Big drop in Sky subscribers

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 45

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1547893 7-May-2016 08:10

vexxxboy:

jeez, people are getting carried away. Sky still has over 800,00 subscribers and made a profit of over $150 million, It's not like they are at deaths door. . pretty sure netflix and Lightbox in NZ would kill for numbers like that.

Exactly. It has or had a 50% market share of households, so its hardly a slack provider. SVOD has hardly made a dent, was it last year they net churned 700 customers? Now it is making a dent, they lost 5% of the customer base. OTOH thats a small number, but as profit is the top cream, that 5% will hit a lot more than 5%. So now, the time has come to put aside "we are sticky" and set new strategies. Many here seem to feel that its now doom. They have setup their two SVOD's, their boxes now have streaming capability, so to make changes to cater for this larger dent, they are very well placed. Yes, neon is SD, Fanpass is I gather average, but they are mere tech issues to upgrade.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1547895 7-May-2016 08:18

Finch:

This needs to be cheaper. I'm on the $50 deal, I wouldn't have SKY if I wasn't able to be on it.

Same. When we see the Sky deal thread come alive, everyone runs to it. Id go $75 permanent for Basic, Sport, HD, MySky. However, Curiositystream satisfies my doco need, LB and NF are $26, although in fact LB is free for me. But even if it wasn't, LB, CS, NF and Fanpass for $56 max, sometimes less, sometimes nil, is another way to spread that circa $75

Instead of Sky doom, we always talk about choice, Sky will react wth choice, we should be rejoicing. Time to cease the anti Sky sentiment and talk about what it is in reality, the evolution of SVOD and the beneficial affect we are and will be seeing

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1547899 7-May-2016 08:34

tdgeek:

vexxxboy:

jeez, people are getting carried away. Sky still has over 800,00 subscribers and made a profit of over $150 million, It's not like they are at deaths door. . pretty sure netflix and Lightbox in NZ would kill for numbers like that.

Exactly. It has or had a 50% market share of households, so its hardly a slack provider. SVOD has hardly made a dent, was it last year they net churned 700 customers? Now it is making a dent, they lost 5% of the customer base. OTOH thats a small number, but as profit is the top cream, that 5% will hit a lot more than 5%. So now, the time has come to put aside "we are sticky" and set new strategies. Many here seem to feel that its now doom. They have setup their two SVOD's, their boxes now have streaming capability, so to make changes to cater for this larger dent, they are very well placed. Yes, neon is SD, Fanpass is I gather average, but they are mere tech issues to upgrade.

But the point is that deaths door is getting closer and there is no strategy that seems to be working for them yet.

150 million this year, 140 next, 130 the year after.... would you want to invest in sky?

It is not a good situation for them.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1547901 7-May-2016 08:52

surfisup1000:

tdgeek:

vexxxboy:

jeez, people are getting carried away. Sky still has over 800,00 subscribers and made a profit of over $150 million, It's not like they are at deaths door. . pretty sure netflix and Lightbox in NZ would kill for numbers like that.

Exactly. It has or had a 50% market share of households, so its hardly a slack provider. SVOD has hardly made a dent, was it last year they net churned 700 customers? Now it is making a dent, they lost 5% of the customer base. OTOH thats a small number, but as profit is the top cream, that 5% will hit a lot more than 5%. So now, the time has come to put aside "we are sticky" and set new strategies. Many here seem to feel that its now doom. They have setup their two SVOD's, their boxes now have streaming capability, so to make changes to cater for this larger dent, they are very well placed. Yes, neon is SD, Fanpass is I gather average, but they are mere tech issues to upgrade.

But the point is that deaths door is getting closer and there is no strategy that seems to be working for them yet.

150 million this year, 140 next, 130 the year after.... would you want to invest in sky?

It is not a good situation for them.

They have a strategy. Neon and Fanpass and the new streaming capable update that occurred last year.

Nothing has really changed at Sky as we all know, as there has been no need to, now there is.And because we saw these numbers the other day, these numbers have been known by Sky for the whole year. I am sure they have spent a great deal of time on evaluating many scenarios. Setup cost, running cost, effect on churn, pricing strategies, profitability, managing the gradual dismantling of their brick and mortar infrastructure, how to reduce satellite use without having an increase in those costs per customer. Lots of stuff. In other words, normal business strategies.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1547951 7-May-2016 12:09

I think the most interesting move would be if NZRU decided to go it on their own or partner with someone (Coliseum Sports?) else for streaming the NZ Rugby.

The NZRU aren't stupid though, so I suspect they would use the threat of moving elsewhere to put leverage on Sky for broadcast / streaming rights. But as a consequence of that your Basic & Sports subs will go up to reflect the shakedown.

