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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 57

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1851270 23-Aug-2017 13:57

As sky's situation gets more precarious I find myself actually feeling a bit sorry for them. They locked up the rugby because it was needed to make the proposition viable, but this created an irresistible gouging opportunity - hike the prices, chuck in some ads, make haughty statements because you can.

I always thought the game would be up when the ABs finally decided money was more important than glory and buggered off to Europe. But now I think there's a chance Amazon may be able to keep a local scene viable by spreading the costs across a global audience.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32184 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851275 23-Aug-2017 14:03

Oldmanakbar:

Pretty much all the comments here and elsewhere are generally in the same tune. They need to wake up and adjust or they will become extinct.

I am very suprised the man in charge has not been asked to pack up a cardboard box with his desk contents.

Whenever someone mentions Sky the first word that pops into my head is Kodak, it is easy to draw similarities between them. But maybe that is what they want, to go so fast down the loo they have to file for bankruptcy, does that gain them anything in this country in regards to being protected from debt?

Claims of Sky's demise have been around for 10+ years. They are still making profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which as a percentage is not high, but as an amount of money isn't too shabby.

The CEO's job is to make the company perform for it's shareholders first and foremost, and to it's customers somewhere below that.

Sky is stuck with it's current cost structures for another 2-3 Years I think. After which it will renegotiate the satellite fees it pays. Agreements with Larger Telcos with National coverage will help, as will UFB.

Are they moving fast enough, probably not. I believe John Fellet is the worst CEO of a large company NZ currently has and should be sacked by the board for ignoring the market conditions, however, I don't see sky going away any time soon.

tripper1000

1602 posts

Uber Geek

#1851277 23-Aug-2017 14:09

Sounddude:

NZRU would be good picking for someone like Amazon to swoop in.

Happened in the UK.

NZRU does it for money not the love of national sport etc. They'll sell rights to whom ever bids the most.

They need to (but may not be) balance the income now from middle aged blokes, who got hooked on TV rugby when it was FTA, to the subscription barriers they are erecting that is preventing them from hooking a new generation of fans.

SheriffNZ:

While Sky are making large profit's in terms of actual dollars, the return on equity is in the normal range showing that their pricing is fair for their cost base. What their issue is that the market doesn't think those prices are justified but Sky just can't reduce them much further before they start making losses.

What they need to do is something to reduce their cost base. While i haven't reviewed their financial statements, there is a large capital investment and cost in their distribution network. Move to an online model and that will be cheaper for them. Yes, you may lose customers who don't have the necessary broadband speed to have their content delivered online, but you may have a more profitable business and be able to deliver the content at a price people are happy with.

Their biggest cost will be rights, they can cut costs by bidding less, but then they open them selves up to loosing rights.

They lease satellite space from Optus and while we don't know the details of that deal, you normally pay for the bandwidth you use on a satellite, so they can (in theory) reduce channels. This will also be one of the reasons they're in no hurry to drop SD or go 4K - the extra cost of bandwidth can't be recouped. They've only recently switched to DVB-S2, and that is primarily for bandwidth reasons, as evident in that they're not using the BW efficiency gains for HD reasons - they're reducing the bandwidth (and cost) of their SD channels.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1851316 23-Aug-2017 14:23

networkn:

Pumpedd:

Sport is the big issue for Sky as it is so costly, and few would subscribe to Sport if they had to pay the true cost.

IMO....national games like rugby should be free to air so everyone can watch..not just those that can afford the $100/month plus. More than happy to pay to watch other programming via "affordable" services like Netflix. Until then people will pirate as they dont have any other choice. Fellet wants it all for himself and wont share....well there is news for him and its not good.

They are free to air, you can go to a pub, or you can watch it delayed by 1.5 hours, hardly a massive hardship if $100 is out of reach.

Also, Rugby isn't around for 3 months a year, so make use of that, have Sky with the $50 deal and cancel after 9 months and get it back 3 months later, rinse and repeat. It's a rort of the system, but well..

