Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 45

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1558949 24-May-2016 20:54

dafman:
MikeB4:

There is greater than 800,000 Sky customers can you please show me the metrics that support a claim that a significant number do not like Sky. The recently announced churn is not indicative of that as there will be various reason why those folks moved on including but not exclusively those that were unsatisfied.

I think any large supplier of consumer goods would consider a 5% fall in customer base in a 12 month period as pretty significant.

That still does not equate to a reason for leaving being they were dissatisfied with the service.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29577 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1558952 24-May-2016 21:00

dafman:

MikeB4:

There is greater than 800,000 Sky customers can you please show me the metrics that support a claim that a significant number do not like Sky. The recently announced churn is not indicative of that as there will be various reason why those folks moved on including but not exclusively those that were unsatisfied.

I think any large supplier of consumer goods would consider a 5% fall in customer base in a 12 month period as pretty significant.

Mike means the churn isn't based on disliking Sky, its based on churn, and there are reasons that people churn. RWC contract over, Prefer NF and LB. Those are conscious decisions to change brand. I think you implied that they left as they don't like Sky.

tdgeek

29577 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1558956 24-May-2016 21:06

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1558965 24-May-2016 21:21

Fred99:

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Make up your mind - either there is exclusive content that everyone has been buying and offering (I believe you disagreed with the comment that everyone has their own exclusive content), or there isnt. Anyone can purchase the rights to content as witnessed by TVNZ buying Fox content recently previously held by TV3. TV3, Prime and TVNZ buying BBC content. Lightbox buying from Sony, Netflix buying from ABC-Disney. LightboxSport buying EPL, PGAGolf etc etc. There is no monopoly on content - anyone can buy from anyone and anyone can sell to anyone. Its an open and free market.

You're deeply confusing a wholesale market with a retail market.

I never disagreed with any comment that "everybody has their own exclusive content". Sheesh - even I do. If you use one of my photos commercially without asking, I'll sue you.

Not at all confused. There is no monopoly on either the purchase of content in a wholesale sense, nor the provision of content in a retail sense. Since the granting of a the licence to TV3 in the 1980's there is been a significant deregulation in the NZ Broadcasting market to the benefit of consumers. And since that date there has never been a monopoly on the provision of supply of content to consumers. Do not confuse yourself by narrowing the definition of the market. TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Sky, regional broadcasters (and the proliferation of content providers under Freeview) all provide content to NZ households. How they chose (and choose) to fund their delivery of content may differ (funding by advertising or funding by user pays) but there is not and has not been since the late 1980's any monopoly in the NZ market.

[edit for sp]

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

dafman

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1558969 24-May-2016 21:35

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1558974 24-May-2016 21:38

dafman:
tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

Let's keep this about Sky not about persons

dafman

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1558975 24-May-2016 21:43

MikeB4:
dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

Let's keep this about Sky not about persons

I consider my comment innocuous and clearly tongue-in-cheek, but for avoidance of doubt, if any offence taken, none intended.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1558977 24-May-2016 21:52

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

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

dafman

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1558986 24-May-2016 22:11

ockel:

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

I don't disagree with your DomPost, NZ Herald, Press, TV2 and TV3 comparisons. News media and FTA are suffering a similar crisis of business model as Sky.

However, both are looking a little more proactive in adapting to the paradigm shift than Sky. News media with their internet models to replace traditional newsprint, and FTA with some pretty nifty and ever-evolving on-demand applications that outshine anything that Sky are currently offering.

And of course, FTA, by defintion are free, whereas Sky is stinging their longer term customers for over $100 per month, so, understandably, they'll wear more of the public criticism as we move through this period of change.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558992 24-May-2016 22:18

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Make up your mind - either there is exclusive content that everyone has been buying and offering (I believe you disagreed with the comment that everyone has their own exclusive content), or there isnt. Anyone can purchase the rights to content as witnessed by TVNZ buying Fox content recently previously held by TV3. TV3, Prime and TVNZ buying BBC content. Lightbox buying from Sony, Netflix buying from ABC-Disney. LightboxSport buying EPL, PGAGolf etc etc. There is no monopoly on content - anyone can buy from anyone and anyone can sell to anyone. Its an open and free market.

You're deeply confusing a wholesale market with a retail market.

I never disagreed with any comment that "everybody has their own exclusive content". Sheesh - even I do. If you use one of my photos commercially without asking, I'll sue you.

Not at all confused. There is no monopoly on either the purchase of content in a wholesale sense, nor the provision of content in a retail sense. Since the granting of a the licence to TV3 in the 1980's there is been a significant deregulation in the NZ Broadcasting market to the benefit of consumers. And since that date there has never been a monopoly on the provision of supply of content to consumers. Do not confuse yourself by narrowing the definition of the market. TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Sky, regional broadcasters (and the proliferation of content providers under Freeview) all provide content to NZ households. How they chose (and choose) to fund their delivery of content may differ (funding by advertising or funding by user pays) but there is not and has not been since the late 1980's any monopoly in the NZ market.

