Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 57

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1927219 31-Dec-2017 00:10

tdgeek:

If you get all the SVOD, how much is that? 6 times $15?

The thing is , because your SVOD contract is one month you can jump around as you see fit. You can take that subscription, watch that series you want and drop the service straight away.

Your other comment about NF and sky not competing isn't true. These services are both competing for people who want more than FTA can offer.

As more and more services become easily accessible (I signed for amazon the other day so the kids can watch grand tour) the hurt must be growing for sky.

One day the SVOD services will consolidate as the hugest media players make their moves a la the recent disney buyup of fox ( fox and disney own 60% of hulu). Life is good for the SVOD consumer until these mergers occur when the prices will increase.

SVOD must be attractive on a global scale assuming that the world has internet served to the home. Any player can scale their operation up and go global but the fly in the global ointment is regional licensing.

The problem for sky is that they're too small to fight these global players and for now they're tied to a historical means of content delivery. I get 4k UHD movies delivered perfectly over fibre to my TV for ~$15/month FFS !!

sky were maxxed out with nz households around the %50 mark but that is now shrinking. With the extra costs for HD, recording, 2nd room and so on sky show utter contempt for their customers as they seek to increase their revenues by squeezing the users they do have for more money. Some customers are obviously pushing back.

If you're happy with the service , great. It's not value for me.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927233 31-Dec-2017 07:48

dafman:

It's rubbish to say Sky are not trying to compete on movies. The Sky boxes at our holiday homes had HEAPS of movie options. Sadly, however, few of these were accessible as, apparently, $100+ each month ain't enough to actually watch movies - we kept getting dead links telling us there was no subscription to most movie channels.

Its not rubbish, its math. Why pay the $27 add-on for a few dozen or more when you can get NF for half the price and a few thousand? Sky has always had movies, and they still have them, in no doubt a declining sub for that option

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927235 31-Dec-2017 07:58

elpenguino:

tdgeek:

If you get all the SVOD, how much is that? 6 times $15?

The thing is , because your SVOD contract is one month you can jump around as you see fit. You can take that subscription, watch that series you want and drop the service straight away.

Your other comment about NF and sky not competing isn't true. These services are both competing for people who want more than FTA can offer.

As more and more services become easily accessible (I signed for amazon the other day so the kids can watch grand tour) the hurt must be growing for sky.

One day the SVOD services will consolidate as the hugest media players make their moves a la the recent disney buyup of fox ( fox and disney own 60% of hulu). Life is good for the SVOD consumer until these mergers occur when the prices will increase.

SVOD must be attractive on a global scale assuming that the world has internet served to the home. Any player can scale their operation up and go global but the fly in the global ointment is regional licensing.

The problem for sky is that they're too small to fight these global players and for now they're tied to a historical means of content delivery. I get 4k UHD movies delivered perfectly over fibre to my TV for ~$15/month FFS !!

sky were maxxed out with nz households around the %50 mark but that is now shrinking. With the extra costs for HD, recording, 2nd room and so on sky show utter contempt for their customers as they seek to increase their revenues by squeezing the users they do have for more money. Some customers are obviously pushing back.

If you're happy with the service , great. It's not value for me.

Some may go from one SVOD to another per month, but if the need to access everything is 6 subs there will always be a giving up scenario.

There is very little overlap. Why get Sky movies when you can get NF? Why get NF for sport? The many here that ditched Sky often said or implied that they are foregoing content to save money. I dint call that competing, I call if foregoing to save money

I imagine Sky forgoing revenue by removing HD fees, making multi room cheaper or free, making the STB rental temporary till the box is paid for. SOHO goes to Basic. Basic $20, Sport $80 and so on. Sky Go is better visually and holds more content. Share buy back to reduce the company size, centralise to one location. May well become sport only.

