Big drop in Sky subscribers

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

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 45

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1551108 11-May-2016 19:48

dafman:
I'm not backing away from calling Sky out for price gouging.

If the definition of price gouging is "the act of retailers increasing prices when no alternative is available", then Sky currently fully meet this through their current practice of charging some subscribers more than twice what they are charging others for the same product, and getting away with it through the threat of stand down if the higher charged subscribers try to access the lower price. As I see it, that's 100% price gouging, pure and simple.

Ummm this thread and many other GZ threads discuss the many alternatives to Sky, therefore your definition of price gouging shows that Sky is not price gouging.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1551132 11-May-2016 20:00

dafman:

tdgeek:

Deals for new subscribers is not a Sky only scenario.

Yes, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, most deals for new subscribers from other companies are typically only a very small discount - not the massive 60% Sky are punishing loyal subscribers with. And then there's the 6 month stand down imposed on loyal subscribers if they want dare to try and access the cheaper pricing - again, unique to Sky.

Earlier, when you defended Sky's discounting for new customers by saying other companies did it, I asked for specific examples for comparison against Sky's practices. Still waiting for these.

And it appears your definition of "price gouging" is based on Sky offering discounts to new customers. You asked for specific examples. I provided the extremely cheap broadband deal for new Trustpower customers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that Trustpower must be price gouging (by your definition). I'm calling you out.

I also provided the example where newspaper publishers offer 50-70% discounts to new subscribers vis-a-vis existing subscribers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that the newspaper companies must be price gouging (by your definition).

Its a common practice to offer discounts to new customers to get them on board. Thats not price gouging. Thats customer acquisition.

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

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1551136 11-May-2016 20:04

MikeB4:
dafman:

I'm not backing away from calling Sky out for price gouging.

If the definition of price gouging is "the act of retailers increasing prices when no alternative is available", then Sky currently fully meet this through their current practice of charging some subscribers more than twice what they are charging others for the same product, and getting away with it through the threat of stand down if the higher charged subscribers try to access the lower price. As I see it, that's 100% price gouging, pure and simple.

Ummm this thread and many other GZ threads discuss the many alternatives to Sky, therefore your definition of price gouging shows that Sky is not price gouging.

It's price gouging.

Name me one other company (just one will do) that dare charges 2+ times for some customers than others for the same product. At the moment, there is no true substitute for Sky sport, the last ace card that Sky are holding over many overcharged subscribers. But their ability to keep this price gouging up for much longer is limited as more and more punters become commercially aware and internet savvy .

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1551141 11-May-2016 20:14

dafman:
MikeB4:
dafman:

I'm not backing away from calling Sky out for price gouging.

If the definition of price gouging is "the act of retailers increasing prices when no alternative is available", then Sky currently fully meet this through their current practice of charging some subscribers more than twice what they are charging others for the same product, and getting away with it through the threat of stand down if the higher charged subscribers try to access the lower price. As I see it, that's 100% price gouging, pure and simple.

Ummm this thread and many other GZ threads discuss the many alternatives to Sky, therefore your definition of price gouging shows that Sky is not price gouging.

It's price gouging.

Name me one other company (just one will do) that dare charges 2+ times for some customers than others for the same product. At the moment, there is no true substitute for Sky sport, the last ace card that Sky are holding over many overcharged subscribers. But their ability to keep this price gouging up for much longer is limited as more and more punters become commercially aware and internet savvy .

If you were correct I am sure Com Com would have acted.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1551146 11-May-2016 20:26

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

Deals for new subscribers is not a Sky only scenario.

Yes, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, most deals for new subscribers from other companies are typically only a very small discount - not the massive 60% Sky are punishing loyal subscribers with. And then there's the 6 month stand down imposed on loyal subscribers if they want dare to try and access the cheaper pricing - again, unique to Sky.

Earlier, when you defended Sky's discounting for new customers by saying other companies did it, I asked for specific examples for comparison against Sky's practices. Still waiting for these.

.

And it appears your definition of "price gouging" is based on Sky offering discounts to new customers. You asked for specific examples. I provided the extremely cheap broadband deal for new Trustpower customers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that Trustpower must be price gouging (by your definition). I'm calling you out.

