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 | ... | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | ... | 57

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1935552 10-Jan-2018 13:36

rugrat: I meant by unique programs that are not been repeated on same channel.
A lot of sky channels play same content three times a day.
Therefore I don't think it's fair to take a channel x 24 x 31 = hours of content people are getting.

Can you give a few examples. I guess there are a lot of examples so just 5 will do

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169
Inactive user

#1935556 10-Jan-2018 13:43

tdgeek:

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

That's part of the problem. Delivery options is the other. Fanpass is an option for sport only (I have it). The app and its chrome cast support it the worst example of how to implement it, and a reason why it's Google Play rating is only 2.5. Regularly (read: at least daily, some times multiple times per hour) get messages about 'this video is no longer available' and the stream dropping back 30 minutes for no known reason. Foxtel Now's app an the other hand (which I had for a few months last year) was faultless.

Neon seems not any better with a rating of 2.3 in the Play Store. And Sky Go doesn't have Chrome cast support at all. I suspect it is to keep revenue for multi room or secondary installations in holiday homes up.

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2653

Trusted

#1935604 10-Jan-2018 14:10

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

If Netflix ran a Sky Sport business with addons, it would be like Skys prices

With due respect, rubbish. You have no insight/ idea how Netflix would structure sport or what it would charge.

Its not rubbish at all. Sport is about 2/3 of Sky's rights costs. If NF ran a Sky Sport service in NZ they cant get around that.

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

I subscribe to unsubsiding sports pricing, as it is loaded onto Basic. Make Basic $20, make sport $80, thats the $100. From there they can muck around with Basic, Neon, discounts etc, along with other options for efficiencies that Ive mentioned many times. But the fact remains, they make only about $12 per subscriber per month, there is no wiggle room, it costs what it costs. I agree they could make some changes but the only change people REALLY want is a $40 drop in prices

How much do you reckon Sky spent acquiring total sports rights last year?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1935605 10-Jan-2018 14:11

rugrat: I meant by unique programs that are not been repeated on same channel.
A lot of sky channels play same content three times a day.
Therefore I don't think it's fair to take a channel x 24 x 31 = hours of content people are getting.

Yep, we've been down this discussion road before. I say lets make some assumptions on unique content - say 20% or 10% so lets say 2,700 hours of new programming each month (plus say 500 hours of movies).

And then you provide a great comparison of the number of unique hours for Netflix, Lightbox, Amazon, TVNZ and Mediaworks etc etc. Or you just ignore the question and fall back on your original statement.

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

Apsattv

2453 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 726

#1935617 10-Jan-2018 14:34

Spyware:

Batman:

When is Sky going to go 4K? That would set them apart.

The new set top boxes don't support 4K, so obviously not anytime soon. Obviously mySkys don't support 4K either.

The new vodafone iptv ones do support 4k but they would be stupid to waste any satellite capacity delivering 4k via the satellite service. I reckon Vodafone will be first before Sky to deliver a 4K channel through their box.

There are 2 freely available channel in the region. Which they could use as a source for testing.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1935619 10-Jan-2018 14:44

dafman:

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

If Netflix ran a Sky Sport business with addons, it would be like Skys prices

With due respect, rubbish. You have no insight/ idea how Netflix would structure sport or what it would charge.

Its not rubbish at all. Sport is about 2/3 of Sky's rights costs. If NF ran a Sky Sport service in NZ they cant get around that.

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

I subscribe to unsubsiding sports pricing, as it is loaded onto Basic. Make Basic $20, make sport $80, thats the $100. From there they can muck around with Basic, Neon, discounts etc, along with other options for efficiencies that Ive mentioned many times. But the fact remains, they make only about $12 per subscriber per month, there is no wiggle room, it costs what it costs. I agree they could make some changes but the only change people REALLY want is a $40 drop in prices

How much do you reckon Sky spent acquiring total sports rights last year?

Well Sky amortised $287m on total programming rights last year (thats stuff bought in past years) but total programming expenses is listed at $349m . According to one of the brokers (Forbar?) SuperRugby was something like $60m (?) for the year. If sport was 50% it'd be $175m, if it was 2/3 then $233m.

Who knows what the actual amount is, other than Sky.

[edited for the wrong amounts taken from the annual report]

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

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2653

Trusted

#1935629 10-Jan-2018 15:02

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

If Netflix ran a Sky Sport business with addons, it would be like Skys prices

With due respect, rubbish. You have no insight/ idea how Netflix would structure sport or what it would charge.

Its not rubbish at all. Sport is about 2/3 of Sky's rights costs. If NF ran a Sky Sport service in NZ they cant get around that.

