Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 57

1553 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1036

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857691 3-Sep-2017 18:38

All Sky need to do is consolidate/get rid of all the trash channels, convert more channels to HD, fix the atrocity that is skygo, offer sports only or sports/movies without the rest, then what's left to complain about other than price?

Quality > quantity imo.. especially when most channels just repeat the same things all week

They need a new CEO, Fellet just has his head in the sand

Quic referral link https://account.quic.nz/refer/276294 free setup code R276294EBWOBK

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857701 3-Sep-2017 19:22

bmt:

Sky is still making profits. It might be decreasing but making more money than you spend is still a profit.

They are a big organisation, they will do exactly what they think they need to do and think they can get away with to keep those profits high. Cutting prices, offering stuff for cheaper, stopping charging for HD content when even 4K has been around for 3+ years - why would they? People may hate Sky and begrudgingly subscribe to watch rugby, but at the end of the day Sky is still getting that money.

Providing all the content is great, and obviously people are happy to pay. But the way Fellett runs the company does not lend to people liking them. Public opinion is largely negative towards Sky and I'd say it is entirely justified. You don't have to be a Geekzoner to see that under it's current structure, Sky looks to be on its last legs and they are trying to wring out as much money as they can before they're stuffed.

Profits arent high, they were sound, less so now.

Sky is NOT just about rugby. Rugby is one sport

Ill ignite that last sentence as your too emotive, but tell us what does Sky need to do to be relevant? Talk numbers, not emotions

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857702 3-Sep-2017 19:24

Pumpedd:

Let me get this right....

If Amazon win rugby rights (lets say they do for the sake of it), they would pay Sky outside broadcast unit to film it and broadcast each game?

Id imagine its Amazon and not Sky, so Amazon based commentary?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857703 3-Sep-2017 19:27

Benoire:

Most likely unless NZRFU setup their own broadcasting system in place in order to be like the English Premier League.

I would still be concerned that a 'giant' coming in for the rights might mean less money or visibility of the feeder systems.

We know that the EPL is priced around $20 per month with Bein, I can't imagine that Rugby would be much different really... Imagine a world where you pay for sports seperately...

$20 for F1, $20 for BeIN, $20 for NZ Rugby, $20 for supercars etc.... Would soon add up!

I agree. While its trendy to hate Sky, the issue is Sky is not NF or LB. Sky prices are not Sky prices, they are sports prices. If NF, LB, Amazon or Briscoes bought the rights, we will pay the same. Sky delivers the sports we love, they AREN'T the sports. Just there conduit. If we used another conduit, nothing changes, just the bank account we pay into.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857704 3-Sep-2017 19:33

JimmyH:

Most of this discussion has been from a customer's perspective, which is fine.

What I do find interesting is the thunderous silence from Sky to it's shareholders. Many New Zealanders hold shares in Sky - either directly, or indirectly through managed funds like Kiwisaver. The industry is in disruptive turmoil wouldwide. In New Zealand Sky is slowly bleeding customers, seeing ongoing material falls in its profit, and facing potentially existential threats from changing technology and potential new entrants like Amazon.

If I was a shareholder, particularly a large institutional one with a material holding, I would be looking for company to outline what it saw as the future of its business and how it planned to respond to the rapidly changing landscape. Yet they don't seem to be saying much at all.

Shareholders have a legitimate interest in a company's governance and strategy, especially where its long-term survival may be threatened. But they aren't being given information. Which, if I had any of my money tied up in the company, would concern me greatly.

Nice post.

The financials post a better picture, albeit not really putting the challenges forward that much. Its like Netflix isn't the issue. It isn't. NF at $15 does not compete with Sky. Those that ditch Sky for NF are forgoing Sky content to get totally different content, to save $90. Its only about the money for those.

Sky cannot drop the prices a bunch, its that simple. If Netflix took Sky on, bought the sports, Netflix Sport will be $80+ per month. Minimum

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857709 3-Sep-2017 19:36

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think the point is, its been shown that Sky isn't overcharging.