Im happy with it, if Basic was better and $20 and I dont watch sport, Id take that, its a picNmix of content.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1927242 31-Dec-2017 09:19

We ditched Sky to save money but we didn't forego any content. Once Sky was gone I redoubled my efforts to find alternatives for what we used to watch and our content is now many times better. It also happens to be free, or nearly so if you don't count our geo-unblocker. For our viewing tastes, there is so much public service broadcasting and advertising-supported stuff and YouTube channels and foreign broadcasters and the like that we can't watch it all anyway. We have no objection to paying for content that we want to watch, it is just that we can't even get through all the free stuff so there is not much point at this stage looking at the paid options. Maybe in the winter, but even then I doubt we will run out of options.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1927243 31-Dec-2017 09:20

If sky basic was $20 how much would the movies add on be in your scenario?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1927249 31-Dec-2017 09:48

elpenguino:

sky were maxxed out with nz households around the %50 mark but that is now shrinking. With the extra costs for HD, recording, 2nd room and so on sky show utter contempt for their customers as they seek to increase their revenues by squeezing the users they do have for more money. Some customers are obviously pushing back.

Sums it up pretty well, me thinks.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927250 31-Dec-2017 09:50

elpenguino:

If sky basic was $20 how much would the movies add on be in your scenario?

$15, Netflix. Why would I pay $27 or whatever it is when I can get many more movies for 1/2 the price? Basic at $20 is value to me, $27 for Sky Movies isn't.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1927256 31-Dec-2017 10:05

elpenguino:

If sky basic was $20 how much would the movies add on be in your scenario?

How about you reconsider your question.

If you could buy a mix of streaming television (including HBO) and movies from Sky for $20/mth (lets call it Neon for the sake of any other name). And one could probably even break that down further given Lightbox is TV only (but with a 30% loading for HD) so streaming TV @ $10/mth and streaming movies at $10/mth. Sound reasonable as a line in the sand?

So the question would be how much more would you pay for more ondemand content (and catchup) and 37 linear channels (thats 27,000 hours of content per month)?

And how much more for the coveted ability to record and timeshift?

And how much more for more movies?

And how much more for sport?

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

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1927257 31-Dec-2017 10:06

Do you have access to the sky subscriber and company statistics?

Should be a simple exercise to calculate the effect of a 'basic' price drop on profits assuming all other customers maintain their spend.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927260 31-Dec-2017 10:18

elpenguino:

Do you have access to the sky subscriber and company statistics?

Should be a simple exercise to calculate the effect of a 'basic' price drop on profits assuming all other customers maintain their spend.

He will answer, but Says bottom line was about $15 per month per subscriber. The last drop in subscriber numbers and profits makes that about $12 from memory.

So, Sky could reduce prices by $12 per month and break even. Hardly a great saving and hardly a good idea!

I maintain they stop subsidising sport. Say $20 for Basic and $80 for sport. So, no bottom line change, but you would expect more subscribers for just Basic. The HD and the recorder rental need to drop. I feel they need remove all Sky brick and mortar and have one warehouse/office location to reduce costs. That may help offset HD and recorder rental. (Charge recorder rental until its paid down, also gives the subscriber a stickiness if they can stay subscribed and have zero recorder rental) If they stay with Optus at a reduced cost, that also helps. But there isn't much wiggle room.

To me, the low but wide range of content is appealing. For families especially, with the MySky convenience, FTA, recording, SkyGo, all in all its a capable package. if you want to watch movies or binge TV then Sky isn't value for movies and it doesnt have that much binge TV, although OD helps. In which case, Sky is one of many nice options, but it doesnt suit you. If you are not into mass movies and TV binging, NF offers far less value.

Two similar but different animals, horses for courses, who anyone chooses.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1927274 31-Dec-2017 10:59

elpenguino:

Do you have access to the sky subscriber and company statistics?

Should be a simple exercise to calculate the effect of a 'basic' price drop on profits assuming all other customers maintain their spend.

