New Sky TV advert, thanks for paying nz sports teams salaries.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › New Sky TV advert, thanks for paying nz sports teams salaries.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1885781 18-Oct-2017 16:10

sbiddle:

Sport is the one reason I feel sorry for the Sky.

The world has moved to a model where Pay TV providers fund sport - and without Sky the simple reality is NZ Rugby and the All Blacks would not be the brand that they are today.

Unless somebody else is going to step up and fund the tens of millions that go directly from Sky then FTA coverage can never happen.

It is one revenue stream, however there are also others such as advertising and sponsorships. But even if it was on FTA, the sport would still get money as it would be the taxpayer paying for it, as well as TV advertsing. eg The cost is shared across a far larger viewer base,so more viewers and more advertising money being spent due to more eyeballs.

IMO, as taxpayer money actually goes to fund a lot of these sports, such as the olympics, they are events of national significance and should be on FTA TV. This is proven by other countries who have this written into legislation, so no matter whether you are rich or poor, you can enjoy these sports on FTA TV.

I used to be into watching sport a lot when I was younger, but since most has moved to paytv, I have lost a lot of interest in them. I also don't think professionalism has been great for the actual sports either, unless you equate making lots of money off the sport as success. But there is far more to sport than just money. It is supposed to be a social healthy activity to get people out there being active.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1885868 18-Oct-2017 18:33

mattwnz:

It is one revenue stream, however there are also others such as advertising and sponsorships. But even if it was on FTA, the sport would still get money as it would be the taxpayer paying for it, as well as TV advertsing. eg The cost is shared across a far larger viewer base,so more viewers and more advertising money being spent due to more eyeballs.

IMO, as taxpayer money actually goes to fund a lot of these sports, such as the olympics, they are events of national significance and should be on FTA TV. This is proven by other countries who have this written into legislation, so no matter whether you are rich or poor, you can enjoy these sports on FTA TV.

The Olympics haven't been FTA for a number of years. Why? Because FTA networks can't afford them.

It's all find pushing for these events to be on FTA TV but the reasons they aren't all come back to one thing - $$

It's fine saying other countries with a population 5x higher than ours can have the events on FTA TV. The rights cost the same so that means the effective cost is far less. Do you think the government should be spending somewhere in the vicinity of $100+ million per year just to fund FTA events of "national significance"?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1885886 18-Oct-2017 19:01

sbiddle:

It's fine saying other countries with a population 5x higher than ours can have the events on FTA TV. The rights cost the same so that means the effective cost is far less. Do you think the government should be spending somewhere in the vicinity of $100+ million per year just to fund FTA events of "national significance"?

And why this idiotic situation where you have one rights region the size of America, with nearly 400 million people, then another limited to New Zealand, with less than 5 million? How can that be fair, or even sensible?

I am utterly against this regionalised nonsense as a matter of principle, but f you have to have it, at the very least there should be a 'pacific' region including us, Australia, and the islands. Then may be we could afford these ridiculous sports rights.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1885934 18-Oct-2017 19:59

Sky pays the big dollars and as thats spread over its almost 800,000 users, (as Basic subsidises sport) thats one way. If it was spread across all FTA users, i.e. every TV household, thats cheaper. If that was cheaper, but many wont pay as they arent into sport, or that sport. Taxpayers will complain that rivers can be cleaned, etc, etc instead of airing free rugby.

No easy answer, as many want everything for nix.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1885936 18-Oct-2017 20:01

Rikkitic:

sbiddle:

It's fine saying other countries with a population 5x higher than ours can have the events on FTA TV. The rights cost the same so that means the effective cost is far less. Do you think the government should be spending somewhere in the vicinity of $100+ million per year just to fund FTA events of "national significance"?

And why this idiotic situation where you have one rights region the size of America, with nearly 400 million people, then another limited to New Zealand, with less than 5 million? How can that be fair, or even sensible?

I am utterly against this regionalised nonsense as a matter of principle, but f you have to have it, at the very least there should be a 'pacific' region including us, Australia, and the islands. Then may be we could afford these ridiculous sports rights.

I would have thought that rights to NZ would be cheaper than AUS, or anywhere else bigger. Probably more expensive per capita though.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1885945 18-Oct-2017 20:24

Or in some cases such as the docos, Sky appear to purchase from an Aus network as I'd imagine the rights for those are sold at a regional level that is too great for us.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1885955 18-Oct-2017 20:58

sbiddle's point is that we can't afford FTA rights for big events because our population is too small. My point is that if we were part of Australia and more for this purpose then our population might be big enough.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886019 19-Oct-2017 06:42

Rikkitic:

sbiddle's point is that we can't afford FTA rights for big events because our population is too small. My point is that if we were part of Australia and more for this purpose then our population might be big enough.

If that happened, the content owners will take a revenue cut, and I dont see that happening

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1886052 19-Oct-2017 09:06

Let us all shed a tear for the poor, suffering content owners. Maybe there is a reason there is so much piracy.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1886079 19-Oct-2017 09:27

vexxxboy:

Rikkitic:

I don't think it is even just a Sky issue. All who are in any way involved in commercial television in this country should be shaking in their boots. Every young person I know is absorbed by either gaming or YouTube. I know several who have aerial or cable TV connections that they have never bothered to hook up. They just don't see the need. I think traditional linear broadcast TV is an old person's game, and when we all die out, there won't be anyone left to watch it.

and who is meant to provide all the content that Netflix etc rely on .

The same people who supply it to the networks now. i.e. CBS supplies to Netflix Star Trek Discovery to Netflix.

Regards,

Old3eyes

Starlith

210 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 82

Trusted

#1886109 19-Oct-2017 09:53

Going by that atleast I know how little they care for All Whites, Phoenix, NZF Prem Teams.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4