With due respect, arguing that Sky isn't overcharging because of the underlying high cost of its outdated technology is not a valid argument. Move over Sky, let smarter, newer tech, lower cost companies to come in and provide improved value to the consumer.

Fair points @Dafman Im happy to discuss the numbers. Tell me what you feel will help, re newer tech, lower cost companies, etc. and improved value.

If I believed Sky was overcharging, I will be in line ahead of you! :-) I dont believe thats the case, but less discuss.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857711 3-Sep-2017 19:39

SheriffNZ:
dafman:

tdgeek:

I think the point is, its been shown that Sky isn't overcharging.

With due respect, arguing that Sky isn't overcharging because of the underlying high cost of its outdated technology is not a valid argument. Move over Sky, let smarter, newer tech, lower cost companies to come in and provide improved value to the consumer.

I think it's been established in this thread that the method of delivery is not the "issue" with Sky's pricing, its the cost of the sports rights.

Thats my belief, but it is still worth discussing. This thread has become the anti Sky vs the non anti Sky. @Dafman has been like me, quite passionate, but its still well worth discussing. It comes down to the numbers, not persuading others to agree.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857712 3-Sep-2017 19:41

nas:

All Sky need to do is consolidate/get rid of all the trash channels, convert more channels to HD, fix the atrocity that is skygo, offer sports only or sports/movies without the rest, then what's left to complain about other than price?

Quality > quantity imo.. especially when most channels just repeat the same things all week

They need a new CEO, Fellet just has his head in the sand

IMO its only the price that is the issue.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1857713 3-Sep-2017 19:45

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

Let me get this right....

If Amazon win rugby rights (lets say they do for the sake of it), they would pay Sky outside broadcast unit to film it and broadcast each game?

Id imagine its Amazon and not Sky, so Amazon based commentary?

I couldnt see Amazon investing millions of dollars to enable them to do this...

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1857715 3-Sep-2017 19:48

tdgeek:
Benoire:

Most likely unless NZRFU setup their own broadcasting system in place in order to be like the English Premier League.

I would still be concerned that a 'giant' coming in for the rights might mean less money or visibility of the feeder systems.

We know that the EPL is priced around $20 per month with Bein, I can't imagine that Rugby would be much different really... Imagine a world where you pay for sports seperately...

$20 for F1, $20 for BeIN, $20 for NZ Rugby, $20 for supercars etc.... Would soon add up!

I agree. While its trendy to hate Sky, the issue is Sky is not NF or LB. Sky prices are not Sky prices, they are sports prices. If NF, LB, Amazon or Briscoes bought the rights, we will pay the same. Sky delivers the sports we love, they AREN'T the sports. Just there conduit. If we used another conduit, nothing changes, just the bank account we pay into.

But this is also what many Sky customers (and potential customers) actually want... unbundle the sport and let them buy ONLY sport, or ONLY Sky Movies or even ONLY the sport(S) they actually want.

Sky’s bundling of everything-in-one artificially increases their ‘Basic’ package and makes someone who wants only movies and/or one (or two/three) sports help subsidise ALL sports.

For the people who want “all sports all the time” this is beneficial (the ones arguing here that unbundling would cost them more) but for an unidentifiable number of this wanting it unbundled for cheaper, this is exactly the _problem_ for them... their F1/Rugby/cricket /EPL desire is only (legally) saite-able via Sky’s bundled package - which is ‘unfair’ and lead to either paying the bundled price or looking elsewhere for the content!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857718 3-Sep-2017 20:03

PhantomNVD:
tdgeek:

Benoire:

Most likely unless NZRFU setup their own broadcasting system in place in order to be like the English Premier League.

I would still be concerned that a 'giant' coming in for the rights might mean less money or visibility of the feeder systems.

We know that the EPL is priced around $20 per month with Bein, I can't imagine that Rugby would be much different really... Imagine a world where you pay for sports seperately...

$20 for F1, $20 for BeIN, $20 for NZ Rugby, $20 for supercars etc.... Would soon add up!

