Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1794408 4-Jun-2017 08:20

quickymart:

I don't think Sky would want to drop rural customers in a hurry by switching off satellite and moving to streaming only - for a lot of people, that's really the only TV they can get.

I agree. BUT... the issue is cost, and satellite is part of the cost, and if Optus don't give a large reduction in that cost, then Sky is unable to give customers the cheaper pricing they want to be more aligned with Netflix type pricing. Even though Netflix bears little comparison to Sky's offerings. They cant continue with high cost satellite, and add the CDN costs to satisfy those who want streaming at lower prices at the same time.

The situation now is get with the play, its 2017. Then if they did I expect everyone will whine, what about the rural customers that now have no TV?

quickymart

13932 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1794419 4-Jun-2017 09:05

I also saw an ad where they're offering something along the lines of a $600 credit for people who join now and take up a specific package. May be just me, but I thought it looked desperate,

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1794423 4-Jun-2017 09:11

What about the 'perks' they are now giving out? That also seems pretty desperate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1794425 4-Jun-2017 09:25

Perks I feel are quite common. Telcos give them to reduce churn to another provider, Sky now has them to reduce churn.Powe companies have deals and credits to join, Briscoes has their annual sale every 18 minutes.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1794507 4-Jun-2017 11:44

quickymart:

I also saw an ad where they're offering something along the lines of a $600 credit for people who join now and take up a specific package. May be just me, but I thought it looked desperate,

Its a Sky with Vodafone offer. $300 off your broadband, $10/mth off your Sky bill (both of which have been around forever) and a $200 credit on your 12mth Sky contract. Contrast that with the $150 credit on a 6mth Sky contract.

Is offering free Lightbox forever and free Netflix for a year looking desperate? Or offering a $360 credit on your broadband when you sign up for 2 years looking desperate? Or offering 6 months free broadband (value $570) on an unlimited data plan looking desperate (and you get $10/mth off if you're a paymonthly mobile user too!)?

Its called subscriber acquisition - and everyone does it. No free lunches to be had with any of them, its baked into expected IRR's.

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

quickymart

13932 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1794622 4-Jun-2017 19:00

I know what you mean, just the "$600 credit" sounded like a huge amount. Lightbox free for a year wouldn't cost $600 - nowhere near it.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1794624 4-Jun-2017 19:10

quickymart:

I know what you mean, just the "$600 credit" sounded like a huge amount. Lightbox free for a year wouldn't cost $600 - nowhere near it.

yeah but Lightbox couldnt get paid subscribers anyhow. Lightbox was free for a year but is now free forever - is that measured at $156/year or $156 capitalised at some rate of return (10% would make it $156 for year 1, $140 for year 2 etc etc making it worth $1500 to infinity). Probably better to have it as the average life of a broadband subscriber so dependent on assumed churn - or cap it at the 2 year contract that broadband providers try to max subs into.

And then you have to add Netflix free for a year cos no one wanted to pay for Lightbox. And then it couldnt be given away for free (200k of 600k broadband subs when its free???!!). So lets pile on another desperate measure to get subscribers shall we?

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

Samsung

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

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1795156 6-Jun-2017 10:18

Potentially in the future you could have the scenario where to watch what you want in sports you may need 3,4 or 5 different subscriptions.

And to watch the TV series you want you may need the same. You might need to subscribe to HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Showtime etc.

That is going to be an awful lot of over head being paid, which for each one will be smaller be as a whole more then what it is now.

And for a lot of people the over head will probably be more than just money but time and stress when it doesn't work the way you want it to.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1795184 6-Jun-2017 10:43

Jas777:

Potentially in the future you could have the scenario where to watch what you want in sports you may need 3,4 or 5 different subscriptions.

And to watch the TV series you want you may need the same. You might need to subscribe to HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Showtime etc.

That is going to be an awful lot of over head being paid, which for each one will be smaller be as a whole more then what it is now.

And for a lot of people the over head will probably be more than just money but time and stress when it doesn't work the way you want it to.

Yep, which is why a different distribution model that doesn't involve exclusivity and monopolies is needed.

I can go into any supermarket and buy any brand of wine. I can go into any electronics store and buy any brand of electronics. I can go into any record store and buy a CD from any label. I can go into any book store (physical or virtual) and buy any book (physical or vitrual) from any publisher (with some exceptions where the video model has crept into book publishing).

There are a range of music streaming services, most of which seem to deliver most of the music I want to listen to.

