voy1d:

 

I don't know, Sky just really don't seem too intelligent these days.

 

TLDR: Team NZ took some commentators over for their own website but that didn't go ahead. So they said to Sky that they could use them. Sky had a few extra costs around engineers and equipment so tried to bill TNZ for them.

 

Sky attempt to serve Team NZ $70,000 bill for commentary

 

Sport is expensive to produce, it's not cheap and that is a large component of their costs. However, they drop the ball continuously by not moving with the customer wants.

 

An example would be that I would love to watch the State of Origin matches, but I can't justify $1,200 per year for it. I'd consider paying up to $30 for the three games (don't care much else for their current broadcast) but they have no way for me to pay for it.

 

Results in me finding it somewhere else and them losing revenue. They don't need to cut their costs dramatically, they just need to be smarter in how they do things - and given their current head in the sand attitude it's no wonder they are slowly bleeding customers.

 

There seems to be two sides to the story.. Sky CEO "charged" them according to the Herald, with no quotation, yet Kirsty Way (Sky spokesperson) said they didn't, with quotations. I thought Kirsty left Sky? She must be a contracted consultant to Sky then.

sonyxperiageek:

 

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Stay tuned as Sky's numbers continue to drop. Soon they will be wishing they had half their current revenue.

 

 

 

 

Going streaming only will allow costs to drop a huge amount. But they cannot do that while under contract, which expires next year or 2019. Then it can get real and be streaming only, and priced accordingly. Then everyone will be happy as its 2017 technology and 2017 pricing. Win-Win (Apart from sport which wont be $13 a month)

 

 

Sanzar rugby rights renew in 2020. Doubt the pricing will get any cheaper though, because of how much Sanzar will sell the broadcast rights for. 

 

Agree fully

Should Sky go OD only, the Optus costs will stop. Thats large. Streaming costs will take over, and that will be a mainly CAPEX setup (no expense), and then a lesser expense. Drop brick and mortar as Sky boxes wont be needed. But support those in play, so go to one warehouse, and zero other brick and mortar.

Sports wont change, your right. Sports is sports it will cost. The rest, being Basic, Soho, Rialto can be made into some Netflix cost packages. Cheap, the content is cheap. I feel that there is a lot of room to move to 2017, the block is Optus satellite costs, which isnt a 12 month contact, I think it was 10 years.

Not to mention satellite can cover more areas than internet can at the moment such as rural areas... Then you'll get poor network setups in a lot of NZ homes and Sky will start getting complaints about why the stream keeps on buffering etc...

voy1d:

 

I don't know, Sky just really don't seem too intelligent these days.

 

TLDR: Team NZ took some commentators over for their own website but that didn't go ahead. So they said to Sky that they could use them. Sky had a few extra costs around engineers and equipment so tried to bill TNZ for them.

 

Sky attempt to serve Team NZ $70,000 bill for commentary

 

Sport is expensive to produce, it's not cheap and that is a large component of their costs. However, they drop the ball continuously by not moving with the customer wants.

 

An example would be that I would love to watch the State of Origin matches, but I can't justify $1,200 per year for it. I'd consider paying up to $30 for the three games (don't care much else for their current broadcast) but they have no way for me to pay for it.

 

Results in me finding it somewhere else and them losing revenue. They don't need to cut their costs dramatically, they just need to be smarter in how they do things - and given their current head in the sand attitude it's no wonder they are slowly bleeding customers.

 

Yeah but apparently people like you paying $45 for 3 games (days) didnt make it economic so that pricing strategy got nixxed.  And you want SOO for $30?  $10/game?  Kidding, right?  

At least you could watch all three SOO games for $200 (being 2 months of FanPass).  And you'd get 8 rounds of NRL for free.  And Champions Trophy.  And Americas Cup.  Oh, and the Lions tour.  

Or you'd get it for $330 for 6 months (being basic plus sport for 6 months with a $150 credit.  

Hardly $1200 to watch State of Origin is it?  But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

sonyxperiageek:

 

Not to mention satellite can cover more areas than internet can at the moment such as rural areas... Then you'll get poor network setups in a lot of NZ homes and Sky will start getting complaints about why the stream keeps on buffering etc...

