Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

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

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 25

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1779847 11-May-2017 19:52

PhantomNVD:
ockel:

PhantomNVD:
Jas777:

But what if someone said you sell ice cream and onion rings etc as well as the burgers but because I don't want any of those the burger / burger meal should be cheaper

But it's not about what they also sell, but what they force you to buy ("basic" package) to be able to get the part you want (sport package)... even if they left the sport 'bundled' as one pack, $50/month is way easier to swallow than $100 (and _exactly_ what THEY valued the monthly FanPass at originally)

Gotta get past the myopic view on the bundle. Plain and simple it cost you $80/month to watch sport. How much sport do you watch in a month? Is it worth your while or would you rather spend your money on something else. Pretty simple value proposition. If you watch sport AND entertainment then the value proposition improves.

So back to the "Family Pack"... how much do you want the burger, they only sell it in the Family Pack, so is the burger worth $29.99 to you or not?
ockel:

Is it worth your while or would you rather spend your money on something else. Pretty simple value proposition. If you watch sport want the burger AND entertainment have friends/family to share it with then the value proposition improves.

Nope. Burger not worth $29.99. So I dont buy it. Simple value proposition. What I dont do is gripe that the burger was gonna cost me $29.99. I grow up. I move on. I buy something else with my money. I find UTILITY elsewhere.

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

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1779854 11-May-2017 19:59

Which is excellent... unless your hobby is sport?

Again, I don't watch ANY sport now (used to watch F1 with my dad growing up, and the only World Cup finals of Rugby, then Watched SC2 -esport - till that scene died) so really never bought FanPass OR Sky Sport (did try the Basic package for 6 months and a free dish instal)

But I'm here rooting for less technical mates, who are really into their sport, but now heading toward the FB streaming viewing, which is against my basic integrity, and I think they'd be willing/able to pay and watch legitimately if it was reasonably priced...

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1779858 11-May-2017 20:07

tdgeek:

PhantomNVD:
Jas777:

But what if someone said you sell ice cream and onion rings etc as well as the burgers but because I don't want any of those the burger / burger meal should be cheaper

But it's not about what they also sell, but what they force you to buy ("basic" package) to be able to get the part you want (sport package)... even if they left the sport 'bundled' as one pack, $50/month is way easier to swallow than $100 (and _exactly_ what THEY valued the monthly FanPass at originally)

Fanpass was new, it was meant IMO to garner revenue from those that left Sky. It didn't work as many seem to prefer to pay peanuts for a few minutes here and there over a month, yet sports rights are not bought that way, so it did not work out. Sky Sport is what, $26? But its not. The sports rights cost is 60% of all Sky rights costs. If sport was stand alone, it costs a lot. basic doesnt "cost" $46 or whatever it is, there is a subsidy there to make Sports add-on more palatable.

Fanpass at $100. Benefit is monthly. Negative is no ESPN, less Popups.

Bundle is $100. Benefit is all sport channels, recording, HD.

Yeah, nah. I gotta disagree. The value proposition for FanPass seemed to be about right.

You paid $55/mth for 4 channels and you paid the delivery charge via your own data allowance.

Or you paid $20/mth for the box plus $60/month for the sport - and you got 6 channels plus popups. Satellite still seemed way more attractive - better quality, more content.

Our fundamental problem is that we arent willing to pay to get the value. A Day pass was $15 - which worked out at $10/hour for a rugby match. Seems reasonable compared to buying a beer down the pub! But how many people were gagging for $5 Fridays (there was even a thread for it!) - really we only want it at $3.33/hour?

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1779861 11-May-2017 20:12

PhantomNVD: Which is excellent... unless your hobby is sport?

Again, I don't watch ANY sport now (used to watch F1 with my dad growing up, and the only World Cup finals of Rugby, then Watched SC2 -esport - till that scene died) so really never bought FanPass OR Sky Sport (did try the Basic package for 6 months and a free dish instal)

But I'm here rooting for less technical mates, who are really into their sport, but now heading toward the FB streaming viewing, which is against my basic integrity, and I think they'd be willing/able to pay and watch legitimately if it was reasonably priced...

If my hobby is sport then I'm probably watching more that 1 game a week. And I probably like to watch more than just one sport. So is $80/month is a pretty cheap hobby? How much do you spend on your hobby?

And what is reasonably priced? Articulate that from your less technical mates - how much do they watch and what is it worth per hour of entertainment?

