Probe launched into Sky TV content deals

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Probe launched into Sky TV content deals

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#627993 20-May-2012 17:55

Athlonite:
tdgeek: and if exclusivity is banned, well they should still need to pay for it if they wish to have it. How will they do that? Make taxpayers pay? That is unfair. Make those programs pay TV? That is an option.

so you like to pay $9.95 per day to watch the six oclock news or $12.00 per day to watch your daily dose of shorty street hmmm thought not thats why FTA has ads and sky don't (also the reason you pay for sky and not FTA) the taxpayer already pays via TVNZ on Air and advertising pays for the rest

although I hardly watch TV these days as its so much garbage now it's not funny I've turned to the net to get the content I want to watch when I want to watch it not months or years later when it's finally shown here

Your misquoting. That post was re exclusivity, in that a FTA channel that gets premum content (as it will probably be regulated that exclusivity is banned) needs to pay for it. If they can.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#628008 20-May-2012 18:48

Athlonite: ...
thats why FTA has ads and sky don't
...

Which planet have you been on for the past few years?

Sky now have as many ads as anyone else, albeit a lot of them are promos for other Sky channels. Still bloody annoying and the main reason why the ad skip buttons on my Vu+ Duo get hammered.

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#628011 20-May-2012 18:50

grant_k:
Athlonite: ...
thats why FTA has ads and sky don't
...

Which planet have you been on for the past few years?

Sky now have as many ads as anyone else, albeit a lot of them are promos for other Sky channels. Still bloody annoying and the main reason why the ad skip buttons on my Vu+ Duo get hammered.

+1 and why we avoid watching live as often as possible.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#628022 20-May-2012 19:11

grant_k:
Athlonite: ...
thats why FTA has ads and sky don't
...

Which planet have you been on for the past few years?

Sky now have as many ads as anyone else, albeit a lot of them are promos for other Sky channels. Still bloody annoying and the main reason why the ad skip buttons on my Vu+ Duo get hammered.

+1

Except it's the 60-second skip button on a DVD recorder in my case.

Your post made me wonder how much extra Sky would have to charge to make up for the lost ad revenue if they dropped ads on all channels?

My quick look at the financial data on their website shows that Sky's revenue for 2011 was $796 million, and their advertising revenue (excluding Prime) was $39 million for 2011, with a further $24 million in ad revenue from Prime. So, crudely:
1. non-Prime revenue was $796-$24 = $772M.
2. To kill off advertising on all channels completely and make the same revenue they would have to raise prices by 39/772= 5.05%. Average Bill is $70.45 per month (ARPU from the same financial data), so the average bill would rise by $3.56 per month.

No contest - I would gladly pay around $4-5 per month for completely ad free TV. The Box and Vibe might even become watchable.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#628087 20-May-2012 21:56

JimmyH: No contest - I would gladly pay around $4-5 per month for completely ad free TV. The Box and Vibe might even become watchable.

+1

It would definitely be worth an extra $5 for no ads!

JonnyCam

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#628291 21-May-2012 12:18

old3eyes:
Sounds like Sky NZ..

You got me!
I set up this account and posted on different subjects, knowing one day I'd be able to fulfill my true role as a corporate shill. A cunning & diabolical plan.

I know you don't like Sky, and hey I don't like paying as much as I do for mysky + sports.
I also don't like paying as much as I do for movies, diesel, & food.

But, I like to watch football & rugby (and darts!) and the cost is OK for me.

I was simply stating, that each person has to make a call as to how much they are willing to spend to see EPL / Champions League / La Liga / A-League in HD, and the ability to timeshift that stuff, live pause etc. (or whatever shows are of interest to that person)

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#628675 22-May-2012 00:40

tdgeek:
compost: So how long did it take for you to get Stockholm Syndrome?

I don't feel your Stockholm Syndrome comment is appropriate. Akin to name calling. crackrdbycracku has just used a different theme to post. And he qualifiedf that.

