Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 45

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1549804 11-May-2016 12:41

Rikkitic:

Point taken. But it still works out the same for the poor customer.

unlike a tax paying for Sky is not compulsory, if folks don't like it, don't buy it.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1549817 11-May-2016 12:52

Rikkitic:

What people are willing to pay is probably what they have been willing to pay for overseas services like Netflix. When local pricing and availability become comparable here, the discussion will be over.

Okay - so Netflix is $13/mth. An ACMA survey had usage at 9 hours per week - theres nothing to suggest NZ usage would be significantly different to Australia given the similarity in catalogue and launch date. That translates to 33c per hour for some originals and a bunch of back catalogue.

HBONow is USD15/mth for its one "channel". If youre a GOT fan that works out at USD4 for an episode a week. Even assuming 60mins for 1 episode thats $4/hour for premium content. Is that a fair value for premium content per hour?

How much for live and delayed Sport? NFL fans are willing to pay USD199 for a season of their sport. Similarly NBA fans and NHL fans. Works out to be roughly $10/week for a single sport. Is that a reasonable level of what people are will to pay for an overseas sports service?

The discussion cant be over when "local pricing and availability become comparable here". Lets have the discussion now. Lets have the discussion about the recent past. One cant through the BS term "price gouging" around without have the discussion on value.

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1549834 11-May-2016 13:18

There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1550829 11-May-2016 13:32

Rikkitic:

There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

For you to make this statement you must have access to their decisions, processes and access to their cost structures, shareholder requirements. What evidence other than supposition do you have?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1550837 11-May-2016 13:36

Rikkitic:

There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

A box set of recent but not the latest TV cost $19 @ JB. Its a Netflix Original and you get 640 minutes for your $19. Thats $1.76 per hour. Not even in HD. Is that a comparable price for general entertainment.

As I said before you cant throw BS phrases like "price gouging" about without a basis for value. Waxing BS about your perceptions of quality and whether ads are present or not or whether everyone should be providing HD as standard is irrelevant unless you can give a basis for value.

Step up to the value proposition and tell us what you are willing to pay for viewing entertainment or sport. Or step off. Its quite simple.

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

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1550845 11-May-2016 13:42

Sky's business practices work at the moment, because there is not a lot of competition out there. It's Sky or nothing. Many people do chose nothing as an option. However the sentiment in the market is appalling and the biggest PR fail outside of Fonterra's handling of any crisis you care to name. Every article in the online papers about Sky is followed by hundreds of comments bashing the company. No problem until competition comes along and then you have a customer base who hates you and is prepared to jump at the first opportunity.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1550847 11-May-2016 13:42

ockel:

Rikkitic:

There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

A box set of recent but not the latest TV cost $19 @ JB. Its a Netflix Original and you get 640 minutes for your $19. Thats $1.76 per hour. Not even in HD. Is that a comparable price for general entertainment.

As I said before you cant throw BS phrases like "price gouging" about without a basis for value. Waxing BS about your perceptions of quality and whether ads are present or not or whether everyone should be providing HD as standard is irrelevant unless you can give a basis for value.

Step up to the value proposition and tell us what you are willing to pay for viewing entertainment or sport. Or step off. Its quite simple.

that's not really a good basis for comparison.

You could also watch the same content on Netflix, when it was brand new, for $13, in HD. (if you can get through 11 hours in one month, which should be easy). that $13 also buys you access to the entirety of the rest of Netflix's catalogue.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1550855 11-May-2016 13:50

MikeB4:
dafman:

And one thing I don't understand, if satellites are Sky's expensive Achilles Heel, how is it that Freeview can offer up a free satellite service?

I don't know the answer but I would imagine the number of channels and the number of HD channels being offered makes a big difference to satellite costs.

Freeview satellite is only SD.

Kirk

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1550863 11-May-2016 13:54

kharris:

MikeB4:
dafman:

And one thing I don't understand, if satellites are Sky's expensive Achilles Heel, how is it that Freeview can offer up a free satellite service?

I don't know the answer but I would imagine the number of channels and the number of HD channels being offered makes a big difference to satellite costs.

Freeview satellite is only SD.

I was referring to the HD costs for Sky not the Freeview costs which overall I would imagine is considerable.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1550881 11-May-2016 14:11

NonprayingMantis:

ockel:

Rikkitic:

There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

A box set of recent but not the latest TV cost $19 @ JB. Its a Netflix Original and you get 640 minutes for your $19. Thats $1.76 per hour. Not even in HD. Is that a comparable price for general entertainment.

As I said before you cant throw BS phrases like "price gouging" about without a basis for value. Waxing BS about your perceptions of quality and whether ads are present or not or whether everyone should be providing HD as standard is irrelevant unless you can give a basis for value.

