SKY disclosure regarding status of Rugby World Cup 2019 bid

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › SKY disclosure regarding status of Rugby World Cup 2019 bid

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

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1985073 28-Mar-2018 18:16

Dratsab: I agree with what others have already said, this isn't a disastrous thing for Sky. Sure, it's a bit of a kick in the pants but it is only a very short term event and it has no bearing on existing contracts or rights.

I think the Spark objection to VodaSky was a good thing as it prevented a behemoth with the ability to shut out others. If it turns out Spark/TVNZ do win the rights that'll be just be proof blocking the merger was the correct thing to do as it's kept competition alive.

Innovation and fresh thinking is what's needed at Sky. So with Fellet announcing he'll step aside sometime in the next 12 months, maybe this'll be their watershed moment.

Disagree that the Spark objection was a good thing. It was a fundamentally flawed analysis. If the merger had occurred it wouldnt have changed the amount that Sky bid for the RWC. Sky has shown that it is unwilling to bid at economically unviable levels for other sports rights and events (EPL, PGA, CommGames, tennis, cricket rights, etc). Sky has a significant war chest such that it could have bid at uneconomic levels for this event even though the merger was scuppered.

The irony is that the loudest voice decrying the lack of competition in the sports rights market is the one that has always coveted it the most and ensuring that its competitors are weakened is the always the best way to try to succeed.

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

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

#1985086 28-Mar-2018 18:48

Swapping Sky for Spark doesn't really get me going. Both only have NZ as their addressable market and if not a loss leader then pricing would be comparable, whereas Amazon could secure cheap rights across a large number of countries not traditionally interested in rugby, go on a big marketing drive to grow interest, and drive down the per-viewer cost. I want my $10/month service including RWC

BTW I previously got pulled up when calling Sky/Prime "Skryme", but it seems "VodaSky" is peachy, so let's all chant "Skodafone"

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985089 28-Mar-2018 19:00

vexxxboy:

whereas the latter is a dinosaur with historic indifference to customer service as it grew fat on monopoly rights.

you just described what Spark used to be like and anyone who had to deal with them will know what they were like in the Telecom days. They were very much like Sky are now and it took Clear to start their change to what they are today , pretty much what Sky is going through at the moment with the competition with Netflix etc.

I cant agree. Clear was years ago, many years ago. CCL. Telecom changed to Spark not long ago. Its a tough industry, so yes, it does mirror Sky. The difference is that Skys competition isnt Skys competition. NF doesnt compete with Sky, the overlap is minor. NF charges what is it, $15? Sky has sport. Different animals.

Skys problem is that people associate $15 with monthly pay tv. They also associate 1980's outdated technology, but satellite is great. How about shutting down linear TVNZ and Mediaworks as thats also outdated, its linear. You might say that they have OD, so does Sky.

Some say get rid of 1980's tech, then they say what about those on poor DSL and rural??? In these threads I've seen a question, what if 800,000 subscribers move from satellite to OD?

They say Sky rorts, thats false.

They say its a traditional model, thats rubbish also. No one else uses satellite, and many use linear.

IMHO its that some cannot afford Sky, or do not want to, so they miss out and are angry. Ive seen MANY posts that say I ditched Sky after 8 years. Why were you paying Sky's rorting fees for 8 years? Skys content is rubbish. Why did you have it? The reason is you wanted it (not you) and now you forgo it, and are angry.

Monopoly? Never has been.

So, its emotive. I and one other, have been criticised. Do we work for Sky? Nup. We just dont belong to an anti Sky hate brigade, nor to a pro Sky love brigade, so being neutral, the facts are quite easy. If you hate Sky and they did GREAT, you still will (not you)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41090

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1985090 28-Mar-2018 19:03

ockel:
gehenna:

@ockel criticise the idea, not the person.

In the last 25 years either as Telecom or Spark it has been a litany of failures in terms of attempting to enter the media world. I hope that this is not another Spark failure (assuming that its a TVNZ-Spark bid that gets the rights). Hopefully those that are either naive or ignorant would heed the advice that the leopards dont change their spots - regardless of whether they are presided over by the old guard or the new-old guard. Or they can continue to add their ignorant opinion to matters of which they have (apparently) very little understanding.

