Price rise "must be coming"!

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Price rise "must be coming"!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

13966 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1725432 23-Feb-2017 22:18

mattwnz:

JimmyH:

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

I don't think it is a case of them not wanting your money, I think it is more a case that they are stuck in an old business model, and they can't adapt to what their customers now want. But I really do wonder why they didn't try to change several years ago, as this has been coming for a long time. They have in the past managed to change their model, but they haven't been able to do it this time. Maybe that was their intention with this deal? Personally I found their old UHF service back in the early 90's a far better service, with minimal adverts, and it represented quality over quantity. Now there are so many channels, but the quality isn't there, and you have to pay extra for the channels that are any good. The advertising is also a real put off. Funnily enough it seems to be the elderly that seem to be still getting sky installed, I know someone who has just recently got it installed, because they want the UK channels. They don't care about the price, as they can't take their money with them. So these people who can't adapt to the newer technology are probably their growth area.

I miss the good old days of UHF as well. They only had 3 (later 5) channels, so they were very selective about what they showed on them. As a result I think the quality (of Movies/HBO in particular) was a lot higher. Now it's 200 channels of (IMO) mostly crap. Couldn't care less about sport. The good channels (Soho, etc) are at a premium price - if they were part of Basic I would call it much better value. I'd rather pay less for 10 channels I'd want to watch as opposed to paying more for 190 I'd never watch.

Apsattv

2390 posts

Uber Geek

#1725449 23-Feb-2017 22:49

Satellite delivered Sky is not going away any time soon. As John Fellet is still concerned with the handfull (he quotes %15) of people that can't or won't get broadband.

Keep an eye on what is happening with Sky in the U.K they just launched a newer decoder for (dishless) Sky service.

Rather than Sky NZ concentrating on getting the old mpg2 boxes out of the system with already obsolete mysky units they should be moving into using these newer units. Giving users access whatever their internet, fibre, satellite, 4g, wifi etc

https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/26/sky-q-no-satellite-dish-2018/

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1725453 23-Feb-2017 22:59

quickymart:

mattwnz:

JimmyH:

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

I don't think it is a case of them not wanting your money, I think it is more a case that they are stuck in an old business model, and they can't adapt to what their customers now want. But I really do wonder why they didn't try to change several years ago, as this has been coming for a long time. They have in the past managed to change their model, but they haven't been able to do it this time. Maybe that was their intention with this deal? Personally I found their old UHF service back in the early 90's a far better service, with minimal adverts, and it represented quality over quantity. Now there are so many channels, but the quality isn't there, and you have to pay extra for the channels that are any good. The advertising is also a real put off. Funnily enough it seems to be the elderly that seem to be still getting sky installed, I know someone who has just recently got it installed, because they want the UK channels. They don't care about the price, as they can't take their money with them. So these people who can't adapt to the newer technology are probably their growth area.

I miss the good old days of UHF as well. They only had 3 (later 5) channels, so they were very selective about what they showed on them. As a result I think the quality (of Movies/HBO in particular) was a lot higher. Now it's 200 channels of (IMO) mostly crap. Couldn't care less about sport. The good channels (Soho, etc) are at a premium price - if they were part of Basic I would call it much better value. I'd rather pay less for 10 channels I'd want to watch as opposed to paying more for 190 I'd never watch.

But you can say that about Netflix. "There are 50 shows I might watch, the other 4000 are rubbish"

If you had 5 channels the best stuff will be there, say 10 shows. Of you had 200 channels the best shows will number 40, but off course more other stuff, that is either cheap fillers, or a wider range if genres, which by definition will lock many of us out, as we all don't like all 20 genres, just some of them. Better choice for you, albeit harder looking for them, and more choice for the rest of the populous if you can cover more genres. Less efficient but more coverage

quickymart

13966 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1725458 23-Feb-2017 23:32

True...I know that satellite coverage is much better than UHF - wider footprint, more channels, etc and I know UHF isn't coming back. I guess I just miss the good old days when (IMO) there were fewer options, but better quality of programming.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1725460 23-Feb-2017 23:53

quickymart:

True...I know that satellite coverage is much better than UHF - wider footprint, more channels, etc and I know UHF isn't coming back. I guess I just miss the good old days when (IMO) there were fewer options, but better quality of programming.

