New SkyTV CEO and Possible New Services?

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › New SkyTV CEO and Possible New Services?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2135191 27-Nov-2018 12:26

MikeB4:

Have a chat to someone who works for an ISP or try some research ( a response you so often give) regarding ISP traffic data during say the RWC or Rugby Championship as examples.

As advertising is a "Freeview offering I don't see how the reply regarding the cost of advertising is nonsensical.

I don't see how people streaming rugby equates to wanting Sky for free, which I think was your point. Maybe they just want to watch Rugby, which ought to be available FTA since it is a national sport. One of Sky's marketing tactics has been to cut off public access to important content by encasing it in exclusive rights deals to force viewers to subscribe to Sky. As things like this move to alternative platforms, I doubt there will be many wanting Sky for free or any other way. FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials.

Speaking of which, your second point is nonsensical because the cost of buying advertising has nothing to do with watching television. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2135202 27-Nov-2018 12:39

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

Have a chat to someone who works for an ISP or try some research ( a response you so often give) regarding ISP traffic data during say the RWC or Rugby Championship as examples.

As advertising is a "Freeview offering I don't see how the reply regarding the cost of advertising is nonsensical.

I don't see how people streaming rugby equates to wanting Sky for free, which I think was your point. Maybe they just want to watch Rugby, which ought to be available FTA since it is a national sport. One of Sky's marketing tactics has been to cut off public access to important content by encasing it in exclusive rights deals to force viewers to subscribe to Sky. As things like this move to alternative platforms, I doubt there will be many wanting Sky for free or any other way. FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials.

Speaking of which, your second point is nonsensical because the cost of buying advertising has nothing to do with watching television. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

During the WRC any streaming that was not using a Sky service or Sky approved service in New Zealand was doing so in breach of the Sky owned rights. If you wish to blame anyone for the fact that Sky was successful in their bid then blame the Free to air providers who either did not bid or unsuccessfully placed bids. That does not give rights to leachers to take the services in breach of the assigned rights.

As for your point I have highlighted, they are absolutely linked. Free to air would last a very short time without advertising revenue has a lot to do with watching , something you actually agreed with then denied " FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials."

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2135204 27-Nov-2018 12:43

Going off topic

The topic is Sky's new CEO and new services. The CEO seems to have an excellent pedigree. The new services look great. Might there be a price decrease for these new services? How many devices can I have the app installed on? The app only will be later, I wonder how much later. Once we see these answers, and probably other answers, and Sparks details for us sport watchers, it will all be a lot clearer. I am picking some incentives by Sky to help churn

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2135209 27-Nov-2018 12:47

Rikkitic:

I don't see how people streaming rugby equates to wanting Sky for free, which I think was your point. Maybe they just want to watch Rugby, which ought to be available FTA since it is a national sport. One of Sky's marketing tactics has been to cut off public access to important content by encasing it in exclusive rights deals to force viewers to subscribe to Sky. As things like this move to alternative platforms, I doubt there will be many wanting Sky for free or any other way. FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials.

Speaking of which, your second point is nonsensical because the cost of buying advertising has nothing to do with watching television. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

Sadly without the advertising there would be no content. So the fact remains that it costs $300m per annum to run a three channel full news/entertainment business. It costs more than $100m per annum for someone to run a 2 channel entertainment business (although itd claim to be a full news offering too). Freeview is just a marketing brand that offers nothing but branding and certification. Even its bandwidth is owned and offered by two broadcasters and Kordia. Get away from claiming anything about Freeview and refer to it correctly as ad-funded television.

BTW, rugby is not a national sport. Its just one sporting code that some people play. I doubt its even the most popular anymore. It appeals to a minority and there is no justification for it being available as ad-funded or public funded television.