Broadcasting live sports events is not cheap with the HD Broadcast trucks, 5+ cameras & operators + SNG (Plus space on the bird) / Broadcast guys, and a crew to do the mixing. Granted I believe a lot of broadcast is moving to fibre rather than satellite if the sufficient capacity has been rolled into the site.

I still think where the sports team franchises go will ultimately dictate the future of Sky. It's all about the content creators, not the distributors these days.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1547959 7-May-2016 12:41

BarTender:

I think the most interesting move would be if NZRU decided to go it on their own or partner with someone (Coliseum Sports?) else for streaming the NZ Rugby.

The NZRU aren't stupid though, so I suspect they would use the threat of moving elsewhere to put leverage on Sky for broadcast / streaming rights. But as a consequence of that your Basic & Sports subs will go up to reflect the shakedown.

Broadcasting live sports events is not cheap with the HD Broadcast trucks, 5+ cameras & operators + SNG (Plus space on the bird) / Broadcast guys, and a crew to do the mixing. Granted I believe a lot of broadcast is moving to fibre rather than satellite if the sufficient capacity has been rolled into the site.

I still think where the sports team franchises go will ultimately dictate the future of Sky. It's all about the content creators, not the distributors these days.

Agree. What I don't get, is sports are seen as bad Sky monopoly, yet when they lost EPL it was a problem for the users. When they lost cricket last year, Sky is bad. Can't win.

The rugger, I feel that Sky has so much to offer in terms of commentary, related feeds, its quite an overall package that they provide. Its not just a 10 minute pre game, game, and 10 minute after game. Its pretty thorough. Off course FTA can do that, and they could as a PPV? Why not.

Yes, sports and Sky are the glue that makes it not cheap, but a package. Fan Pass is interesting, I assume it started out as a recover some revenue from churn.Maybe it may become a staple for Sky. I have no idea what non sports rights payments are, maybe Sky could become a sports only SVOD one day? And their other options become a cheap as chips SVOD as are NF, LB. Neon may become the non sports option, and FanPass the sports option.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1547986 7-May-2016 14:15

tdgeek:

BarTender:

I think the most interesting move would be if NZRU decided to go it on their own or partner with someone (Coliseum Sports?) else for streaming the NZ Rugby.

The NZRU aren't stupid though, so I suspect they would use the threat of moving elsewhere to put leverage on Sky for broadcast / streaming rights. But as a consequence of that your Basic & Sports subs will go up to reflect the shakedown.

Broadcasting live sports events is not cheap with the HD Broadcast trucks, 5+ cameras & operators + SNG (Plus space on the bird) / Broadcast guys, and a crew to do the mixing. Granted I believe a lot of broadcast is moving to fibre rather than satellite if the sufficient capacity has been rolled into the site.

I still think where the sports team franchises go will ultimately dictate the future of Sky. It's all about the content creators, not the distributors these days.

Agree. What I don't get, is sports are seen as bad Sky monopoly, yet when they lost EPL it was a problem for the users. When they lost cricket last year, Sky is bad. Can't win.

The rugger, I feel that Sky has so much to offer in terms of commentary, related feeds, its quite an overall package that they provide. Its not just a 10 minute pre game, game, and 10 minute after game. Its pretty thorough. Off course FTA can do that, and they could as a PPV? Why not.

Yes, sports and Sky are the glue that makes it not cheap, but a package. Fan Pass is interesting, I assume it started out as a recover some revenue from churn.Maybe it may become a staple for Sky. I have no idea what non sports rights payments are, maybe Sky could become a sports only SVOD one day? And their other options become a cheap as chips SVOD as are NF, LB. Neon may become the non sports option, and FanPass the sports option.

Perhaps its time that management and board had a debate on pricing paradigm. If Neon is $20/mth and FanPass is $55/mth why not align the satellite package accordingly? Its not too dissimilar in totality as basic+sport.

And then those that choose satellite have the option of adding quality drama, HD and PVR as appropriate.

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

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.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1548000 7-May-2016 15:24

I would be happy to keep paying the current price, for the current content.

If only they would get rid of the incessant and annoying ad breaks which are now as bad as, and verging on worse, than FTA TV.

I have been muttering about dumping Sky for ages. Redoing my home infrastructure in a couple of weeks, so that I can play lightbox on all the tellys. If that's a success, I will look at getting an unblocker, and finally replacing Sky with a Netflix/Lightbox/Hulu/iPlayer lineup.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1548002 7-May-2016 15:34

JimmyH:

I would be happy to keep paying the current price, for the current content.

If only they would get rid of the incessant and annoying ad breaks which are now as bad as, and verging on worse, than FTA TV.

I have been muttering about dumping Sky for ages. Redoing my home infrastructure in a couple of weeks, so that I can play lightbox on all the tellys. If that's a success, I will look at getting an unblocker, and finally replacing Sky with a Netflix/Lightbox/Hulu/iPlayer lineup.