I recall they had quite a bit of resistance getting people to move off UHF, because IMO it was better value, and you got to watch everything for a set monthly price, plus hardly any ads. That was the last time I had sky.

darylblake

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1725463 24-Feb-2017 06:12

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Price rise = risk of losing more customers.

Price Stay the same, the same trend continues.

If they lower the price they believe they may gain subscribers, but it might not make it worth doing business with their current model.

TBH I occasionally watch the sport on sky. That is about it. I am not a subscriber anymore but there are fan passes available.

My wife and I watch a fair amount of netflix and youtube documentaries. Thats about all the time I have for TV to be quite honest. Busy life at the mo.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1726217 25-Feb-2017 18:49

True, but there is non-price related stuff they could do to win back customers.

For starters they could dial back on the incessant promos and ad breaks that make many channels essentially unwatchable. Most of these seem to be for their own stuff, so they wouldn't lose much money. I could live with some ads between shows.

They could stop overlaying advertising while a show/film or film is playing, and drop the "accelerated flow" where they drown out the closing credits with a shouty promo. Those are pointless, and just plain annoying. How many times do I need to be reminded to order a connection device I don't need anyway?

They could remove CGMS/A from the analog outputs. The old boxes didn't have it, the new ones do/. It's a key reason I dropped Rialto and the Movies package - as adding this copy protection made the box's output incompatible with the video distribution system I was using around my house.

They could upgrade their on demand system, which is a bit clunky to use and lacks a lot of their content.

But they need to do more than that. Compared to the alternatives (aside from sports), they are now expensive for what they are and compare unfavourably to new competitors. As well as fixing the current awful viewing experience, they almost certainly have to move on better content and sharper pricing to hold customers. I suspect they need to replace Fellet first, as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur and constitutionally incapable of facing up to any of this.

Edit: Typo

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1726222 25-Feb-2017 19:03

JimmyH:

True, but there is non-price related stuff they could do to win back customers.

For starters they could dial back on the incessant promos and ad breaks that make many channels essentially unwatchable. Most of these seem to be for their own stuff, so they wouldn't lose much money. I could live with some ads between shows.

They could stop overlaying advertising while a show/film or film is playing, and drop the "accelerated flow" where they drown out the closing credits with a shouty promo. Those are pointless, and just plain annoying. How many times do I need to be reminded to order a connection device I don't need anyway?

They could remove CGMS/A from the analog outputs. The old boxes didn't have it, the new ones do/. It's a key reason I dropped Rialto and the Movies package - as adding this copy protection made the box's output incompatible with the video distribution system I was using around my house.

They could upgrade their on demand system, which is a bit clunky to use and lacks a lot of their content.

But they need to do more than that. Compared to the alternatives (aside from sports), they are now expensive for what they are and compare unfavourably to new competitors. As well as fixing the current awful viewing experience, they almost certainly have to move on better content and sharper pricing to hold customers. I suspect they need to replace Fellet first, as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur and constitutionally incapable of facing up to any of this.

Edit: Typo

Good points.

If Basic was $20, thats a nice option. Basic has little overlap. But there is the issue of STB rental.

I actually find OD with Sky very good, functionality wise. All or Channel, that helps.

You would think that going full and only OD would give them more options re price, and functionality and features, and a lot of cost structure will go.

quickymart

13966 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1726352 26-Feb-2017 09:14

I think Basic for $20 would be good too. That would get my attention (and I can fit that into my budget fairly easily as well).

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1726354 26-Feb-2017 09:20

quickymart:

I think Basic for $20 would be good too. That would get my attention (and I can fit that into my budget fairly easily as well).

I agree fully. It has a nice and wide genre range. Add Lightbox for modern TV, Netflix for older TV and movies, its a nice mix for $50.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1726920 27-Feb-2017 10:23

tdgeek:

JimmyH:

True, but there is non-price related stuff they could do to win back customers.

For starters they could dial back on the incessant promos and ad breaks that make many channels essentially unwatchable. Most of these seem to be for their own stuff, so they wouldn't lose much money. I could live with some ads between shows.

They could stop overlaying advertising while a show/film or film is playing, and drop the "accelerated flow" where they drown out the closing credits with a shouty promo. Those are pointless, and just plain annoying. How many times do I need to be reminded to order a connection device I don't need anyway?