It does not change the fact you have to argue the idea not the person. Get a grip.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985091 28-Mar-2018 19:03

dafman:

tdgeek:

The majority of Sky subscribers are not affected. While rugby is very popular, it is a minority sport. Its not like 75% of everybody is into rugby.

I totally disagree. Sky is rugby. I think it is rugby that keeps a significant number of Sky subscribers paying each month. Most of the people I know say they would like to ditch Sky, but would miss the rugby.

Neither of us know of course, time will tell. But I think history will show this to be the defining moment of Sky's demise.

(And, now I am well and truly over and out with this thread).

Yes, we dont know. But I cannot in any way agree that Sky is rugby, not even close. Sky is sport.

There are many sports and I feel rugby is No.1, but not at a 75% subscriber level, more like 35% max, but No.1. Its a solid minority. Thats not denigrating rugby, there are many sports.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1985092 28-Mar-2018 19:04

Dratsab: I agree with what others have already said, this isn't a disastrous thing for Sky. Sure, it's a bit of a kick in the pants but it is only a very short term event and it has no bearing on existing contracts or rights.

Sky shares have been falling since mid-2014, from nearly $7.00 to around $2.25 today.

I'm sure sky shareholders are thinking this is a bit more than a short term kick in the pants. More like a continued succession of 'kicks in the pants'.

If you think this is just a one-off event, why don't you buy some shares? Might work out for you. Quite a gamble though.

Samsung

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1985093 28-Mar-2018 19:04

compost:

Swapping Sky for Spark doesn't really get me going. Both only have NZ as their addressable market and if not a loss leader then pricing would be comparable, whereas Amazon could secure cheap rights across a large number of countries not traditionally interested in rugby, go on a big marketing drive to grow interest, and drive down the per-viewer cost. I want my $10/month service including RWC

BTW I previously got pulled up when calling Sky/Prime "Skryme", but it seems "VodaSky" is peachy, so let's all chant "Skodafone"

Yeah good luck with $10/mth including RWC. How does it work with Amazon in the UK? How much more for a sports channel on top of your Amazon subscription. I hope that Amazon get it too - at least you'd be confident on execution.

Heres an interesting fact for you - 200 streaming services in the US. On average they subscribe for 3 services (spending on average $10/mth for each service). And those with 51% of those with 3 services say that their needs are met. Those with 4 or more services are 62% satisfied (at about the same cost as cable).

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985094 28-Mar-2018 19:09

trig42:

dafman:

tdgeek:

The majority of Sky subscribers are not affected. While rugby is very popular, it is a minority sport. Its not like 75% of everybody is into rugby.

I totally disagree. Sky is rugby. I think it is rugby that keeps a significant number of Sky subscribers paying each month. Most of the people I know say they would like to ditch Sky, but would miss the rugby.

Neither of us know of course, time will tell. But I think history will show this to be the defining moment of Sky's demise.

(And, now I am well and truly over and out with this thread).

Agreed with that.

The only reason I got Sky last time (just cancelled it after the year on the special deal) was Rugby (and the America's Cup, but that was a bonus).

And while I just disagreed, I agree (no I'm not a politician...) Many are like you, but many are not. A usual suspect here has Sly only for Rugby. Many will be like that, but its one sport of many.

A mate at work subscribes to I think it was NBL and baseball in the US, $500 p.a. He has Sky. Add rugby, black caps, 1 x motorsport (V8 Supercars or F1 or MotoGP or World Suoerbikes), , tennis. Take just 4 of them thats $1000 pa, more expensive than Sky. Thats the value of bundles. At less than $1000 pa I have all those, plus more.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985095 28-Mar-2018 19:12

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

Those that are non IT literate may struggle to get LB to their TV in a WAF way. Maybe some cost there too.

