Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 38
937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 121


  Reply # 1851587 24-Aug-2017 05:25
Send private message quote this post

For all those thinking this is a major loss of customers for Sky TV, Foxtel lost over 100000 in the same period and they have much lower pricing, much better online options, and a lot more content than Sky.

 

 

 

 


10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851622 24-Aug-2017 07:11
Send private message quote this post

SheriffNZ:

 



I think you missed my point. I was effectively saying that the NZRU could get bigger money if they wanted to take the game solely to where it made the most money and forget about their NZ market. Sky don't care about NZ rugby, other than as a mechanism to generate money. The only reason NZRU does do stuff here in NZ is because it has an obligation to, probably written in its constitution or some other similar document.

 

 

Do you mean sell rights offshore as well as to Sky NZ?


 
 
 
 


10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851631 24-Aug-2017 07:28
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

OK let's break down some numbers for those of you who would like Sky to be cheaper. 

 

705,000 people have Sky. Last year they made 115 Million dollars, which works out at $148 per subscriber, of profit per YEAR, or $12.33 per month. 

 

Let's just assume for a moment, that the shareholders don't want any return on their investment. If Sky decides to go insane and make no profit and then drops subscriptions by $12.33 a month, how many of you are going to be happy with that much less? Not many I'd wager, because let's say the average punter pays $100, that's only a relatively small discount. 

 

The reality is that Sky isn't making massive profits, so if they substantially drop their revenues by offering a discount of 50% which is what I see most people are saying they think Sky is worth when they complain, then they would be out of business in a matter of 2-3 years I'd imagine. 

 

It's time for a reality check. There isn't a way for you to have what you want, on an ongoing basis for 50% of what you pay now, with Sky's current expenses the way they are, and I am not certain what percentage content is, but I'd wagers it's easily their biggest expense, so even if they found a cheaper distribution method, even if they trimmed wages or sacked people etc) then they would still have to pay for content. 

 

I think to some degree, if you want to complain, you need to talk to content providers. 

 

Bottom line is, I'd love Sky to be cheaper, but in reality, I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having access to 50 Channels, 24 hours a day, ability to record in HD, 4 Channels at the same time, plus on demand content they are adding etc, works out at $3 a day. 

 

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ. 

 

 

 

Is John Fellet a fool for his comments, does he have his head in the sand? Yes, I believe so on both counts. He is not the leader Sky needs, but I don't think any leadership is magically going to be able to offer the content available via Sky substantially cheaper until they can rid themselves of high content fees or satellite coverage fee's. 

 

 

 

 

Good post.

 

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

 

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

 

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

 

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

 

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

 

 

 

 

 

 


10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851646 24-Aug-2017 08:00
Send private message quote this post

sonyxperiageek:

 

rugrat:

 

networkn:

 

 

 

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thousands don't see value and are cancelling their subscriptions and sky are blaming pirating for losing subscribers.

 

Other companies are charging less, and yes they have lower cost structures, so Sky is going to have to find a way to deal with it.

 

There are non money things Sky could do to improve user experience to but they seem to move very slowly. (Like making  HD on demand content available)

 

 

Thousands don't see value because of what Netflix etc. have set up as a pricing standard of around $15 per month. That is not feasible for sports. Plus, Netflix has been in debt for a while now...

 

 

NF has now made a good profit, 178 million on just under 100 million subscribers. This "standard and accepted" pricing that everyone is now happy with , equates to $1-87 per month profit per subscriber


2578 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851649 24-Aug-2017 08:10
Send private message quote this post

NF has volume. An ever decreasing subscriber pool is not the answer. Costs are fixed. The subscriber volume needs to grow. That's the only solution.




My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851667 24-Aug-2017 08:48
Send private message quote this post

hairy1: NF has volume. An ever decreasing subscriber pool is not the answer. Costs are fixed. The subscriber volume needs to grow. That's the only solution.

 

It cannot grow, its already at 50%, or less now market share, and the decrease over the years has been very minimal, even this year its 5% which is large, but its not a fall from the sky.

 

There is no room to increase prices

 

Moving to SVOD only is by my rough calc, $8 a month, although there will be more with being able to dump brick and mortar and staff

 

Decreasing other costs wont be significant

 

Decreasing content purchases can't happen

 

 

 

So on all that, the only option is to increase subscribers, but there is no room. NZ is too small, and as Sky is compared to $14 per month competing services (even though they rarely overlap) thats what tyhe public want. A huge price reduction, there is no room for that. If Sky always had 25% of the market, there is room, but its been 50% for years , its already at its maximum market level. As @networkn stated, if they dropped the profit and ran at break even, that doesnt help much either, its still far too much for the public now that they can get $14 alternatives. Yes, NF has volume, NZ never will, to provide a Sky type service at a low low cost


2283 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 932


  Reply # 1851698 24-Aug-2017 09:27
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

The Spinoff has an interesting take on the situation at Sky Here


14941 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3832

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851716 24-Aug-2017 09:33
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Good post.

 

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

 

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

 

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

 

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

 

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

 

 

 

 

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever.  Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

 

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

 

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

 

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode. 


Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851719 24-Aug-2017 09:36
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Good post.

 

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

 

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

 

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

 

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

 

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

 

 

 

 

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever.  Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

 

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

 

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

 

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode. 

 

 

 

 

Mr Fellet is also on the Board as an Executive Director





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


Banana?
4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

Subscriber

  Reply # 1851723 24-Aug-2017 09:41
Send private message quote this post

I think (and have thought this for a few years) that Sky should reduce the cost of Basic, and increase the cost of Sport.