I agree. While its trendy to hate Sky, the issue is Sky is not NF or LB. Sky prices are not Sky prices, they are sports prices. If NF, LB, Amazon or Briscoes bought the rights, we will pay the same. Sky delivers the sports we love, they AREN'T the sports. Just there conduit. If we used another conduit, nothing changes, just the bank account we pay into.

But this is also what many Sky customers (and potential customers) actually want... unbundle the sport and let them buy ONLY sport, or ONLY Sky Movies or even ONLY the sport(S) they actually want.

Agree. Fanpass is just that. It was $56 or so, now its more, thats what it costs. Im not sure why anyone would want Sky movies. Its not terrible, but thats Netflix territory now.

Sky’s bundling of everything-in-one artificially increases their ‘Basic’ package and makes someone who wants only movies and/or one (or two/three) sports help subsidise ALL sports.

It should not be subsidised. Basic should be $20 max, good value. Sports is much more. Sky ARPU is about $80. On one hand, if everybody (800,000) subsidise sports, the sports is $26 odd, but thats artificial. Basic should be what Basic costs, even $15. Sport is what sport costs. Sky should dump movies.

For the people who want “all sports all the time” this is beneficial (the ones arguing here that unbundling would cost them more) but for an unidentifiable number of this wanting it unbundled for cheaper, this is exactly the _problem_ for them... their F1/Rugby/cricket /EPL desire is only (legally) saite-able via Sky’s bundled package - which is ‘unfair’ and lead to either paying the bundled price or looking elsewhere for the content!

Thats a hard one. If they had some, lets say the key ones available seperate, they would be costly per sport, but cheaper overall. Then Sky loses the "subsidy" which jacks up the ARPU for the remaining subscribers. But a very good point. Its like Sky buys F1 rights, and you can only get it on an F1 sub. They the rely on x subscribers buying. Hard for a small country, easy Id say for UK

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

#1857740 3-Sep-2017 21:44

sonyxperiageek:
dafman:

rugrat:
dafman:

quickymart: Speaking of Sky and sport...

http://nzh.tw/11915194

Go Amazon!

Imagine being able to buy one game of rugby, in HD, for a reasonable price. Maybe we won't have to imagine too much longer.

It could make it more expensive as Amazon and Sky try to out bid each other, and for Sky they'll be fighting for their life, so the price could go Sky high with the view the end user will pay for it anyway.
Assuming Rugby viewers will forgo other things before Rugby.

Amazon prime in the US is US$ 8 per month. I reckon we will do fine under Amazon for rugby.

So you reckon, when and if Amazon to get the rights to broadcast rugby here in NZ, that it will be priced equivalently, or close to, $8 USD a month??

There are a ton of considerations and complications but in a nutshell:

Sky's current revenue formula is $960/year * 800k subscribers.

If Amazon is going to make it sustainable and not just be a perpetual loss leader then at some point they have to use the same formula but with different numbers.

To be able to match Sky at $96/year they would need 8m subscribers. Not impossible, and maybe not even difficult if they went all out promoting to their global audience.

NZ Rugby's bottom lines may actually be the bigger obstacle. Will they insist on providing service to rural NZ? (Amazon Loon??) Will they continue to demand casting of all those grassroots rugby games that hardly anyone watches at a cost of $10m/year?

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1857797 4-Sep-2017 01:05

Perhaps Amazon will bid on the online only rights?

Sony

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1857838 4-Sep-2017 07:55

sonyxperiageek: Perhaps Amazon will bid on the online only rights?

Back to my question...if Amazon wins any rights why should SKY pay the millions it costs to actually film/broadcast the games...?

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1857862 4-Sep-2017 09:12

Pumpedd:

sonyxperiageek: Perhaps Amazon will bid on the online only rights?

Back to my question...if Amazon wins any rights why should SKY pay the millions it costs to actually film/broadcast the games...?

Probably not a question that needs an answer. I think that if Amazon were to win the All Black rights, then in all likelihood its game over for Sky.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 57