What could Sky change/improve/do better?

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › What could Sky change/improve/do better?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1296

Trusted

#1385384 11-Sep-2015 08:52

Paparangi: I have noticed that in nearly every forum thread about Sky someone complains about the price, channels etc. I though that instead of cluttering up discussions with improvements etc, they could be posted here and maybe Sky might see it or something.

I'll start, I would love it if you could add channel packs for certain periods of time i.e Sports for a week, Movies for a month, more flexibility.

Sell me the hitler channel and only the hitler channel.
I have no interest in reality tv on discovery or natgeo, kids shows, or anything like that. I wanna see more tanks and ships winning WWII. Hitler on history.

And they should charge appropriately for it

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385387 11-Sep-2015 08:58

Rikkitic:
tdgeek:

But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

Ever heard of Global Mode, or DNS proxies? I wouldn't exactly call the content on Sky great. For everything they do have, there is a better alternative overseas. Even the Soho programs can mostly be found for less (sometimes free) on streaming sites.

Agree. My comment was based on the fact that I read here that conrtent isnt great, yet when there is a deal going on, everyone rushes in. Based on that the content is good as gold, its just the price.

Now, expanding on your post, Netflix is cheap as chips, Lightbox is cheap as chips. Both of these combined are circa $25 a month. Skys deals are double that, everybody here flocks to it, yet its still double NF and LB.

B1GGLZ

1961 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 136

#1385388 11-Sep-2015 09:02

raytaylor:
Sell me the hitler channel and only the hitler channel.
I have no interest in reality tv on discovery or natgeo, kids shows, or anything like that. I wanna see more tanks and ships winning WWII. Hitler on history.

And they should charge appropriately for it

+1
The only reason I've kept Sky til now is being unable to find the History Channel (Australian) online. Everything else I watch on other channels I've been able to download or stream for free. The only History Channel I can find online is the USA History Channel and it's content is different to Australasian version. Far too much US crap content.
However I think Sky will definitely be gone by Xmas in this household anyway. Just not worth $50 a month for History and Living Channels.

Sideface

9652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15607

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385389 11-Sep-2015 09:03

tdgeek: ... But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

When did you last watch Sky?

I cancelled my Sky subscription recently because of the deteriorating program quality, intrusive advertising, and the ridiculous price.

Netflix is much better at a fraction of the price, and is free of advertising.

Sideface

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385391 11-Sep-2015 09:06

HD for Food TV
Better EPG
Less repeats, I think Food is *3* times a day for the same program.
More variety in shows.

I think sky basic is ok, perhaps 10-15 a month overpriced. I think the packages should be $50 and include YOUR CHOICE of 2 other channels like Rugby, Sport, Movies etc.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385400 11-Sep-2015 09:17

Sideface:
tdgeek: ... But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

When did you last watch Sky?

I cancelled my Sky subscription recently because of the deteriorating program quality, intrusive advertising, and the ridiculous price.

Netflix is much better at a fraction of the price, and is free of advertising.

I have Sky. My comment was based on the fact that I read here that conrtent isnt great, yet when there is a deal going on, everyone rushes in. Based on that the content is good as gold, its just the price.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385406 11-Sep-2015 09:23

networkn: HD for Food TV
Better EPG
Less repeats, I think Food is *3* times a day for the same program.
More variety in shows.

I think sky basic is ok, perhaps 10-15 a month overpriced. I think the packages should be $50 and include YOUR CHOICE of 2 other channels like Rugby, Sport, Movies etc.

Good detail. So, your feedback would reduce gross revenue by about 50%. Basic dropping from about $50 to $35. The other channels like Sport and Movies, costing about $7-50 each. That significant revenue reduction will have to come from profits and buying content. If Sky was making an earnings per share, per assets invested, etcb that was creaming it, yes. But they dont. The main cost to them is content, that cost would have to reduce somewhat. I dont see all that giving a higher quality result, content wise.

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1385407 11-Sep-2015 09:23

tdgeek: Channel bundling is a good idea, but I imagine the ARPU needs to be maintained. Its not going to be, divide $100 by 30 channels so its $3 per channel per month. They would have an ARPU to maintain, so the overall price may not get much cheaper, but if you can change the lineup somewhat that would be good. They could say charge $65 a month for everything, but the ones that just want Basic will whine. Can;t please everybody. But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

Why do people think that you could 'divide $100 by 30 channels so its $3 per channel per month' Does your local restaurant/supermarket do that so that crayfish is the same price as mince?

And if they do unbundle will your cost come down that much? Just look at PLP they want $400 a year to watch 2 sports and even then for 1 sport (football) just 1 competition and for the other (golf) only 50% of the top events. The overheads and fixed cost will still have to be pro-rata to the content you purchase.

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

#1385414 11-Sep-2015 09:28

tdgeek: Re unbundling, how much per channel?

