SKY announce Rugby rights to 2025

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › SKY announce Rugby rights to 2025

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2337412 15-Oct-2019 13:43

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2337419 15-Oct-2019 13:55

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

680,000? That means virtually every Sky TV was on one match? Thats very hard to believe. They had 750,321 subscribers in Feb. Remove motel and hotel rooms, and Neon, that might leave 680,000 home TV's. and every single one has Sky Sport and every single one watched the match?

RWC. Its not on Spark Sport exclusively, its also on FTA FTA = free and thats 1.6 million TV's

No further questions your honour! :-)

deonb

3 posts

Wannabe Geek

#2337427 15-Oct-2019 14:16

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

don't think the gap is as big as you think... The SparkSports number is actual streams therefore at an average 3-4 person per household, its closer to 400K-530K, stats a wonderful science...

JonnyCam

644 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

ID Verified

#2337562 15-Oct-2019 17:44

deonb:

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

don't think the gap is as big as you think... The SparkSports number is actual streams therefore at an average 3-4 person per household, its closer to 400K-530K, stats a wonderful science...

Surely not every Sky subscriber is watching the game in isolation also?

Here are the supposed stats from twitter when Sky was trolling Spark

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

#2337811 15-Oct-2019 22:25

decibel:

JPNZ:

NZ Rugby's decision to take a 5 per cent stake in Sky recognised "the increased alignment and strengthened relationship between Sky and NZR and their mutual support for one another and shared commitment to develop and promote the game", Sky said in a statement to the NZX.

Surely this 5% is going to cause major problems in the future - how is NZ Rugby going to sell the rights to Spark or anyone else in years to come without crashing the value of their investment?

With this deal, bidding for domestic rights has just become nonsensical - why would Spark even bother bidding in 2026 when they know that extreme favouritism will be shown to Sky? Instead in future the model may just shift to revenue sharing with NZRU receiving some percentage of Sky's income.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#2337910 16-Oct-2019 08:13

compost:

decibel:

JPNZ:

NZ Rugby's decision to take a 5 per cent stake in Sky recognised "the increased alignment and strengthened relationship between Sky and NZR and their mutual support for one another and shared commitment to develop and promote the game", Sky said in a statement to the NZX.

Surely this 5% is going to cause major problems in the future - how is NZ Rugby going to sell the rights to Spark or anyone else in years to come without crashing the value of their investment?

With this deal, bidding for domestic rights has just become nonsensical - why would Spark even bother bidding in 2026 when they know that extreme favouritism will be shown to Sky? Instead in future the model may just shift to revenue sharing with NZRU receiving some percentage of Sky's income.

The real question for 2026 is whether NZR goes DTC or via a broadcaster. If streaming is suitably accepted (and has the broad population coverage that the NZR wants) as a delivery method then why would NZR bother selling the streaming rights to someone like Spark (or Amazon or Facebook) or Sky when it could go direct? Why pay a middle man?

NZR's deal places it in a stronger position to obtain production assets and production knowledge. Everyone is talking Sky/Spark but the smartest guy in the room is still Brent Impey at NZR. One of the sharpest minds in NZ media that you will ever have the privilege to meet.

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

Dell

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

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2075

#2337931 16-Oct-2019 09:03

looking at the figures where Spark Sport is losing money on the RWC with only paying 13million, how were they expecting to make money if they bid for all the rugby rights. Genuine question.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2337942 16-Oct-2019 09:07

vexxxboy:

looking at the figures where Spark Sport is losing money on the RWC with only paying 13million, how were they expecting to make money if they bid for all the rugby rights. Genuine question.

Esp at $20 a month including the other sports. I suspect $20 a month for SpSp is an "introductory, market exploring" option. I believe the actual like required sub will be somewhere around $30 a month based on what I see other subscriptions for sport overseas are at.

Most services are introduced to Market at a lower price to get market share.

JPNZ

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2337943 16-Oct-2019 09:08

deonb:

don't think the gap is as big as you think... The SparkSports number is actual streams therefore at an average 3-4 person per household, its closer to 400K-530K, stats a wonderful science...

LOL, 600,000 number I posted wasn't people it was Tv's / Screens so try compare apples with apples please. If your saying 400-530k then I'll multiply 600,000 to 2 million

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

JPNZ

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2337946 16-Oct-2019 09:15

tdgeek:

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

680,000? That means virtually every Sky TV was on one match? Thats very hard to believe. They had 750,321 subscribers in Feb. Remove motel and hotel rooms, and Neon, that might leave 680,000 home TV's. and every single one has Sky Sport and every single one watched the match?

RWC. Its not on Spark Sport exclusively, its also on FTA FTA = free and thats 1.6 million TV's

No further questions your honour! :-)

Come on your better than that... Once again lets compare apples and apples. You cannot bring FTA into it as its not live and I didn't bring Prime into it. Live rugby vs Live rugby I included SkyGo and Rugbypass as they are streaming options in NZ. Fairs fair. And just to clarify again this is Bledisloe 1 match vs the opening AB's vs SA match in the RWC. Fairest comparison there can be

600,000+ on Sky vs 132,000 on Spark still is correct isin't it?