Tell us about this, or do you mean ethernet to all rooms?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1548003 7-May-2016 15:37

tdgeek:

They have a strategy. Neon and Fanpass and the new streaming capable update that occurred last year.

Their online strategy will fail as they cannot compete against the global giants. Yet, they had to try.

Each year that more people become connect to fast broadband is a year where sky online services will lose to netflix.

I guess time will tell, regardless of what happens it will be a fascinating journey.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1548008 7-May-2016 16:06

I see the debate about Sky (evil empire vs benign service provider) has again erupted. Some here see Sky as a monopolistic gouger that has been ripping off viewers for years. Others defend it as an ordinary business just doing what businesses do.

When big companies are subjected to standard psychological tests, they generally emerge as rapacious, psychotic, amoral entities dedicated only to their own self-interest. Does this describe Sky and other monopolistic enterprises like it? Does it deserve the contempt some of us feel for it? The defenders of Big Business might like to give this a read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic

Is this really how we want our companies to behave? Is it a model that should be lauded and encouraged? Some defend a company’s right to make a profit any way it can as an essential part of doing business. I disagree. A company that does not treat its customers fairly and with respect will die the death it deserves when real competition emerges. That is the capitalist model at its best.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1548009 7-May-2016 16:11

surfisup1000:

tdgeek:

They have a strategy. Neon and Fanpass and the new streaming capable update that occurred last year.

Their online strategy will fail as they cannot compete against the global giants. Yet, they had to try.

Each year that more people become connect to fast broadband is a year where sky online services will lose to netflix.

I guess time will tell, regardless of what happens it will be a fascinating journey.

Yep, it will be. Neon isn't competing against anyone IMHO. Its setup for when that day arrives. I'd like to see Neon incorporate Igloo, giving the Natgeo BBC, etc channels into the mix, which is essentially Basic, plus other TV programs. For the sports fans, Fanpass can be in the same UI. Discounted for 3, 6, 12 month contract. Or we can pay nil, 15, 20, or 57 in each month, depending whats on. If that all happened, thats Sky Online and not via satellite, cost savings I assume, major in fact I expect.

Then, many of us will be paying good money overall, as most will use multiple services due to fragmentation, but thats ok, more choice overall. For me, if every service I want is on Apple TV, then thats my one STB, same applies to other devices. That will be when the masses will move. Its got to be all in one place for the masses. One device.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1548011 7-May-2016 16:23

Rikkitic:

I see the debate about Sky (evil empire vs benign service provider) has again erupted. Some here see Sky as a monopolistic gouger that has been ripping off viewers for years. Others defend it as an ordinary business just doing what businesses do.

When big companies are subjected to standard psychological tests, they generally emerge as rapacious, psychotic, amoral entities dedicated only to their own self-interest. Does this describe Sky and other monopolistic enterprises like it? Does it deserve the contempt some of us feel for it? The defenders of Big Business might like to give this a read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic

Is this really how we want our companies to behave? Is it a model that should be lauded and encouraged? Some defend a company’s right to make a profit any way it can as an essential part of doing business. I disagree. A company that does not treat its customers fairly and with respect will die the death it deserves when real competition emerges. That is the capitalist model at its best.

This discussion is actually about the drop in Sky subscribers by 5% or so, and why, and the future. Its not about monopolies, of which Sky isn't. Its not about gouging, which based on Sky's ROI is not the case. I had been a Sky subscriber for years and years I was treated fairly. Service was good, reliability was excellent, picture quality is great. The range of content that satisfied me, my wife, and kids was great. There are no issue with its business model. Funny how people whine about this, yet when Sky did not get the cricket, all hell broke loose, bad Sky. The creators create costs for services, years ago, Sky was going to can V8 Supercars due to the exorbitant costs, cricket the same last year which did happen. The providers are at the mercy of some of these sport administrators, they are the ones treating everyone below them unfairly. You can agree the same with TV and movie owners.

Again, this thread is just about Sky and its ability to adapt to the SVOD competition which has been of no effect till now. What will they do? Go SVOD? Reduce pricing to be more competitive? I feel they will go SVOD as they had the nous to set that up in recent years, now the time has come to decide how will they migrate a shift to SVOD, and what will happen to satellite?

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1548014 7-May-2016 16:30

ockel:

tdgeek:

BarTender:

I think the most interesting move would be if NZRU decided to go it on their own or partner with someone (Coliseum Sports?) else for streaming the NZ Rugby.

The NZRU aren't stupid though, so I suspect they would use the threat of moving elsewhere to put leverage on Sky for broadcast / streaming rights. But as a consequence of that your Basic & Sports subs will go up to reflect the shakedown.

Broadcasting live sports events is not cheap with the HD Broadcast trucks, 5+ cameras & operators + SNG (Plus space on the bird) / Broadcast guys, and a crew to do the mixing. Granted I believe a lot of broadcast is moving to fibre rather than satellite if the sufficient capacity has been rolled into the site.