That's a good question. I'm assuming premium services like Sport would cost more (because of the rights needed to buy the sport in the first place) and something like Animal Planet would be super cheap. Perhaps they could do parcels - $10 per month for a bundle of 10 of the "nothing" channels (like Jones or Vibe), and then a higher monthly sub for a sport bundle, or a premium entertainment bundle (like Movies + Soho).

I'd get Living Channel, The Zone, UKTV, Jones, Vibe, maybe Cartoon Network and Disney XD for my son... actually I'd struggle to find 10 channels I wanted. And then I'd want to be able to easily turn Sport on and off depending on if there was something I was interested in.

Basically people should be able to get a decent selection for around the $50 per month mark, no more. When I added Sport for CWC earlier this year it was costing me $102.

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

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385431 11-Sep-2015 09:40

tdgeek:
networkn: HD for Food TV
Better EPG
Less repeats, I think Food is *3* times a day for the same program.
More variety in shows.

I think sky basic is ok, perhaps 10-15 a month overpriced. I think the packages should be $50 and include YOUR CHOICE of 2 other channels like Rugby, Sport, Movies etc.

Good detail. So, your feedback would reduce gross revenue by about 50%. Basic dropping from about $50 to $35. The other channels like Sport and Movies, costing about $7-50 each. That significant revenue reduction will have to come from profits and buying content. If Sky was making an earnings per share, per assets invested, etcb that was creaming it, yes. But they dont. The main cost to them is content, that cost would have to reduce somewhat. I dont see all that giving a higher quality result, content wise.

If you think that after the RWC, that isn't going to be the "deal" then you aren't in the world on reality. Not a single person I know is keeping Sky after the RWC (Though a lot have said they will retain if they can get what they want for $50). I've kept mine because I scored this deal pretty much exactly. If they can do it for me, they can do it full stop.

I think Sky is in a world of trouble unless they get more competitive. For a lot of people, even if they do now, it's too late.

I would consider paying more, if they went back to proving perhaps 2 repeats a day, and got new stuff in for the likes of Food TV, which has largely the same old stuff recycled year in year out.

Sky has been making excellent money over the years, but they are going to be forced to be more competitive. Profits of near a billion a year, offering average services aren't going to fly any longer since globalization. Look at Telecom!

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1385434 11-Sep-2015 09:44

The HD ticket is the one thing that bugs me the most.

I can understand the prices for the Sport package (sport is expensive to produce, and somebody has to pay the players), so if I want Sport (and this month, and the next couple, I certainly do) I will pay for it. For that price though, I should get it in HD, and not have to pay a tax on top of that to get HD.
Movies - haven't had Sky Movies for ages, and do not see the value.
SoHo, mmm maybe - they do get good shows, and it is worth having for the couple of months that GoT is on for me. I cancel it after that. Which reminds me - make it easier to change your channel packages - very easy to add a channel, but hate having to ring up to cancel it (I know, that's by design, but surely everyone can see through that as blatant money grubbing??)

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1385444 11-Sep-2015 09:45

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:
tdgeek:

But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

Ever heard of Global Mode, or DNS proxies? I wouldn't exactly call the content on Sky great. For everything they do have, there is a better alternative overseas. Even the Soho programs can mostly be found for less (sometimes free) on streaming sites.

Agree. My comment was based on the fact that I read here that conrtent isnt great, yet when there is a deal going on, everyone rushes in. Based on that the content is good as gold, its just the price.

Now, expanding on your post, Netflix is cheap as chips, Lightbox is cheap as chips. Both of these combined are circa $25 a month. Skys deals are double that, everybody here flocks to it, yet its still double NF and LB.

There are number of reasons why.

1) A lot of people don't want to stream and the problems that are involved. Just look at the number of threads complaining about poor quality. slowness and non device support for the various streaming options available and these are by technically savy people. For the non technical out there knowing to delete cookies, play around with settings and update software to do what you previously did by switching on a TV and box is an issue

2) Ease of use of devices to watch content especially fast forward/rewind etc

3) Lack of NZ produced content by Netflix or Lightbox

4) Old content or same same content such as US cop shows and Super hero shows etc (With this Netflix and Lightbox have a lot of second screening rights as they get more and more first screeening the price has to go up)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385447 11-Sep-2015 09:51

networkn:
tdgeek:
networkn: HD for Food TV
Better EPG
Less repeats, I think Food is *3* times a day for the same program.
More variety in shows.

I think sky basic is ok, perhaps 10-15 a month overpriced. I think the packages should be $50 and include YOUR CHOICE of 2 other channels like Rugby, Sport, Movies etc.

Good detail. So, your feedback would reduce gross revenue by about 50%. Basic dropping from about $50 to $35. The other channels like Sport and Movies, costing about $7-50 each. That significant revenue reduction will have to come from profits and buying content. If Sky was making an earnings per share, per assets invested, etcb that was creaming it, yes. But they dont. The main cost to them is content, that cost would have to reduce somewhat. I dont see all that giving a higher quality result, content wise.

If you think that after the RWC, that isn't going to be the "deal" then you aren't in the world on reality. Not a single person I know is keeping Sky after the RWC (Though a lot have said they will retain if they can get what they want for $50). I've kept mine because I scored this deal pretty much exactly. If they can do it for me, they can do it full stop.