Maybe it will make more manufacturers want to build Lightbox into their smart TVs, which will make it far more accessible. Otherwise an apple tv will make it easy for people. It is a real win for Lightbox / Spark, and even TVNZ I think, if they do win the rights. But then again it is just a single event, and not rugby as a whole. But in NZ, the rugby World cup is one of the biggest events of the sporting calendar.

The possibility of 4k broadcasting over fibre for the world cup could also be a game changer. Maybe that will be an upsell.

Yes it is great and a win. Its also a win for Sky as its a huge $ saver. Spark has now and future benefits from this.

I used to see one day Sky ditches everything except sport. Makes sense. Maybe sport will become fragmented, and all of us will pay more. This is how much your bedroom suite costs per unit, and this is how much it costs as one purchase

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985097 28-Mar-2018 19:14

gehenna:

@ockel criticise the idea, not the person.

He is right but I agree with you, the idea.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985098 28-Mar-2018 19:18

dafman:

(emits long sigh).

I was referring to the Spark of today, not the Telecom of old. They are different and no more comparable than, say, Air New Zealand is to NAC, or Genesis Energy is to NZED.

Maybe one day I will be able to say that [insert name of future company that evolves from the ashes of Sky] is a totally different company to the Sky of old. The thing is, I don't think for a moment that Sky has any hope of successfully pulling out of its nose dive. Too little, too late. Then again, I could be totally wrong, time will tell.

(and, third time lucky, I am most definitely over and out for this thread).

Stay. What I see and I state as my opinion, is that the anti Sky people are emotive. The pro Sky people of which I am one are not pro Sky we just see things for what they are, without getting emotional. Its a numbers game. There is no rorting, no monopoly, no traditional model, no 1980's tech, its a numbers game. And Sky is in a reasonably different market than the usual pay tv companies that are here.

Geekzone

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985101 28-Mar-2018 19:21

waikariboy:

when i read this i was like yea that is true, this is a match once every 4 years and just for six weeks. In a grand scale of things its small imho. I think if they lost the rugby rights then it would be a down fall of sky, but this could be seen as a start. 2020 is going to be a interesting year.

I agree. RWC is a loss, Sky provided this for free. Now it will be pay tv, and thats ok. Sky is sport. If Sky lost all rugby, thats a hit, most definitely. If others took ore sport then yes its time to voluntary liquidate. Or, reduce the shares to be a smaller sort company. And for us to embrace fragmentation with our wallet.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985102 28-Mar-2018 19:24

ockel:

gehenna:

@ockel criticise the idea, not the person.

In the last 25 years either as Telecom or Spark it has been a litany of failures in terms of attempting to enter the media world. I hope that this is not another Spark failure (assuming that its a TVNZ-Spark bid that gets the rights). Hopefully those that are either naive or ignorant would heed the advice that the leopards dont change their spots - regardless of whether they are presided over by the old guard or the new-old guard. Or they can continue to add their ignorant opinion to matters of which they have (apparently) very little understanding.

Telecomms is tough. If a company in a tough industry became or morphed into a media company, thats fine. One side is hard to earn great ad butter, the other is new and innovative. I can see that as a possibility. Sky is a name, Spark is a name.

Edit

If Sky was primarily owned by a telco, thats VERY handy, if Spark was owned primarily by a media company, VERY handy. They are complementary, who knows what might happen

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985103 28-Mar-2018 19:29

compost:

Swapping Sky for Spark doesn't really get me going. Both only have NZ as their addressable market and if not a loss leader then pricing would be comparable, whereas Amazon could secure cheap rights across a large number of countries not traditionally interested in rugby, go on a big marketing drive to grow interest, and drive down the per-viewer cost. I want my $10/month service including RWC

BTW I previously got pulled up when calling Sky/Prime "Skryme", but it seems "VodaSky" is peachy, so let's all chant "Skodafone"

Thats hard and expensive and a risk

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1985104 28-Mar-2018 19:29

Let us not forget Tivo, which I believe both TVNZ and Spark were involved with to some extent. Let us hope it is more successful than that.

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