Step up to the value proposition and tell us what you are willing to pay for viewing entertainment or sport. Or step off. Its quite simple.

that's not really a good basis for comparison.

You could also watch the same content on Netflix, when it was brand new, for $13, in HD. (if you can get through 11 hours in one month, which should be easy). that $13 also buys you access to the entirety of the rest of Netflix's catalogue.

So does that mean the retailer is price gouging? It seems exorbitant that a retailer is charging $1.76/hr for the same content that one can get for 33cents per hour. Cripes you could just watch the whole series on Netflix for $13 and be done. So the retailer MUST, by other peoples arguments, be gouging.

Does JB get pilloried for price gouging every time they get mention in a conversation? If not, why not?

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1550882 11-May-2016 14:14

ockel:

Step up to the value proposition and tell us what you are willing to pay for viewing entertainment or sport. Or step off. Its quite simple.

This is just silly. If there is something I really want to see, that has great entertainment value to me, of course I would be willing to pay a lot for that. What is a lot? I don't know. It depends on how important it is, how much I can afford, etc. etc. It is variable.

If I just want to have something available in case I feel like watching TV, but don't care too much what it is as long as I find it sufficiently engrossing, then I might be prepared to pay something, but not as much. How do you place an absolute value on something like this?

I recently paid $75 to spend a couple hours watching Ben Waters perform. It was well worth it to me. It would have been worth it at twice the price, but I could not have afforded that and would not have paid it.

I would pay $10 or $20 to be entertained by a lesser local pianist, but only if other circumstances made that worthwhile to me. What I am willing to pay for viewing entertainment varies according to a whole lot of different criteria. What I can say is I am not willing to pay what Sky charges. I happen to have Sky available because another in my household wants it and is willing to pay for it. If that was not the case, I would not have Sky at all. Like many others here, I do not see value in it at any price. Anything I do wish to see I can find overseas without all the promos and other rubbish that make Sky so unpalatable.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1550889 11-May-2016 14:26

@MikeB4:

Rikkitic: There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

For you to make this statement you must have access to their decisions, processes and access to their cost structures, shareholder requirements. What evidence other than supposition do you have?

No access to Sky's secret dossiers is required as @Rikkitic clearly said "admittedly just my opinion" and "I think".

Personally, my opinion is pretty much the same. I'm not going to bother looking up Sky's financial statements for the last decade, even thought I'm sure they will be filled with useful numbers like how much Sky pays for content, how much they pay for satellite time, what it costs to put decoders in subscribers' homes, and what their corporate office rent is. Other providers also have offices, and content to buy, but have chosen a delivery model that is not dependent on a satellite link or putting hardware in everyone's living rooms - where hardware is required consumers have happily bought their own (Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku...) device.

In my opinion, Sky's main problem is that it once had a monopoly (outside One, 2 and TV3) on content. They set things up in a way that suited them at the time (satellite) and charged whatever they thought they could get away with at the time, to cover their costs and make a tidy profit. As new delivery technologies emerged (SVOD...) Sky chose to stick with their outdated model. As more competition emerged (Netflix, Lightbox...) providing content at often significantly lower cost, consumers embraced their new freedom of choice and elected for the cheaper options.

So what do I think a reasonable price for Sky would be?

Currently I pay for the Sky Basic package ($49.22 per month), Sky Movies ($20.93), Sport ($28.29) and SoHo ($9.99). That's a total of $108.43 per month. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are around 68 channels in the Sky Basic package which is around $0.72 per channel per month. I watch no more than 15 channels, so unbundle the garbage and let me have just those 15, and I'll even increase how much I pay to $1.00 per channel. Sky Basic now costs me $15.00 per month. Then reduce Sky Movies to what Netflix charge for a multiple device HD service, $15.99 per month. I'll pay the same for sport and SoHo as I do now. Total cost is now $69.27. I'd be happy with that.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1550892 11-May-2016 14:34

andrew027:

@MikeB4:

Rikkitic: There are two ways of looking at the issue. One is how much, in actual dollars, you are being asked to pay for whatever you are buying. The other is what, in actual content and quality of that content, you are getting for whatever price is being charged. My position (admittedly just my opinion) is that Sky charges an unreasonable amount for what it provides. I actually think they are improving compared to past performance, but I still believe most of what they offer is excessively expensive by any standard, and certainly compared to some other countries. I think this is due to conscious, intentional policy. They make a point of trying to get away with as much as they can. I guess the outstanding example at this moment is Neon, but the mentality pervades the whole company. This has come about due to a lack of competition in the past, which has allowed them to get away with it.