They could remove CGMS/A from the analog outputs. The old boxes didn't have it, the new ones do/. It's a key reason I dropped Rialto and the Movies package - as adding this copy protection made the box's output incompatible with the video distribution system I was using around my house.

They could upgrade their on demand system, which is a bit clunky to use and lacks a lot of their content.

But they need to do more than that. Compared to the alternatives (aside from sports), they are now expensive for what they are and compare unfavourably to new competitors. As well as fixing the current awful viewing experience, they almost certainly have to move on better content and sharper pricing to hold customers. I suspect they need to replace Fellet first, as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur and constitutionally incapable of facing up to any of this.

Edit: Typo

Good points.

If Basic was $20, thats a nice option. Basic has little overlap. But there is the issue of STB rental.

I actually find OD with Sky very good, functionality wise. All or Channel, that helps.

You would think that going full and only OD would give them more options re price, and functionality and features, and a lot of cost structure will go.

How can they go full OD. They have a lot of customers who wont be getting high speed internet soon if ever and a lot of customers who don't want the technology issues associated with it.

Added to that the users who are fully in to OD will likely be the ones to churn more so makes no sense.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1726926 27-Feb-2017 10:29

quickymart:

mattwnz:

JimmyH:

After 20+ years as a subscriber, I have finally had enough of their high handed contempt for paying customers. Apparently they don't want my money.

(sorry if that became slightly ranty )

I don't think it is a case of them not wanting your money, I think it is more a case that they are stuck in an old business model, and they can't adapt to what their customers now want. But I really do wonder why they didn't try to change several years ago, as this has been coming for a long time. They have in the past managed to change their model, but they haven't been able to do it this time. Maybe that was their intention with this deal? Personally I found their old UHF service back in the early 90's a far better service, with minimal adverts, and it represented quality over quantity. Now there are so many channels, but the quality isn't there, and you have to pay extra for the channels that are any good. The advertising is also a real put off. Funnily enough it seems to be the elderly that seem to be still getting sky installed, I know someone who has just recently got it installed, because they want the UK channels. They don't care about the price, as they can't take their money with them. So these people who can't adapt to the newer technology are probably their growth area.

I miss the good old days of UHF as well. They only had 3 (later 5) channels, so they were very selective about what they showed on them. As a result I think the quality (of Movies/HBO in particular) was a lot higher. Now it's 200 channels of (IMO) mostly crap. Couldn't care less about sport. The good channels (Soho, etc) are at a premium price - if they were part of Basic I would call it much better value. I'd rather pay less for 10 channels I'd want to watch as opposed to paying more for 190 I'd never watch.

You still need to take into account the cost of getting the product on those 10 channels you want to watch. The cost to provide the content for SOHO is going to be the same as the cost to provide the content for 50 other channels.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1726931 27-Feb-2017 10:34

Jas777:

tdgeek:

JimmyH:

True, but there is non-price related stuff they could do to win back customers.

For starters they could dial back on the incessant promos and ad breaks that make many channels essentially unwatchable. Most of these seem to be for their own stuff, so they wouldn't lose much money. I could live with some ads between shows.

They could stop overlaying advertising while a show/film or film is playing, and drop the "accelerated flow" where they drown out the closing credits with a shouty promo. Those are pointless, and just plain annoying. How many times do I need to be reminded to order a connection device I don't need anyway?

They could remove CGMS/A from the analog outputs. The old boxes didn't have it, the new ones do/. It's a key reason I dropped Rialto and the Movies package - as adding this copy protection made the box's output incompatible with the video distribution system I was using around my house.

They could upgrade their on demand system, which is a bit clunky to use and lacks a lot of their content.

But they need to do more than that. Compared to the alternatives (aside from sports), they are now expensive for what they are and compare unfavourably to new competitors. As well as fixing the current awful viewing experience, they almost certainly have to move on better content and sharper pricing to hold customers. I suspect they need to replace Fellet first, as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur and constitutionally incapable of facing up to any of this.

Edit: Typo

Good points.

If Basic was $20, thats a nice option. Basic has little overlap. But there is the issue of STB rental.