 

Sports rights are where most of their rights costs are, so charge that to the people that want the sports. Seperate the sports out if need be (a Rugby Channel, a League one, a Cricket one etc).

 

I suspect they can't (won't) do this though as the cross-subsiding of basic customers for sports is too much.


10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851725 24-Aug-2017 09:42
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Good post.

 

Before I agree with you, :-), JF isnt the be all and end all of Sky. There is a a Board of Directors. Surely there is no way that he and they see Sky falling over, and why, but choose to do nothing?

 

Your numbers. Profit per cust used to be about $15, its now less, as for the first time, there has been a large drop, 5% of subscribers. Its been a very sticky product, and still is. I looked up the broadcast costs from the financial reports, 100 million. Thats not just the leased 7 transponders, but lets say it is. (We can offset dish depreciation which would drop if they dumped Optus). Lets assume that CDN annual costs are 20 million (no idea, might be 2 might be 32) Saving 80 million for 800,000 subscribers is $8 a month. Lets keep the profit, and reduce prices as we are now in the 2017 days not the 80's old tech. $8 a month cheaper.

 

So thats my dump Optus ideas blown out of the water.

 

Content costs are 350 million, thats $36 a month, not much to save there either. 60% of that is sport

 

Maybe all they can do is trim costs, centralise to one brick and mortar office and warehouse, dump staff, save the $8 when Optus is renewed due to it already being written off/SVOD only, and reset the lineup to 2017, Basic is cheap, other high content costs will not be cheap. Run sport as a seperate channel?

 

 

 

 

JF isn't the sole reason Sky is suffering of course not, his board is responsible too, but as CEO, there are many things he could have done he has not done. His personal communication is God awful, maybe the worst I have seen ever.  Sky's communication with it's customers, is awful, truly awful as well.

 

Customers in my experience will put up with a fair bit if they feel valued and communicated with, I don't know many Sky customers who feel valued. Customer service at Sky is really horrible.

 

When Sky's online platforms don't deliver as promised, no apology, no acknowledgement.

 

It's not fair to compare Sky to NF etc, as they are not directly comparable products. For *some* people they compete on content but Sky's coverage is significantly better, it's content pool is MUCH wider. Until recently NF had no offline mode. 

 

 

Ive never had any bad times with them, they answer the call, deal with it, that's it, but I rarely call them, there is rarely a need. For me at least, it just works

 

But I cant see now, where they can go, going full digital and dumping Optus wont help much. NZ is too small. It always was, but IMO Sky has a very good across the board offering, but these days its directly compared to $15 services, thats now how the public see it.


10034 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1851726 24-Aug-2017 09:44
Send private message quote this post

trig42:

 

I think (and have thought this for a few years) that Sky should reduce the cost of Basic, and increase the cost of Sport.

 

Sports rights are where most of their rights costs are, so charge that to the people that want the sports. Seperate the sports out if need be (a Rugby Channel, a League one, a Cricket one etc).

 

I suspect they can't (won't) do this though as the cross-subsiding of basic customers for sports is too much.

 

 

Good ideas. Basic could be $15, or $20, down to $15 if you have another package. Sport costs what it does, and the public will outcry as they dont want to pay what it costs


Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851749 24-Aug-2017 10:12
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


14941 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3832

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851751 24-Aug-2017 10:15
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.

 

 

 

 

I am not happy that Food TV the only channel other than Sport 1 2 and 3 I watch, is still in std def and now cycles *3* times a day. That means at most 8 hours of "fresh" content is viewable in 24 hours. This on a day to day basis doesn't bother me, as I never, ever have 8 hours in a row to watch TV, however when I holiday in NZ, usually xmas time, where I want to see lots of food shows, 24 hours is a long time esp if you have food tv on in the background and you are seeing episodes 2-3 times. 

 

 

 

First world problems, I acknowledge, however, this is my current bugbear. 


Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1851755 24-Aug-2017 10:18
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

I have never had a problem with their Contact Centre, usually quick and get the job done, my main issue with Sky is it seems OK for say 4-6 months then with the exception of Sport and Free to air channels it is just a mass of low bitrate cycling repeats. I have never bothered with Soho so I cannot comment on that.

 

 

 

 

I am not happy that Food TV the only channel other than Sport 1 2 and 3 I watch, is still in std def and now cycles *3* times a day. That means at most 8 hours of "fresh" content is viewable in 24 hours. This on a day to day basis doesn't bother me, as I never, ever have 8 hours in a row to watch TV, however when I holiday in NZ, usually xmas time, where I want to see lots of food shows, 24 hours is a long time esp if you have food tv on in the background and you are seeing episodes 2-3 times. 

 

 

 

First world problems, I acknowledge, however, this is my current bugbear. 

 

 

 

 

My wife rages about Food TV, it was her favourite now she reckons is just  dopey Jamie Oliver, baking contests and endless repeating repeats of repeats that have been repeated repeatedly 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 38
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Phone prices rising as users move upmarket
Posted 24-Nov-2017 17:16


Talking net neutrality on RNZ Nine-to-Noon
Posted 24-Nov-2017 12:11


Air New Zealand experiments with blockchain technology
Posted 23-Nov-2017 15:39


Symantec selects Amazon Web Services to deliver cloud security
Posted 23-Nov-2017 10:40


New Zealand Ministry of Education chooses Unisys for cloud-based education resourcing management system
Posted 22-Nov-2017 22:00


Business analytics software powers profits for NZ wine producers
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:52


Pyrios strikes up alliance with Microsoft integrator UC Logiq
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:51


The New Zealand IT services ecosystem - it's all digital down here
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:49


Volvo to supply tens of thousands of autonomous drive compatible cars to Uber
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:46


From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.