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

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1779875 11-May-2017 20:43

Everyone in NZ (except Sky and the NZRU) will be a lot better off financially when the All Blacks finally bugger off to European clubs. All the world's top rugby for $20/mth, and probably selected competitions for less. More than happy to get that in exchange for no more top level play on NZ soil, the All Blacks only regathering for world cups and exhibition games in emerging markets, quad nations being played by second stringers, having to stay up all night to watch the world's best rugby live, etc etc. Money talks and watching games that happen to be in actual nearby stadiums is overrated for the streaming generation. If you don't like the sound of that then you're propping up Sky and you're part of the problem.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

darylblake

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1779876 11-May-2017 20:50

Ok. So I just listened to that Newstalk ZB interview.

That woman is not wrong about the content etc, but she is living in the past about 10 years ago and she has not caught up. Completely delussional. What is this crack shes smoking about the internet being less reliable than satellite. Um last time I checked there was a bit of bad weather the internet worked pretty sweet. Fibre is exponentially more reliable than satellite.

Their business model is out of date. Sky if your reading this here are some tips:

1) Firstly, the world has changed. Human habits have changed. What people want from TV content is completely different to what they wanted 10 years ago. People want to watch what they want when they want (Bar Live streams). Sky have somewhat covered this with my sky, but even that seems to have limitations like storage on hard drives, and you have to rewind and fast forward through content to get to what you want. People come home from work, might watch 1 or two things per night. I mean I get up at 5:30am and get home about 4PM each day. Deal with kids for 3 hours then its 7pm. I have about 1-2 hours max before I crash out. Thats 1 League game, or 1 episode of something, and 30 minutes to an hour on the web before I hit the sack for the next day. So when I want to watch it. I want to start it from the beginning, not fast forwarding/rewinding. Perhaps you could put sport on Neon. I would pay for that.

2) Sky need to have a 10 year plan to phase out satellite. And reduce operating costs. Its great for some areas, but in 10 years it will be obsolete. I think keeping units like mysky are still feasible in the short to medium term. But having a simple set top unit that streams neon or an app for a smart TV/chromecast would be much better. The public is somewhat less retarded than they were 10 years ago, and most people can manage to set up netfix or get someone in their family to do so. So why is sky not this simple?

3) Let people buy what they want. Paying like $100+/mth for a whole heap of crap they are never going to watch is exactly what the issue is. I am certain that this is the MAIN reason MOST people are canning it. And the main reason why there is a backlash of muppets stealing the content.

The numbers don't lie. Even if sky can deliver the consumer LESS content, but MORE of what they prefer, and a price that is a bit lower than what they are paying now then they will increase your subscriber numbers, rather than shedding them. Stop playing the hard done by card. sky made a 140 million dollars last year. But this is getting smaller every year. And if they don't do something about their model then they are going to start bleeding, most people I know are canceling, thinking about cancelling. Or have tried to cancel and sky have made the process too hard for them to do so.

I rekon sky need to let people build their own packages. Sky can still price them however they prefer so they still cover their costs and then a bit, but if they deliver the content extremely cheaply over the web, with a platform they already own NEON has, then they might end up just selling someone sport, it might cost $60 a month for a few sports channels, but the user is happy, you have another subscriber, so its revenue you wont have otherwise.

TVNZ and mediaworks are more than capable of having some of their content available online. Hell they even throw advertisements in too.

What is happening right now, Is more people are cancelling. So the main way sky can increase operating profit is to put the price up, and cut costs. But if sky put the price up, MORE people WILL cancel people are FED UP. In my opinion some revenue is better than NONE, since sky have paid for the rights to the content anyway. So why not go for a model like Xero has, where you MAXIMIZE subscribers.

quickymart

13932 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1779950 12-May-2017 00:00

Apparently John Fellett has said in the past that if they allowed a pick-and-choose package it would end up costing around the same as the Basic package.

I agree with most of your points, by the way - but there are still a lot of areas where broadband is not sufficient quality and satellite is superior (think of rural areas, for example).

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

nzkc

1571 posts

Uber Geek

#1779953 12-May-2017 00:10

quickymart:

Apparently John Fellett has said in the past that if they allowed a pick-and-choose package it would end up costing around the same as the Basic package.

I agree with most of your points, by the way - but there are still a lot of areas where broadband is not sufficient quality and satellite is superior (think of rural areas, for example).

