Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 25

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776567 5-May-2017 20:08

MikeB4:

Talkiet:

I love how everyone is just assuming that the new pricing is unreasonably high. I highly doubt any of us here have any basis in fact for that opinion.

Cheers - N

Sky basic $49 plus Mysky $15 plus Sport $29.90 = $93.90 per month. Increase just one service, Sport from $59 to $99 per month right before a hugely high demand time seem like pricing for the hell of it. It all looks very unreasonable, however granted we do not know their cost structure

but if it has gone up that much then surely Sport on a Sky sub should also have gone up.

Sport should not be subsidised by Basic, I've said that for years here.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776571 5-May-2017 20:10

mattwnz:
asjohnstone:

They've just killed the platform stone dead. It's a shame because it had great potential.

Intent seems to be driving customers to their core business.

sad

Or maybe they will just turn the online version into a companion product, or an upgrade.

However this does come at the cost of less people watching sport, and therefore less interest in sport. Personally I used to watch a lot of sport, but since a lot of it went behind a paywall in NZ, I have lost interest in most sport.

It is election year, so maybe a party will bring out a policy to make all nationally significant sports events FTA, and that get government funding, FTA

Yep, MotoGP and F1 for me. Nationally significant!

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776573 5-May-2017 20:12

GazzaGazza:

Oh well, I have even less interest in Sky now than I ever did. I used Fanpass for cricket now and then, but can live without it now... I can't wait until the view on demand streamed TV revolution is fully here.

Will you pay for it? Sky pays for it. So you can too.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1776576 5-May-2017 20:15

I also think Sky tries to squeeze its customers for as much as it can but I agree that the real greed lies with the sports providers. Why doesn't everyone just agree to do without professional sport for a year or two and pay nothing at all? I suspect things would then change very fast.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776578 5-May-2017 20:20

Rikkitic:

Perception is everything. It seems like a huge increase, whether justified or not. It appears ill-judged, as it comes at a time when Sky is bleeding subscribers. It seems to smack of desperation. People can handle small incremental price rises, but this is almost calculated to drive customers away. I doubt it will drive many to the subscriber service. Could this be the beginning of Sky's death throes?

Bleeding? Dont think so. Remember, Sky doesnt provide sport, it plays sport, after paying rorting fees to sports providers. You could watch Joseph Parker, our less than great boxer fighting a low ranked Romanian for just $50 for about an hour.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1776582 5-May-2017 20:26

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776584 5-May-2017 20:26

vexxxboy:

whats the problem , Sky tried it , the found all it did was stop people taking up Sky as a monthly subscription and they were losing money . if you still want to watch sport take out a subscription or find other ways to watch it, and you can all say i hope sky goes under but if it does you can kiss any live sport goodbye in NZ , Sky is the only company that can afford bidding for the popular sports for the money that the sports want and we are talking big money, in fact it wouldnt matter because Professional Rugby would cease to exist in NZ without Sky's money..

Yep, and if they shut up shop and we all had to pay for many subscriptions, costing a lot more (as some have said before many times in threads like this) then who do they complain to ? Probably Sky.

No, Im not a Sky supporter, its reality. A teeny country and sport is big dollars. Big/small is big.

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.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776587 5-May-2017 20:29

dafman:

vexxxboy:

... and you can all say i hope sky goes under but if it does you can kiss any live sport goodbye in NZ , Sky is the only company that can afford bidding for the popular sports for the money that the sports want and we are talking big money, in fact it wouldnt matter because Professional Rugby would cease to exist in NZ without Sky's money..

With due respect, rubbish. Rugby will always be with us, with or without Sky.

The NZ sports environment will adapt to whatever the post-Sky environment turns out to be.

To be honest, I'm flabbergasted with Sky's announcement today - they've exceeded all expectations by proving themselves an even greater anachronistic-money-grubbing-consumer-hating monopoly than even I previously gave them credit for!

Adapt or die. I'm predicting die (and soon, please).

As long as the taxpayers arent lumbered with it, just the rugby watchers. Then its user pays, as it is right now.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1776588 5-May-2017 20:31

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Perception is everything. It seems like a huge increase, whether justified or not. It appears ill-judged, as it comes at a time when Sky is bleeding subscribers. It seems to smack of desperation. People can handle small incremental price rises, but this is almost calculated to drive customers away. I doubt it will drive many to the subscriber service. Could this be the beginning of Sky's death throes?

Bleeding? Dont think so. Remember, Sky doesnt provide sport, it plays sport, after paying rorting fees to sports providers. You could watch Joseph Parker, our less than great boxer fighting a low ranked Romanian for just $50 for about an hour.

'Bleeding' in this context means losing significant numbers of, as in hemorrhaging, not ripping off.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776589 5-May-2017 20:32

mattwnz:

sbiddle:

Journeyman:

Bobdn:
Free to Air would mean every man woman and child paying for "free" sports broadcasting whether they watch it or not, through taxation. Hardly free or fair.

I don't understand this at all. You're saying the govt would introduce some kind of tax to fund sport on television? How is this going to work?