[edit for sp]

Oh for goodness sake. They buy a right to sell "exclusively" (ie a monopoly) for a specific product to a retail market.

That's "ok" if it's media content. It's definitely not "ok" if it was bread, or any other "consumable" commodity product.

It's sheer hypocrisy to argue that the notion of "free market" applies to SKT, when they were lobbying hard to prevent "Global Mode" and seeking government intervention to prevent NZ retail customer from buying content cross-border (ie from US Netflix etc).

Comcast is the US largest cable TV provider. Their profit as % of US GDP and value is about 1/3 of SKT vs NZ GDP. Sky TV has enjoyed a spectacular position - three times larger than the largest US cable TV provider. Lack of competition is the reason. That is not good IMO. YMMV.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1559004 24-May-2016 22:31

ockel:

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

There are plenty of threads and discussion about the (print) news media decline in the "Off Topic" forum here. Decline in (paper copy) circulation. loss of advertising revenue, quality of product.

There's also plenty of discussion about how badly the FTA broadcasters are running their businesses - TV3 has been flayed alive recently in the news. The quality of content offered by TVNZ is frequently slammed by posters on GZ forums.

Nobody is picking on Sky for fun. There's fire behind the smoke, disruptive change will eat them too - if they don't adapt.

dafman

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1559009 24-May-2016 22:39

dafman:

ockel:

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

I don't disagree with your DomPost, NZ Herald, Press, TV2 and TV3 comparisons. News media and FTA are suffering a similar crisis of business model as Sky.

However, both are looking a little more proactive in adapting to the paradigm shift than Sky. News media with their internet models to replace traditional newsprint, and FTA with some pretty nifty and ever-evolving on-demand applications that outshine anything that Sky are currently offering.

And of course, FTA, by defintion are free, whereas Sky is stinging their longer term customers for over $100 per month, so, understandably, they'll wear more of the public criticism as we move through this period of change.

Addendum to above.

Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have significantly upgraded their on-demand apps over the last twelve months and the price remains the same - free. Of course there are ads, but they don't appear to be any more intrusive with the on-demand apps than the traditional FTA broadcast offerings. So a net gain for the FTA consumer.

Contrast with Sky. Not only is Neon is clunky in comparison to other on-demand offerings, they even demanded long-standing customers stump up an additional $20 per month for the privilege.

And I reckon it examples like above that may be contributing to the big drop in Sky subscribers.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1559014 24-May-2016 22:51

Fred99:

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Make up your mind - either there is exclusive content that everyone has been buying and offering (I believe you disagreed with the comment that everyone has their own exclusive content), or there isnt. Anyone can purchase the rights to content as witnessed by TVNZ buying Fox content recently previously held by TV3. TV3, Prime and TVNZ buying BBC content. Lightbox buying from Sony, Netflix buying from ABC-Disney. LightboxSport buying EPL, PGAGolf etc etc. There is no monopoly on content - anyone can buy from anyone and anyone can sell to anyone. Its an open and free market.

You're deeply confusing a wholesale market with a retail market.

I never disagreed with any comment that "everybody has their own exclusive content". Sheesh - even I do. If you use one of my photos commercially without asking, I'll sue you.

Not at all confused. There is no monopoly on either the purchase of content in a wholesale sense, nor the provision of content in a retail sense. Since the granting of a the licence to TV3 in the 1980's there is been a significant deregulation in the NZ Broadcasting market to the benefit of consumers. And since that date there has never been a monopoly on the provision of supply of content to consumers. Do not confuse yourself by narrowing the definition of the market. TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Sky, regional broadcasters (and the proliferation of content providers under Freeview) all provide content to NZ households. How they chose (and choose) to fund their delivery of content may differ (funding by advertising or funding by user pays) but there is not and has not been since the late 1980's any monopoly in the NZ market.

[edit for sp]

Oh for goodness sake. They buy a right to sell "exclusively" (ie a monopoly) for a specific product to a retail market.

That's "ok" if it's media content. It's definitely not "ok" if it was bread, or any other "consumable" commodity product.

It's sheer hypocrisy to argue that the notion of "free market" applies to SKT, when they were lobbying hard to prevent "Global Mode" and seeking government intervention to prevent NZ retail customer from buying content cross-border (ie from US Netflix etc).

Comcast is the US largest cable TV provider. Their profit as % of US GDP and value is about 1/3 of SKT vs NZ GDP. Sky TV has enjoyed a spectacular position - three times larger than the largest US cable TV provider. Lack of competition is the reason. That is not good IMO. YMMV.

