Big drop in Sky subscribers

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

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 45

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1559033 24-May-2016 23:32

ockel:

You will recall that the parties that sought to bring legal action against "Global Mode" were TVNZ, Mediaworks, Sky and Lightbox. They were seeking judicial intervention (not legislative) to protect what they believed to be their property rights.

Then why didn't they let it go before the court instead of accepting an out of court settlement? This was bald bully behaviour to hammer the Global Mode ISPs into submission.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559035 24-May-2016 23:37

Fred99:

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

There are plenty of threads and discussion about the (print) news media decline in the "Off Topic" forum here. Decline in (paper copy) circulation. loss of advertising revenue, quality of product.

There's also plenty of discussion about how badly the FTA broadcasters are running their businesses - TV3 has been flayed alive recently in the news. The quality of content offered by TVNZ is frequently slammed by posters on GZ forums.

Nobody is picking on Sky for fun. There's fire behind the smoke, disruptive change will eat them too - if they don't adapt.

Nobody disagrees with that. Thats the point of this thread. That we don't talk about much as its mostly about doom and gloom, bad Sky, etc, etc, etc. I and others talk about what may happen, but the rest is negative fluff about bad Sky. If anyone feels Sky will fail, fine, lets talk about, it and why, etc. If its not interesting we can ask to get this thread closed.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1559037 24-May-2016 23:57

ockel:

You will recall that the parties that sought to bring legal action against "Global Mode" were TVNZ, Mediaworks, Sky and Lightbox. They were seeking judicial intervention (not legislative) to protect what they believed to be their property rights.

They were seeking a judicial decision in the High Court as to whether under existing NZ legislation, the Global Mode service was illegal. It remains a "grey area". If it had gone to court and Sky & friends had lost (quite probable), a likely result would have been endless appeals and strong lobbying for a change in legislation. They bullied their way to victory.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559038 24-May-2016 23:58

dafman:

dafman:

ockel:

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

I don't disagree with your DomPost, NZ Herald, Press, TV2 and TV3 comparisons. News media and FTA are suffering a similar crisis of business model as Sky.

However, both are looking a little more proactive in adapting to the paradigm shift than Sky. News media with their internet models to replace traditional newsprint, and FTA with some pretty nifty and ever-evolving on-demand applications that outshine anything that Sky are currently offering.

And of course, FTA, by defintion are free, whereas Sky is stinging their longer term customers for over $100 per month, so, understandably, they'll wear more of the public criticism as we move through this period of change.

Addendum to above.

Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have significantly upgraded their on-demand apps over the last twelve months and the price remains the same - free. Of course there are ads, but they don't appear to be any more intrusive with the on-demand apps than the traditional FTA broadcast offerings. So a net gain for the FTA consumer.

Contrast with Sky. Not only is Neon is clunky in comparison to other on-demand offerings, they even demanded long-standing customers stump up an additional $20 per month for the privilege.

And I reckon it examples like above that may be contributing to the big drop in Sky subscribers.

Finally, a post about the topic.

My feeling is Neon is not there to fix the SVOD problem of churn. Its there to have SVOD in place, for when they decide that the churn is not a blip, its real and growing. They will know the numbers weekly far before the financial results release. So they can quickly and easily turn Neon into a competitive product. FanPass is sport, its fed via Neulion, its already an almost full product. They can finish it off to be more attractive. The key is, they have things in place to react relatively quickly. People arent churning because Neon is meh. Nor as FTA has SVOD because thats adding a small convenience for some. That wont then people off Sky. People are leaving Sky as they can get pay TV cheaper, and they will miss what they now cannot get as many here have said. So as Fred mentioned, they have to react. Thats what this thread is about, how will they, in what way, when? What issues do they have to overcome?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559043 25-May-2016 00:24

How about some suggestions that you think Sky may go with? Anything from almost no change to windup counts.