 

Satellite is rubbish. Its not 2017, its not todays tech. But in fact its great. The many that hate Sky will whine if they go full OD, and drop the rural people. 

If I was CEO and the time has come to keep Optus or not, I'd lay it on the line. Too many here have their head in the sand. Sky doesnt rort. Its higher costs are due to a 10 year contract for satellite. They have established OD for Neon and sport. Contract time they can act. Not before. 

Sport has high costs, thats easily separated. But if often comes back to $13 Netflix being the baseline.

ockel:

 

voy1d:

 

I don't know, Sky just really don't seem too intelligent these days.

 

TLDR: Team NZ took some commentators over for their own website but that didn't go ahead. So they said to Sky that they could use them. Sky had a few extra costs around engineers and equipment so tried to bill TNZ for them.

 

Sky attempt to serve Team NZ $70,000 bill for commentary

 

Sport is expensive to produce, it's not cheap and that is a large component of their costs. However, they drop the ball continuously by not moving with the customer wants.

 

An example would be that I would love to watch the State of Origin matches, but I can't justify $1,200 per year for it. I'd consider paying up to $30 for the three games (don't care much else for their current broadcast) but they have no way for me to pay for it.

 

Results in me finding it somewhere else and them losing revenue. They don't need to cut their costs dramatically, they just need to be smarter in how they do things - and given their current head in the sand attitude it's no wonder they are slowly bleeding customers.

 

 

Yeah but apparently people like you paying $45 for 3 games (days) didnt make it economic so that pricing strategy got nixxed.  And you want SOO for $30?  $10/game?  Kidding, right?  

 

At least you could watch all three SOO games for $200 (being 2 months of FanPass).  And you'd get 8 rounds of NRL for free.  And Champions Trophy.  And Americas Cup.  Oh, and the Lions tour.  

 

Or you'd get it for $330 for 6 months (being basic plus sport for 6 months with a $150 credit.  

 

Hardly $1200 to watch State of Origin is it?  But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

I often say, its ONLY about the money. Then I get told, I am happy to pay for it. But it is only about the money. I want everything, real cheep, costs to provide are not relevant. 

tdgeek:

 

sonyxperiageek:

 

Not to mention satellite can cover more areas than internet can at the moment such as rural areas... Then you'll get poor network setups in a lot of NZ homes and Sky will start getting complaints about why the stream keeps on buffering etc...

 

 

Satellite is rubbish. Its not 2017, its not todays tech. But in fact its great. The many that hate Sky will whine if they go full OD, and drop the rural people. 

 

If I was CEO and the time has come to keep Optus or not, I'd lay it on the line. Too many here have their head in the sand. Sky doesnt rort. Its higher costs are due to a 10 year contract for satellite. They have established OD for Neon and sport. Contract time they can act. Not before. 

 

Sport has high costs, thats easily separated. But if often comes back to $13 Netflix being the baseline.

 

Have to agree on the last bit though. All the comments on the NZ Herald Facebook page for the Sky article today shows how many uneducated people there are here, all basically saying that $30 a month for Sky Sport is viable and all compare to Netflix, Amazon etc. But the thing is Sport has high costs, like you said, and in the Netflix, Amazon country there are many more people they can split the cost against whereas NZ is a small population. They don't seem to get that, including the author of today's humourous Sky article. 

tdgeek:

sonyxperiageek:

Not to mention satellite can cover more areas than internet can at the moment such as rural areas... Then you'll get poor network setups in a lot of NZ homes and Sky will start getting complaints about why the stream keeps on buffering etc...

Satellite is rubbish. Its not 2017, its not todays tech. But in fact its great. The many that hate Sky will whine if they go full OD, and drop the rural people. 

If I was CEO and the time has come to keep Optus or not, I'd lay it on the line. Too many here have their head in the sand. Sky doesnt rort. Its higher costs are due to a 10 year contract for satellite. They have established OD for Neon and sport. Contract time they can act. Not before. 