Come on, that was mild. I'd call you humourless, but you'd probably lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

tdgeek: If both pay 5 million, that sounds doable. But, buying content that is then available FTA becomes not worthwhile, it adds no value to Sky subscribers. So, in the real world, I'd expect Sky to flag it, FTA can pay 10 million. They may or may not be prepared to, or afford to pay that. Not a real solution IMO

JimmyH: So, assuming one of the other broadcasters is a FTA network,

We don't have to assume that. There's no reason why we couldn't have a second pay TV operator. The TAB is streaming live sports legally, potentially it wouldn't take much for them to become a competing quasi pay TV operator.

tdgeek: You are saying that Sky are cornering the sport market so that affects the price they pay? If anything, it would reduce the cost if they are buying big. Sky NZ is teeny in the world content market. FIA sets the price for F1, same will apply I assume to the other sports.

Cornering the market is a strategy with high rewards but also high risks. The Bunker Hunts' failed attempt to corner the silver market in the late 70s ultimately bankrupted them.

DS9: Pharmac is a single buyer. if Pharmac does not buy the drug as a Pt. the drug can be very expensive. Remember when Pharmac did not cover Herceptin it cost cancer Pt.'s $100'00 for treatment.

Now SKY has competition for content but has the funds to out bid rivals. Are you now arguing for SKY to be a pure Monopoly (single buyer)?

Yes! I want Sky to be a regulated monopoly, which just means adding some regulation to the current situation :) Re Pharmac, I'm just using them to demonstrate that while the average person can't negotiate the price of a loaf of bread at the supermarket, governments and companies can not only negotiate, they can also set the terms of negotiation in their favour. So this notion that the price of a season of Game of Thrones is set in stone is not realistic.

NonprayingMantis: I'm afraid I don;tfollwo this peice of logic.

If 2 broadcaster pay $5m each for the content, then they are only going to have half the customers watching it vs one broadcaster (since people won't watch something on one channel, then switchover and watch it again).

So why would they be able to charge customers (whether pay TV customers or advertisers) less as much when the viewership is only going to be half, yet other overheads will be more

The theory goes that a lower price point attracts exponentially more customers, so profits can be higher if you can manage to charge less. This probably doesn't stack up in NZ with Sky at saturation point having nearly 50% of NZ households as subscribers.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

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.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#628680 22-May-2012 06:57

compost:
tdgeek:
compost: So how long did it take for you to get Stockholm Syndrome?

I don't feel your Stockholm Syndrome comment is appropriate. Akin to name calling. crackrdbycracku has just used a different theme to post. And he qualifiedf that.

Come on, that was mild. I'd call you humourless, but you'd probably lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

tdgeek: If both pay 5 million, that sounds doable. But, buying content that is then available FTA becomes not worthwhile, it adds no value to Sky subscribers. So, in the real world, I'd expect Sky to flag it, FTA can pay 10 million. They may or may not be prepared to, or afford to pay that. Not a real solution IMO

JimmyH: So, assuming one of the other broadcasters is a FTA network,

We don't have to assume that. There's no reason why we couldn't have a second pay TV operator. The TAB is streaming live sports legally, potentially it wouldn't take much for them to become a competing quasi pay TV operator.

tdgeek: You are saying that Sky are cornering the sport market so that affects the price they pay? If anything, it would reduce the cost if they are buying big. Sky NZ is teeny in the world content market. FIA sets the price for F1, same will apply I assume to the other sports.

Cornering the market is a strategy with high rewards but also high risks. The Bunker Hunts' failed attempt to corner the silver market in the late 70s ultimately bankrupted them.

DS9: Pharmac is a single buyer. if Pharmac does not buy the drug as a Pt. the drug can be very expensive. Remember when Pharmac did not cover Herceptin it cost cancer Pt.'s $100'00 for treatment.

Now SKY has competition for content but has the funds to out bid rivals. Are you now arguing for SKY to be a pure Monopoly (single buyer)?

Yes! I want Sky to be a regulated monopoly, which just means adding some regulation to the current situation :) Re Pharmac, I'm just using them to demonstrate that while the average person can't negotiate the price of a loaf of bread at the supermarket, governments and companies can not only negotiate, they can also set the terms of negotiation in their favour. So this notion that the price of a season of Game of Thrones is set in stone is not realistic.

