Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 57

8996 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1858016 4-Sep-2017 11:47

MikeB4:

Pumpedd:

networkn:

Pumpedd:

The original outside broadcast unit(tech and people) was owned by TVNZ and was purchased by Sky.

Maybe the State should buy it back.

To what end?

Fund TVNZ or TV3 for that matter to provide free to air (with adverts) so most of NZ can watch our key games free to air like a lot of other countries do. And...please don't suggest that everyone should go to a local tavern to watch.

Why should the NZ tax payer subsidize an overseas asset management corporation?

They do now with reality TV ..

Regards,

Old3eyes

MightyApe

You will find anything you want at MightyApe (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

7619 posts

Uber Geek

#1858021 4-Sep-2017 11:50

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

Mike

Apsattv

2139 posts

Uber Geek

#1858044 4-Sep-2017 12:08

We could see an amazon Sport addon channel added to Sky , or added to playout exclusively on the Rugby Channel

With delayed Replay FTA rights sold to tvnz or three or prime

Remember the 2015 Cricket world cup in NZ and Aus...the whole thing was broadcast filmed and produced by contract with STAR Sport providing the film crews etc. Nothing stopping Amazon doing the same.

evilengineer

441 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1858051 4-Sep-2017 12:12

Well, the Government's target is for 99% of the population to be getting 50Mbps by 2025 with the remaining 1% stuck with "at least 10Mbps".

So in theory at least, that's 4K UHD for everyone apart from the unlucky few that will be stuck with 1080p.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1858052 4-Sep-2017 12:13

MikeAqua:

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

There would be nothing stopping Sky and Amazon coming to a commercial agreement. The problem is that subscribers that don't watch or want sport are subsidising it for those who do. If sports subscribers had to pay what it costs that's where the outrage would be.

As I asked before it depends on which subscribers they are losing, if sky are losing general subscribers then the sports channels will become too expensive for Sky to bid for or for Sports subscribers to pay for. Either way, the current model will become unsustainable.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858073 4-Sep-2017 12:44

StarBlazer:

MikeAqua:

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

There would be nothing stopping Sky and Amazon coming to a commercial agreement. The problem is that subscribers that don't watch or want sport are subsidising it for those who do. If sports subscribers had to pay what it costs that's where the outrage would be.

As I asked before it depends on which subscribers they are losing, if sky are losing general subscribers then the sports channels will become too expensive for Sky to bid for or for Sports subscribers to pay for. Either way, the current model will become unsustainable.

If they removed the subsidy so Basic is cheap, the sports watchers will still pay the same. Cheap Basic and expensive sport

I dont see how deals with Amazon will help. The sports rights holders still want their money, then we see another layer of profit being added for Amazon.

It will become more and more unsustainable, as no one wants to pay what sports costs. Amazon want help that, as the rights costs are the issue not the transmission costs.

frankv

5583 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1858086 4-Sep-2017 13:00

tdgeek:

It will become more and more unsustainable, as no one wants to pay what sports costs. Amazon want help that, as the rights costs are the issue not the transmission costs.

It's quite bizarre really... sportspeople getting paid megabucks, and mega-bucks sport administration structures, mostly funded from TV rights to games. Yet "no one wants to pay what sports costs". In the end, sports will cost whatever income they generate for a sports broadcaster.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17253 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1858110 4-Sep-2017 13:50

In the end the market decides. As long as enough people are prepared to pay the price, it will be what it is. If enough subscribers decide it is too much, it will come down to whatever level wins the subscribers back, regardless of who is then the provider.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dafman

3791 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1858111 4-Sep-2017 13:51

tdgeek:

StarBlazer:

MikeAqua:

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

There would be nothing stopping Sky and Amazon coming to a commercial agreement. The problem is that subscribers that don't watch or want sport are subsidising it for those who do. If sports subscribers had to pay what it costs that's where the outrage would be.