Sport has high costs, thats easily separated. But if often comes back to $13 Netflix being the baseline.

BarTender:

tdgeek:

 

sonyxperiageek:

 

 

 

Not to mention satellite can cover more areas than internet can at the moment such as rural areas... Then you'll get poor network setups in a lot of NZ homes and Sky will start getting complaints about why the stream keeps on buffering etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satellite is rubbish. Its not 2017, its not todays tech. But in fact its great. The many that hate Sky will whine if they go full OD, and drop the rural people. 

 

 

 

If I was CEO and the time has come to keep Optus or not, I'd lay it on the line. Too many here have their head in the sand. Sky doesnt rort. Its higher costs are due to a 10 year contract for satellite. They have established OD for Neon and sport. Contract time they can act. Not before. 

 

 

 

Sport has high costs, thats easily separated. But if often comes back to $13 Netflix being the baseline.

 

I'll disagree that Satellite is rubbish. It's a very cost effective way to deliver TV to a lot of people at the same time. Fixed price setup and installation cost and now most house's already have a dish so if they reconnect install cost is low and a fixed price with the install contractors.

Internet you are at the will of the ISP and local Broadband connection plus Akamai CDN service isn't cheap when running as the scale.

Lots more things to contend with and 99% of them are completely out of your​ control rather than just rain fade.
Pushing more people to Satellite means more raw profit as after the install it's pure clip ticket as the overheads are already spent.

The only smart thing Sky could do is reduce the number of transponders they have on the bird. But it's not like anyone else wants to pick up that capacity so I suspect Optus will just charge the same no matter the number of transponders so they are locked into a vicious cycle.

I was being facetious, thats why I added But in fact its great. Because so many say that Sky operates old 1980's technology. It is great and super reliable.

I read here that the satellite is written off financially, and that with the weight of streaming, Optus would need to reduce the charging a great deal to allow Sky to stay on it, as they can go to full streaming.

If they do go streaming only, the internet issues can be sorted by having the box allow the user to adjust the buffer. Or run it like Sky OD to to MySky where it actually downloads the content, for viewing in a few minutes or later.

Optus contract ends soon, I feel that Sky has set itself upon for OD, if needed as a replacement, or if they stay on Optus, an additional means to view. 

Whilst the price point that I used was probably naive, it does show a flaw in Skys attitude.

As someone who purchased the F1 Pass and Rugby Pass the first year Fanpass was available it was great - getting to watch all that stuff for about $500, best was a lot of it was available OD and I was able to watch it a day later if I wanted. As a consumer of US sport (NBA, NFL and NHL) I'm happy to pay for a product which allows me to have flexibility as to when I watch it is of a higher priority than the other unnecessary content. In fact that year I dropped close to $1,100 on sports subscriptions.

And this is where I am trying to go, Sky has a business model and it's great that works. But they are starting to see it turn as the way consumers consume content is changing, the Netflix effect if you will.

Even TV3 and TV One are in on it, they have their news broadcasts available for streaming online and can be watched later that night.

I don't think Sky's bread and butter offering will ever die off - there will always be a need for it (e.g. those that live where broadband services are less than suitable). However at the same time they are antagonising a generation of consumers by burying their heads in the sand and refusing to move with the times. There is a balance to be met and at the moment Sky are showing no real desire to innovate to be better.

voy1d:

 

Whilst the price point that I used was probably naive, it does show a flaw in Skys attitude.

 

As someone who purchased the F1 Pass and Rugby Pass the first year Fanpass was available it was great - getting to watch all that stuff for about $500, best was a lot of it was available OD and I was able to watch it a day later if I wanted. As a consumer of US sport (NBA, NFL and NHL) I'm happy to pay for a product which allows me to have flexibility as to when I watch it is of a higher priority than the other unnecessary content. In fact that year I dropped close to $1,100 on sports subscriptions.

 

And this is where I am trying to go, Sky has a business model and it's great that works. But they are starting to see it turn as the way consumers consume content is changing, the Netflix effect if you will.