1. Basic is $15 after removing sports subsidy SVOD

2. Basic + Includes Neon $25 SVOD

3. Neon is $20. HD, bit more content SVOD

4. Prices for satellite Sky unchanged apart from Basic $35 cheaper, Sports $35 more

5. Fanpass $55.99 still.

6. ATV4 support and other devices for All SVOD

7. HD Ticket and STB cost unchanged

8. Deal going for contracted ATV4 or other device, interest free payback.

Reasoning is SVOD is cheaper to provide, incentive to move to SVOD. Basic only users will lose revenue, but will pickup new Basic only users.

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek

#1559046 25-May-2016 00:49

I'd resubscribe to a SVOD offering of the basic package at $15 in a heartbeat. I cancelled Sky because I wasn't prepared to pay $70 for the few shows I watched on it, but at $15 it would be reasonable value for money for me. I'd add Fanpass on the months I wanted to see the Black Caps.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1559093 25-May-2016 07:06

tdgeek:

How about some suggestions that you think Sky may go with? Anything from almost no change to windup counts.

Me

1. Basic is $15 after removing sports subsidy SVOD

2. Basic + Includes Neon $25 SVOD

3. Neon is $20. HD, bit more content SVOD

4. Prices for satellite Sky unchanged apart from Basic $35 cheaper, Sports $35 more

5. Fanpass $55.99 still.

6. ATV4 support and other devices for All SVOD

7. HD Ticket and STB cost unchanged

8. Deal going for contracted ATV4 or other device, interest free payback.

Reasoning is SVOD is cheaper to provide, incentive to move to SVOD. Basic only users will lose revenue, but will pickup new Basic only users.

In addition, I'd like to see multi-device connectivity as a paid option, similar to Netflix; and not $25 per month per device but say $10 extra on the account and that it works for all the sub and not just $10 for each product, if that makes sense. I'd also like them to create an API for open source software to 'bond' in to for access.

My main trouble though with SVOD is that it doesn't allow reminders outside of the application, we need a single interface or api that allows Roku, apple etc. to develop a single way to interact with all the apps without loading each app up separately to see whats been added; what a drag that would be!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

quickymart

13924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1559101 25-May-2016 07:28

Those pricing options look far more attractive to me than what they currently offer (which I feel is quite inflexible).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1559107 25-May-2016 07:47

Fred99:

ockel:

You will recall that the parties that sought to bring legal action against "Global Mode" were TVNZ, Mediaworks, Sky and Lightbox. They were seeking judicial intervention (not legislative) to protect what they believed to be their property rights.

They were seeking a judicial decision in the High Court as to whether under existing NZ legislation, the Global Mode service was illegal. It remains a "grey area". If it had gone to court and Sky & friends had lost (quite probable), a likely result would have been endless appeals and strong lobbying for a change in legislation. They bullied their way to victory.

And your opinion is based on your years of legal experience in intellectual property? If anyone gets taken to court for their behaviour and elects not to contest by ceasing from what they were doing, they were bullied? Your bias is still colouring your posts. As you say it remains a grey area - and one that even the legal fraternity cant arrive at a definitive opinion - let alone consensus opinion. Until it is tested it will remain a grey area and we can speculate on an outcome all we like. Deciding that "Sky & friends" (of which the parties are not - more like frenemies) bullied anyone is a reach.

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

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559112 25-May-2016 07:47

quickymart: Those pricing options look far more attractive to me than what they currently offer (which I feel is quite inflexible).

I think so. The unknown cost is whatever satellite costs are per a decreasing user base, but thats not trading profit, thats a one off cost over the period of the transition.

When the renewal is negotiated wth Optus, it might well be that those costs drop, maybe to equal SVOD, so they could run both in parallel, if the satellite costs were unaffected at

the cost per subscriber level. Maybe if you had the dish Sky service, accessing the SVOD could be free? If there was a means to stop "loaning" it, as some do with SkyGo. Added value is big these days.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1559115 25-May-2016 07:56

It's simple really, like Sky's offerings? Use them. Don't like Sky's offerings? Don't use them. For me they offer what I want at price I can afford and without a hassle, they are also NZ based employing Kiwis and paying taxes and dividends. They also support NZ sports and charities.