Arrogant response imo

mattwnz

20035 posts

Uber Geek

#1851326 23-Aug-2017 14:36

Jase2985:
Bung: The reason Sky lost me as a customer is the ad telling me that Sky values its customers so has arranged "deals" with a range of partners. I'm not interested in a price cut by one of Sky's advertisers.

the reason they lost me is they can continually offer deals to new customers but would only hike the price on those that had been with them for years. its gets to the point where you can just find the content elsewhere

I read that they are going to stop doing these deals for new customers, possibility for that reason. Most ISPs do it too, but at least we can move between ISPs

What nzers really need is a big company like Amazon or Netflix to come along and buy the rights to nz sports events. Although I am a firm believer in sports of national significance being FTA, due to them being cultural events,and sport is such a big part of Nzr's culture.

vexxxboy

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#1851349 23-Aug-2017 15:26

mattwnz:
Jase2985:

Bung: The reason Sky lost me as a customer is the ad telling me that Sky values its customers so has arranged "deals" with a range of partners. I'm not interested in a price cut by one of Sky's advertisers.

the reason they lost me is they can continually offer deals to new customers but would only hike the price on those that had been with them for years. its gets to the point where you can just find the content elsewhere

I read that they are going to stop doing these deals for new customers, possibility for that reason. Most ISPs do it too, but at least we can move between ISPs

What nzers really need is a big company like Amazon or Netflix to come along and buy the rights to nz sports events. Although I am a firm believer in sports of national significance being FTA, due to them being cultural events,and sport is such a big part of Nzr's culture.

So you want a big American company running our national sport, because that is what would happen if they do get the rights. The rugby board would get told who they could play and where and at what time. You wouldnt see any All blacks doing promotion in NZ, they would go where the money and audience is.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1851353 23-Aug-2017 15:32

So you want a big American company running our national sport, because that is what would happen if they do get the rights. The rugby board would get told who they could play and where and at what time. You wouldnt see any All blacks doing promotion in NZ, they would go where the money and audience is.

To be fair, what's stopping Sky doing something like this at the moment? I would suggest at the moment its their agreement with the NZRU which has an obligation to ensure NZ Rugby as a whole is developed. This wouldn't (or shouldn't) change.

rugrat

3088 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851354 23-Aug-2017 15:34

Sky is also blaming the media companies for losing customers.

They claim the media companies are running every negative story they can about them, in retaliation for Sky taking the media companies to court suing them for copy right infringement.

Story here

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1851358 23-Aug-2017 15:42

The industry in general faces a huge problem. that is , fragmentation and profit dilution. In the US Studios are looking to copy the success that Netflix has achieved by going it alone eg Disney. The result is profits will become so diluted that innovation and customer service will eventually be degraded. Just because one or two

companies like Netflix can succeed does not mean 10, 20, 30 can succeed. In the end the consumer is the one that will either need to stump up with multiple subscriptions and wade through a load of rubbish to get a small content worth watching or be limited in their viewing choice.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1851364 23-Aug-2017 15:55

MikeB4:

The industry in general faces a huge problem. that is , fragmentation and profit dilution. In the US Studios are looking to copy the success that Netflix has achieved by going it alone eg Disney. The result is profits will become so diluted that innovation and customer service will eventually be degraded. Just because one or two

companies like Netflix can succeed does not mean 10, 20, 30 can succeed. In the end the consumer is the one that will either need to stump up with multiple subscriptions and wade through a load of rubbish to get a small content worth watching or be limited in their viewing choice.

It does mean that technology should be used to change business models..not bury heads in the sand like Fellet. Its a bit like Trump trying to reinvigorate the US coal industry when clearly its time is done.

vexxxboy

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#1851371 23-Aug-2017 16:17

SheriffNZ:

So you want a big American company running our national sport, because that is what would happen if they do get the rights. The rugby board would get told who they could play and where and at what time. You wouldnt see any All blacks doing promotion in NZ, they would go where the money and audience is.

To be fair, what's stopping Sky doing something like this at the moment? I would suggest at the moment its their agreement with the NZRU which has an obligation to ensure NZ Rugby as a whole is developed. This wouldn't (or shouldn't) change.

because Sky is also a NZ company and they cant really go anywhere else , Amazon is an entirely different beast and to make money they would have to go world wide , NZ is just to small.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

allan

2034 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1851403 23-Aug-2017 17:25

I bought one of the original Igloo boxes for my elderly Dad to watch selected Sky channels and I've been thinking that if they had put a bit more effort into making that box more reliable, they could have continued a very effective "on demand" service for HD sports broadcasts (which they offered on a selective basis with Igloo), while they got their act together on streaming options for the future. Too late now of course...

networkn

Networkn
32184 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851423 23-Aug-2017 18:12

Arrogant response imo

Why?