I also provided the example where newspaper publishers offer 50-70% discounts to new subscribers vis-a-vis existing subscribers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that the newspaper companies must be price gouging (by your definition).

Its a common practice to offer discounts to new customers to get them on board. Thats not price gouging. Thats customer acquisition.

Totally different, and not the price gouging as practiced by Sky.

The Trustpower and newspapers examples you cited are for term contracts - ie, you agree to be locked into their service for a fixed period of time and in return for this they give you a discount (over other customers who are not locked into the same term that you have signed up to). At the end of your contract term, you are free to re-sign to whatever new great deal they are offering. Neither trustpower or the newspapers threaten to withhold their product if you cancel, but they will charge you an exit fee if exiting within the term period which you earlier agreed to be bound by at the time you signed up.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1551161 11-May-2016 20:51

dafman:

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

Deals for new subscribers is not a Sky only scenario.

Yes, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, most deals for new subscribers from other companies are typically only a very small discount - not the massive 60% Sky are punishing loyal subscribers with. And then there's the 6 month stand down imposed on loyal subscribers if they want dare to try and access the cheaper pricing - again, unique to Sky.

Earlier, when you defended Sky's discounting for new customers by saying other companies did it, I asked for specific examples for comparison against Sky's practices. Still waiting for these.

.

And it appears your definition of "price gouging" is based on Sky offering discounts to new customers. You asked for specific examples. I provided the extremely cheap broadband deal for new Trustpower customers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that Trustpower must be price gouging (by your definition). I'm calling you out.

I also provided the example where newspaper publishers offer 50-70% discounts to new subscribers vis-a-vis existing subscribers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that the newspaper companies must be price gouging (by your definition).

Its a common practice to offer discounts to new customers to get them on board. Thats not price gouging. Thats customer acquisition.

Totally different, and not the price gouging as practiced by Sky.

The Trustpower and newspapers examples you cited are for term contracts - ie, you agree to be locked into their service for a fixed period of time and in return for this they give you a discount (over other customers who are not locked into the same term that you have signed up to). At the end of your contract term, you are free to re-sign to whatever new great deal they are offering. Neither trustpower or the newspapers threaten to withhold their product if you cancel, but they will charge you an exit fee if exiting within the term period which you earlier agreed to be bound by at the time you signed up.

If I am an existing Trustpower customer I cannot take advantage of their offer. *Offer is only available to new residential customers in Vector's Auckland and Northern Network areas, and the Counties Power Network area. How is this fair to existing customers? How do I churn away from Trustpower to someone else and then rejoin to take advantage of the offer????? This is your "gouging". How is it different?

If I am an existing newspaper customer and I get the "50% off your subscription price" - its only for new customers. If I cancel, how quickly can I rejoin?? Why am I not allowed, as an existing subscriber, to take advantage of the offer??? Surely the lower price is the right price - and the newspaper company is "gouging".

These are not just about term contracts - these are about signup discounts. If I cancel Sky and I wait then I can sign up for the "fixed term contract" on the lower price. That is exactly the same as the Trustpower offer. Do you really think that a non-contract Trustpower customer (most Sky subscribers must be off contract by now) can join a rival and then the following month sign up for cheap broadband? Me thinks that'd go down like a cup of cold sick when talking with the CSR about signing on.....

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

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1551214 11-May-2016 22:43

ockel:

dafman:

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

Deals for new subscribers is not a Sky only scenario.

Yes, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, most deals for new subscribers from other companies are typically only a very small discount - not the massive 60% Sky are punishing loyal subscribers with. And then there's the 6 month stand down imposed on loyal subscribers if they want dare to try and access the cheaper pricing - again, unique to Sky.

Earlier, when you defended Sky's discounting for new customers by saying other companies did it, I asked for specific examples for comparison against Sky's practices. Still waiting for these.

.

And it appears your definition of "price gouging" is based on Sky offering discounts to new customers. You asked for specific examples. I provided the extremely cheap broadband deal for new Trustpower customers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that Trustpower must be price gouging (by your definition). I'm calling you out.

I also provided the example where newspaper publishers offer 50-70% discounts to new subscribers vis-a-vis existing subscribers. You failed to respond. You failed to respond that the newspaper companies must be price gouging (by your definition).