With this I bid thee farvel

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1559116 25-May-2016 07:57

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

You will recall that the parties that sought to bring legal action against "Global Mode" were TVNZ, Mediaworks, Sky and Lightbox. They were seeking judicial intervention (not legislative) to protect what they believed to be their property rights.

They were seeking a judicial decision in the High Court as to whether under existing NZ legislation, the Global Mode service was illegal. It remains a "grey area". If it had gone to court and Sky & friends had lost (quite probable), a likely result would have been endless appeals and strong lobbying for a change in legislation. They bullied their way to victory.

And your opinion is based on your years of legal experience in intellectual property? If anyone gets taken to court for their behaviour and elects not to contest by ceasing from what they were doing, they were bullied? Your bias is still colouring your posts. As you say it remains a grey area - and one that even the legal fraternity cant arrive at a definitive opinion - let alone consensus opinion. Until it is tested it will remain a grey area and we can speculate on an outcome all we like. Deciding that "Sky & friends" (of which the parties are not - more like frenemies) bullied anyone is a reach.

There was plenty of expert legal discussion about that case, and much expert legal opinion expressing disappointment that the case never made it to court, as most of that legal opinion being expressed was that the case would have been lost under existing NZ law. Pays to note that many of the articles weren't being written and published by stirrers or radicals, but in pro-business media, NBR etc.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1559153 25-May-2016 08:57

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

You nailed it, in this "post".

Pro Sky. I didn't recall anyone in this thread being Pro Sky. How do you define Pro Sky? I'll tell you how I define it. Someone who loves Sky to bits. No one like that here.

There are those that hate Sky to bits, and there are a few who are neutral. Or happy with Sky if they use it. Or happy with Sky if they used to use it. Non biased. Did what I want, worked well, sound product. thats where my love ended. Sound product that worked well for my and my familys needs. Its just a product. If it didn't work well, it would be cancelled, not hated.Do you see where I'm going with this? These people aren't anti Sky, therefore, to you they are Pro Sky. Thats how narrow it is when your points all emanate from an anti feeling. This is why you are unable to discuss why Sky has lost some subscribers, as all that seems to be stated is anti Sky sentiment. Blinded. You will be searching long and hard to see any posts that show that anyone here loves Sky. Actually you arent the first in this thread to use the words love Sky. Bizarre. And you have already decided that the people that left Sky all dislike Sky. Sorry, but thats, well, strange. Not to do with money? Not to do with NF has more movies at 13 bucks? LB has more TV at 13 bucks?

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'd be happy for a thread about hating Sky, as I mentioned earlier. This is getting very Stuff comments like. This thread is about why Sky lost some subscribers. And what we think or hope or expect may happen from here on. I find that interesting. But I can't be arxxed with the same type of drone that I have seen over the years by Apple fanboys and Android fanboys.

Sorry, /rantover

Oh dear, the last thing I wanted to do was appear to be Stuff-like (I dislike Stuff's approach to their business even more than Sky). So I will make this my last post on this thread.

And I most def don't agree with you that I am 'unable to discuss why Sky has lost subscribers'. Most of my posts have done exactly that - offered up my thoughts, with examples, on why I think Sky's business model and customer service are costing them subscribers. But I won't retread.

And Sky WILL continue lose more in the near future. I have family and friends who are now openly unhappy with Sky's pricing, but are not quite ready yet to cut away. But they will, in time.

My parting comment is a suggestion for Sky. It's not just your product model that needs to evolve, it's your treatment of subscribers. Treat subscribers as valued customers, not commodities, and you may have some chance of riding this out.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559159 25-May-2016 09:12

dafman:

Oh dear, the last thing I wanted to do was appear to be Stuff-like (I dislike Stuff's approach to their business even more than Sky). So I will make this my last post on this thread.