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

I subscribe to unsubsiding sports pricing, as it is loaded onto Basic. Make Basic $20, make sport $80, thats the $100. From there they can muck around with Basic, Neon, discounts etc, along with other options for efficiencies that Ive mentioned many times. But the fact remains, they make only about $12 per subscriber per month, there is no wiggle room, it costs what it costs. I agree they could make some changes but the only change people REALLY want is a $40 drop in prices

How much do you reckon Sky spent acquiring total sports rights last year?

Well Sky spent $287m on total programming rights last year. According to one of the brokers (Forbar?) SuperRugby was something like $60m (?) for the year. If sport was 50% it'd be $140m, if it was 2/3 then $189m.

Who knows what the actual amount is, other than Sky.

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1935633 10-Jan-2018 15:10

dafman:

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

If Netflix ran a Sky Sport business with addons, it would be like Skys prices

With due respect, rubbish. You have no insight/ idea how Netflix would structure sport or what it would charge.

Its not rubbish at all. Sport is about 2/3 of Sky's rights costs. If NF ran a Sky Sport service in NZ they cant get around that.

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

I subscribe to unsubsiding sports pricing, as it is loaded onto Basic. Make Basic $20, make sport $80, thats the $100. From there they can muck around with Basic, Neon, discounts etc, along with other options for efficiencies that Ive mentioned many times. But the fact remains, they make only about $12 per subscriber per month, there is no wiggle room, it costs what it costs. I agree they could make some changes but the only change people REALLY want is a $40 drop in prices

How much do you reckon Sky spent acquiring total sports rights last year?

Well Sky spent $287m on total programming rights last year. According to one of the brokers (Forbar?) SuperRugby was something like $60m (?) for the year. If sport was 50% it'd be $140m, if it was 2/3 then $189m.

Who knows what the actual amount is, other than Sky.

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

You have to be joking. Id quit while I was ahead if I was you

Netflix is a global company, Sky is just a business in a very very small company, how can you possibly compare NF to Sky based on rights expenditure? That's crazy, sorry. If NF took over sports in NZ, its market is NZ, what Sky pays, NF will pay, the customer numbers dont change

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169
Inactive user

#1935634 10-Jan-2018 15:10

dafman:

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

That argument is (IMO) flawed. Yes, they spend US$6 billion on original content, and that has over 100 million paying customers. Paying NZ$189 million for the reach of a few hundred thousand customers (at most) is a completely different business proposition and you can expect any SVoD subscriber (be it Amazon, Netflix or any other organisation) wanting to recover that cost from their NZ subscribers. For comparison, Rugby Pass charge around $10/months, and is only available in places where no broadcast deal is in place (i.e. countries where rugby isn't a major sport).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1935635 10-Jan-2018 15:10

dafman:

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

I am not sure the total number of sports channel subscribers, but let's say 600K subscribers buy sport, you would need to spread the $189M in cost over 600,000 subscribers and make a profit for doing so, so let's generously say $350 per subscriber per year increase over the current price. $42 a month increase over the $22 you'll be paying now, plus you'll need a stable and pretty fast internet connection. Also, they would need commentators and infrastructure to cover it, including trucks to roll to the games and record it and edit it. Let's say that adds $5 more a month. That's now $69 a month for Netflix with Sport. BTW you just cut a fair number of people without internet connections suitable for running HD Sport over IP out of watching Live Rugby/Sport in general.

It's time for you to accept that it's not as simple as you have been going on about for 10 pages.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, however much you might want it.

For the record, Netflix made 178M last year off 2.65B in revenue (total sales), they are hardly awash with cash.

Also, I don't see people raging about the 3 price increases in 3 years that you see Sky get when they sent out their annual price increase letters. Some pundits believe the price of Netflix will reach $30USD a month.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1935636 10-Jan-2018 15:15

dafman:

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

dafman:

tdgeek:

If Netflix ran a Sky Sport business with addons, it would be like Skys prices

With due respect, rubbish. You have no insight/ idea how Netflix would structure sport or what it would charge.

Its not rubbish at all. Sport is about 2/3 of Sky's rights costs. If NF ran a Sky Sport service in NZ they cant get around that.

Sky's problem is customer pricing. Skys problem is also the cost of sport. They go together. The latter is the cause of the former

I subscribe to unsubsiding sports pricing, as it is loaded onto Basic. Make Basic $20, make sport $80, thats the $100. From there they can muck around with Basic, Neon, discounts etc, along with other options for efficiencies that Ive mentioned many times. But the fact remains, they make only about $12 per subscriber per month, there is no wiggle room, it costs what it costs. I agree they could make some changes but the only change people REALLY want is a $40 drop in prices

How much do you reckon Sky spent acquiring total sports rights last year?