Its a common practice to offer discounts to new customers to get them on board. Thats not price gouging. Thats customer acquisition.

Totally different, and not the price gouging as practiced by Sky.

The Trustpower and newspapers examples you cited are for term contracts - ie, you agree to be locked into their service for a fixed period of time and in return for this they give you a discount (over other customers who are not locked into the same term that you have signed up to). At the end of your contract term, you are free to re-sign to whatever new great deal they are offering. Neither trustpower or the newspapers threaten to withhold their product if you cancel, but they will charge you an exit fee if exiting within the term period which you earlier agreed to be bound by at the time you signed up.

If I am an existing Trustpower customer I cannot take advantage of their offer. *Offer is only available to new residential customers in Vector's Auckland and Northern Network areas, and the Counties Power Network area. How is this fair to existing customers? How do I churn away from Trustpower to someone else and then rejoin to take advantage of the offer????? This is your "gouging". How is it different?

If I am an existing newspaper customer and I get the "50% off your subscription price" - its only for new customers. If I cancel, how quickly can I rejoin?? Why am I not allowed, as an existing subscriber, to take advantage of the offer??? Surely the lower price is the right price - and the newspaper company is "gouging".

These are not just about term contracts - these are about signup discounts. If I cancel Sky and I wait then I can sign up for the "fixed term contract" on the lower price. That is exactly the same as the Trustpower offer. Do you really think that a non-contract Trustpower customer (most Sky subscribers must be off contract by now) can join a rival and then the following month sign up for cheap broadband? Me thinks that'd go down like a cup of cold sick when talking with the CSR about signing on.....

I guess that you and I (and with me, the tens of thousands of customers abandoning Sky of late) will have to beg to differ.

So let's just sit back and watch with interest how the future pans out for Sky. Can they re-invent and stem the tide - or is it too late and a slow death awaits? Under their current business model they are losing both customers and goodwill at a great rate of knots. As I see it, their ONLY ace card is sport - so will Fanpass and whatever else they do with sport will be enough? Let's see.

Sharesies

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

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1551272 12-May-2016 08:54

@ockel: Someone said they only wanted 15 channels - and would only pay $1/channel to watch them. And resented getting 50 other channels that they dont watch. So what, that there are channels they dont watch. There are plenty of programs on Netflix and Lightbox and Hulu that an individual will never watch. Why resent having the content in the catalogue?

As that "someone" was me, let me explain it a different way.

Sky's Basic package is 45.39% of my monthly bill, but it is by far the least watched content. I only pay for the Basic package because you can't get SoHo, Sport and Movies without it. Why do I have to pay the cost of 53 channels I will never watch? It's like going to the supermarket to buy the ingredients for a fruit salad and the supermarket saying that I can't buy apples, bananas, strawberries and grapes unless I also pay for cauliflower, brussels sprouts, broad beans, garlic, chicken livers, lambs' brains and nappy rash cream. I don't want half those items in my house, let alone in my fruit salad. Why can't I just pay for what I want?

I don't resent there being content in the catalogue - I resent paying for it if I'm never going to watch it. I'm sure there are people who love E!, two TAB racing channels, three shopping channels, four religious channels, six children's channels, etc. so let those people pay for them. Don't people with Netflix, Lightbox and Hulu (of these I only have Lightbox, which is free) also do some value proposition before signing up? If I looked at Netflix and thought there were only two films I'd watch (unlikely, but just an example) then I'd be better off buying/renting just those movies rather than subscribing to Netflix.

And I didn't say I'd "only pay $1/channel to watch them". I said that the average cost per channel for the Basic package is $0.72, but I'd be willing to pay more per channel if I didn't have to pay for all the ones I don't want. $1.00 per channel was a random number I chose, but it's a 39% increase on the current cost per channel, so didn't seem unreasonable.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1551275 12-May-2016 09:03

ockel:

If I am an existing Trustpower customer I cannot take advantage of their offer. *Offer is only available to new residential customers in Vector's Auckland and Northern Network areas, and the Counties Power Network area. How is this fair to existing customers? How do I churn away from Trustpower to someone else and then rejoin to take advantage of the offer????? This is your "gouging". How is it different?