NonprayingMantis: I'm afraid I don;tfollwo this peice of logic.

If 2 broadcaster pay $5m each for the content, then they are only going to have half the customers watching it vs one broadcaster (since people won't watch something on one channel, then switchover and watch it again).

So why would they be able to charge customers (whether pay TV customers or advertisers) less as much when the viewership is only going to be half, yet other overheads will be more

The theory goes that a lower price point attracts exponentially more customers, so profits can be higher if you can manage to charge less. This probably doesn't stack up in NZ with Sky at saturation point having nearly 50% of NZ households as subscribers.

I think the point has been made but here goes again, I want GoT but there is only on version, I as buyer do not have choice so the content provider sets the price not the buyer. with Pharmac (Drug companies and Generic Drug companies) and most other industries there is competition, I want product A but product B and C are cheaper so product A is negotiable. GoT is product A but there is no B or C. how would a single buyer have any more negotiating power?

I aim to misbehave.

silverlake

142 posts

Master Geek

#636606 6-Jun-2012 12:28

crackrdbycracku:
OldGeek:
crackrdbycracku: Hi, just for fun I'm going to try to put the case for Sky.

The NZ market is indeed small compared to other countries but what if Sky sold out to one of the Ozzie providers? Would economy of scale result in a product mix that provides greater choice?

Again as Sky:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. That is an interesting suggestion but unfortunately if Sky was sold to an Australian provider then we wouldn't be able to provide the quality of service New Zealanders currently enjoy. Basically, as an adjunct to an Australian service all the special local features and content, such as the All Blacks, would be either lost or severely limited.

The service would be dominated by Australian content or content preferred by Australians. Only a locally provided service can cater for the local needs.

It just wouldn't be the same for customers.

Thanks,

Sky Guys.

Just so everybody is on the same page, I'm not representing Sky nor am I pretending to. I'm just saying what I would say if I was Sky, OK?

If Sky were replaced by Foxtel, Foxtel would continue to show All Blacks, Super 15, ITM Cup, and Black Caps matches. TVNZ would still be in business to provide local content (Sky really doesn't do much of that). The argument about NZ being a small market would be irrelevent.

Foxtel may not be any cheaper than Sky TV, but the Australian consumer at least has a decent FTA Service including advert free ABC, and events such as international rugby, cricket, football, tennis and cycling all live on free to air TV.

We would have a much better TV service if we were considered part of Australia (NZ broadcast rights were part of Australian broadcast rights).

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#636618 6-Jun-2012 12:46

silverlake:
crackrdbycracku:
OldGeek:
crackrdbycracku: Hi, just for fun I'm going to try to put the case for Sky.

The NZ market is indeed small compared to other countries but what if Sky sold out to one of the Ozzie providers? Would economy of scale result in a product mix that provides greater choice?

Again as Sky:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. That is an interesting suggestion but unfortunately if Sky was sold to an Australian provider then we wouldn't be able to provide the quality of service New Zealanders currently enjoy. Basically, as an adjunct to an Australian service all the special local features and content, such as the All Blacks, would be either lost or severely limited.

The service would be dominated by Australian content or content preferred by Australians. Only a locally provided service can cater for the local needs.

It just wouldn't be the same for customers.

Thanks,

Sky Guys.

Just so everybody is on the same page, I'm not representing Sky nor am I pretending to. I'm just saying what I would say if I was Sky, OK?

If Sky were replaced by Foxtel, Foxtel would continue to show All Blacks, Super 15, ITM Cup, and Black Caps matches. TVNZ would still be in business to provide local content (Sky really doesn't do much of that). The argument about NZ being a small market would be irrelevent.

Foxtel may not be any cheaper than Sky TV, but the Australian consumer at least has a decent FTA Service including advert free ABC, and events such as international rugby, cricket, football, tennis and cycling all live on free to air TV.

We would have a much better TV service if we were considered part of Australia (NZ broadcast rights were part of Australian broadcast rights).