 

Even TV3 and TV One are in on it, they have their news broadcasts available for streaming online and can be watched later that night.

 

I don't think Sky's bread and butter offering will ever die off - there will always be a need for it (e.g. those that live where broadband services are less than suitable). However at the same time they are antagonising a generation of consumers by burying their heads in the sand and refusing to move with the times. There is a balance to be met and at the moment Sky are showing no real desire to innovate to be better.

 

Why does Sky not drop the pricing? Have you thought why that might be?

voy1d:

 

Whilst the price point that I used was probably naive, it does show a flaw in Skys attitude.

 

As someone who purchased the F1 Pass and Rugby Pass the first year Fanpass was available it was great - getting to watch all that stuff for about $500, best was a lot of it was available OD and I was able to watch it a day later if I wanted. As a consumer of US sport (NBA, NFL and NHL) I'm happy to pay for a product which allows me to have flexibility as to when I watch it is of a higher priority than the other unnecessary content. In fact that year I dropped close to $1,100 on sports subscriptions.

 

And this is where I am trying to go, Sky has a business model and it's great that works. But they are starting to see it turn as the way consumers consume content is changing, the Netflix effect if you will.

 

Even TV3 and TV One are in on it, they have their news broadcasts available for streaming online and can be watched later that night.

 

I don't think Sky's bread and butter offering will ever die off - there will always be a need for it (e.g. those that live where broadband services are less than suitable). However at the same time they are antagonising a generation of consumers by burying their heads in the sand and refusing to move with the times. There is a balance to be met and at the moment Sky are showing no real desire to innovate to be better.

 

I agree with you many aspects of your post.  I thought that the season pass option was a great initiative.  Perhaps it didnt comply with the rights streaming agreement, perhaps it was truly poorly marketed (an opt common Sky trait) or perhaps it just didnt resonate with the NZ public on a price point.

But you were naive on the price point you chose.  And you continue to show your naivety on price points as illustrated by the fact that you'd pay almost $1200 a year on just a handful of sports.  And then think that getting access to 6 channels of 24x7 sport plus popups is not worth $1200.  

Question - how many games of rugby did you watch in that year you had the season pass?  How much did it cost per game to watch?  

Did you watch every F1 race?  Did it occur to you that it cost $10 per race to watch?  For 90 minutes of racing.

If you just buy the post season NFL matches (or just Superbowl) with GamePass, how much does it cost per game?  Even assuming you watch every game?  

And how much do you think it should cost to watch, what is arguably the pinnacle series of rugby league, State of Origin?  Really $10/game?  Does that fit in the context of what you were willing to pay for regular season sports fixtures in the past?

I'm in total agreement that the new price point for FanPass makes absolutely no sense.  Why pay a premium price for what is an inferior product vis a vis satellite?  But I think it is naive of both you AND ESPECIALLY the NZ Herald columnist to think that the existing and new generation of viewers is willing to pay even a fair price for the desired and premium product that is live sport.  Most baulked at the concept of $15/day for FanPass and were left gagging for the Friday specials.  $10/hour for watching 1 game of say Super18 rugby or $2.50/hour to watch an ODI game?  If the consumer doesnt see value in that then why even bother offering casual sport, just leave it to offering the right thing to the diehard fans.  Even delayed sport has a greater price point than most non-sport entertainment viewing from a marginal utility aspect.  The NZ Herald columnist, by virtue of his exposure to reviewing content, has a much more reasonable handle on the cost of entertainment.  And to suggest the price points he did was utterly facetious.

voy1d:

 

Whilst the price point that I used was probably naive, it does show a flaw in Skys attitude.

 

As someone who purchased the F1 Pass and Rugby Pass the first year Fanpass was available it was great - getting to watch all that stuff for about $500, best was a lot of it was available OD and I was able to watch it a day later if I wanted. As a consumer of US sport (NBA, NFL and NHL) I'm happy to pay for a product which allows me to have flexibility as to when I watch it is of a higher priority than the other unnecessary content. In fact that year I dropped close to $1,100 on sports subscriptions.