If I am an existing newspaper customer and I get the "50% off your subscription price" - its only for new customers. If I cancel, how quickly can I rejoin?? Why am I not allowed, as an existing subscriber, to take advantage of the offer??? Surely the lower price is the right price - and the newspaper company is "gouging".

These are not just about term contracts - these are about signup discounts. If I cancel Sky and I wait then I can sign up for the "fixed term contract" on the lower price. That is exactly the same as the Trustpower offer. Do you really think that a non-contract Trustpower customer (most Sky subscribers must be off contract by now) can join a rival and then the following month sign up for cheap broadband? Me thinks that'd go down like a cup of cold sick when talking with the CSR about signing on.....

On the ISP side, my experience is that once you're off contract it is fairly easy to take advantage of "new customer" offers. Once my 12-month term was complete with VF, I just phoned the CSR and (after the usual long wait) asked if I needed to move to another ISP then back to VF to get the new router and reduced tariff - the answer was no

Apologies if slightly off-topic but a good example of more competition being good for the consumer

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1551307 12-May-2016 09:10

andrew027:

@ockel: Someone said they only wanted 15 channels - and would only pay $1/channel to watch them. And resented getting 50 other channels that they dont watch. So what, that there are channels they dont watch. There are plenty of programs on Netflix and Lightbox and Hulu that an individual will never watch. Why resent having the content in the catalogue?

As that "someone" was me, let me explain it a different way.

Sky's Basic package is 45.39% of my monthly bill, but it is by far the least watched content. I only pay for the Basic package because you can't get SoHo, Sport and Movies without it. Why do I have to pay the cost of 53 channels I will never watch? It's like going to the supermarket to buy the ingredients for a fruit salad and the supermarket saying that I can't buy apples, bananas, strawberries and grapes unless I also pay for cauliflower, brussels sprouts, broad beans, garlic, chicken livers, lambs' brains and nappy rash cream. I don't want half those items in my house, let alone in my fruit salad. Why can't I just pay for what I want?

I don't resent there being content in the catalogue - I resent paying for it if I'm never going to watch it. I'm sure there are people who love E!, two TAB racing channels, three shopping channels, four religious channels, six children's channels, etc. so let those people pay for them. Don't people with Netflix, Lightbox and Hulu (of these I only have Lightbox, which is free) also do some value proposition before signing up? If I looked at Netflix and thought there were only two films I'd watch (unlikely, but just an example) then I'd be better off buying/renting just those movies rather than subscribing to Netflix.

And I didn't say I'd "only pay $1/channel to watch them". I said that the average cost per channel for the Basic package is $0.72, but I'd be willing to pay more per channel if I didn't have to pay for all the ones I don't want. $1.00 per channel was a random number I chose, but it's a 39% increase on the current cost per channel, so didn't seem unreasonable.

Netflix. Say you liked two genres, action and space. Why would you pay for NF is that has to include every other genre that you dont like? And Docos that say you dont like either. But thats splitting hairs, I do follow you

Skys model is not SVOD, they are much older than that, they are in a higher cost world. That and that Sport is subsidsed by Basic is the general consensus. So, Sky, based on recent churn, needs to act over the next year, partially insulated by the Olympics, then they will be in a lower cost SVOD environment, and then can re hash how they offer channels. But right now, it is what it is

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1551309 12-May-2016 09:30

Credit card debt transfer deals - typically about half the normal interest rate.

Car finance deals - we got less then 5% on our Mazda. Normal rates are in the teens.

Yamaha finance also do this every now and then for boat/motor packages.

Name me one other company (just one will do) that dare charges 2+ times for some customers than others for the same product. At the moment, there is no true substitute for Sky sport, the last ace card that Sky are holding over many overcharged subscribers. But their ability to keep this price gouging up for much longer is limited as more and more punters become commercially aware and internet savvy .

Mike

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek

#1551330 12-May-2016 09:55

tdgeek:

Netflix. Say you liked two genres, action and space. Why would you pay for NF is that has to include every other genre that you dont like?

