Sky Basic split into two packages

Forums › Sky, Neon › Sky Basic split into two packages

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

2294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1076

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1967220 2-Mar-2018 18:26

Wayward:

Also to comment, these new changes are to attract new customer's not to keep the old. I find this very rude and disrespectful to their current customer's which is in line with how they've always been.

Couldn't agree more. This is a company that has turned contempt for existing customers into an art form.

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967227 2-Mar-2018 18:35

JimmyH:

Hammerer:

You appear to use bootleg because it sounds better than pirated or stolen. But they are not the same thing. Bootleggers made their own product. Pirates steal it.

Fair enough. A question of semantics but I'm prepared to agree with you. I didn't use the term to make it sound better or worse than piracy, it's merely the word that I used in a stream of consciousness when I was typing.

Hammerer:

It is a waste of time to compete with "bootleg", as you call it. It is a no win game competing with pirates because they drive the price towards zero and drive the convenience as high as they can given their minimal overheads and no need to meet contractual obligations. Consumers who use pirated products generally prefer not to pay anything if they can avoid it, which is generally why they are doing it in this situation. That behaviour wouldn't change even if Sky had no ads.

Whether they like it or not, they are in competition with pirated product, which for many people is a direct alternative to the paid product. It is definitely not a waste of time competing with free. Clearly they can't compete just on price, as you are correct that undercutting zero is a bit hard. But they can compete. They need to do so on the basis of quality, accessibility (easy to find something, easy to play it, easy to pay for it), at a reasonable price.

Spotify and Pandora have shown that if you offer a good range, at a reasonable price, with a good interface and a pleasant all round experience then people will pay instead of pirate. Reasonable and comprehensive music streaming has been credited with driving a big drop in user piracy. Sure, there are some inveterate pirates, but many people want to do the right thing, and will pay instead of pirate, if the value proposition is there.

Which was kind of my point. Sky need to compete by doing more than slicing and dicing their channel packages, and juggling their prices. They need to focus on value add and making their product as nice to use and as attractive as possible compared to competing offerings - including pirated content. Constant ads and promos in programming, which are annoying and which legal and illegal competitors don't put into the programming, should in my view be one thing they should do.

Certainly, they *have* to do it if they want to retain me as a customer.

I pretty much agree with all that. Juggling prices did have to happen though, and $25 for some users is a sound amount. almost 25% for me. But added value is where they have to go.

They have added some value so far

OnDemand There is quite a bit there

SkyGo Video quality is good now, many channels, error free now

Perks Never used them but they are there for benefits.

What they need to do is:

Sky app So all of my subscription is one app, iOS, Android, TV, etc For 3 simultaneous devices

Reduce the cost of the STB or once written off, its free if I remain subscribed.

Regular bonuses for local subscribers.

I cant see any further offers that can reduce the price.

DickDastardly

215 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 37

Reply # 1967230 2-Mar-2018 18:38

One person supports this post

If Sky and Netflix/Amazon are to buddy up, instead of Sky having a Netflix/Amazon app on their STB's, they should consider adding Sky content - ie Sport to Netflix and allow people to view the Ab's in glorious 4K.

Yes, i know this is simplistic and there will always be people who cant stream due to rural locations, but this could be a sensible approach - bin the Sky box and have another regional specific category for Netflix NZ....."Sport"...

I don't want no sugar in it - thank you very much

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967234 2-Mar-2018 18:49

DickDastardly:

If Sky and Netflix/Amazon are to buddy up, instead of Sky having a Netflix/Amazon app on their STB's, they should consider adding Sky content - ie Sport to Netflix and allow people to view the Ab's in glorious 4K.

Yes, i know this is simplistic and there will always be people who cant stream due to rural locations, but this could be a sensible approach - bin the Sky box and have another regional specific category for Netflix NZ....."Sport"...

Its a year away thats all. Both options were mentioned by Fellet, Netflix and Amazon Prime on the Sky STB, and possibility of a stand alone app. So what you suggest is on the table, and given Sky's need to act, I assume they will.

Off course if Sky or Sky Sport was on Netflix, you will still need to pay for it, it might not :-) be included in your $15! The key for both options is convenience. If my Sky STB had NF and AP on it, easy. If all I had was my ATV4 and my iPads and they have all my apps including Sky, easy.

Apsattv

1065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Reply # 1967243 2-Mar-2018 19:15

Fellet had said to get this new starter pack they had been negotiating pricing with their suppliers for a year.

Going by the channel lineup they have only managed a deal with Viacom (MTV, Nick, comedy central etc)

All the major pay tv channels are historically sold based on Sky paying X $ or cents per subscriber. Hence the large basic package giving a stable large base of subs for channels like Discovery. The less people getting those channels the more Sky pays for them. I would expect Sky will be working hard on getting a better per subscriber rate so that they can furthur split up the packages. e.g Kids, News, educational , etc

changing the subject a bit, if they giving SOHO for free and stating a $9.99 value on it, can you ask them to remove it thereby getting your bill -$10 and thats your "HD Fee" paid for.

