Price rise "must be coming"!

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Price rise "must be coming"!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1724414 22-Feb-2017 13:25

ben28:

Sky need to get smarter with their offerings.

Let people choose what channels they get and charge accordingly.

I'm kind of interested in Soho, but refuse to pay close to $50 for the basic package, then $10 for Soho , then another $10 for HD.

May be something like $10 for the first channel, then $9 for the second, $8 for the third etc.

And allow you to drop a channel through online tools, rather than have to call.

And drop the HD charge , or just make it another $1 per channel.

Kodi and its like are so super simple should your conscience allow.

I'm sure some peoples 'morals' have a price, and current Sky charging will tip some people over to Kodi

You could always go to the content producers of what is on SOHO. Of course that would mean $15 for HBO and $15 for Showtime etc etc

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1724418 22-Feb-2017 13:30

rugrat:
ockel:

gcorgnet:

hopefully they can pack up soon and stop messing up NZ's broadcasting rights system with their exclusivity deals. The world has changed, no one needs Sky anymore, it's time they went away...

Yeah, still gutted that Netflix has House of Cards exclusively, and Star Trek and The Crown. And that Amazon - what is it with exclusivity for The Grand Tour? Or that the Big Bang Theory is only on TVNZ.

Amazing how these exclusivity deals are perpetuated the world over - broadcast and streaming. Even the streaming giants are guilty of it. Why? They want you to subscribe and content is king.

I'm just gutted every time Sky gets an exclusivity deal, it means on demand of that content is SD, unavoidable adds if Program is on Zone, and to add to that Sky is 4 to 5 times the price of other services and it's Presentation of content is lower quality.

4 to 5 times the price??

The Basic price includes sport subsidy, so if Basic was $20 its ballpark with LB, NF, and has a wider genre coverage

Id like to see the subsidy stopped so you pay for Sport what it costs, and less for Basic, then there is parity

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1724422 22-Feb-2017 13:34

ben28:

Sky need to get smarter with their offerings.

Let people choose what channels they get and charge accordingly.

I'm kind of interested in Soho, but refuse to pay close to $50 for the basic package, then $10 for Soho , then another $10 for HD.

May be something like $10 for the first channel, then $9 for the second, $8 for the third etc.

And allow you to drop a channel through online tools, rather than have to call.

And drop the HD charge , or just make it another $1 per channel.

Kodi and its like are so super simple should your conscience allow.

I'm sure some peoples 'morals' have a price, and current Sky charging will tip some people over to Kodi

All that is good. As long as the reveues matcvh the costs, so the ARPU still needs to hold. Or drop costs. Or move to OnDemand only for everything and reduce the costs by dropping satellite. Which is due for renewal in a couple of years. So, weather the storm for 2 years then go broadband only. They could drop FTA too, to reduce BB capacity

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#1724437 22-Feb-2017 13:49

The thing is that it is an old business model. It is a bit like a video store. Technology moves on. The same thing is happening in the US with their old pay tv stations. However some of them seem to have adapted by partnering up with some of the big streaming services. THey really need to reduce their costs, as increasing prices, when we have almost zero inflation, is not going to wash with many.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1724470 22-Feb-2017 14:04

msukiwi:

That's about 5% drop in subscribers - how long can that last?

Increasing costs, decreasing sales..... ouch.

The annual sky price hike letter will be interesting.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1724484 22-Feb-2017 14:18

mattwnz:

The thing is that it is an old business model. It is a bit like a video store. Technology moves on. The same thing is happening in the US with their old pay tv stations. However some of them seem to have adapted by partnering up with some of the big streaming services. THey really need to reduce their costs, as increasing prices, when we have almost zero inflation, is not going to wash with many.

Business model or technology? They are different things. If you are only referring to the tech, yes agree, they know that, but they are locked into Optus till 2018 or so. So they have to suck it up, no other option. Subscribers have held up really well. Look at the Sky special deals thread too. IMHO, Neon, Fanpass are pre cursors to a move to OD. So, that they can switch over seamlessly if need be. STV's are in place and support OD. But suck it up till 2018 thats where I feel they are at

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#1724508 22-Feb-2017 15:40

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

The thing is that it is an old business model. It is a bit like a video store. Technology moves on. The same thing is happening in the US with their old pay tv stations. However some of them seem to have adapted by partnering up with some of the big streaming services. THey really need to reduce their costs, as increasing prices, when we have almost zero inflation, is not going to wash with many.