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

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2135211 27-Nov-2018 12:52

It's probably too early to say, but I have pretty decent sized concerns around Sparks ability to deliver the RWC with the same quality as has been present in the last two RWC's. Whilst they have some experience by the way of Lightbox, LB has had a pretty shaky start, there are quite a few issues in the LB related threads, at least as many as the ones in the Sky digital delivery threads like Skynow or whatever it was called. I am unsure what the numbers look like for the most watched content on Lightbox at peak times, but content is delivered across a longer time frame if you say Game of Thrones etc.. People tend to want to watch Rugby Live or close to it, which means the servers will be hit much harder for a shorter period of time. This may be allayed somewhat by the fact Spark may hand subrights to Sky and spread the load. TVNZ's coverage of the commonwealth games was pretty awful digitally. There are instances of new rights holders giving the rights back when they have been unable to deliver. Kiwi's won't tolerate a poor RWC experience and that's fair.

Sky is a proven performer in this area. Their coverage and local presence is second to none so far.

There are very few details available yet as to how this will be delivered, I just hope they can deliver a decent experience.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2135215 27-Nov-2018 12:56

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

Have a chat to someone who works for an ISP or try some research ( a response you so often give) regarding ISP traffic data during say the RWC or Rugby Championship as examples.

As advertising is a "Freeview offering I don't see how the reply regarding the cost of advertising is nonsensical.

I don't see how people streaming rugby equates to wanting Sky for free, which I think was your point. Maybe they just want to watch Rugby, which ought to be available FTA since it is a national sport. One of Sky's marketing tactics has been to cut off public access to important content by encasing it in exclusive rights deals to force viewers to subscribe to Sky. As things like this move to alternative platforms, I doubt there will be many wanting Sky for free or any other way. FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials.

Speaking of which, your second point is nonsensical because the cost of buying advertising has nothing to do with watching television. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

During the WRC any streaming that was not using a Sky service or Sky approved service in New Zealand was doing so in breach of the Sky owned rights. If you wish to blame anyone for the fact that Sky was successful in their bid then blame the Free to air providers who either did not bid or unsuccessfully placed bids. That does not give rights to leachers to take the services in breach of the assigned rights.

As for your point I have highlighted, they are absolutely linked. Free to air would last a very short time without advertising revenue has a lot to do with watching , something you actually agreed with then denied " FTA is not getting it for free, by the way, since you pay for it by enduring the commercials."

People pirating a specific sports event does not necessarily equate to them wanting everything for free. Maybe they just don't want to be ripped off by Sky. I am not trying to justify such behaviour. Pirating is wrong and I condemn it, but your example does not prove the point you are trying to make. As with music streaming, when a reasonable option becomes available, most people will take it. I disagree with your assertion that most people want everything free.

If someone chooses to watch Freeview, part of that choice is putting up with the commercials since that is how the content is paid for. But it has nothing to do with the cost of the commercials to advertisers. You are conflating two completely separate things. People do not get to choose the commercials they want to watch. The cost of the commercials has nothing to do with their choice of program.

Edited to add: Agree with tdgeek that this has gone off-topic so will comment no further. I have made my points. I remain open to any future changes Sky makes and will follow them with interest.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2135217 27-Nov-2018 13:03

networkn:

770,000 people feel differently and find value. I have Sky, I also have Netflix. Sky is a better collator of content by topic specific , and it's fast forward and rewind, esp for sports, is superior. I also don't need an internet connection. It contains plenty of content I find valueable which is why I have had it for 13 years on the trot. Even if 99% of it is crap you won't watch, it's still possible for 1% to provide you $100 worth of value.

I don't understand why you continue to comment in these threads about Sky as someone who by your own admission "supposedly" has no interest in it.

How about you read their last set of financial results and THEN comment if you feel they are inefficient? Paying a lot FOR content rights doesn't make them inefficient.

The figure is probably a lot higher than 770,000. I believe that is the number of subscriptions. Going back to my days working for a Newspaper the talk then was not about the paid circulation but readership. In Wellington the Dominion had a considerably smaller circulation compared to the Evening Post but had a far greater readership due the trains and offices etc . So looking at the average house and the number of folks living and or visiting the figure for viewers of Sky would easily be well over 1.5 million.

