Sky to disaggregate sports channels and slash prices... in the UK

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky to disaggregate sports channels and slash prices... in the UK

mdf

3513 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#217910 18-Jul-2017 13:42

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-sports-channels-prices-football-golf-cricket

It's revolutionary! Letting people pay for a service tailored to their particular viewing desires. If only Sky NZ would do something similar. Bizarrely, I'd be very happy to pay for the things I wanted to watch.

Sky UK also runs the NowTV service, including offering an (excellent) rebadged Roku box. Again, if only...

1 | 2 | 3

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824384 18-Jul-2017 14:04

Not happening here. Must get the most value out of the old optus service by making online so unattractive that noone uses it so it doesnt cost mush to run and pretend that they are trying.

Richard rich.ms

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824414 18-Jul-2017 14:24

This is a good plan and I would love to see it here but I believe it needs a change of leadership at Sky NZ for it to happen.

Journeyman

1186 posts

Uber Geek

#1824460 18-Jul-2017 15:15

I sometimes wonder if Sky NZ realises that their current business model is not sustainable. Their Fanpass price hike suggests that they don't.

Not only do they need to disaggregate their channels, they need a complete overhaul of the Basic package as it is poor value for money. Most of the Basic package content is utter crap. Sky boasts over 50 Basic channels and there are some good programmes there, but scattered far and few between. The rest is endless repeats of crap. You might have 10 channels worth if you retained just the good stuff. But Sky will never revamp their Basic channels. It's great advertising to say "Wow **50** channels! FIFTY!" It sounds like a great deal and it's a necessary 'gateway' that you have to shell out for in order to get to Sport or Soho.

So Sky will never reduce the Basic package to fewer channels because it seems less tantalising - even if it the associated subscription cost was lower.

Soho is basically all the good content walled off. It's all the big name shows that everyone is talking about - the shows that free-to-air can't afford. But I think they could actually spin that channel off as an online SVOD offering. Let's say, I dunno, $8 a month for access to Soho on your choice of device? I think it could be successful, but the very concept is too radical for Sky to deal with lest their heads explode.

Finally, I had to laugh when I saw this image on Sky's website:

They're taking the proverbial. Maybe if you actually could pick and choose the channels you want, then you could build your own. For extra lols, they show a picture from Wheeler Dealers with Edd China... except Edd China is no longer on that show!

howdystranger

152 posts

Master Geek

#1824468 18-Jul-2017 15:24

Journeyman:

Soho is basically all the good content walled off. It's all the big name shows that everyone is talking about - the shows that free-to-air can't afford. But I think they could actually spin that channel off as an online SVOD offering. Let's say, I dunno, $8 a month for access to Soho on your choice of device? I think it could be successful, but the very concept is too radical for Sky to deal with lest their heads explode.

That's basically what Neon is, except it costs $20 per month.

rugrat

3106 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824504 18-Jul-2017 15:56

howdystranger:
Journeyman:

Soho is basically all the good content walled off. It's all the big name shows that everyone is talking about - the shows that free-to-air can't afford. But I think they could actually spin that channel off as an online SVOD offering. Let's say, I dunno, $8 a month for access to Soho on your choice of device? I think it could be successful, but the very concept is too radical for Sky to deal with lest their heads explode.

That's basically what Neon is, except it costs $20 per month.

Yeah but there's no dd5.1 so it's a worthless service, not watch GoT with no 5.1.

It's a another low quality offering from Sky.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#1824528 18-Jul-2017 16:16

Terrible idea, i have worked it out and to watch every sport i watch at the moment online it would cost me over $1500 a year. Sky is the cheaper option and if i have to pay Sky for individual sports it would soon be prohibitive and i would stop getting Sky and go to other means .

Common sense is not as common as you think.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824531 18-Jul-2017 16:18

So because you watch so much sport you are quite happy to have those that only care about a one or two supporting your habit?

Richard rich.ms

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1824614 18-Jul-2017 17:17

So what happens to sport when no one can afford the exorbitant costs to view it?

Looking at that article, $11mio pound per game of football just to broadcast it, wow, that on top of the gate earnings etc, no wonder they pay players so much money to run up and down the field a few times. Professional sports really does seem like the absolute worst case of capitalism gone wild, yet it receives virtually no negative publicity other than the likes of sky sports being hounded for "charging so much to watch sports", like they are the real cause?

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824632 18-Jul-2017 17:37

Well if they stop getting propped up by the basic packages and people stop watching, then their pay will drop I guess.

Its not like its an essential service that is deserving of being supported in a very socalist manner.

Richard rich.ms

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1824676 18-Jul-2017 18:23

They will need to do something pretty soon if they want me to keep my 20+ year subscription going.

I could live with the existing lineup and costs if they just got rid of the blasted ad breaks on most channels. If they won't get rid of the ads, they will need to slash the price. It's pretty much one or the other.And ending the nonsense of +15/m if I want the hard druive enabled, +$10/m if I want the HD ticket and all the other nickel and dimeing would be good. As would taking CGMS/A off the analog outputs so it works with my around-the-home video distribution system like the earlier box did.

Either I pay a premium price for a premium experience, or I pay a cheap price for a mediocre viewing experience. The current model of a premium price for a poor viewing experience doesn't work any more, as there are now many options (both legal and shady) available.

Once the current run of GoT ends in 6 weeks or so, I suspect Sky will go bye-bye.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#1824680 18-Jul-2017 18:30

richms:

So because you watch so much sport you are quite happy to have those that only care about a one or two supporting your habit?

so i should be ok with this even though i will have to pay more just because it lets Mr Someone in Auckland have Sky , is that the idea.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Bobdn

222 posts

Master Geek

#1824713 18-Jul-2017 19:13

howdystranger:

Journeyman:

Soho is basically all the good content walled off. It's all the big name shows that everyone is talking about - the shows that free-to-air can't afford. But I think they could actually spin that channel off as an online SVOD offering. Let's say, I dunno, $8 a month for access to Soho on your choice of device? I think it could be successful, but the very concept is too radical for Sky to deal with lest their heads explode.

That's basically what Neon is, except it costs $20 per month.

Yeah, $8 for premium HBO content should do it by my calculations. Although, on second thoughts, there's this company called Netflix which appears to be struggling to cover costs through subscriptions and they're charging more than $8. Nah, $8 it is.

"But the online streaming service still faces a long-term problem: Its acclaimed programming line-up is costing far more money than what subscribers pay for it.

The company has signed up for close to $18 billion worth of content over the next three years, an amount that far outweighs its current revenue streams."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11892193

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824716 18-Jul-2017 19:25

So sky UK is a lot different than sky nz.

For 1, sky UK does internet as well as paid tv, they also have around 22,423,000 subscribers. They have more funds for content that sky nz would ever have with the current number of people in NZ.

mattwnz

20142 posts

Uber Geek

#1824719 18-Jul-2017 19:30

In the UK, Sky TV UK also do sports betting. Bet they wish they were allowed to do that here, and in sopme ways it could be good for consumers, as it may help to bring to the high cost here.

lxsw20

3552 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1824770 18-Jul-2017 20:55

It's not all sunshine & flowers with Sky over here. Because there is a duopoly with Sky & BT you need both if you're serious about your sport. It's not even like you can have just one if you're interested in a particular type of sport. Football is played across both Sky and BT (and sometimes BBC) depending on the game.

1 | 2 | 3