Prove me wrong

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2337964 16-Oct-2019 09:54

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

That's technically 100% correct. But the fact is in Sky's heyday only 50% had it, now its less. For whatever reason that they dont subscibe, they dont subscribe. They can afford it but its too expensive or they cannot afford it. Either way, its less eyes. More so when its $100 a month but you have to sign up for at least 6 to watch RWC. Its always been less eyes.

I can see a day when more backhaul is added to rural towers, as the problem isn't going away.

You say Sky has less eyes which is correct, I think subs numbers are down about 100k over the last 3-4 years.

This years 1st All Blacks Bledisloe cup match on Sky and SkyGo = 680,000

The 1st All Blacks RWC game vs South Africa on Spark Sport 132,000

Who really has less eyes?

680,000? That means virtually every Sky TV was on one match? Thats very hard to believe. They had 750,321 subscribers in Feb. Remove motel and hotel rooms, and Neon, that might leave 680,000 home TV's. and every single one has Sky Sport and every single one watched the match?

RWC. Its not on Spark Sport exclusively, its also on FTA FTA = free and thats 1.6 million TV's

No further questions your honour! :-)

Come on your better than that... Once again lets compare apples and apples. You cannot bring FTA into it as its not live and I didn't bring Prime into it. Live rugby vs Live rugby I included SkyGo and Rugbypass as they are streaming options in NZ. Fairs fair. And just to clarify again this is Bledisloe 1 match vs the opening AB's vs SA match in the RWC. Fairest comparison there can be

600,000+ on Sky vs 132,000 on Spark still is correct isin't it?

Prove me wrong

We are talking eyes, not profit. When you can buy live at a price, but you can also get it free for a measly 3600 second delay, and the big matches are FTA, then its not apples vs apples is it? $80 for 6 weeks, and where for many there isnt many "great" games, and then the "great" games are free and no delay, isnt a fair comparison. The issue here is eyes. Satellite had essentially 1.6 million eyes (households), 100%. Broadband has 85% coverage. Some of that is rural AND low speed. Many rurals are acceptable or better speed. Drop that 85% coverage to say 80%? 80% of broadband in NZ households will work. Satellite still has 100% coverage, but its "real" coverage was 50% now around 40%

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

JPNZ

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2337991 16-Oct-2019 10:09

tdgeek:

We are talking eyes, not profit. When you can buy live at a price, but you can also get it free for a measly 3600 second delay, and the big matches are FTA, then its not apples vs apples is it? $80 for 6 weeks, and where for many there isnt many "great" games, and then the "great" games are free and no delay, isnt a fair comparison. The issue here is eyes. Satellite had essentially 1.6 million eyes (households), 100%. Broadband has 85% coverage. Some of that is rural AND low speed. Many rurals are acceptable or better speed. Drop that 85% coverage to say 80%? 80% of broadband in NZ households will work. Satellite still has 100% coverage, but its "real" coverage was 50% now around 40%

But it was on prime delayed by 1 hour as well so it is apples vs apples, face it Spark failed to gain enough Subs. I'm just comparing two big matches that had to be watched live by true fans. What do you think Spark numbers will be after the RWC back down to sub 40k?

You can have all the fibre/broadband coverage in the world, doesn't mean your going to have people sign up, especially when the service has the reputation Spark does now.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2337998 16-Oct-2019 10:19

JPNZ:

tdgeek:

We are talking eyes, not profit. When you can buy live at a price, but you can also get it free for a measly 3600 second delay, and the big matches are FTA, then its not apples vs apples is it? $80 for 6 weeks, and where for many there isnt many "great" games, and then the "great" games are free and no delay, isnt a fair comparison. The issue here is eyes. Satellite had essentially 1.6 million eyes (households), 100%. Broadband has 85% coverage. Some of that is rural AND low speed. Many rurals are acceptable or better speed. Drop that 85% coverage to say 80%? 80% of broadband in NZ households will work. Satellite still has 100% coverage, but its "real" coverage was 50% now around 40%

But it was on prime delayed by 1 hour as well so it is apples vs apples, face it Spark failed to gain enough Subs. I'm just comparing two big matches that had to be watched live by true fans. What do you think Spark numbers will be after the RWC back down to sub 40k?

You can have all the fibre/broadband coverage in the world, doesn't mean your going to have people sign up, especially when the service has the reputation Spark does now.

If you feel $80 to watch live is the same as free for the big games, with minor games delayed then fine. If you check the thread here, most found it best to watch FTA, as most big games are free and live, some are free and delayed, there isnt a lot of motivation to watch minnows live for $80.

What do you think Spark numbers will be after the RWC back down to sub 40k? No idea what you mean. You dont mean people will unsubscribe from RWC sub once its over?? Shock horror, I hope not...:-) In fact it won't exist as a paid sub. Also Spark Sport isnt required as a paid sub to get RWC, so thats also irrelevant

You dont like Spark, thats fine, many others dont like Spark or 2D or Voda or Sky, doesnt really matter

JPNZ

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2338000 16-Oct-2019 10:29

Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2338006 16-Oct-2019 10:51

JPNZ: Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

We dont need to worry, nothing to worry about at all. I'll be watching it on Sky, I'll be watching Formula 1 on Spark. It doest matter where it is on as long as it is on

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6