Big drop in Sky subscribers

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

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 45

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1552351 13-May-2016 19:08

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

surfisup1000:

What is the best PVR for freeview?

I have tivo, which is pretty good but not quite as good as the mysky box.

I've also got a panasonic freeview/bluray recorder thingy -- but, the GUI is awful.

Anything else out there that beats the mysky box for ease of use and functionality? Something tells me it would have to be internet connected to download listings to match mysky at the very minimum.

If you have a working Tivo you really have the best of a bad bunch even if the NZ models are now antiques

Thats what i figured.... given tivo goes back to 2011 it is remarkable an android based interface or something like that hasn't come out. The thing is though, you must have an internet epg feed -- over the air epg is completely inadequate --- perhaps they can include some new standard for better over the air epg data?

There is an Android app but it's for the US ones. It sort of works but not fully on the NZ ones. It's called "RCX for TiVo".

Regards,

Old3eyes

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1552752 14-May-2016 19:49

The discussion on "gouging" and channel bundles is getting a bit circular and pointless IMO. That discussion could go on for another 20-30 pages of back and forth comments, and will never reach a conclusion. Whether or not it's sensible for Sky to bundle channels in packages or not, whether they are pricing excessively or not, and whether or not their rate of return on invested capital is adequate, is mostly missing the point.

From a consumers standpoint, Sky no longer represents the value it once did. When there were no other viable distribution channels then, other than some competition around the margins, Sky had a very good competitive position. It could more or less price aggressively, and behave with arrogance towards its customers. However, with the likes of Netflix, Lightbox, Quickflix, iTunes, etc Sky no longer has the field to themselves. And, quite frankly the shine is going off much of their value proposition - although it's still a pretty compelling offering for a hard-core sports fan.

It's not just about one thing. From a general entertainment perspective, when you consider the mix of what Sky offers as a customer experience - in terms of viewing platform, price, content range, the amount of ad content, and the way they engage with and treat customers, it just doesn't look as flash any more. There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

So it's no wonder they have started to lose subscribers.

As long as they can hold onto sport, and there really is no one else with the same capacity to cover NZ sport at present, they can probably survive. But as for the rest they need to adapt if they want to keep a viable product and subscriber numbers. And that's not just about bundling and price, it's about the whole customer experience as a totality.

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1552792 14-May-2016 20:56

JimmyH:

The discussion on "gouging" and channel bundles is getting a bit circular and pointless IMO. That discussion could go on for another 20-30 pages of back and forth comments, and will never reach a conclusion. Whether or not it's sensible for Sky to bundle channels in packages or not, whether they are pricing excessively or not, and whether or not their rate of return on invested capital is adequate, is mostly missing the point.

From a consumers standpoint, Sky no longer represents the value it once did. When there were no other viable distribution channels then, other than some competition around the margins, Sky had a very good competitive position. It could more or less price aggressively, and behave with arrogance towards its customers. However, with the likes of Netflix, Lightbox, Quickflix, iTunes, etc Sky no longer has the field to themselves. And, quite frankly the shine is going off much of their value proposition - although it's still a pretty compelling offering for a hard-core sports fan.

It's not just about one thing. From a general entertainment perspective, when you consider the mix of what Sky offers as a customer experience - in terms of viewing platform, price, content range, the amount of ad content, and the way they engage with and treat customers, it just doesn't look as flash any more. There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

So it's no wonder they have started to lose subscribers.

As long as they can hold onto sport, and there really is no one else with the same capacity to cover NZ sport at present, they can probably survive. There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Well...

From a consumers standpoint, Sky no longer represents the value it once did.

Correct. The landscape has changed.

Sky had a very good competitive position.

As could have anyone else that took the opportunity

It could more or less price aggressively, and behave with arrogance towards its customers.

Show mw that, their price, and therefore profit is not excessive. The point does show a distaste to Sky, as in tall poppy syndrome, that is far distinct from pricing aggressively and arrogance.

