Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

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

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 25

603 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1776789 6-May-2017 10:04

I can't help but feel, this change has been pressed into motion due to the up coming Lions visit (seems rather conveniently timed...but not quite exactly when the event happens). I also suspect... there will be some "special" kind of extra fee on top of the new $100 monthly fee to watch the Lions vs ABs. Along the lines of ---for $25 you can watch Lions vs ABs live!

I dropped my Sky STB box off a few months ago. I was happily thinking of using the daily option (perhaps weekly) to watch Lions vs ABs (perhaps many viewers planned the same?)....i'm not so sure now.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out....

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1776796 6-May-2017 10:37

Give it a week or two and they'll be announcing the demise of SkyGo as well. One step forward, 3 steps backward.

Starlith

208 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#1776824 6-May-2017 11:45

I hate how they have bundled all the sports together under one expensive umbrella that I just can't justify paying for. First of all I only watch A-league, SSprem, All Whites games. That means nor Rugby, league, cricket, golf, tennis, netball you name it. Now Sky possbly pays $200,000 for the A-league and for the SSprem apparently the teams have to pay sky for them to broadcast it. And the All Whites get possibly less than the A-league. So my money that I'll be paying for is of no benefit for these minor sports instead it seems like I'm subsidizing for neighbor Bob and his Rugby fetish that I really couldn't give a rats ass about. Why don't they split it and value up the sports from there and give out a Football pass, Rugby Pass, Cricket Pass etc and price them out accordingly. If Rugby has to pay more than so be it, atleast it will be fair.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1776828 6-May-2017 12:03

The reason - the only reason - is that someone has decided they can make more money this way.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1776829 6-May-2017 12:03

Sky with a maximum possible audience of 4 million people is having to compete against netflix, with a target audience in the billions.

They are squeezed on the revenue side by netflix, and on the expenditure side by Sonny Bill Williams and his rich pals.

The only surprise is that sky shares are not falling more heavily. Huge uncertainty in the entire long term viability of sky.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776831 6-May-2017 12:09

Rikkitic:

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.

They have lost little numbers in recent years, although that is increasing. Because you can get pay TV for $13, so why pay $100? What I find really funny, is this who drop Sky and get Freeview and Netflix. FV and NF bear no resemblance to Sky's bundles, so why did they ever have Sky in the first place?? Sport in many cases I guess. You can but individual sports packages for most sports, costs and arm and a leg if you enjoy multiple sports. Factor in less than great video quality, cannot record, and it comes down to what someone else said here, they want it, but at the price it suits them, not at the reality price

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1776836 6-May-2017 12:18

That argument always makes me scratch my head. The reality price is what people can get it for, by whatever means, not what a commercial provider decides on. Sky is sinking because there are viable alternatives, whether legal or not, and people are moving to those. This is the free market at work.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#1776837 6-May-2017 12:18

I dont know why people are saying Sky is dead , they have a turnover of close to a billion a year and profits of nearly $150 million a year, they will be around for a few years yet .

Common sense is not as common as you think.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776839 6-May-2017 12:27

Rikkitic:

That argument always makes me scratch my head. The reality price is what people can get it for, by whatever means, not what a commercial provider decides on. Sky is sinking because there are viable alternatives, whether legal or not, and people are moving to those. This is the free market at work.

The reality price is what it costs. Should Sky be rorting, their profits would be way higher than the market average ROI, thats not the case. Their return is no more than satisfactory. So to reduce the price as many feel its too high, they lose revenue, or they could drop services and reduce desire. Right now, they pay costs, and they charge prices, those two factors are in sync. As subscribers drop, they can reduce prices in some areas, such as brick and mortar. Staff via automation. They cant afford to drop key sports. It may well be that they become a sports only service, which makes sense. That would drop rights payments almost in half, as while they offer many channels of all sorts of stuff, the sports rights costs are 60% of all rights costs.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776841 6-May-2017 12:30

vexxxboy:

I dont know why people are saying Sky is dead , they have a turnover of close to a billion a year and profits of nearly $150 million a year, they will be around for a few years yet .