What Sky charges for most of its products is excessive in terms of what you get (not just content, but also technical quality). However, the prices themselves might not be considered unreasonable if the technical quality and content were better. If all Neon content was premium ultra-HD then the price would be considered a bargain. If the satellite content was broadcast without the ads and promos, most people might find the price of that quite reasonable. If satellite HD was better quality and included without extra charge, the same. You can't just ask what people are prepared to pay for something as there are many variables involved. The problem I have (had) with Sky is that they keep slicing the sandwich thinner and then expect the same or more for it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it is already changing. But at this time I do not consider Sky a value for money proposition as far as my own viewing requirements go. To be fair, I feel the same about NZ FTA. Even for free, it is a rip-off.

For you to make this statement you must have access to their decisions, processes and access to their cost structures, shareholder requirements. What evidence other than supposition do you have?

No access to Sky's secret dossiers is required as @Rikkitic clearly said "admittedly just my opinion" and "I think".

Personally, my opinion is pretty much the same. I'm not going to bother looking up Sky's financial statements for the last decade, even thought I'm sure they will be filled with useful numbers like how much Sky pays for content, how much they pay for satellite time, what it costs to put decoders in subscribers' homes, and what their corporate office rent is. Other providers also have offices, and content to buy, but have chosen a delivery model that is not dependent on a satellite link or putting hardware in everyone's living rooms - where hardware is required consumers have happily bought their own (Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku...) device.

In my opinion, Sky's main problem is that it once had a monopoly (outside One, 2 and TV3) on content. They set things up in a way that suited them at the time (satellite) and charged whatever they thought they could get away with at the time, to cover their costs and make a tidy profit. As new delivery technologies emerged (SVOD...) Sky chose to stick with their outdated model. As more competition emerged (Netflix, Lightbox...) providing content at often significantly lower cost, consumers embraced their new freedom of choice and elected for the cheaper options.

So what do I think a reasonable price for Sky would be?

Currently I pay for the Sky Basic package ($49.22 per month), Sky Movies ($20.93), Sport ($28.29) and SoHo ($9.99). That's a total of $108.43 per month. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are around 68 channels in the Sky Basic package which is around $0.72 per channel per month. I watch no more than 15 channels, so unbundle the garbage and let me have just those 15, and I'll even increase how much I pay to $1.00 per channel. Sky Basic now costs me $15.00 per month. Then reduce Sky Movies to what Netflix charge for a multiple device HD service, $15.99 per month. I'll pay the same for sport and SoHo as I do now. Total cost is now $69.27. I'd be happy with that.

At the moment those 15 channels are costing you $3.28 a month. Why do you think that $3.28/month or 10c a day is too high? And why are you willing to pay $10/month for Soho but not $3.28/mth for the 15 basic channels you regularly watch? Big deal that there are 53 other channels in basic you dont watch - even if you're paying 10c a day for those channels you want, you're paying zero for the 53 channels you dont watch.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1550912 11-May-2016 14:42

Rikkitic:

ockel:

Step up to the value proposition and tell us what you are willing to pay for viewing entertainment or sport. Or step off. Its quite simple.

This is just silly. If there is something I really want to see, that has great entertainment value to me, of course I would be willing to pay a lot for that. What is a lot? I don't know. It depends on how important it is, how much I can afford, etc. etc. It is variable.

If I just want to have something available in case I feel like watching TV, but don't care too much what it is as long as I find it sufficiently engrossing, then I might be prepared to pay something, but not as much. How do you place an absolute value on something like this?

I recently paid $75 to spend a couple hours watching Ben Waters perform. It was well worth it to me. It would have been worth it at twice the price, but I could not have afforded that and would not have paid it.

I would pay $10 or $20 to be entertained by a lesser local pianist, but only if other circumstances made that worthwhile to me. What I am willing to pay for viewing entertainment varies according to a whole lot of different criteria. What I can say is I am not willing to pay what Sky charges. I happen to have Sky available because another in my household wants it and is willing to pay for it. If that was not the case, I would not have Sky at all. Like many others here, I do not see value in it at any price. Anything I do wish to see I can find overseas without all the promos and other rubbish that make Sky so unpalatable.

So you got some exclusive content that you're willing to pay for and thats okay. But those people that buy exclusive content elsewhere and believe that they're getting value, is not okay?

The key point you hit on here is that entertainment value is dependent on how one perceives how important it is, affordability etc etc.

If people cant afford Sky they dont subscribe. If people dont believe that the content has value, they dont subscribe. Whether the price of the content is doubled or halved its not price gouging. Its setting a price at where the business believes that the customer is willing to pay and to derive utility from consumption.

You can pay anywhere from $1/hour to $1.76/hour for the same content depending on the supplier. Is one gouging compared to the other? Both have the ability to change their prices. Customer has the ability to buy or not buy. Its a market.

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

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1550922 11-May-2016 14:49

Its not really a market when there is just one provider of the content. Its when you have multiple providers of the same content that you have a real market competition going on.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 45