And, quite frankly the shine is going off much of their value proposition - although it's still a pretty compelling offering for a hard-core sports fan.

I agree. The issue is an old model, hardware, vs a new model, streaming.

what Sky offers as a customer experience - in terms of viewing platform, price, content range, the amount of ad content, and the way they engage with and treat customers, it just doesn't look as flash any more.

I think it still does. One box, recording, remote record, A very wide range of content genres, a bit of everything. Includes FTA. One box. I have read many threads. NF is useless as its old, LB is useless as its small, Neon is useless as its small. Sky is useless. But think about it. They all have lots of cheap, filler content. And they all have a latest and greatest. Sky i.e. Sport, the others have "only on here" series. For anyone, any one of these is the bees knees.For others, meh.

There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

More flexible? Define please? You need to hunt for content. Hardware content is not outdated, it works, every time, great HD. One device, not sixteen possible ways to access it.

Ads. yes. How about NO ADS anywhere? Nowhere, how would that go? As with FV PVR or Sky you can FF thru ads.

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant.

You cannot take a no comment as arrogant. Its no comment, As is very obvious, Sky is now in transition.

I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced,

They have done exactly that, and like Apple, have indicated that the next period will continue to be difficult.

say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed.

You can guarantee that this has been in discussion for some time, well before it hit the headlines

If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Sorry, shortsighted. It will happen but it wont happen overnight (TM). If Sky had undertaken all sorts of moves when there was no issue that would be poor. Now, they have seen an effect from SVOD and as stated, it no doubt has been under discssion for a while. Its not recent news this fiscal year for them. It is to us

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1552979 15-May-2016 10:53

JimmyH:

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Maybe it's a management team that just doesn't know what to do next, so the continued 'arrogance' is the best form of defence. Sky increasingly look like they are treading water - thankful for now that they still have the sport locked up and oodles of cash, but devoid of any ideas as what to do next. The thing is, the sport is only theirs until they are outbid ... and the cash will slowly ebb away.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1552983 15-May-2016 11:08

dafman:

JimmyH:

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Maybe it's a management team that just doesn't know what to do next, so the continued 'arrogance' is the best form of defence. Sky increasingly look like they are treading water - thankful for now that they still have the sport locked up and oodles of cash, but devoid of any ideas as what to do next. The thing is, the sport is only theirs until they are outbid ... and the cash will slowly ebb away.

and then the consumer loses out as they end up paying for sports individually at much greater prices; the loss of the distributer (Sky, TVNZ etc.) will hit the consumer hard if all content goes on-demand, especially sports, as expect to see almost Sky like prices to watch the various content that they've all fought exclusively for... all without a simple, single interface that tells you when the programme is new and up for watching. For those that watch a small number of items, sure it will be cheap but for those that have varied tastes and like sports well it might cost them more.

Haven't we been told that the Netflix prices are cheap while they build themselves up? Are they expected to increase once established to stop them making a loss as they currently are?

Anyway, Sky have some work to do. Optus, who own the satellites, need to retain revenue to keep the satellites in use so they may need to compromise as well in this new era of online streaming... If Sky can get around this high fixed cost then they will have room to wiggle and work out what to do.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1552986 15-May-2016 11:16

Benoire:

dafman:

JimmyH:

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Maybe it's a management team that just doesn't know what to do next, so the continued 'arrogance' is the best form of defence. Sky increasingly look like they are treading water - thankful for now that they still have the sport locked up and oodles of cash, but devoid of any ideas as what to do next. The thing is, the sport is only theirs until they are outbid ... and the cash will slowly ebb away.

and then the consumer loses out as they end up paying for sports individually at much greater prices; the loss of the distributer (Sky, TVNZ etc.) will hit the consumer hard if all content goes on-demand, especially sports, as expect to see almost Sky like prices to watch the various content that they've all fought exclusively for... all without a simple, single interface that tells you when the programme is new and up for watching. For those that watch a small number of items, sure it will be cheap but for those that have varied tastes and like sports well it might cost them more.