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967248 2-Mar-2018 19:32

Apsattv:

Fellet had said to get this new starter pack they had been negotiating pricing with their suppliers for a year.

Going by the channel lineup they have only managed a deal with Viacom (MTV, Nick, comedy central etc)

All the major pay tv channels are historically sold based on Sky paying X $ or cents per subscriber. Hence the large basic package giving a stable large base of subs for channels like Discovery. The less people getting those channels the more Sky pays for them. I would expect Sky will be working hard on getting a better per subscriber rate so that they can furthur split up the packages. e.g Kids, News, educational , etc

changing the subject a bit, if they giving SOHO for free and stating a $9.99 value on it, can you ask them to remove it thereby getting your bill -$10 and thats your "HD Fee" paid for.

You said Sky might be paying x per subscriber, so if thats the case, why would Discover cost Sky? That Discovery etc are a lump sum type of deal?

I guess they could credit SOHO to reverse what they charged you, which is zero. But I get what you mean. But I doubt it very much.

stinger

263 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Reply # 1967343 2-Mar-2018 23:38

tdgeek:

You said Sky might be paying x per subscriber, so if thats the case, why would Discover cost Sky? That Discovery etc are a lump sum type of deal?

I guess they could credit SOHO to reverse what they charged you, which is zero. But I get what you mean. But I doubt it very much.

Remember there are two types of channels on Sky. There are the ones that are run by Sky (Sky 5, Vibe, Jones, Sky Sport, Soho, etc) where Sky buy the rights for individual programs (or occasionally networks, e.g. HBO for Soho). Then there are the channels run by third parties (documentary channels, kids, news, e!, viceland, ESPN, etc) where Sky don't buy the rights to shows themselves. In the later case, I imagine Sky pay a ¢/user type charge.

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967369 3-Mar-2018 00:48

stinger:

tdgeek:

You said Sky might be paying x per subscriber, so if thats the case, why would Discover cost Sky? That Discovery etc are a lump sum type of deal?

I guess they could credit SOHO to reverse what they charged you, which is zero. But I get what you mean. But I doubt it very much.

Remember there are two types of channels on Sky. There are the ones that are run by Sky (Sky 5, Vibe, Jones, Sky Sport, Soho, etc) where Sky buy the rights for individual programs (or occasionally networks, e.g. HBO for Soho). Then there are the channels run by third parties (documentary channels, kids, news, e!, viceland, ESPN, etc) where Sky don't buy the rights to shows themselves. In the later case, I imagine Sky pay a ¢/user type charge.

Ah ok. On that I assume, Discovery for example is a per subscriber charge, but based on Sky subscriber numbers and not Basic Entertainment numbers? Hence a higher charge relatively.

Hammerer

1558 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 352

Reply # 1967372 3-Mar-2018 04:11

JimmyH:

Hammerer:

It is a waste of time to compete with "bootleg", as you call it. It is a no win game competing with pirates because they drive the price towards zero and drive the convenience as high as they can given their minimal overheads and no need to meet contractual obligations. Consumers who use pirated products generally prefer not to pay anything if they can avoid it, which is generally why they are doing it in this situation. That behaviour wouldn't change even if Sky had no ads.

Whether they like it or not, they are in competition with pirated product, which for many people is a direct alternative to the paid product. It is definitely not a waste of time competing with free. Clearly they can't compete just on price, as you are correct that undercutting zero is a bit hard. But they can compete. They need to do so on the basis of quality, accessibility (easy to find something, easy to play it, easy to pay for it), at a reasonable price.

Spotify and Pandora have shown that if you offer a good range, at a reasonable price, with a good interface and a pleasant all round experience then people will pay instead of pirate. Reasonable and comprehensive music streaming has been credited with driving a big drop in user piracy. Sure, there are some inveterate pirates, but many people want to do the right thing, and will pay instead of pirate, if the value proposition is there.

Which was kind of my point. Sky need to compete by doing more than slicing and dicing their channel packages, and juggling their prices. They need to focus on value add and making their product as nice to use and as attractive as possible compared to competing offerings - including pirated content. Constant ads and promos in programming, which are annoying and which legal and illegal competitors don't put into the programming, should in my view be one thing they should do.

Certainly, they *have* to do it if they want to retain me as a customer.

I agree that Sky TV has not developed successful online streaming of the sort you are expecting. But the music streaming services aren't directly comparable with Sky TV.

Spotify and Pandora are greenfield businesses in a different distribution channel. Sky TV is primarily a legacy service/technology platform. Their primary service is their distribution channel and it is the fixed costs of that distribution platform that largely determine theiir prices and their strategy.