Business model or technology? They are different things. If you are only referring to the tech, yes agree, they know that, but they are locked into Optus till 2018 or so. So they have to suck it up, no other option. Subscribers have held up really well. Look at the Sky special deals thread too. IMHO, Neon, Fanpass are pre cursors to a move to OD. So, that they can switch over seamlessly if need be. STV's are in place and support OD. But suck it up till 2018 thats where I feel they are at

I think in their case it is both. They have created their own streaming service, rather than join forces with a big existing one, but it hasn't been a running success from what I have seen, and I don't think the tech behind it is up to the other streaming services available. Is it 4k and can you download the program to watch when not connected to the internet like amazon video is? Not only that but it is under a totally different brand, which doesn't really indicate that they are moving to an online platform, more that they are dipping their toe into it. The other problem is that it is a fragmented market, and people will only buy a certain number of streaming services. In NZ they may buy Netflix, and possibly amazon prime. But if they buy too many, there there can be a big overlap in content, which they are double or triple paying for.

Personally I used to be a big sport watcher, but as sports moved to the pay tv platform, I lost interest in them, and I suspect that is one reason why many people aren't as interested in sport as much these days, since everything has gone more professional..

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

dafman

3927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1724523 22-Feb-2017 15:51

ben28:

Sky need to get smarter with their offerings.

Let people choose what channels they get and charge accordingly.

I'm kind of interested in Soho, but refuse to pay close to $50 for the basic package, then $10 for Soho , then another $10 for HD.

May be something like $10 for the first channel, then $9 for the second, $8 for the third etc.

And allow you to drop a channel through online tools, rather than have to call.

And drop the HD charge , or just make it another $1 per channel.

Kodi and its like are so super simple should your conscience allow.

I'm sure some peoples 'morals' have a price, and current Sky charging will tip some people over to Kodi

Wow, do you mean something like ... moving with the times, starting to think outside the 1980's square, offering the consumer a semblance of choice comparable with other media providers?

Radical. Now, there's food for thought.

Sky ... anyone?

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1725336 23-Feb-2017 18:49

Dingbatt: The only other option is to increase advertising or ppv stuff like box-office. Anything will be counterproductive from the perspective of deterring new customers or tipping existing customers over the brink. I fall into the latter group.

I don't agree with the advertising point. From my perspective, the saturation-bombing level of advertising and promos on most to the Sky channels is a major negative for me. Chennels like Zone, which actually have the odd bit of content I might be interested in, might as well not be there as they are essentially unwatchable. More than the price, I detest the ads.

Even on the supposedly "ad-free" premium channels like SoHo (which is the only add on I have kept) and the Movies channels (before I dropped them) its getting silly. Animated pop-ups over the to of the programming telling me they have the Olympics, I can catch up on demand, to order my connection device, telling me what's coming next, and suchlike.

Then there's the "accelerated flow" on SoHo, where they shrink the credits to half the screen, mute the music as the credits roll, and start a loud shouty promo before it's finished. Really, really, annoying - particularly on a premium channel costing extra.

I have dropped everything except SoHo now. I'm halfway to persuading the GF that as soon as I finish an equipment upgrade and can get Lightbox, Netflix, Hulu & possibly iPlayer working on both the bedroom and living room tellys, then Sky goes bye bye.

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#1725366 23-Feb-2017 19:14

JimmyH:

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

I don't think it is a case of them not wanting your money, I think it is more a case that they are stuck in an old business model, and they can't adapt to what their customers now want. But I really do wonder why they didn't try to change several years ago, as this has been coming for a long time. They have in the past managed to change their model, but they haven't been able to do it this time. Maybe that was their intention with this deal? Personally I found their old UHF service back in the early 90's a far better service, with minimal adverts, and it represented quality over quantity. Now there are so many channels, but the quality isn't there, and you have to pay extra for the channels that are any good. The advertising is also a real put off. Funnily enough it seems to be the elderly that seem to be still getting sky installed, I know someone who has just recently got it installed, because they want the UK channels. They don't care about the price, as they can't take their money with them. So these people who can't adapt to the newer technology are probably their growth area.

dafman

3927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1725374 23-Feb-2017 19:55

Yep, read the post above this one from a subscriber paying good money only to receive ad-invested channels of questionable quality.

Sky have been rorting customers with a near monopoly for years and they wanted the ability to carry on doing the same into the future with the Vodafone deal.

And now they can't.

Ha.

lNomNoml

1807 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1725403 23-Feb-2017 21:16

msukiwi:

"Sky TV said total subscriber numbers fell from 852,679 to 816,135 in the six months to December 31. Its net profit fell 32 per cent to $59 million and revenues were down 3.7 per cent at $458m."

That's about 5% drop in subscribers - how long can that last?

Must mean another price hike?

If you don't adjust to the times you are prone to be left behind.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725414 23-Feb-2017 21:45

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

The thing is that it is an old business model. It is a bit like a video store. Technology moves on. The same thing is happening in the US with their old pay tv stations. However some of them seem to have adapted by partnering up with some of the big streaming services. THey really need to reduce their costs, as increasing prices, when we have almost zero inflation, is not going to wash with many.