Haven't we been told that the Netflix prices are cheap while they build themselves up? Are they expected to increase once established to stop them making a loss as they currently are?

Anyway, Sky have some work to do. Optus, who own the satellites, need to retain revenue to keep the satellites in use so they may need to compromise as well in this new era of online streaming... If Sky can get around this high fixed cost then they will have room to wiggle and work out what to do.

Exactly. I really don't get the doom and gloom. If Sky had been dropping 45000 every year for three years, then yes, I would agree as doom and gloom.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1552995 15-May-2016 11:56

Benoire:

dafman:

JimmyH:

I did find it instructive that their spokeswoman in the stuff article flatly declined to comment. Which shows that they are still arrogant. I would have at least expected them to acknowledge the issue faced, and say what they would be doing to improve their service to attract and retain customers as the environment changed. If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Maybe it's a management team that just doesn't know what to do next, so the continued 'arrogance' is the best form of defence. Sky increasingly look like they are treading water - thankful for now that they still have the sport locked up and oodles of cash, but devoid of any ideas as what to do next. The thing is, the sport is only theirs until they are outbid ... and the cash will slowly ebb away.

and then the consumer loses out as they end up paying for sports individually at much greater prices; the loss of the distributer (Sky, TVNZ etc.) will hit the consumer hard if all content goes on-demand, especially sports, as expect to see almost Sky like prices to watch the various content that they've all fought exclusively for... all without a simple, single interface that tells you when the programme is new and up for watching. For those that watch a small number of items, sure it will be cheap but for those that have varied tastes and like sports well it might cost them more.

Haven't we been told that the Netflix prices are cheap while they build themselves up? Are they expected to increase once established to stop them making a loss as they currently are?

Anyway, Sky have some work to do. Optus, who own the satellites, need to retain revenue to keep the satellites in use so they may need to compromise as well in this new era of online streaming... If Sky can get around this high fixed cost then they will have room to wiggle and work out what to do.

And then the company that owns the rights to stream, decides that its not economic to continue doing so - someone else gets the rights but cant get the right price/structure to supply to NZ - and then next thing you know theres no English Premier League to watch. Consumer loses. Maybe for the next 3 years. Better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

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

Sharesies

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

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1554305 17-May-2016 17:35

Sky increasing their prices....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million

Got to laugh, morningstar recently recommended they drop prices due to competition from other online services haha.

This is my first year not to receive the dreaded we are increasing our prices letter woohoo!!!

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1554308 17-May-2016 17:41

surfisup1000:

Sky increasing their prices....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million

Got to laugh, morningstar recently recommended they drop prices due to competition from other online services haha.

This is my first year not to receive the dreaded we are increasing our prices letter woohoo!!!

"but satellite television remained the only reliable way of getting HD content to the whole of New Zealand, she said."

Bugger. My 100/20 fibre to 12 rooms in my house needs to be upgraded to something more decent than light. Bugger, damn

Is there a Light 2.0 out soon?

Yeah ok, she said to the whole on NZ, but still. The whole of NZ isn't in the country

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1554326 17-May-2016 18:19

surfisup1000:
Sky increasing their prices....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million

Got to laugh, morningstar recently recommended they drop prices due to competition from other online services haha.

This is my first year not to receive the dreaded we are increasing our prices letter woohoo!!!

A decision Sky may regret and it my result a net reduction in revenue despite the increase. Because one can increase charges does not mean one should increase.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1554351 17-May-2016 19:08

tdgeek:

It could more or less price aggressively, and behave with arrogance towards its customers.

Show mw that, their price, and therefore profit is not excessive. The point does show a distaste to Sky, as in tall poppy syndrome, that is far distinct from pricing aggressively and arrogance.

[....]