And I most def don't agree with you that I am 'unable to discuss why Sky has lost subscribers'. Most of my posts have done exactly that - offered up my thoughts, with examples, on why I think Sky's business model and customer service are costing them subscribers. But I won't retread.

And Sky WILL continue lose more in the near future. I have family and friends who are now openly unhappy with Sky's pricing, but are not quite ready yet to cut away. But they will, in time.

My parting comment is a suggestion for Sky. It's not just your product model that needs to evolve, it's your treatment of subscribers. Treat subscribers as valued customers, not commodities, and you may have some chance of riding this out.

Yes they will lose more over this year

Why are the friends and family now unhappy with the pricing? Its been at the level it is since inception. They havent just put the proce up 40%. I assume its becaose they see SVOD at $13 now?

I had Sky for years, I never had an issue with customer service, they provided, I paid. The last toime I called them was to cancel in Feb. No wait time, gave an offer that I declined, no pressure. Id like to know what labels them as treating us like commodities than valued customers

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1559176 25-May-2016 09:23

tdgeek:

Finally, a post about the topic.

I believe most of the posts are actually "about the topic".

You should flayed alive in any business by having a discussion about strategy for the future without first doing your homework. That process would most likely be SWOT analysis. You can call it a different name and/or floss it up to pretend that you're so innovative you've got something better because the bright young expensive thing from Deloittes said so, but it's going to be more or less the same process. Good companies include the tea lady or gentleman in that discussion.

There's one huge stand-out item which must come up in any such analysis, and which IMO isn't being adequately addressed. It's under "W" (weaknesses) and it is:

Our customers don't like us

That's very clear from reading this thread, it's very clear from SKT ranking worst out of NZX top 25 , it's very clear from talking to my ancient father in law. Yes - some customers probably love Sky and will post their love letters to contradict that.

I suspect that an answer to (or an excuse for) that major weakness is.

customers do not like pay TV providers anywhere

resulting in a conclusion that's "just the way it is" and instead of comparing your business with all other businesses, limit that comparison to other pay TV providers - not so easy in NZ, as there aren't any per se, only streaming content providers.

This isn't BS I made up. Here's how it pans out in the US:

ISPs take note, your counterparts in the US are even less trusted by customers in the US than cable/pay TV customers. Comcast ranks amongst the worst of the worst (largest pay TV provider and largest home ISP). I suspect that ISPs rank slightly better in NZ, because in general they probably are better, 1 hour waits on help phone lines excluded.

At the top of the bullet list under "T" (threats) should be evolving disruptive technology. I don't know what that's going to be and how it's going to manifest - neither do Sky. It might be Google / Youtube Red, they just gave free access to existing Play customers. That might be the start of something big, it might be just another nip on the ankles. Point being that it may be very unwise to assume that it's going to be the "netflix model" of SVOD, and reacting to the threat to counter "netflix etc" may be a serious mistake.

Being unliked by your customers when facing new competition is a very bad place to be. Fending off attack aggressively and one by one as they appear is not a long term strategy.

If Sky were to show that they're going to focus some serious effort into changing customer perception for the better, even I'd consider buying in to them. Their recent passing on of a $1.66 or whatever it was "increase in costs" and the timing of that might be seen to confirm what some probably expect - that they're a monopoly with cost-plus mentality screwing them over. I listened to ancient FIL curse and swear about the "miserable $%$#@$'s" then say it's only $1.66 or whatever it was a month, so "I'll have to suck it". Nice relationship he has with a supplier - and he's the greatest sky TV fan I've ever met - glued to the TV when sport is on.

#1 task for strategic planning team - "how can we get our customers to like us more?"

If that question has been asked, answered, and acted on, then so far the result looks like a fail.

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 45