I agree that Sky TV would be more attractive without ads. But that is arguing the opposite of what Spotify and Pandora have done as their free tier is ad-supported.

clod

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Reply # 1967383 3-Mar-2018 08:33

As much as I hate to say this Sky Sports is a very good package. If like me you like motosport esp Motorcycle racing its way cheaper than getting a video pass to MotoGP, World Superbikes and British Superbikes plus you get other motosport as well. For an example MotoGP is 139 Euro alone which is enough for 7 or 8 months of Sky Sport. What I don't like is the crap basically free to air channel you have to pay for to get it but again thats because all the stuff I watch is now their entertainment channel.

About the adds- originally one of the good things when Sky came out was no adds. Really fed up with seeing their own promos now. And complaints about the price! it cost $600 back in 98 just to get connected..

vexxxboy

2599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 614

Reply # 1967384 3-Mar-2018 08:36

Spotify and Pandora have shown that if you offer a good range, at a reasonable price, with a good interface and a pleasant all round experience then people will pay instead of pirate. Reasonable and comprehensive music streaming has been credited with driving a big drop in user piracy. Sure, there are some inveterate pirates, but many people want to do the right thing, and will pay instead of pirate, if the value proposition is there.

they might be popular but Spotify loses Just over $500 million a year and Pandora loses $300 million a year so something is not working.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967401 3-Mar-2018 08:55

vexxxboy:

Spotify and Pandora have shown that if you offer a good range, at a reasonable price, with a good interface and a pleasant all round experience then people will pay instead of pirate. Reasonable and comprehensive music streaming has been credited with driving a big drop in user piracy. Sure, there are some inveterate pirates, but many people want to do the right thing, and will pay instead of pirate, if the value proposition is there.

they might be popular but Spotify loses Just over $500 million a year and Pandora loses $300 million a year so something is not working.

Yes. If you pay $12 or so to get unlimited access to so much music, someone is missing out. If I paid $12 per month for all Sky content........

rugrat

1259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Reply # 1967402 3-Mar-2018 09:07

I've got Sky 5 free this month with digital rental.

Came home this mourning from work early hours and watched last half of Pawn Stars.

It seemed not more then 5 minutes went by for each block of adds, and they went for a long time.
They were mainly advertising programs in the entertainment package.

Looks like starter is just a platform to barrage you with adverts for the other package (Maybe different adds in day light hours) but whether SD or HD with that many adds it was unwatchable for me, even Freeview doesn't have that many adds. They may have done the no adds first half, and then crammed them in the last half, but it just feels painful to watch and not enjoyable. I don't watch TV to be put in pain.

It's better value for buying other packages, great deal for people that want the Sports etc cheaper by buying less other stuff, but from what I saw watching it that 15 mins was that Sky 5 at least looked unwatchable.
I check out couple other programs during month, but if the same I stick to digital rental and just watch arrow on Neflix even though it's 4 to 5 seasons behind.

tdgeek

12280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted

Reply # 1967407 3-Mar-2018 09:21

rugrat: I've got Sky 5 free this month with digital rental.

Came home this mourning from work early hours and watched last half of Pawn Stars.

It seemed not more then 5 minutes went by for each block of adds, and they went for a long time.
They were mainly advertising programs in the entertainment package.

Looks like starter is just a platform to barrage you with adverts for the other package (Maybe different adds in day light hours) but whether SD or HD with that many adds it was unwatchable for me, even Freeview doesn't have that many adds. They may have done the no adds first half, and then crammed them in the last half, but it just feels painful to watch and not enjoyable. I don't watch TV to be put in pain.

It's better value for buying other packages, great deal for people that want the Sports etc cheaper by buying less other stuff, but from what I saw watching it that 15 mins was that Sky 5 at least looked unwatchable.
I check out couple other programs during month, but if the same I stick to digital rental and just watch arrow on Neflix even though it's 4 to 5 seasons behind.

I fully get that. Wife was watching Chinese channel on Freeview, complaining about the ads. I watched The Chase live, complaining about the ads, although they werent long. If you watch a prime time movie on FTA the ads are painful it seems every 10 minutes there are 4 minutes of ads.

To be fair, ads are everywhere in life. NF etc dont have ads though. We are largely insulated from ads as we watch recorded on Sky the vast majority of the time, and although thats no excuse, its a 90% ok workaround. Many services have the ad or ad free version, games, music etc. It would be interesting to see what Sky would offer if there was an ad free option. What extra would we be happy to pay? $3 a month? $5? $8?

Geektastic

11254 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3579

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1967795 4-Mar-2018 10:20

One person supports this post

I wish they would do it on the basis of "Any 10 channels for $20" or something similar.

We really only want History, Nat Geo, UKTV, BBC World, BBC Knowledge, Jones, Discovery, Comedy and Soho at the end of the day.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19