If people want FTA sport this is the only way it could work. While the numbers are not public it's safe to say Sky probably pay the rugby union somewhere in the vicinity of $40 million per year just for rugby.

While Sky's model may be broken, the professional sport model is pay tv providers having to pay continually larger sums of money is also broken.

I think the only way it would work is if a law was introduced that required nationally significant sports to be FTA live. Otherwise the government may try to get Maori TV or RNZ to run it, and have to compete with other providers to get the content, which potentially bids up the price. Obviously 50 million across a 5 million population is less than $1 a month. Even 100 million dollars for content is $2 a month. So is significantly less than what people are currently playing. Plus you also have advertising that can help to pay for it.

The otherway is for them to contract Sky, or another provider to provide the FTA service, on say a HD version of prime, or TVNZ, and that also allows them to upsell.

Thats one sport. What about the rest? Cricket, soccer, netball, V8 Supercars, and so on, plus the big other international sports of which there are many.

Sorry, but it seems like a Labour get it free on us mentality. Unless 5 million viewers in NZ are all rugby fans, and don't watch anything else.

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1776591 5-May-2017 20:33

While I won't be signing up to Fanpass anymore someone in the supply chain is being paid more than the market actually values them at. Is it sky? Well, are the shareholders getting supernormal profits? I'm not sure, I haven't actually looked. I doubt they're much more than market returns, if that at all. Is it organisations that they buy their products like the NZRU? Are they making supernormal profits? No, I think they're breaking even or making losses most years. Is it the sports stars or other people/suppliers in the sports organisation? Perhaps. And the NZ player market is an international whose prices are driven by the wealthier European countries (for rugby at least).

I guess what I'm saying is, blame the French.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776603 5-May-2017 20:35

tripp:

Talkiet:

sbiddle:

dafman:

The NZ sports environment will adapt to whatever the post-Sky environment turns out to be.

I assume by "adapt" you mean that pretty much the top 50 rugby players in NZ incl all the All Blacks will leave NZ and move to France where they will get paid more because pay tv providers over there are willing to pay big $$ for sports content?

Maybe the govt could regulate professional rugby to keep the players here, where they belong!

N.

Hell lets just cancel their passports and hold them at gun point.

Everyone wants things but when it comes to pay the true cost it's "I want it but I don't want to pay and if i have to pay I want to pay what I think it costs".

Nailed it, thread concluded!

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776615 5-May-2017 20:38

dafman:

Bobdn:

dafman:

vexxxboy:

... and you can all say i hope sky goes under but if it does you can kiss any live sport goodbye in NZ , Sky is the only company that can afford bidding for the popular sports for the money that the sports want and we are talking big money, in fact it wouldnt matter because Professional Rugby would cease to exist in NZ without Sky's money..

With due respect, rubbish. Rugby will always be with us, with or without Sky.

The NZ sports environment will adapt to whatever the post-Sky environment turns out to be.

To be honest, I'm flabbergasted with Sky's announcement today - they've exceeded all expectations by proving themselves an even greater anachronistic-money-grubbing-consumer-hating monopoly than even I previously gave them credit for!

Adapt or die. I'm predicting die (and soon, please).

Why would you wish that on a NZ company? It employs a lot of people (who pay taxes) and it also pays taxes to the NZ Government. It has made a huge contribution to Sport in NZ. Do you remember how sport used to be covered? Better to have Sky here than not.

I'd wish it on Sky because they are a anachronistic-money-grubbing-consumer-hating monopoly (honest opinion). Another sport provider will replace them, will also pay tax as well as employ a lot of people.

And charge a similar if not greater fee. If you checked their financials you would see they are not the Apple of the TV industry. Thus, they are not rorting, others are, and Sky have to pass on that rort cost, as would others have to do. Basic math, and not a conspiracy.

quickymart

13954 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1776616 5-May-2017 20:39

While I couldn't care less about sports on TV, how did Sky cope in the early 1990's when they first started with three UHF channels? Sport would have cost a fair amount then (certainly three channels was near the cost of Basic today, in dollar terms)...or did they just outbid TVNZ/TV3 for everything?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776619 5-May-2017 20:41

tripp:

Media rights is not an easy thing. It's not like going to the supermarket and picking what you want and don't want. It's more like if you want these apples you also have to buy all these bananas and oranges but you can only eat the apples on Tuesday and the oranges and bananas on Wednesday. If you want to eat the apples on Wednesday then you have to pay more money to do that.

So even when sky has the rights to show something on paid TV they also needs to buy the rights to stream the content over IP or via on demand etc.

So this increases the cost to deliver the same game/sports by Satellite and IP.

It would be great if you could pay 1 fee to broadcast on any platform. It just does not work like that currently and there is nothing sky or any other provider can do about it.

Lets also remember that anyone is free to bid for the rights, you don't really see other telco's and companies doing that and when they have they have found out it's not as easy or profitable as they think and tend to not bid again.

Yep. Sport like Spotify or Netflix would be great, but thats dreaming. The sports providers (SANZAR, IVESCO, FIA etc etc etc etc), want more money.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 25