1 channel, MOTOGP channel and so on, each at a smaller cost. I think thats what you mean?

What I was referring to was the issue of aggregation vs actual cost. If Sky went to the policy of charging what Sport actually cost, how many will actually take up the offer if it was $60/70 per month? If the subs for sport reduced, that would give them less capital to be able to bid for the sports they show ergo losing more sports and potentially subs... Aggregation hides this cost amongst all subscribers which means that the additional $25 or so for Sport doesn't seem unreasonable as you're already paying quite a bit... Does that make more sense?

Yep, thanks.

I think Basic is $47? Sport is $27? Add HD add MySky you get to about $100

Basic should be $20. Maybe $15 if you had Sports or Movies (Unsure who would pay $27 for movies though.)

So if Basic was $15 (not bad value IMO) Sport has to be circa $60, same price overall. This pricing would not affect Sky sports subscribers as its the same. It should add Sky Basic subscribers though as its cheap and versatile. If you want Sport ONLY, you pay more aka Fanpass.

AsI said in a recent previous post, Sky is boxed in by the money that sports rights holders want. IMO if NZ population was double, the sports rights holders will want more, but less per capita so Sky Sport wouldn't be as costly.

I feel aggregation is a mistake. It stops families getting g just Sky Basic, which is convenient FTA in one box, kids stuff, nature stuff, docos, other stuff, its a nice party mix to supplement FTA, and if it was $15 or so, good value.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1853373 27-Aug-2017 19:33

IMO drop the movies channels, they are a waste of space when the boxes now all can do streaming instead.

Richard rich.ms

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 57