As I asked before it depends on which subscribers they are losing, if sky are losing general subscribers then the sports channels will become too expensive for Sky to bid for or for Sports subscribers to pay for. Either way, the current model will become unsustainable.

If they removed the subsidy so Basic is cheap, the sports watchers will still pay the same. Cheap Basic and expensive sport

I dont see how deals with Amazon will help. The sports rights holders still want their money, then we see another layer of profit being added for Amazon.

It will become more and more unsustainable, as no one wants to pay what sports costs. Amazon want help that, as the rights costs are the issue not the transmission costs.

Here's a scenario:

1. Amazon, or whoever, bid high to win rights over Sky.

2. There are no post deals with Sky and a rugby-less Sky haemorrhage subscribers before eventually calling it a day.

3. In a post-Sky world, Amazon (or whoever) bid lower for future rights as there is now no Sky counter bid.

4. NZ rugby learn to live with what the market is prepared to pay.

5. Consumers get high quality on demand streaming options at a reasonable price.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858130 4-Sep-2017 13:58

tdgeek:

StarBlazer:

MikeAqua:

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

There would be nothing stopping Sky and Amazon coming to a commercial agreement. The problem is that subscribers that don't watch or want sport are subsidising it for those who do. If sports subscribers had to pay what it costs that's where the outrage would be.

As I asked before it depends on which subscribers they are losing, if sky are losing general subscribers then the sports channels will become too expensive for Sky to bid for or for Sports subscribers to pay for. Either way, the current model will become unsustainable.

If they removed the subsidy so Basic is cheap, the sports watchers will still pay the same. Cheap Basic and expensive sport.

if (for arguments sake) 50,000 'basic' watchers only pay the $20 'basic' price instead of the current $50 'basic', although Sky could keep sport lovers 'total' at the current $80/$90 (whatever), where will they be able to make up the lost 'package' subsidy the new low-cost Basic subscribers stopped paying?

in my random selected example of 50,000*$30=$150,000 (if ONLY 50,000 'basic')... that money would need to be recovered from the Sport lovers (or sport bidding woulld have to go much lower) for Sky to retain their current profit margin.

TLDR: Sport lovers would pay the true cost and it would be FAR more than their currently justifying as 'Worth it' fee!

SheriffNZ

633 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1858132 4-Sep-2017 13:59

dafman:

tdgeek:

StarBlazer:

MikeAqua:

One advantage that Sky have is their broadcast reaches everywhere in NZ. Streaming capable internet does not.

A significant chunk of the rugby audience is rural.

Cue outrage if Amazon ever gets exclusive rights to NZ rugby.

There would be nothing stopping Sky and Amazon coming to a commercial agreement. The problem is that subscribers that don't watch or want sport are subsidising it for those who do. If sports subscribers had to pay what it costs that's where the outrage would be.

As I asked before it depends on which subscribers they are losing, if sky are losing general subscribers then the sports channels will become too expensive for Sky to bid for or for Sports subscribers to pay for. Either way, the current model will become unsustainable.

If they removed the subsidy so Basic is cheap, the sports watchers will still pay the same. Cheap Basic and expensive sport

I dont see how deals with Amazon will help. The sports rights holders still want their money, then we see another layer of profit being added for Amazon.

It will become more and more unsustainable, as no one wants to pay what sports costs. Amazon want help that, as the rights costs are the issue not the transmission costs.

Here's a scenario:

1. Amazon, or whoever, bid high to win rights over Sky.

2. There are no post deals with Sky and a rugby-less Sky haemorrhage subscribers before eventually calling it a day.

3. In a post-Sky world, Amazon (or whoever) bid lower for future rights as there is now no Sky counter bid.

4. NZ rugby learn to live with what the market is prepared to pay.

5. Consumers get high quality on demand streaming options at a reasonable price.

6. - If Amazon (or whoever) pays significantly less than is currently on offer to the NZRU, the NZRU can't retain it's top talent and they all ply their trade overseas, potentially playing for the All Blacks when the NZRU concedes it has to allow selections from outside NZ.