I still think where the sports team franchises go will ultimately dictate the future of Sky. It's all about the content creators, not the distributors these days.

Agree. What I don't get, is sports are seen as bad Sky monopoly, yet when they lost EPL it was a problem for the users. When they lost cricket last year, Sky is bad. Can't win.

The rugger, I feel that Sky has so much to offer in terms of commentary, related feeds, its quite an overall package that they provide. Its not just a 10 minute pre game, game, and 10 minute after game. Its pretty thorough. Off course FTA can do that, and they could as a PPV? Why not.

Yes, sports and Sky are the glue that makes it not cheap, but a package. Fan Pass is interesting, I assume it started out as a recover some revenue from churn.Maybe it may become a staple for Sky. I have no idea what non sports rights payments are, maybe Sky could become a sports only SVOD one day? And their other options become a cheap as chips SVOD as are NF, LB. Neon may become the non sports option, and FanPass the sports option.

Perhaps its time that management and board had a debate on pricing paradigm. If Neon is $20/mth and FanPass is $55/mth why not align the satellite package accordingly? Its not too dissimilar in totality as basic+sport.

And then those that choose satellite have the option of adding quality drama, HD and PVR as appropriate.

Do you have any insight to the costs of providing via satellite? If say, Sky went SVOD in a hurry. Its already setup, they just need to create a content model, get it on lots of devices and market it. Existing MySky is now streaming capable, thats a biggie. Say Neon and Igloo combined, and Fanpass and Sky Sport. Lets say over time, 2/3 went to SVOD. How will that effect the satellite costs per customer? If it can be fairly variable costs based, that might be an easy move. If its a huge bulk fee at capacity levels, that may be very difficult to run as a smaller service?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1548018 7-May-2016 17:03

tdgeek:

ockel:

tdgeek:

BarTender:

I think the most interesting move would be if NZRU decided to go it on their own or partner with someone (Coliseum Sports?) else for streaming the NZ Rugby.

The NZRU aren't stupid though, so I suspect they would use the threat of moving elsewhere to put leverage on Sky for broadcast / streaming rights. But as a consequence of that your Basic & Sports subs will go up to reflect the shakedown.

Broadcasting live sports events is not cheap with the HD Broadcast trucks, 5+ cameras & operators + SNG (Plus space on the bird) / Broadcast guys, and a crew to do the mixing. Granted I believe a lot of broadcast is moving to fibre rather than satellite if the sufficient capacity has been rolled into the site.

I still think where the sports team franchises go will ultimately dictate the future of Sky. It's all about the content creators, not the distributors these days.

Agree. What I don't get, is sports are seen as bad Sky monopoly, yet when they lost EPL it was a problem for the users. When they lost cricket last year, Sky is bad. Can't win.

The rugger, I feel that Sky has so much to offer in terms of commentary, related feeds, its quite an overall package that they provide. Its not just a 10 minute pre game, game, and 10 minute after game. Its pretty thorough. Off course FTA can do that, and they could as a PPV? Why not.

Yes, sports and Sky are the glue that makes it not cheap, but a package. Fan Pass is interesting, I assume it started out as a recover some revenue from churn.Maybe it may become a staple for Sky. I have no idea what non sports rights payments are, maybe Sky could become a sports only SVOD one day? And their other options become a cheap as chips SVOD as are NF, LB. Neon may become the non sports option, and FanPass the sports option.

Perhaps its time that management and board had a debate on pricing paradigm. If Neon is $20/mth and FanPass is $55/mth why not align the satellite package accordingly? Its not too dissimilar in totality as basic+sport.

And then those that choose satellite have the option of adding quality drama, HD and PVR as appropriate.

Do you have any insight to the costs of providing via satellite? If say, Sky went SVOD in a hurry. Its already setup, they just need to create a content model, get it on lots of devices and market it. Existing MySky is now streaming capable, thats a biggie. Say Neon and Igloo combined, and Fanpass and Sky Sport. Lets say over time, 2/3 went to SVOD. How will that effect the satellite costs per customer? If it can be fairly variable costs based, that might be an easy move. If its a huge bulk fee at capacity levels, that may be very difficult to run as a smaller service?

I recall that the cost for a channel on a satellite was roughly $500k per annum. Contracts on the Optus satellites are leases that run for about 15 years (being the expected life of the satellite). It was always tricky for a small operator to justify putting their signal up there given the multiyear commitment. If you only had a handful of people watching (say the Travel channel or Sommet) then economically you've got to say can the advertising or incremental subscription cover the cost of having the content and the delivery.

Delivering via a CDN is not free though. The estimates for Netflix put the cost of delivery at roughly 15% of revenue. Obviously that varies depending on quality and committment - but I'm well outta my depth on that sort of stuff.

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 45