There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

More flexible? Define please? You need to hunt for content. Hardware content is not outdated, it works, every time, great HD. One device, not sixteen possible ways to access it.

Ads. yes. How about NO ADS anywhere? Nowhere, how would that go? As with FV PVR or Sky you can FF thru ads.

[....]

If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Sorry, shortsighted. It will happen but it wont happen overnight (TM). If Sky had undertaken all sorts of moves when there was no issue that would be poor. Now, they have seen an effect from SVOD and as stated, it no doubt has been under discssion for a while. Its not recent news this fiscal year for them. It is to us

Interesting response, thanks. I think we agree on many points.

You are correct. I have developed a certain distaste for Sky. Mostly because I have tried to deal with them a couple of times, including when they affixed their equipment to my property to provide service to my neighbour and literally blocking my access to my own back yard, without my permission. As a customer, trying to get an answer out of them on even simple questions just elicits fob-off answers rather than actual answers. I do regard their behaviour as somewhat arrogant and high-handed.

I think I did define what I mean by flexible in my post. Having seen what is around in other countries, I do regard their equipment as somewhat dated. Some of this is by design (is no 60-second skip which their boxes are quite capable of) and some is that it's just not up to a modern spec - laggy performance to remote presses, comparatively small hard drive, no provision for storage expansion etc.

Not sure why you think it is shortsighted for a shareholder to expect clearer statement from management. If I had tens of thousands of dollars invested in the company and was seeing mounting competitive threats, falling profits and a plunging share price then I would sure as heck want to know, in detail, what they were proposing to do about it.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1049 posts

Uber Geek

#1554356 17-May-2016 19:21

MikeB4:
surfisup1000:

Sky increasing their prices....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million

Got to laugh, morningstar recently recommended they drop prices due to competition from other online services haha.

This is my first year not to receive the dreaded we are increasing our prices letter woohoo!!!

A decision Sky may regret and it my result a net reduction in revenue despite the increase. Because one can increase charges does not mean one should increase.

I suppose Sky are trying to be able to still pay a dividend at the end of the day to shareholders, if any at all.

It's bad for everyone

If the downturn in subscribers continues, prices will continue to rise. Of course, the otherside of this is Sky have paid 'an eye watering increase' to retain the rugby rights, but at what cost? They would have had a budget to play with, and as they've paid the eye watering increase for the rugby, one would assume this has come at the cost of other sports, potentially the ability to purchase the rights to the EPL or continue to show the Australian Supercars series.

Also, I'd expect that if the downturn in subscribers continues, they won't be in a position to bid on the rugby rights when they come up for renewal.

But, what they (Sky) have done, by paying lots to secure the rights this time, is that when the rights come up for renewal in the future, the new broadcaster (presumably an online service) will be paying more again for the rights, therefore increasing one would assume a significant percentage, what the online providers charges us the end consumer.

As I said, it's bad for everyone.

Remembering that by Sky paying more for the right, that money goes to the NZRU > Franchises > Players. I doubt players in the future will take a pay cut...

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1554375 17-May-2016 20:14

JimmyH:

tdgeek:

It could more or less price aggressively, and behave with arrogance towards its customers.

Show mw that, their price, and therefore profit is not excessive. The point does show a distaste to Sky, as in tall poppy syndrome, that is far distinct from pricing aggressively and arrogance.

[....]

There are are now offerings that are more flexible (as in not tied to linear schedules or a hardware platform that feels outdated), cheaper, and more pleasant (ie no saturation-bombing of ads).

More flexible? Define please? You need to hunt for content. Hardware content is not outdated, it works, every time, great HD. One device, not sixteen possible ways to access it.

Ads. yes. How about NO ADS anywhere? Nowhere, how would that go? As with FV PVR or Sky you can FF thru ads.

[....]

If I was a shareholder I would be looking for something more than this from management.