Business model or technology? They are different things. If you are only referring to the tech, yes agree, they know that, but they are locked into Optus till 2018 or so. So they have to suck it up, no other option. Subscribers have held up really well. Look at the Sky special deals thread too. IMHO, Neon, Fanpass are pre cursors to a move to OD. So, that they can switch over seamlessly if need be. STV's are in place and support OD. But suck it up till 2018 thats where I feel they are at

I think in their case it is both. They have created their own streaming service, rather than join forces with a big existing one, but it hasn't been a running success from what I have seen, and I don't think the tech behind it is up to the other streaming services available. Is it 4k and can you download the program to watch when not connected to the internet like amazon video is? Not only that but it is under a totally different brand, which doesn't really indicate that they are moving to an online platform, more that they are dipping their toe into it. The other problem is that it is a fragmented market, and people will only buy a certain number of streaming services. In NZ they may buy Netflix, and possibly amazon prime. But if they buy too many, there there can be a big overlap in content, which they are double or triple paying for.

Personally I used to be a big sport watcher, but as sports moved to the pay tv platform, I lost interest in them, and I suspect that is one reason why many people aren't as interested in sport as much these days, since everything has gone more professional..

OD hasn't been a running success but I dont feel that is what they wanted. They want OD up and running, not to sell for a cash cow, but to be prepared if they dump Optus. OD is 90% done. It works. Moving it to 100% wont be hard.

Sky OD, it does download. You play, it tells you to wait. It is downloading. Not long, a few minutes. Then you play via the HDD while it is downloading, perfect. Or watch later. Live sport needs to do that, live streaming is rubbish.

Yes it can be fragmented, but Lightbox, Netflix and Sky Basic/OD have very little overlap. If 850,000 can pay an ARPU of $80 for Sky, they can pay 2 x $15 and 1 x $20 (assuming Sky remove the Basic sport subsidy)

Many arent interested in sport? I can;t see that. More like many dont want to pay too much for sport. Fan pass is $56 per month, plus you can get day and week passes. I got Sky back as I missed the easy access to sport, and the doco channels.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725418 23-Feb-2017 21:50

dafman:

ben28:

Sky need to get smarter with their offerings.

Let people choose what channels they get and charge accordingly.

I'm kind of interested in Soho, but refuse to pay close to $50 for the basic package, then $10 for Soho , then another $10 for HD.

May be something like $10 for the first channel, then $9 for the second, $8 for the third etc.

And allow you to drop a channel through online tools, rather than have to call.

And drop the HD charge , or just make it another $1 per channel.

Kodi and its like are so super simple should your conscience allow.

I'm sure some peoples 'morals' have a price, and current Sky charging will tip some people over to Kodi

Wow, do you mean something like ... moving with the times, starting to think outside the 1980's square, offering the consumer a semblance of choice comparable with other media providers?

Radical. Now, there's food for thought.

Sky ... anyone?

Please clarify.

1980's? You mean satellite?

Choice?

It isn't 100% binge TV series, it isn't 100% old TV and movies. Its a wide genre range. None of these are bad, it depends what you want to watch.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725419 23-Feb-2017 21:54

JimmyH:

Dingbatt: The only other option is to increase advertising or ppv stuff like box-office. Anything will be counterproductive from the perspective of deterring new customers or tipping existing customers over the brink. I fall into the latter group.

I don't agree with the advertising point. From my perspective, the saturation-bombing level of advertising and promos on most to the Sky channels is a major negative for me. Chennels like Zone, which actually have the odd bit of content I might be interested in, might as well not be there as they are essentially unwatchable. More than the price, I detest the ads.

Even on the supposedly "ad-free" premium channels like SoHo (which is the only add on I have kept) and the Movies channels (before I dropped them) its getting silly. Animated pop-ups over the to of the programming telling me they have the Olympics, I can catch up on demand, to order my connection device, telling me what's coming next, and suchlike.

Then there's the "accelerated flow" on SoHo, where they shrink the credits to half the screen, mute the music as the credits roll, and start a loud shouty promo before it's finished. Really, really, annoying - particularly on a premium channel costing extra.

I have dropped everything except SoHo now. I'm halfway to persuading the GF that as soon as I finish an equipment upgrade and can get Lightbox, Netflix, Hulu & possibly iPlayer working on both the bedroom and living room tellys, then Sky goes bye bye.

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

Thats all good, ranty wise! :-)

Do the other options cover what you watched on Sky? When I ditched Sky, they didn't. No sport, just TV series, old movies and low budget filler docos. We are all different though as well.

My favourite comment is when I read I ditched Sky and I don't miss it! Love that one

1 | 2 | 3 | 4