So why does video distribution need to be so different and so locked to geographic regions and exclusivity?

sonyxperiageek

2958 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1795215 6-Jun-2017 11:01

shk292:

Jas777:

Potentially in the future you could have the scenario where to watch what you want in sports you may need 3,4 or 5 different subscriptions.

And to watch the TV series you want you may need the same. You might need to subscribe to HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Showtime etc.

That is going to be an awful lot of over head being paid, which for each one will be smaller be as a whole more then what it is now.

And for a lot of people the over head will probably be more than just money but time and stress when it doesn't work the way you want it to.

Yep, which is why a different distribution model that doesn't involve exclusivity and monopolies is needed.

I can go into any supermarket and buy any brand of wine. I can go into any electronics store and buy any brand of electronics. I can go into any record store and buy a CD from any label. I can go into any book store (physical or virtual) and buy any book (physical or vitrual) from any publisher (with some exceptions where the video model has crept into book publishing).

There are a range of music streaming services, most of which seem to deliver most of the music I want to listen to.

So why does video distribution need to be so different and so locked to geographic regions and exclusivity?

Because money.

Sony

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1795218 6-Jun-2017 11:03

shk292:

Jas777:

Potentially in the future you could have the scenario where to watch what you want in sports you may need 3,4 or 5 different subscriptions.

And to watch the TV series you want you may need the same. You might need to subscribe to HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Showtime etc.

That is going to be an awful lot of over head being paid, which for each one will be smaller be as a whole more then what it is now.

And for a lot of people the over head will probably be more than just money but time and stress when it doesn't work the way you want it to.

Yep, which is why a different distribution model that doesn't involve exclusivity and monopolies is needed.

I can go into any supermarket and buy any brand of wine. I can go into any electronics store and buy any brand of electronics. I can go into any record store and buy a CD from any label. I can go into any book store (physical or virtual) and buy any book (physical or vitrual) from any publisher (with some exceptions where the video model has crept into book publishing).

There are a range of music streaming services, most of which seem to deliver most of the music I want to listen to.

So why does video distribution need to be so different and so locked to geographic regions and exclusivity?

There are plenty of brands I can get in Countdown but not PaknSave or New World. And vice versa. I think you need another example.

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

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1795223 6-Jun-2017 11:06

shk292:

So why does video distribution need to be so different and so locked to geographic regions and exclusivity?

Agree, but it will remain as long as the content providers opt to generate their revenue via this model.

As much as I hate the Sky monopoly, they simply win the bidding for sports coverage rights under this distribution model.

Sky can then enforce all that they've won, but it's not them who's offering the content up for sale in this fashion, and that's what needs to change.

That's why the NZ Netflix is watered down compared to the US version, as they don't have the rights in this area to show some of the content.

They've got around this by generating their own content (which is awesome) and therefore are able to distribute it as they like.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1795261 6-Jun-2017 12:05

ockel:

There are plenty of brands I can get in Countdown but not PaknSave or New World. And vice versa. I think you need another example.

Every rule has exceptions. But it is rather facile to try to write off a whole argument based on an exception, especially when I already gave many other examples.

The fundamental distribution model for video is different to any other product. Why does this need to be the case?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1795265 6-Jun-2017 12:14

shk292:

Yep, which is why a different distribution model that doesn't involve exclusivity and monopolies is needed.

I can go into any supermarket and buy any brand of wine. I can go into any electronics store and buy any brand of electronics. I can go into any record store and buy a CD from any label. I can go into any book store (physical or virtual) and buy any book (physical or vitrual) from any publisher (with some exceptions where the video model has crept into book publishing).

There are a range of music streaming services, most of which seem to deliver most of the music I want to listen to.

So why does video distribution need to be so different and so locked to geographic regions and exclusivity?

This. It is what I have also tried to argue, but he says it better.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1795268 6-Jun-2017 12:23

shk292:

ockel:

There are plenty of brands I can get in Countdown but not PaknSave or New World. And vice versa. I think you need another example.

Every rule has exceptions. But it is rather facile to try to write off a whole argument based on an exception, especially when I already gave many other examples.

The fundamental distribution model for video is different to any other product. Why does this need to be the case?

In the case of pre-recorded TV programmes and movies the difference isn't that much different but with 'live' sports there is a difference. 'Live sports would be more like concerts and you don't see multiple promoters of the same concerts.

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25