Well Sky spent $287m on total programming rights last year. According to one of the brokers (Forbar?) SuperRugby was something like $60m (?) for the year. If sport was 50% it'd be $140m, if it was 2/3 then $189m.

Who knows what the actual amount is, other than Sky.

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

Oh dear. I suggest that you spend a little more time pouring over Netflixs 10Q's and 10K before coming back to the table.

Netflix is hemorraging cash. Its operating cash burn for the 3months to Sep 17 was USD$426m - on a trailing 12 month basis it was $1.8bn. Netflix is borrowing money to fund its programming obligations. It has borrowed $2.4bn in the last 12 months just to keep running its business. It has contractual obligations into the future of something like $15bn for programming. It is anything but awash with cash.

And it has increased its subscription fees for its US and UK subscribers twice in the last 24 months.

It would be hard to say it can afford to spend $6bn developing shows - more like it has investors and creditors that are willing to invest in the vision that it will generate cash in the future. There was a local company that spent 25 years doing just that. And instead of applauding the building of a business you want to wish it to oblivion. So much for celebrating success and hard work.

I suggest that a little bit of research before highlighting your lack of knowledge would be helpful.

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).

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1935639 10-Jan-2018 15:17

networkn:

dafman:

At NZ$189m, that's around 2% of what Netflix spent on just on it's original programming last year (US $6 billion), and only a subset of what it spent acquiring external rights. Netflix is awash with cash. If it can afford to spend $6 billion developing original shows without having to increase it's subscription fees, it's nonsense to say that if chose to spend some of that cash on acquiring international sports rights that it would have to increase it fees to New Zealanders by five times (which is what tdgeek is saying).

I am not sure the total number of sports channel subscribers, but let's say 600K subscribers buy sport, you would need to spread the $189M in cost over 600,000 subscribers and make a profit for doing so, so let's generously say $350 per subscriber per year increase over the current price. $42 a month increase over the $22 you'll be paying now, plus you'll need a stable and pretty fast internet connection. Also, they would need commentators and infrastructure to cover it, including trucks to roll to the games and record it and edit it. Let's say that adds $5 more a month. That's now $69 a month for Netflix with Sport. BTW you just cut a fair number of people without internet connections suitable for running HD Sport over IP out of watching Live Rugby/Sport in general.

It's time for you to accept that it's not as simple as you have been going on about for 10 pages.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, however much you might want it.

For the record, Netflix made 178M last year off 2.65B in revenue (total sales), they are hardly awash with cash.

Also, I don't see people raging about the 3 price increases in 3 years that you see Sky get when they sent out their annual price increase letters. Some pundits believe the price of Netflix will reach $30USD a month.

I'd pay Netflix $69 a month if it included NZ Rugby, Cricket, League and other sport that Sky currently has (America's Cup) and the normal Netflix offering. So long as I could get the sport OnDemand (no need to record), it was in HD, and I could have it on the same number of devices I currently can get NF on.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1935679 10-Jan-2018 15:33

Would you pay $89? $99? Because if pundits are correct and Netflix is going to cost $30 USD a month within 6-8 years..

On top of that you might need $20 for prime and $15 to light box. I can see a day when people are lamenting the death of sky...

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1935685 10-Jan-2018 15:40

networkn: Would you pay $89? $99? Because if pundits are correct and Netflix is going to cost $30 USD a month within 6-8 years..

On top of that you might need $20 for prime and $15 to light box. I can see a day when people are lamenting the death of sky...

Agreed. If Sky folds, those who watch Sport will regret it.

While they may be the Company everyone loves to hate (like Telecom used to be, and Microsoft) they at least have all (most) the sport in one place for one price.

If they fold up and the vultures move in and pick over the content, it could be the Football is with one provider, Rugby another, Basketball another, Motor-racing split up all over the show and Cricket yet another. Having to subscribe to more than one of these could start getting expensive (and complicated - device wise).

Of course, the rights holders may sell the rights on a non-exclusive basis,. so you may be able to package up some of the sports you want with one provider, but maybe not too.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1935693 10-Jan-2018 15:51

On that point by Trig42; the EPL in the UK between BT and Sky. To get all the games you have to sub to both for almost 50 gbp a month now; the competition requirements in the UK has now increased cost for sports viewers... The only ones who win are the sports themselves who now have a bidding war that didn't really exist.

Its also important to remember that fast forward and rewind as the sky box does it cannot be done via internet streaming due to latency and storage, only skipping is really possible. If you want to skip the intro and pre-match/race to sports such as F1 which is now almost 2 hours in length would require either tagging the content like Netflix do for the titles or a visual 10s system like YouTube otherwise you won't exactly know when to stop and you might disappoint yourself!

1 | ... | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | ... | 57