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.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2135218 27-Nov-2018 13:03

I wonder , if little companies like sky will eventually be snapped up by the likes of netflix etc.... if that happened, netflix would have near domination of the new zealand broadcasting market. Synergies and the like blah blah.

Of course, any purchase of sky would have to be much less than it's current valuation.... considering ever declining subscriber numbers. Value sky at half the number of subscribers they have today, then you're talking a possible price.

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2135219 27-Nov-2018 13:04

Rikkitic:

People pirating a specific sports event does not necessarily equate to them wanting everything for free. Maybe they just don't want to be ripped off by Sky. I am not trying to justify such behaviour. Pirating is wrong and I condemn it, but your example does not prove the point you are trying to make. As with music streaming, when a reasonable option becomes available, most people will take it. I disagree with your assertion that most people want everything free.

If someone chooses to watch Freeview, part of that choice is putting up with the commercials since that is how the content is paid for. But it has nothing to do with the cost of the commercials to advertisers. You are conflating two completely separate things. People do not get to choose the commercials they want to watch. The cost of the commercials has nothing to do with their choice of program.

Rights cost money, if someone buys the rights and then expects to make a reasonable profit (omg the horror!) which is supported by their financials then taking it without paying, IS expecting something for free.

If Sky didn't add advertising to their platform, it's a fair assumption it would be even more expensive.

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2135221 27-Nov-2018 13:07

surfisup1000:

I wonder , if little companies like sky could be bought up by the likes of netflix etc.... if that happened, netflix would have near domination of the new zealand broadcasting market.

There is *zero* chance of this, nor of Amazon taking the Rugby rights in NZ. What would they get out of this? Responsibility for all the infrastructure for commentating on sports, for what would amount to a completely tiny profit, merely a rounding error in their P&L?

There are people complaining about the "monopoly" of Sky, yet you want to create one with a company with no NZ presence, that pays no tax here and who wouldn't give a rats backside about the needs of Kiwis.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2135222 27-Nov-2018 13:08

Rikkitic:

t does not necessarily equate to them wanting everything for free. Maybe they just don't want to be ripped off by Sky. I am not trying to justify such behaviour. Pirating is wrong and I condemn it, but your example does not prove the point you are trying to make. As with music streaming, when a reasonable option becomes available, most people will take it. I disagree with your assertion that most people want everything free.

If someone chooses to watch Freeview, part of that choice is putting up with the commercials since that is how the content is paid for. But it has nothing to do with the cost of the commercials to advertisers. You are conflating two completely separate things. People do not get to choose the commercials they want to watch. The cost of the commercials has nothing to do with their choice of program.

Edited to add: Agree with tdgeek that this has gone off-topic so will comment no further. I have made my points. I remain open to any future changes Sky makes and will follow them with interest.

psssttttt, I never said or asserted most people want it for free. Those are your words not mine.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2135226 27-Nov-2018 13:13

MikeB4:

Further to the proposed services no matter what price point it is offered at there will be a sizeable group that still won't buy it as they believe they are entitled to have it free.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2135229 27-Nov-2018 13:16

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

Further to the proposed services no matter what price point it is offered at there will be a sizeable group that still won't buy it as they believe they are entitled to have it free.

Oh dear god and YOU added the "that most people want everything free. " See the difference?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2135230 27-Nov-2018 13:20

If the new services that Sky hopes to bring are good I will gladly subscribe and stop my offshore subscriptions. I would rather buy local.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2135234 27-Nov-2018 13:21

Rikkitic:Maybe they just don't want to be ripped off by Sky.

On what do you base 'ripped off by sky'?

Sky have over 1200 employees, so a pretty sizeable company. 1.5 billion in assets, on which they make about an 8% return.

This is not a huge return by any standard. In fact, it is dangerously low and almost non-viable given declining subscriber numbers.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8