Probably because they've priced their offering low enough that it doesn't hurt to do so. I'm quite happy to pay that amount for the proportion of content that is appealing to me. I wasn't prepared to do the same with Sky at $73 for the basic package with HD ticket and box rental. It got to the point where the content they were offering me was not worth the fee they were charging me for it.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1551421 12-May-2016 11:10

andrew027:

@ockel: Someone said they only wanted 15 channels - and would only pay $1/channel to watch them. And resented getting 50 other channels that they dont watch. So what, that there are channels they dont watch. There are plenty of programs on Netflix and Lightbox and Hulu that an individual will never watch. Why resent having the content in the catalogue?

As that "someone" was me, let me explain it a different way.

Sky's Basic package is 45.39% of my monthly bill, but it is by far the least watched content. I only pay for the Basic package because you can't get SoHo, Sport and Movies without it. Why do I have to pay the cost of 53 channels I will never watch? It's like going to the supermarket to buy the ingredients for a fruit salad and the supermarket saying that I can't buy apples, bananas, strawberries and grapes unless I also pay for cauliflower, brussels sprouts, broad beans, garlic, chicken livers, lambs' brains and nappy rash cream. I don't want half those items in my house, let alone in my fruit salad. Why can't I just pay for what I want?

I don't resent there being content in the catalogue - I resent paying for it if I'm never going to watch it. I'm sure there are people who love E!, two TAB racing channels, three shopping channels, four religious channels, six children's channels, etc. so let those people pay for them. Don't people with Netflix, Lightbox and Hulu (of these I only have Lightbox, which is free) also do some value proposition before signing up? If I looked at Netflix and thought there were only two films I'd watch (unlikely, but just an example) then I'd be better off buying/renting just those movies rather than subscribing to Netflix.

And I didn't say I'd "only pay $1/channel to watch them". I said that the average cost per channel for the Basic package is $0.72, but I'd be willing to pay more per channel if I didn't have to pay for all the ones I don't want. $1.00 per channel was a random number I chose, but it's a 39% increase on the current cost per channel, so didn't seem unreasonable.

No its like going to the supermarket and browsing through the aisles - and only buying the stuff you want. You're never going to buy all of the SKU's they have so why resent that there are lots of items in the supermarket. Your $49 basket in the supermarket has more than 15 items in it - how many units of entertainment did you consume. Does it matter whether the $49 basket next to you has 100 items or 200 items?

Put another way if, for your $49, Sky only supplied you 15 channels. Are you watching more or less on those 15 channels? No. And in fact the other channels that arent offered to you you arent paying for. Are you getting more or less value for your $49? Ummm - you're still watching the same amount so your value proposition is unchanged.

The average cost per channel that you're watching is $3.28 per month. Is that correct? 10 cents per day. Is that good value or poor value? For someone else that watches only 2 channels thats $25/month. Is that good value or poor value?

The correct question is "How many hours do you consume for your $49/month"? Is that good value or poor value? A person watching 1 hour per week on each of their 15 channels vs a person watching 10 hours per week on each of their 2 channels. Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched?

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

debeeriz

5 posts

Wannabe Geek

#1551423 12-May-2016 11:24

Scottfour:

What are people doing for live HD sports streaming instead of sky? Only really interested in cricket, rugby and the V8 supercars.

If I can subscribe to a decent service for this, then sky is gone bye bye.

Use a geoblocker put money into bookmakers account min amount varies from 5 to 15 pounds as long as you have money in your account you can live stream without betting except for horse races which require a bet, you cant watch british sport from a british streaming account so its best to have two accounts one british and one offshore if you want to watch any english games

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1551426 12-May-2016 11:46

debeeriz:

Scottfour:

What are people doing for live HD sports streaming instead of sky? Only really interested in cricket, rugby and the V8 supercars.

If I can subscribe to a decent service for this, then sky is gone bye bye.

Use a geoblocker put money into bookmakers account min amount varies from 5 to 15 pounds as long as you have money in your account you can live stream without betting except for horse races which require a bet, you cant watch british sport from a british streaming account so its best to have two accounts one british and one offshore if you want to watch any english games

I am sure there are ways to stream outside of Sky, but the costs and quality may vary hugely. Fanpass may in fact be a far better option. $56 a month compared to a handful of offshore subs, plus GeoUnblocker costs no doubt. Im not sure how frequent your sports are on popups though. Or how they may fare come Olympics

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 45