Nope, no more than you or any other man in the street has.

But you should be able to use the annual reports and presentations to do your own research. https://www.sky.co.nz/investor-relations

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

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1927408 31-Dec-2017 18:08

ockel:

So the question would be how much more would you pay for more ondemand content (and catchup) and 37 linear channels (thats 27,000 hours of content per month)?

It's not 27,000 hours of content per month. It's nothing like 27,000 hours. You have just gone 37 channels x 24 hours x 31 days to get that figure. You need to adjust for:

that most movies repeating 5-8 times in a month
most TV shows repeating several times in a month; and those were often cycled only a matter of months previously
all channels contain promos; and many contain both ads and promos, which can account for 12-15 minutes in every hour of programming; and
the Freeview channels (1,2,3, Bravo, Choice, Al Jazeera etc) are available without a sky sub.

When you make all of these adjustments, the amount of unique content that a Sky sub provides is way, way less than 27,000 hours a month.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1927414 31-Dec-2017 18:23

JimmyH:

ockel:

So the question would be how much more would you pay for more ondemand content (and catchup) and 37 linear channels (thats 27,000 hours of content per month)?

It's not 27,000 hours of content per month. It's nothing like 27,000 hours. You have just gone 37 channels x 24 hours x 31 days to get that figure. You need to adjust for:

that most movies repeating 5-8 times in a month
most TV shows repeating several times in a month; and those were often cycled only a matter of months previously
all channels contain promos; and many contain both ads and promos, which can account for 12-15 minutes in every hour of programming; and
the Freeview channels (1,2,3, Bravo, Choice, Al Jazeera etc) are available without a sky sub.
When you make all of these adjustments, the amount of unique content that a Sky sub provides is way, way less than 27,000 hours a month.

I've excluded all the Freeview channels - otherwise it'd be more like 50 channels (or 37,000 hours).

Fair enough. Do you want to call it 20% new content - thats 5,400 hours per month (still substantially more than physically possible to watch)?

Or 10% new content - thats still 2,700 hours per month.

By way of comparison - how many hours of new content do Lightbox add each month? Netflix? Freeview channels? Feel free to counter with some approximations.

It doesnt get away from the fact that the base comparison should be vs Neon - and if someone wants more content - then one up-sizes (and pays more). More features - add something else - and pay more.

One doesnt exclude Skinny just cos Spark owns it when looking at mobile or broadband comparatives, does one?

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

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#1927424 31-Dec-2017 19:21

ockel:
One doesnt exclude Skinny just cos Spark owns it when looking at mobile or broadband comparatives, does one?

Spark doesn't cripple Skinny, it runs data at same speed as Spark.

Sky cripples Neon, I only have sound out centre speaker, not all speakers like Satellite Sky.
Plus Neon is not on smart TV's or likes of Apple TV so it has to be cast, or go through hassle of connecting computer to TV, other streaming services are on Smart TV's.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1927426 31-Dec-2017 19:32

rugrat:
ockel:

One doesnt exclude Skinny just cos Spark owns it when looking at mobile or broadband comparatives, does one?

Spark doesn't cripple Skinny, it runs data at same speed as Spark.

Sky cripples Neon, I only have sound out centre speaker, not all speakers like Satellite Sky.
Plus Neon is not on smart TV's or likes of Apple TV so it has to be cast, or go through hassle of connecting computer to TV, other streaming services are on Smart TV's.

So Skinny's broadband offering is as fast as Sparks broadband offering? Hmmm - thats interesting.

I think you miss the point that there are different product offerings with different USP's and different pricing to appeal to a different market segment. As such one shouldnt exclude Skys lower cost offering regardless of your view on its quality - but its a fair opinion to say that its overpriced compared to its peers. But then Lightbox is overpriced - and thats why Spark couldnt sell it to people and had to settle for loss-leader pricing to start and give it away for free when the loss-leader pricing expired.

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

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 57