Yep, cool article.  Powerful even overlooking the $10 HD Ticket, which requires an HD capable box option too?!

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Stay tuned as Sky's numbers continue to drop. Soon they will be wishing they had half their current revenue.

 

 

 

 

Going streaming only will allow costs to drop a huge amount. But they cannot do that while under contract, which expires next year or 2019. Then it can get real and be streaming only, and priced accordingly. Then everyone will be happy as its 2017 technology and 2017 pricing. Win-Win (Apart from sport which wont be $13 a month)

 

If the numbers bandied about in the newspaper re:rugby costs are accurate then the writers suggestion of $5/mth for sport doesnt leave scope for buying many other sports rights.

Rikkitic:

 

That is a brilliant article. It says exactly what I have tried to say and been bashed for, and it says it much better.

 

 

 

For the price this guy is talking about you can say good bye to most of sports, movies and you might be left with a few basic channels and lots of judge judy.

Enjoy :P

With his pricing, there will be more whales to watch on TV than sport! Not saying whale watching isn't a beautiful thing..

tripp:

 

Rikkitic:

 

That is a brilliant article. It says exactly what I have tried to say and been bashed for, and it says it much better.

 

 

 

 

For the price this guy is talking about you can say good bye to most of sports, movies and you might be left with a few basic channels and lots of judge judy.

 

 

 

Enjoy :P

 

We already get that crap on Sky. These days I go elsewhere for my content.

Rikkitic:

 

tripp:

 

Rikkitic:

 

That is a brilliant article. It says exactly what I have tried to say and been bashed for, and it says it much better.

 

 

 

 

For the price this guy is talking about you can say good bye to most of sports, movies and you might be left with a few basic channels and lots of judge judy.

 

 

 

Enjoy :P

 

 

We already get that crap on Sky. These days I go elsewhere for my content.

 

 

 

And yet there are 800,000 households that disagree with you (some 2m people that dont susbscribe to your view).

Good on them. It will be interesting to see how this goes over the next couple of years or so.

From Newsroom:

"More than 90,000 New Zealanders could quit their Sky subscriptions this year, according to new data that shows the country’s telecommunications and online video content industries are at a tipping point."

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@screen-entertainment/2017/04/05/18082/sky-subscriptions-suffer-as-kiwis-turn-to-online-video

Rikkitic:

 

From Newsroom:

 

"More than 90,000 New Zealanders could quit their Sky subscriptions this year, according to new data that shows the country’s telecommunications and online video content industries are at a tipping point."

 

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@screen-entertainment/2017/04/05/18082/sky-subscriptions-suffer-as-kiwis-turn-to-online-video

 

 

 

Churn is, what?, 17%.  How many disconnects is that?  More than 90,000.  The smart minds have struck again in stating the obvious.  How many quit last year?  And the year before?  Disconnects is not important - net disconnects are the important element and time will tell on that.

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Stay tuned as Sky's numbers continue to drop. Soon they will be wishing they had half their current revenue.

 

 

 

 

Going streaming only will allow costs to drop a huge amount. But they cannot do that while under contract, which expires next year or 2019. Then it can get real and be streaming only, and priced accordingly. Then everyone will be happy as its 2017 technology and 2017 pricing. Win-Win (Apart from sport which wont be $13 a month)

 

Sanzar rugby rights renew in 2020. Doubt the pricing will get any cheaper though, because of how much Sanzar will sell the broadcast rights for. 

Rikkitic:

 

From Newsroom:

 

"More than 90,000 New Zealanders could quit their Sky subscriptions this year, according to new data that shows the country’s telecommunications and online video content industries are at a tipping point."

 

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@screen-entertainment/2017/04/05/18082/sky-subscriptions-suffer-as-kiwis-turn-to-online-video

 

 

 

Yep, I checked the last annual result presentation.  There is a nice graph that shows the weekly disconnects by week for the last 5 years.

And guess what.  There have been more than 90,000 disconnects every year in each of the last 5 years.  So what does the Newsroom article tell us thats new?  Nothing.  Its as valuable as Lightbox's research that showed that 1 in 5 (16%, yes thats about 1 in 5) subscribers were going to disconnect from Sky after the RWC.  Of course it didnt consider how many were going to sign up for Sky but thats not exactly a good headline to talk about it, is it?

So is the net total going up, down or staying the same? I suspect it is going down. If so, that is a trend.

sonyxperiageek:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Stay tuned as Sky's numbers continue to drop. Soon they will be wishing they had half their current revenue.

 

Going streaming only will allow costs to drop a huge amount. But they cannot do that while under contract, which expires next year or 2019. Then it can get real and be streaming only, and priced accordingly. Then everyone will be happy as its 2017 technology and 2017 pricing. Win-Win (Apart from sport which wont be $13 a month)

Sanzar rugby rights renew in 2020. Doubt the pricing will get any cheaper though, because of how much Sanzar will sell the broadcast rights for. 

I don't know, Sky just really don't seem too intelligent these days.

TLDR: Team NZ took some commentators over for their own website but that didn't go ahead. So they said to Sky that they could use them. Sky had a few extra costs around engineers and equipment so tried to bill TNZ for them.

Sky attempt to serve Team NZ $70,000 bill for commentary

Sport is expensive to produce, it's not cheap and that is a large component of their costs. However, they drop the ball continuously by not moving with the customer wants.

An example would be that I would love to watch the State of Origin matches, but I can't justify $1,200 per year for it. I'd consider paying up to $30 for the three games (don't care much else for their current broadcast) but they have no way for me to pay for it.

Results in me finding it somewhere else and them losing revenue. They don't need to cut their costs dramatically, they just need to be smarter in how they do things - and given their current head in the sand attitude it's no wonder they are slowly bleeding customers.

Rikkitic:

 

So is the net total going up, down or staying the same? I suspect it is going down. If so, that is a trend.

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think there is any doubt that the net is going down.  In fact the company has said as much in keeping the market informed as part of its required disclosure.  I think the semantics are important - are they going down by 2%, 5% or more than 10%.  The poorly constructed and oft misquoted surveys would have you think that its more than 10%.  This is a company that has grown subscribers between 25k-50k for 20 years.  If it loses 5% of its base each year its going to be a long slow decline and it could take plenty more years before there is a substantial shift in strategy.  Importantly how many years of decline before the dust settles to determine the right economic model?

Bear in mind if Mediaworks continues to lose 10% revenue yoy in its TV business it wont be long before the ad-funded model needs in a significant change.  Its shareholder will only keep throwing money at it if it can see an economic return in the future.