Aus 20+ Million, NZ 4 Million who do you think a broadcaster would sell advertising hence programming more to? SKY News Aus for example claims to cover NZ maybe 1%(guess) of coverage is, current affairs would be the same because 90%(guess) aussies would not watch NZ stories. Programs like HOUSE could be co-rebroadcast but aussies like to watch Aussie programs and sports would be Aus cricket, Aussie rules and the warriors would not get a look in for NRL broadcasts. Just my 5c.

I aim to misbehave.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#636628 6-Jun-2012 12:59

Sky Guys here,

If you think we don't show a lot of NZ content now apart from the All Blacks and Warriors you would be in for whole lot less of FoxTel took over.

Basically, only a New Zealand based service with an NZ based executive team providing NZ based solutions can provide the service you currently enjoy.

If FoxTel were allowed to buy up Sky the All Blacks would suffer as the rights to All Blacks games would not be worth as much to an Australian provider. The Australians have a lot of other sports to watch so: How much to we pay for the All Black rights this time? Isn't the most important question ever asked.

The New Zealand viewer would become a small fish in a big pond, full of sharks, and the service to viewers would suffer. It might be cheaper to watch Game of Thrones but that isn't really the point is it?

Keep Sky NZ based.

[The views expressed above do not represent Sky, it's just for fun]

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

silverlake

142 posts

Master Geek

#636673 6-Jun-2012 13:56

crackrdbycracku: Sky Guys here,

If you think we don't show a lot of NZ content now apart from the All Blacks and Warriors you would be in for whole lot less of FoxTel took over.

Basically, only a New Zealand based service with an NZ based executive team providing NZ based solutions can provide the service you currently enjoy.

If FoxTel were allowed to buy up Sky the All Blacks would suffer as the rights to All Blacks games would not be worth as much to an Australian provider. The Australians have a lot of other sports to watch so: How much to we pay for the All Black rights this time? Isn't the most important question ever asked.

The New Zealand viewer would become a small fish in a big pond, full of sharks, and the service to viewers would suffer. It might be cheaper to watch Game of Thrones but that isn't really the point is it?

Keep Sky NZ based.

[The views expressed above do not represent Sky, it's just for fun]

Foxtel do show All Blacks tests and Warriors matches. The All Blacks TV rights are worth heaps not because of the NZ audience but because of the international audience. That wouldn't change if we had Foxtel instead of Sky (and we would be able to watch ABC and SBS too!). TVNZ could keep going as a local NZ broadcaster and would be able to pick up the rights to competitions like the ITM Cup if Foxtel didn't want it.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#637234 7-Jun-2012 11:29

ABC and SBS on Foxtel are like TV1 and TV3 on SKY here. Shown because of a agreement as a NZ channel. ABC and SBS would not be shown in NZ even if Foxtel was only PAYTV in NZ.

What about other non All-Blacks domestic sport, why would Foxtel show that? What about Sky's staff in NZ, all made redundant just so some people can save $10 a month.

silverlake

142 posts

Master Geek

#637393 7-Jun-2012 15:48

Jas777: ABC and SBS on Foxtel are like TV1 and TV3 on SKY here. Shown because of a agreement as a NZ channel. ABC and SBS would not be shown in NZ even if Foxtel was only PAYTV in NZ.

What about other non All-Blacks domestic sport, why would Foxtel show that? What about Sky's staff in NZ, all made redundant just so some people can save $10 a month.

As I said before "We would have a much better TV service if we were considered part of Australia (NZ broadcast rights were part of Australian broadcast rights).". ABC and SBS are far superior to TVNZ and Media Works, and if we could receive ABC and SBS our TV service would be greatly improved.
TVNZ could remain a regional broadcaster showing NZ news, current affairs, the NZ sport that Foxtel didn't want, and reruns of Hogans Heroes and Get Smart (regional in an Australian context).

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#637633 8-Jun-2012 08:44

Never going to happen. ABC is funded by Australian Taxpayers so why would they broadcast it to NZ? The only way it would happen is if NZ becomes the 7th state and is treated like Tasmania. Do you want that to happen?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5