|
|
|
tripp:
MikeB4:
It is still a platform stuck in the 1990s. The metrics will continue to slide until they wake up and reinvent or get purchased.
Sky is working on it, next 18 months is going to be a lot of fun :)
If they create the full Sky app, that will be fun and huge added value
ockel:
MikeB4:
ockel:
MikeB4:
It is still a platform stuck in the 1990s. The metrics will continue to slide until they wake up and reinvent or get purchased.
Cant get purchased. Sky would need to lose a lot of sport content before ComCom would allow it to be acquired as there is, apparently, no competition for sports rights.
Could get purchased from offshore or by a "non competing" entity
You mean like Vodafone? Its an offshore non competing entity. Merger rejected as the new entity would have a dominant position in sports content (currently Sky has 100% of that content and Vodafone has 0%). What would have changed? Nothing. What would change if another non competing entity bid for it? Nothing.
No more like the 2D ownership, not ideal but if they see value in the core assets there maybe offshore equity companies prepared to take a punt but it will need a complete change in attitude and direction by Sky. That of course may happen when Mr Fellet moves on at years end.
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
They are still making money. It was a good will writedown which made the books look bad.
Basically its telling the market its brand isn't as strong as it use to be.
MikeB4:
No more like the 2D ownership, not ideal but if they see value in the core assets there maybe offshore equity companies prepared to take a punt but it will need a complete change in attitude and direction by Sky. That of course may happen when Mr Fellet moves on at years end.
People want more content (as apparently Sky content is rubbish). People want lower prices by a large amount
Then the people will be happy, the new owner will have a large loss making company
Right now Sky makes money, other TV in this small country doesn't or its extremely small. Arguably, they are the only TV success story here
stinger:
tdgeek:
Right now Sky makes money, other TV in this small country doesn't or its extremely small. Arguably, they are the only TV success story here
TVNZ posted a $5.1 profit today too. Yes, it's small compared to Sky's profit.
Any idea on the subscribers they have via ratings?
tdgeek:
stinger:
Their daily reach is over 2 million kiwis, which is still significant in an online streaming age.
Reach or subscriber ratings?
Reach (people spending at least 5 minutes watching content). TVNZ does not have any paying subscribers. Both SVoD platforms (TVNZoD and Heihei) are free, and their channels are all on Freeview.
For many people the penny won't drop until they stay a night in a hotel or motel with excellent fiber broadband tv. After watching some news channels, & Youtube which will work perfectly, they may think about dropping Sky.
MikeB4:
No more like the 2D ownership, not ideal but if they see value in the core assets there maybe offshore equity companies prepared to take a punt but it will need a complete change in attitude and direction by Sky. That of course may happen when Mr Fellet moves on at years end.
But a financial backer with deep pockets (and IMHO Trilogy does not have deep pockets wrt 2D) will only perpetuate Skys position on sport content. The core asset of the company is the content and the multi-year exclusive rights to key content that others covert. How does perpetuating Sky's dominant position in sport content overcome the ComCom's concerns and the primary reason for the rejection of the merger?
Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"
Does SKY still offer HD only on a couple of select channels, and only at an additional cost?
This is the main reason SKY seems antiquated to me. Non-HD doesn't look very great on modern big TVs. And how/will it ever over 4K content?
tdgeek:
stinger:
tdgeek:
Any idea on the subscribers they have via ratings?
Their daily reach is over 2 million kiwis, which is still significant in an online streaming age.
Reach or subscriber ratings?
Reach. But its audience share is at an 8 year high (of a dwindling audience - see the NZ On Air report for details). Ad revenue is up yoy (contrast that to other TV players, newspapers and radio). EBITDA was c25m which is 1/10th of the EBITDA that Sky posted.
Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"
GeoffisPure:
Does SKY still offer HD only on a couple of select channels, and only at an additional cost?
This is the main reason SKY seems antiquated to me. Non-HD doesn't look very great on modern big TVs. And how/will it ever over 4K content?
Yes Sky offers HD on its movie, sport and 2 basic channels. And at additional cost - just like Apple, Google, Netflix, Lightbox Movies, StuffPix, Foxtel, SkyUK etc etc. Even the DVD's at retail cost more for HD and more again for 4K. Extra features/functions/benefits are at a higher cost to the consumer.
4K was mentioned earlier this year but no timeframe. Foxtel is launching a 4k channel in Australia next month.
Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"
stinger:
tdgeek:
stinger:
Their daily reach is over 2 million kiwis, which is still significant in an online streaming age.
Reach or subscriber ratings?
Reach (people spending at least 5 minutes watching content). TVNZ does not have any paying subscribers. Both SVoD platforms (TVNZoD and Heihei) are free, and their channels are all on Freeview.
I mean subscribers who watch. Reach is how many can watch. Here is a look at one weeks top programs. No.1 600,000, No.2 40000.
https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/research/audience-ratings-tv/
|
|
|