I actually find OD with Sky very good, functionality wise. All or Channel, that helps.

You would think that going full and only OD would give them more options re price, and functionality and features, and a lot of cost structure will go.

How can they go full OD. They have a lot of customers who wont be getting high speed internet soon if ever and a lot of customers who don't want the technology issues associated with it.

Added to that the users who are fully in to OD will likely be the ones to churn more so makes no sense.

Well, everyone whines that they use antiquated technology.... so they can get with the times??? Now we still complain?

Their Sky boxes are OD capable, and many Sky customers record and watch later, so both of those factors would be relatively seamless, aside from getting the customer to connect ethernet/wifi to their box.

Users fully into OD is not relevant. If you are into TV series and movies, Sky already isn't for you

The really low BB speed users, and rural, well its hard to justify Sky keeping costly satellite for them, I guess once Sky gets with the times that will be the next round of complaints.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1726945 27-Feb-2017 10:52

Jas777:

lot of customers who don't want the technology issues associated with it.

I agree, same for me. It just works, all the time, and the ease of the guide, recorded shows, and OD via the remote are all very good. Yes, that is a key issue

My pref is Optus gives a very low fee, so contract renewed, prices reduce overall, Basic is $20 after losng Sport subsidy

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1727009 27-Feb-2017 11:48

tdgeek:

Jas777:

tdgeek:

JimmyH:

True, but there is non-price related stuff they could do to win back customers.

For starters they could dial back on the incessant promos and ad breaks that make many channels essentially unwatchable. Most of these seem to be for their own stuff, so they wouldn't lose much money. I could live with some ads between shows.

They could stop overlaying advertising while a show/film or film is playing, and drop the "accelerated flow" where they drown out the closing credits with a shouty promo. Those are pointless, and just plain annoying. How many times do I need to be reminded to order a connection device I don't need anyway?

They could remove CGMS/A from the analog outputs. The old boxes didn't have it, the new ones do/. It's a key reason I dropped Rialto and the Movies package - as adding this copy protection made the box's output incompatible with the video distribution system I was using around my house.

They could upgrade their on demand system, which is a bit clunky to use and lacks a lot of their content.

But they need to do more than that. Compared to the alternatives (aside from sports), they are now expensive for what they are and compare unfavourably to new competitors. As well as fixing the current awful viewing experience, they almost certainly have to move on better content and sharper pricing to hold customers. I suspect they need to replace Fellet first, as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur and constitutionally incapable of facing up to any of this.

Edit: Typo

Good points.

If Basic was $20, thats a nice option. Basic has little overlap. But there is the issue of STB rental.

I actually find OD with Sky very good, functionality wise. All or Channel, that helps.

You would think that going full and only OD would give them more options re price, and functionality and features, and a lot of cost structure will go.

How can they go full OD. They have a lot of customers who wont be getting high speed internet soon if ever and a lot of customers who don't want the technology issues associated with it.

Added to that the users who are fully in to OD will likely be the ones to churn more so makes no sense.

Well, everyone whines that they use antiquated technology.... so they can get with the times??? Now we still complain?

Their Sky boxes are OD capable, and many Sky customers record and watch later, so both of those factors would be relatively seamless, aside from getting the customer to connect ethernet/wifi to their box.

Users fully into OD is not relevant. If you are into TV series and movies, Sky already isn't for you

The really low BB speed users, and rural, well its hard to justify Sky keeping costly satellite for them, I guess once Sky gets with the times that will be the next round of complaints.

Who does actually whine they use antiquated technology? I would hazard a guess that most of the core customers don't complain and the reason people think everyone is complaining is those are the only ones you hear from. But as the case with a lot things I am probably totally wrong.

I am into TV series and movies and while I agree that movies you can get from anywhere, SOHO is great for me, but it is true as I have SKY for other things the extra $10 a month isn't a burden. If it was just SOHO then I would not like it so much. But what if I have to go to source, then that is $15 for HBO, $15 for Showcase etc etc.

I agree about not subsidising sport and have no problem with that.

My biggest issues is that I don't actually think the end of SKY will actually end up in cheaper costs. If we ended up with multiple players they will all have overheads to pass on and the competition will drive up the source material. And the other thing I think would happen is local content would be sacrificed for cheap overseas content especially in sports.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4