Then what have Sky got to lose by doing this? They'll get the same amount in revenue. Or was he saying: They'd pay the basic package price for sports?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1779958 12-May-2017 06:44

darylblake:

Ok. So I just listened to that Newstalk ZB interview.

That woman is not wrong about the content etc, but she is living in the past about 10 years ago and she has not caught up. Completely delussional. What is this crack shes smoking about the internet being less reliable than satellite. Um last time I checked there was a bit of bad weather the internet worked pretty sweet. Fibre is exponentially more reliable than satellite.

Their business model is out of date. Sky if your reading this here are some tips:

1) Firstly, the world has changed. Human habits have changed. What people want from TV content is completely different to what they wanted 10 years ago. People want to watch what they want when they want (Bar Live streams). Sky have somewhat covered this with my sky, but even that seems to have limitations like storage on hard drives, and you have to rewind and fast forward through content to get to what you want. People come home from work, might watch 1 or two things per night. I mean I get up at 5:30am and get home about 4PM each day. Deal with kids for 3 hours then its 7pm. I have about 1-2 hours max before I crash out. Thats 1 League game, or 1 episode of something, and 30 minutes to an hour on the web before I hit the sack for the next day. So when I want to watch it. I want to start it from the beginning, not fast forwarding/rewinding. Perhaps you could put sport on Neon. I would pay for that.

2) Sky need to have a 10 year plan to phase out satellite. And reduce operating costs. Its great for some areas, but in 10 years it will be obsolete. I think keeping units like mysky are still feasible in the short to medium term. But having a simple set top unit that streams neon or an app for a smart TV/chromecast would be much better. The public is somewhat less retarded than they were 10 years ago, and most people can manage to set up netfix or get someone in their family to do so. So why is sky not this simple?

3) Let people buy what they want. Paying like $100+/mth for a whole heap of crap they are never going to watch is exactly what the issue is. I am certain that this is the MAIN reason MOST people are canning it. And the main reason why there is a backlash of muppets stealing the content.

The numbers don't lie. Even if sky can deliver the consumer LESS content, but MORE of what they prefer, and a price that is a bit lower than what they are paying now then they will increase your subscriber numbers, rather than shedding them. Stop playing the hard done by card. sky made a 140 million dollars last year. But this is getting smaller every year. And if they don't do something about their model then they are going to start bleeding, most people I know are canceling, thinking about cancelling. Or have tried to cancel and sky have made the process too hard for them to do so.

I rekon sky need to let people build their own packages. Sky can still price them however they prefer so they still cover their costs and then a bit, but if they deliver the content extremely cheaply over the web, with a platform they already own NEON has, then they might end up just selling someone sport, it might cost $60 a month for a few sports channels, but the user is happy, you have another subscriber, so its revenue you wont have otherwise.

TVNZ and mediaworks are more than capable of having some of their content available online. Hell they even throw advertisements in too.

What is happening right now, Is more people are cancelling. So the main way sky can increase operating profit is to put the price up, and cut costs. But if sky put the price up, MORE people WILL cancel people are FED UP. In my opinion some revenue is better than NONE, since sky have paid for the rights to the content anyway. So why not go for a model like Xero has, where you MAXIMIZE subscribers.

Its arguable if searching and scrolling on OD for your content is easier than the EPG and the planner where your programs have already been automatically recorded.

The Optus contracts ends I think 2018 or 2019. Its written off. So either Sky can secure a much cheaper Optus deal and reduce prices, or it can cease satellite and use only OD, which is why Sky OD, Neon and Fanpass were introduced IMO, as the platforms are already there. Now, as an add-on, maybe soon as full time. Prices would drop.

Whole heap of crap? Thats rubbish. Sky play what has been produced, and everybody likes different things. You may loathe cooking TV, others loathe car racing. Everyone is different. They have a smorgasbord of channels, there is something for everyone. When you watch Netflix or Lightbox, is EVERY episode what you really like? Every one.? That is not the main reason people cancel, it is one thing, cost. You talk of Sky profit as if it his too high. Its less than $15 per month, per subscriber. No wiggle room. Cut costs? How? The main cost by a long shot is rights. Sport is 60% of those rights.