7. Because the local competition doesn't involve the best talent playing against each other continuously, NZ Rugby doesn't retain it's standard and the building blocks for the current game. Other, richer countries (UK, US etc) overtake NZ Rugby and we become a lower - mid tier rugby nation.

msukiwi

2185 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1858154 4-Sep-2017 14:04

The latest NZ Herald headline is:

Sky TV shares drop to 18 year low

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11916804

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858157 4-Sep-2017 14:08

dafman:

Here's a scenario:

1. Amazon, or whoever, bid high to win rights over Sky.

2. There are no post deals with Sky and a rugby-less Sky haemorrhage subscribers before eventually calling it a day.

3. In a post-Sky world, Amazon (or whoever) bid lower for future rights as there is now no Sky counter bid.

4. NZ rugby learn to live with what the market is prepared to pay.

5. Consumers get high quality on demand streaming options at a reasonable price.

Remember that rugby isnt the be all and end all of Sky Sport. Its big, but as a % its probably a medium minority.

Of your 5 points, to get No.5 you need No.4 for most sports, and all of the popular ones. And it depends if Sky bids so much as it has so much money. Or it has to accept what is demanded. I'm unsure how that negotiation goes. When they get the squeeze from the dropping subscriber numbers, Sky will have no choice but to say, sorry cant do 40 mill we can do 25, then they walk away. The sport will take a reduced fee, or play one off against the other. Ultimately the sport will lose revenue from Sky or whoever else fills that gap. Then the market can operate normally. I feel that the market is artificial due to high demanded sports rights. Even then, reduction of those isn't going to be 50%, it will still be expensive as its expensive to buy

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1858173 4-Sep-2017 14:19

SheriffNZ:

6. - If Amazon (or whoever) pays significantly less than is currently on offer to the NZRU, the NZRU can't retain it's top talent and they all ply their trade overseas, potentially playing for the All Blacks when the NZRU concedes it has to allow selections from outside NZ.

7. Because the local competition doesn't involve the best talent playing against each other continuously, NZ Rugby doesn't retain it's standard and the building blocks for the current game. Other, richer countries (UK, US etc) overtake NZ Rugby and we become a lower - mid tier rugby nation.

But this is becoming a discussion about Rugby. It is not Sky's responsibility to underpin the NZRU/All Blacks, neither should all other Sky subscribers have to pay a tax so that Rugby remains what it is. Rugby is a professional sport and as such needs to yield to the requirements of running a business and pay it's "stars" what it can afford. I agree that Sky and NZRU have a tricky symbiotic relationship but not everybody wants to pay for that.

Stand sports on their own and if NZ really is the Rugby loving nation it appears to be, the fans will support and pay for it. I don't buy any other product because it supports or sponsors any particular sport or event - I buy it because it is either necessary or it represents value for money. Sky for me was (is) no different. NZ was great at Rugby before Sky and would continue to be great at Rugby (I'm English and still recognise this).

Procrastination eventually pays off.

MikeAqua

7619 posts

Uber Geek

#1858199 4-Sep-2017 14:50

StarBlazer:

But this is becoming a discussion about Rugby. It is not Sky's responsibility to underpin the NZRU/All Blacks, neither should all other Sky subscribers have to pay a tax so that Rugby remains what it is. Rugby is a professional sport and as such needs to yield to the requirements of running a business and pay it's "stars" what it can afford. I agree that Sky and NZRU have a tricky symbiotic relationship but not everybody wants to pay for that.

No-one has to pay Sky a single cent. It's entirely voluntary.

Sure, there is some content viewers can only get from Sky (legally) in NZ. But no-one needs it. They want it. It's entertainment not necessity of life.

I would be interested to know how many subscriptions Sky would lose if it didn't have rugby. Along with HBO it's their premium offering.

Sky only got my business because of the RWC. I wouldn't re-subscribe in the absence of rugby.

The basic only package may be far less viable as a stand alone than people are assuming, it has few advantages over Freeview.

Mike

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 57