Sure will. They will assess all manner of costs, reduce what they can, and if people want to watch live sport and record it, they will have to pay what Sky has to pay. They are caught in the middle as sport these days is a very very expensive exercise. Salaries are huge, travel is huge, so TV broadcasters have to pay big, Our population means we are in a very bad economy of scale.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1776844 6-May-2017 12:46

tdgeek:

vexxxboy:

I dont know why people are saying Sky is dead , they have a turnover of close to a billion a year and profits of nearly $150 million a year, they will be around for a few years yet .

Sure will. They will assess all manner of costs, reduce what they can, and if people want to watch live sport and record it, they will have to pay what Sky has to pay. They are caught in the middle as sport these days is a very very expensive exercise. Salaries are huge, travel is huge, so TV broadcasters have to pay big, Our population means we are in a very bad economy of scale.

So they should merge with the Aussie Foxtel....at least fellett should go...well past his use by date.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#1776845 6-May-2017 12:50

Pumpedd:

tdgeek:

vexxxboy:

I dont know why people are saying Sky is dead , they have a turnover of close to a billion a year and profits of nearly $150 million a year, they will be around for a few years yet .

Sure will. They will assess all manner of costs, reduce what they can, and if people want to watch live sport and record it, they will have to pay what Sky has to pay. They are caught in the middle as sport these days is a very very expensive exercise. Salaries are huge, travel is huge, so TV broadcasters have to pay big, Our population means we are in a very bad economy of scale.

So they should merge with the Aussie Foxtel....at least fellett should go...well past his use by date.

if you are a shareholder of sky , why would you want him to go , he makes you money.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776851 6-May-2017 13:25

tdgeek:
vexxxboy:

I dont know why people are saying Sky is dead , they have a turnover of close to a billion a year and profits of nearly $150 million a year, they will be around for a few years yet .

Sure will. They will assess all manner of costs, reduce what they can, and if people want to watch live sport and record it, they will have to pay what Sky has to pay. They are caught in the middle as sport these days is a very very expensive exercise. Salaries are huge, travel is huge, so TV broadcasters have to pay big, Our population means we are in a very bad economy of scale.

The problem is that even if they were a global operator, like Netflix, they would have too much competition in the sector, and their content agreements are probably only for nz. One reason they are probably not doing that bad is because NZ's population is increasing. Also NZ's FTA content offerings have only gotten worse, and Freeview channels like tvnz sports and 7 have been dropped

petes117

371 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1776852 6-May-2017 13:33

tdgeek:

The reality price is what it costs. Should Sky be rorting, their profits would be way higher than the market average ROI, thats not the case. Their return is no more than satisfactory. So to reduce the price as many feel its too high, they lose revenue, or they could drop services and reduce desire. Right now, they pay costs, and they charge prices, those two factors are in sync. As subscribers drop, they can reduce prices in some areas, such as brick and mortar. Staff via automation. They cant afford to drop key sports. It may well be that they become a sports only service, which makes sense. That would drop rights payments almost in half, as while they offer many channels of all sorts of stuff, the sports rights costs are 60% of all rights costs.

I don't buy that argument. If Sky refused to pay for the sports rights, what local provider would pick up the slack? Probably none unless the sports providers dropped their price, either way resulting in a loss in revenue for both parties.

So Sky paying whatever it takes to get the sports rights locks those rights up with them for local distribution through only their platforms. That's why we don't have access to overseas services like rugby pass, and Sky can just pass on the cost to the customer because there's no other choice.

If segmenting the sports market is what it takes (i.e. higher overall cost to customers if you want to watch everything, or buy just the ones you want), I'm all for that because at least then there is a choice.

Ultimately, it's decided by what the customer is willing to pay. Vote with your wallets

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776858 6-May-2017 13:51

They would have to accept the next highest price, otherwise they get nothing at all. Although I suspect and overseas provider could pick up the rights and then distribute to nz online. If there was no provider, then the government could always write legislation that allowed NZers to watch culturally significant sports. I don't think there is any risk of nzers not being able to watch it, at a price.

People are already voting with their wallets. I do wonder why they setup fanpass in the first place as it always had the risk of canabalising their satellite service, and whether it had anything to do with the VF merge, and getting that through the competition watchdog. Now that looks to have failed. I wonder if neon will also change?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 25