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1851442 23-Aug-2017 19:12

I'm not sure I am buying the piracy angle. Sure, it is a problem for Sky and other providers, but my understanding was that with the rise of easy to use and competitively priced streaming services piracy had plateaued and was actually declining a bit - with Netflix now accounting for much more US internet traffic than bit torrent. Piracy would have to be increasing significantly over the last two years for it to be a good explanation of Sky's profit drop over that period, and I doubt it has.

I'm also bemused that Sky seems to equate a 60-second news clip on Stuff or TVNZ after the fact with Piracy. Firstly, I don't know any sports fan would would see that as a viable alternative to actually watching the game properly. Secondly, along with most other people I know, I block Stuff et al from even playing video clips, as a consequence of their insufferable auto playing of them.

We had a bit of a conversation around lunchtime where I am working at the moment. A few people were like me, and had had their Sky subscriptions for decades. It used to be that when Sky cam up there were those who didn't like them, and those who subscribed because they thought it was good value. What I found interesting was that no one, even the long term subscribers, had a good word to say about them. And pretty much everyone was looking at alternatives and said they had been actively considering dropping Sky in recent months.

I think the only thing stopping the exodus becoming a flood is the hammer lock Sky still has on most sport. If, for example, the rugby got acquired by another provider then I think they would be in deep trouble.

I also can't understand why the Board and shareholders are retaining Fellet as the CEO. He seems to be well past his sell-by date and not really leading the company. Their recent efforts to move with the times (Fanpass, Igloo, Neon) all seem to be either poorly thought out and/or poorly executed. Apart from reaching for the lawyers to try and sue perceived threats, he doesn't seem to have the faintest glimmer of a clue how to respond to the rapidly changing environment Sky is in.

tdgeek

29581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851506 23-Aug-2017 20:43

networkn:

Oldmanakbar:

Pretty much all the comments here and elsewhere are generally in the same tune. They need to wake up and adjust or they will become extinct.

I am very suprised the man in charge has not been asked to pack up a cardboard box with his desk contents.

Whenever someone mentions Sky the first word that pops into my head is Kodak, it is easy to draw similarities between them. But maybe that is what they want, to go so fast down the loo they have to file for bankruptcy, does that gain them anything in this country in regards to being protected from debt?

Claims of Sky's demise have been around for 10+ years. They are still making profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which as a percentage is not high, but as an amount of money isn't too shabby.

The CEO's job is to make the company perform for it's shareholders first and foremost, and to it's customers somewhere below that.

Sky is stuck with it's current cost structures for another 2-3 Years I think. After which it will renegotiate the satellite fees it pays. Agreements with Larger Telcos with National coverage will help, as will UFB.

Are they moving fast enough, probably not. I believe John Fellet is the worst CEO of a large company NZ currently has and should be sacked by the board for ignoring the market conditions, however, I don't see sky going away any time soon.

I generally agree.

Optus ends 2018 or 2019. They are locked into that. They dropped 40,000. But in recent "Netflix is cool" years its held well.

What can they do? They cant drop Optus tomorrow, so thats out. They setup OD for if and when they drop Optus.

Not referring to you, but most here whine about Sky. 80's tech, get with the play its 2017. With that Id love they went 100% SVOD, then the same will whine when thousands of rural people lose TV, nasty Sky.

1. They may get a really good deal with Optus. Stay on satellite, pass on cost savings.

2. No deal with Optus, go 100% SVOD, pass o cost savings. MySky is ready right now.

3. Unsubsidise sport. Sport rights are 60% of all Skys paid rights. Basic can go to the Netflix price point, $14 or whatever it is. Sport goes for big money, thats what it costs

Someone mentioned about PPV sport. I doubt SANZAR, NZR will drop a big dollop of cash to get PPV per game, that wont work. Sky rights payments for rugby are a loss. But it gains traction. I cannot see any way that PPV per game will get any real money. In some ways Id like sport to go SVOD from the rights owner, then see what it costs, per sport. Sky's subsidy across 800,000 subscriber allow these costs to even out.

But its in transition, it cannot change now or last year, its the way it is. We have already seen negative comments about having to subscribe to 5 SVOD services to get what we want. While linear is old school, multiple SVOD will also be a pain. What I find funny is that they drop 40,000 after so many years of SVOD competition. Thats 5% of 800,000. But alienist every post here implies Sky is gone burger.

Nobody, apart from one, put forward a solution. That poster suggested that Sky run satellite and SVOD, and drop prices to $50. Great post, at least its not anti Sky whining. My response is if they paid for Optus and paid to setup CDNs and run them, thats two costs to transmit for no gain. Then to halve prices. Cannot happen. But it was a suggestion, thats good.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 57