Why is Sky cost high? Partly due to the higher costs of satellite, which was the bees knees, and IMO, still is. Optus cost, MySky, Dishes (they are $400 each), brick and mortar to manage the hardware. Hard to cut those costs unless you remove them for OD. Rights costs can't be cut unless the extorting sports reduce them. Maybe they ate not high, but our low population doesnt get an economy of scale with them.

If Sky was rooting, I would agree 100%, but check the financials, they arent, and they cannot reduce prices by a measly $16 per month either, as then they are running at a loss.

Wait a wee bit when they dump satellite and go 100% OD, thats my hope

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1779959 12-May-2017 06:48

quickymart:

Apparently John Fellett has said in the past that if they allowed a pick-and-choose package it would end up costing around the same as the Basic package.

I agree with most of your points, by the way - but there are still a lot of areas where broadband is not sufficient quality and satellite is superior (think of rural areas, for example).

Yep. The RSP BB may be more than suitable, but home wiring, other devices, all sorts of things can get in the way. But, if the stream was well buffered, and if live sport especially was delayed coverage (buffers 5 to 10 minutes) or that was an option, then theoretically there is no difference, as you are not streaming off the internet, you are playing from flash memory/HDD of what was downloaded from the internet. Being able to adjust buffering would take care of many home BB speed issues.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1779993 12-May-2017 08:56

darylblake:

3) Let people buy what they want. Paying like $100+/mth for a whole heap of crap they are never going to watch is exactly what the issue is. I am certain that this is the MAIN reason MOST people are canning it. And the main reason why there is a backlash of muppets stealing the content.

The 4 main sports cost SKY the most of their rights costs. All the extra sports ( whole heap of crap they are never going to watch ) will be a small percentage so when they are removed from the bill they will be a small percentage of the bill, you are not going to save much.

If we look at the rights costs of the 4 main sports then add them all up and divided by the total number of customers to get x amount. Then take them as separate sports and divided by number of customers watching each sport to get y amount. Do you think x and y amounts will be massively different?

Azzura

603 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1780001 12-May-2017 09:35

http://www.techhive.com/article/3195776/streaming-services/this-is-how-the-bloated-tv-bundle-collapses.html

"The days when TV networks mutually benefitted from having all their channels together in a big bundle are over. Now they’re in a game of survival of the fittest, and it’s only going to get uglier from here."

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1780003 12-May-2017 09:46

Azzura:

http://www.techhive.com/article/3195776/streaming-services/this-is-how-the-bloated-tv-bundle-collapses.html

"The days when TV networks mutually benefitted from having all their channels together in a big bundle are over. Now they’re in a game of survival of the fittest, and it’s only going to get uglier from here."

Good read. So getting rid of sports in bundles helps. Then you also have 58 (my exaggeration) OD Pay TV services competing. Where they all overlap to a small or more likely greater degree. Race to the bottom.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1780017 12-May-2017 10:16

Azzura:

http://www.techhive.com/article/3195776/streaming-services/this-is-how-the-bloated-tv-bundle-collapses.html

"The days when TV networks mutually benefitted from having all their channels together in a big bundle are over. Now they’re in a game of survival of the fittest, and it’s only going to get uglier from here."

and from the same article "the harder TV networks try to stop the bleeding, the faster they’ll accelerate the bundle’s decline." read and LEARN SKY!

also to note: "TV networks still insist on selling all the channels they own in a bundle; as a result, entire networks are being cut from streaming bundles to keep prices down"

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1780024 12-May-2017 10:24

PhantomNVD:

Azzura:

http://www.techhive.com/article/3195776/streaming-services/this-is-how-the-bloated-tv-bundle-collapses.html

"The days when TV networks mutually benefitted from having all their channels together in a big bundle are over. Now they’re in a game of survival of the fittest, and it’s only going to get uglier from here."

and from the same article "the harder TV networks try to stop the bleeding, the faster they’ll accelerate the bundle’s decline." read and LEARN SKY!

also to note: "TV networks still insist on selling all the channels they own in a bundle; as a result, entire networks are being cut from streaming bundles to keep prices down"

Your missing the point. We will end up with many OD services, all the same, overlapping, and all struggling to make a buck. They will have little to differentiate themselves. Customers will flip between them as they do with BB, mobile, power. But, while they overlap, we might need 2,3,5 of them to get our bundle back, what we want to watch. Then your paying good money, inconvenient, and you still have that bunch of crap that your paying for.

Bottom line is too many want too much for too little. The Netflix $13 is now default monthly line in the sand for many people.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 25