 

And this is where I am trying to go, Sky has a business model and it's great that works. But they are starting to see it turn as the way consumers consume content is changing, the Netflix effect if you will.

 

Even TV3 and TV One are in on it, they have their news broadcasts available for streaming online and can be watched later that night.

 

I don't think Sky's bread and butter offering will ever die off - there will always be a need for it (e.g. those that live where broadband services are less than suitable). However at the same time they are antagonising a generation of consumers by burying their heads in the sand and refusing to move with the times. There is a balance to be met and at the moment Sky are showing no real desire to innovate to be better.

 

And to add insult to injury the NZ public wasnt interested in paying $5.40/week to watch the best football league in the world.  Was that a flaw in PLP's attitude?  Or are you placing the poor attitude of NZ'ers propensity to pay at the feet of the suppliers?

I don't think Sky would want to drop rural customers in a hurry by switching off satellite and moving to streaming only - for a lot of people, that's really the only TV they can get.

ockel:

 

voy1d:

 

Whilst the price point that I used was probably naive, it does show a flaw in Skys attitude.

 

As someone who purchased the F1 Pass and Rugby Pass the first year Fanpass was available it was great - getting to watch all that stuff for about $500, best was a lot of it was available OD and I was able to watch it a day later if I wanted. As a consumer of US sport (NBA, NFL and NHL) I'm happy to pay for a product which allows me to have flexibility as to when I watch it is of a higher priority than the other unnecessary content. In fact that year I dropped close to $1,100 on sports subscriptions.

 

And this is where I am trying to go, Sky has a business model and it's great that works. But they are starting to see it turn as the way consumers consume content is changing, the Netflix effect if you will.

 

Even TV3 and TV One are in on it, they have their news broadcasts available for streaming online and can be watched later that night.

 

I don't think Sky's bread and butter offering will ever die off - there will always be a need for it (e.g. those that live where broadband services are less than suitable). However at the same time they are antagonising a generation of consumers by burying their heads in the sand and refusing to move with the times. There is a balance to be met and at the moment Sky are showing no real desire to innovate to be better.

 

 

I agree with you many aspects of your post.  I thought that the season pass option was a great initiative.  Perhaps it didnt comply with the rights streaming agreement, perhaps it was truly poorly marketed (an opt common Sky trait) or perhaps it just didnt resonate with the NZ public on a price point.

 

But you were naive on the price point you chose.  And you continue to show your naivety on price points as illustrated by the fact that you'd pay almost $1200 a year on just a handful of sports.  And then think that getting access to 6 channels of 24x7 sport plus popups is not worth $1200.  

 

Question - how many games of rugby did you watch in that year you had the season pass?  How much did it cost per game to watch?  

 

Did you watch every F1 race?  Did it occur to you that it cost $10 per race to watch?  For 90 minutes of racing.

 

If you just buy the post season NFL matches (or just Superbowl) with GamePass, how much does it cost per game?  Even assuming you watch every game?  

 

And how much do you think it should cost to watch, what is arguably the pinnacle series of rugby league, State of Origin?  Really $10/game?  Does that fit in the context of what you were willing to pay for regular season sports fixtures in the past?

 

I'm in total agreement that the new price point for FanPass makes absolutely no sense.  Why pay a premium price for what is an inferior product vis a vis satellite?  But I think it is naive of both you AND ESPECIALLY the NZ Herald columnist to think that the existing and new generation of viewers is willing to pay even a fair price for the desired and premium product that is live sport.  Most baulked at the concept of $15/day for FanPass and were left gagging for the Friday specials.  $10/hour for watching 1 game of say Super18 rugby or $2.50/hour to watch an ODI game?  If the consumer doesnt see value in that then why even bother offering casual sport, just leave it to offering the right thing to the diehard fans.  Even delayed sport has a greater price point than most non-sport entertainment viewing from a marginal utility aspect.  The NZ Herald columnist, by virtue of his exposure to reviewing content, has a much more reasonable handle on the cost of entertainment.  And to suggest the price points he did was utterly facetious.

 

The NZ Herald columnist said he has a "school cert in economics"... Says it all really!