I think Sky is in a world of trouble unless they get more competitive. For a lot of people, even if they do now, it's too late.

I would consider paying more, if they went back to proving perhaps 2 repeats a day, and got new stuff in for the likes of Food TV, which has largely the same old stuff recycled year in year out.

Sky has been making excellent money over the years, but they are going to be forced to be more competitive. Profits of near a billion a year, offering average services aren't going to fly any longer since globalization. Look at Telecom!

Profits of a billion a year?? That isnt reality! Or correct by a wide margin. Skys subscriber numbers are high, they dont vary a huge amount. RWC is probably a minor pimple in increased numbers and will be a minor dimple when its over. I'd be happy to bet that post RWC there will not a a standard $50 deal for what you currently have. The SVOD phenomena is in its infancy, its not normal, its not standard, its techy. Ask 100 people walking the street not here

Yes Sky will have to change, no doubt. Id imnagine they will cut cost left right and centre, outsource everything, and literally have almost zero brick and mortar. And get the content fed by land based fibre that is grwoing every day. Those that need a box will have to pay for it. Over time Sky will morph from its hardware based service (box, cable, dish) to a SVOD service, with some paying a premioum for the old fashioned dish etc.

It wont happen overnight, but it will happen

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385455 11-Sep-2015 09:57

Profits of a billion a year?? That isnt reality! Or correct by a wide margin. Skys subscriber numbers are high, they dont vary a huge amount. RWC is probably a minor pimple in increased numbers and will be a minor dimple when its over. I'd be happy to bet that post RWC there will not a a standard $50 deal for what you currently have. The SVOD phenomena is in its infancy, its not normal, its not standard, its techy. Ask 100 people walking the street not here

Yes Sky will have to change, no doubt. Id imnagine they will cut cost left right and centre, outsource everything, and literally have almost zero brick and mortar. And get the content fed by land based fibre that is grwoing every day. Those that need a box will have to pay for it. Over time Sky will morph from its hardware based service (box, cable, dish) to a SVOD service, with some paying a premioum for the old fashioned dish etc.

It wont happen overnight, but it will happen

My mistake, I misread the report, it's $906M of Revenue. $165M in Profit.

I'd be prepared to bet next year their revenue has dropped by 25% AT LEAST. I'm also prepared to bet that those people calling up to cancel, will be offered a deal pretty close to the $50 which include Basic, My Sky HDI, and 1 premium channel, if they sign up for 12 months. Also HD Ticket will be included.

I'll donate $100 to a (registered) charity of your choosing if both those things (or reasonably close to it) don't end up happening.

I'll also predict that John Fellett, is gone within 12 months. I suspect gone by Christmas.

Also the boost in subscriber numbers that Sky experienced this year is due to RWC, and most have been signed up on the $50 deal.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1385473 11-Sep-2015 10:04

Jas777:
tdgeek:
Rikkitic:
tdgeek:

But from what I gather the content on Sky is great, its just the price. Aside from price its the best out there by far?

Ever heard of Global Mode, or DNS proxies? I wouldn't exactly call the content on Sky great. For everything they do have, there is a better alternative overseas. Even the Soho programs can mostly be found for less (sometimes free) on streaming sites.

Agree. My comment was based on the fact that I read here that conrtent isnt great, yet when there is a deal going on, everyone rushes in. Based on that the content is good as gold, its just the price.

Now, expanding on your post, Netflix is cheap as chips, Lightbox is cheap as chips. Both of these combined are circa $25 a month. Skys deals are double that, everybody here flocks to it, yet its still double NF and LB.

There are number of reasons why.

1) A lot of people don't want to stream and the problems that are involved. Just look at the number of threads complaining about poor quality. slowness and non device support for the various streaming options available and these are by technically savy people. For the non technical out there knowing to delete cookies, play around with settings and update software to do what you previously did by switching on a TV and box is an issue

2) Ease of use of devices to watch content especially fast forward/rewind etc

3) Lack of NZ produced content by Netflix or Lightbox

4) Old content or same same content such as US cop shows and Super hero shows etc (With this Netflix and Lightbox have a lot of second screening rights as they get more and more first screeening the price has to go up)

Agree.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/66544911/sky-tv-ups-profit-keeps-competition-at-bay is an interesting read.

They lost 700 customers net last year. 32% of revenue is spent on buying content. If prices halved, permanently, then theor business model won't work. Its thats simple, its just math.

They could raise Basic, and reduce Sport, Movies, etc. They could make each channel (no, you can't do bundles at all) a set price per month. They could makle Rugger, Cwicket, F1, pay per view. BUT the bottom line is they need to reduce costs, pay same or more for content, and maontain an ARPU after allowing for competition in the marketplace over the next three years as SVOD becomes more "normal" Or maybe a single new/existing provider can do all the top sports, like a Kiwi ESPN and Sky cease to do sport

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5