You will recall that the parties that sought to bring legal action against "Global Mode" were TVNZ, Mediaworks, Sky and Lightbox. They were seeking judicial intervention (not legislative) to protect what they believed to be their property rights.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1559017 24-May-2016 22:56

dafman:

dafman:

ockel:

lets put things in context.

Circulation on the DomPost is down 13% yoy, NZ Herald -5.7%, The Press -8.3%. Any comments anywhere in any media or discussion on here about how badly the newspapers are managing their business??

Audiences on FTA television are down greater than 5% yoy. TV2 and TV3 are down more than 5%. Any discussion on how badly the FTA broadcasters are managing their business?

Every year about 1 in 7 subscribers terminates their Sky subscription (in FY15 that would have been more than 100,000 subscribers leaving). Have done so for years and years. Until this year Sky has added more new subscribers than those leaving - ie they have added more than 100,000 new subscribers in FY15. Hard to say that they're joining because they are anti-sky or pro-sky. They are joining because they want the service. And those leaving dont want it anymore. This year either more are terminating or Sky hasnt been able to attract as many new subscribers. Until August we wont know which but we can speculate and debate.

Leave the emotion at the door and muse about the facts. Just putting it out there.

I don't disagree with your DomPost, NZ Herald, Press, TV2 and TV3 comparisons. News media and FTA are suffering a similar crisis of business model as Sky.

However, both are looking a little more proactive in adapting to the paradigm shift than Sky. News media with their internet models to replace traditional newsprint, and FTA with some pretty nifty and ever-evolving on-demand applications that outshine anything that Sky are currently offering.

And of course, FTA, by defintion are free, whereas Sky is stinging their longer term customers for over $100 per month, so, understandably, they'll wear more of the public criticism as we move through this period of change.

Addendum to above.

Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have significantly upgraded their on-demand apps over the last twelve months and the price remains the same - free. Of course there are ads, but they don't appear to be any more intrusive with the on-demand apps than the traditional FTA broadcast offerings. So a net gain for the FTA consumer.

Contrast with Sky. Not only is Neon is clunky in comparison to other on-demand offerings, they even demanded long-standing customers stump up an additional $20 per month for the privilege.

And I reckon it examples like above that may be contributing to the big drop in Sky subscribers.

FTA is not free. It is funded by someone other than the viewer. It is not free - the content is not free, the delivery is not free. It has a different funding mechanism. The public has struggled with and will continue to struggle with the concept that FTA is not free. Its paid by the public indirectly and thats apparently a hard concept to follow.

TVNZ and Mediaworks have followed with an ad-funded offering for their on-demand content. Neon has gone with a subscription based offering (as has Lightbox and Netflix). Whoop. Sky has not demanded long-suffering customers stump up with any additional money for Neon - it caters to a different audience. Sky subscribers get the woeful SkyGo - but at no incremental cost. Surely you realise this?

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

tdgeek

29577 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1559032 24-May-2016 23:27

dafman:

tdgeek:

I think too many here are fixated as anti Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you dafman, but half the thread is about being anti Sky. Those that churned to SVOD did it to save money. Some are missing content now, some are happy with the NF/LB content and don't miss Sky (Not sure why there were still paying, but there you go)

I think too many here are fixated as pro Sky, its getting in the way of the discussion. Not directly referring to you tdgeek, ockel or MikeB4, but half the thread is about being pro Sky.

Come on chaps ... the thread title is "big drop in Sky numbers." And they ain't leaving in droves cause they are pro Sky and loving it. Just putting it out there.

You nailed it, in this "post".

Pro Sky. I didn't recall anyone in this thread being Pro Sky. How do you define Pro Sky? I'll tell you how I define it. Someone who loves Sky to bits. No one like that here.

There are those that hate Sky to bits, and there are a few who are neutral. Or happy with Sky if they use it. Or happy with Sky if they used to use it. Non biased. Did what I want, worked well, sound product. thats where my love ended. Sound product that worked well for my and my familys needs. Its just a product. If it didn't work well, it would be cancelled, not hated.Do you see where I'm going with this? These people aren't anti Sky, therefore, to you they are Pro Sky. Thats how narrow it is when your points all emanate from an anti feeling. This is why you are unable to discuss why Sky has lost some subscribers, as all that seems to be stated is anti Sky sentiment. Blinded. You will be searching long and hard to see any posts that show that anyone here loves Sky. Actually you arent the first in this thread to use the words love Sky. Bizarre. And you have already decided that the people that left Sky all dislike Sky. Sorry, but thats, well, strange. Not to do with money? Not to do with NF has more movies at 13 bucks? LB has more TV at 13 bucks?

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'd be happy for a thread about hating Sky, as I mentioned earlier. This is getting very Stuff comments like. This thread is about why Sky lost some subscribers. And what we think or hope or expect may happen from here on. I find that interesting. But I can't be arxxed with the same type of drone that I have seen over the years by Apple fanboys and Android fanboys.

Sorry, /rantover

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 45