Sorry, shortsighted. It will happen but it wont happen overnight (TM). If Sky had undertaken all sorts of moves when there was no issue that would be poor. Now, they have seen an effect from SVOD and as stated, it no doubt has been under discssion for a while. Its not recent news this fiscal year for them. It is to us

Interesting response, thanks. I think we agree on many points.

You are correct. I have developed a certain distaste for Sky. Mostly because I have tried to deal with them a couple of times, including when they affixed their equipment to my property to provide service to my neighbour and literally blocking my access to my own back yard, without my permission. As a customer, trying to get an answer out of them on even simple questions just elicits fob-off answers rather than actual answers. I do regard their behaviour as somewhat arrogant and high-handed.

I think I did define what I mean by flexible in my post. Having seen what is around in other countries, I do regard their equipment as somewhat dated. Some of this is by design (is no 60-second skip which their boxes are quite capable of) and some is that it's just not up to a modern spec - laggy performance to remote presses, comparatively small hard drive, no provision for storage expansion etc.

Not sure why you think it is shortsighted for a shareholder to expect clearer statement from management. If I had tens of thousands of dollars invested in the company and was seeing mounting competitive threats, falling profits and a plunging share price then I would sure as heck want to know, in detail, what they were proposing to do about it.

Flexible. fair points. Im ok with the dull, basic UI they had, its quick and easy, although I never had issues with lag. I get that on my Panny FV UI though. Loading.... Press play and wait!

Shortsighted. IMHO, they have a big job to do. Go from what was state of the art satellite to state of the art SVOD. Easy actually, but they have over 800,000 customers to migrate. I am sure they have had many many discussions at board level and management level on how to manage this, and they can't really make that public. Price rise is a worry though, they should say we have to make one, but we wont. Bottom line is they need to give is a decrease, or added value or an SVOD option, the latter noun cheaper. BUT, that depends on how they can manage satellite fees. Thats the $64000 question IMO

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1554378 17-May-2016 20:19

WyleECoyoteNZ:

MikeB4:
surfisup1000:

Sky increasing their prices....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million

Got to laugh, morningstar recently recommended they drop prices due to competition from other online services haha.

This is my first year not to receive the dreaded we are increasing our prices letter woohoo!!!

A decision Sky may regret and it my result a net reduction in revenue despite the increase. Because one can increase charges does not mean one should increase.

I suppose Sky are trying to be able to still pay a dividend at the end of the day to shareholders, if any at all.

It's bad for everyone

If the downturn in subscribers continues, prices will continue to rise. Of course, the otherside of this is Sky have paid 'an eye watering increase' to retain the rugby rights, but at what cost? They would have had a budget to play with, and as they've paid the eye watering increase for the rugby, one would assume this has come at the cost of other sports, potentially the ability to purchase the rights to the EPL or continue to show the Australian Supercars series.

Also, I'd expect that if the downturn in subscribers continues, they won't be in a position to bid on the rugby rights when they come up for renewal.

But, what they (Sky) have done, by paying lots to secure the rights this time, is that when the rights come up for renewal in the future, the new broadcaster (presumably an online service) will be paying more again for the rights, therefore increasing one would assume a significant percentage, what the online providers charges us the end consumer.

As I said, it's bad for everyone.

Remembering that by Sky paying more for the right, that money goes to the NZRU > Franchises > Players. I doubt players in the future will take a pay cut...

But, are they paying more for sport or are they demanded to pay that? IVESCO who run V8 Supercars were going to be dropped years ago due to silly money. While many may have an anti Sky fetish, its really the rights owners playing silly buggers with money.

Say Sky decided to wind up, as its not feasible to compete. Yay, bad Sky gone. You will find that it just moves to another provider, bad LB, bad NF for ripping us off with sport. I say go for the sports providers. They know we want it, they are holding the cards.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1554382 17-May-2016 20:28

The sports also require the money now to survive; they have grown fat on the growth of competition for exclusivity and THEY cannot let that go otherwise they're in a world of hurt!

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 45