How will Sky survive until 2025? 

K8Toledo:

 

 How will Sky survive until 2025? 

 

People have been predicting Sky's demise for as long as I can remember.

It's usually based off irrational hatred than any actual likelyhood.

K8Toledo:

 

 How will Sky survive until 2025? 

 

Good question!  I'm sure that before you posed it you had taken the current subscriber base, estimated satellite losses over each of the years, considered what might happen with the streaming base, estimated the ARPU for each of those groups, considered fixed and variable costs across the business, determined what the broad capital expenditure requirements were and worked out the cashflow for each of the 5 years?

How did you get on?  You're saying that the financials look dire and it'll be out of business by then?  Or was it just a DAQ?

ockel:

 

K8Toledo:

 

 How will Sky survive until 2025? 

 

 

Good question!  I'm sure that before you posed it you had taken the current subscriber base, estimated satellite losses over each of the years, considered what might happen with the streaming base, estimated the ARPU for each of those groups, considered fixed and variable costs across the business, determined what the broad capital expenditure requirements were and worked out the cashflow for each of the 5 years?

 

 

 

How did you get on?  You're saying that the financials look dire and it'll be out of business by then?  Or was it just a DAQ?

 

Whenever I meet a new client onsite who is also with SKY I ask why they have a SKY subscription. The response is always the same: Sport. No one ever says "great programming". 

From a sample of ~50 each year it's possible to see the bigger picture.

JPNZ: Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

The thing is the transmission via streaming over the internet is the future, and it is likely most broadcasting in the future is likely to go through it. We do already have streaming for movies, which has taken the place of regular video stores. The problem seems to be live events and a big bottle neck of viewers all at one time.  It is like building a motorway to copy with a days worth of traffic trying to use it in 1 hour. eg rush hour, you get congestion.

The government should just make all significant sport FTA, and broadcast it on FTA channels. Taxpayers do pay money to support sports, but then don't get the opportunity to watch them unless they pay. At least then everyone can watch it, and there wouldn't have been any of these types of problems. I don't mind paying a bit more in tax to cover this. The more people sharing the cost, potentially the more money these sports will get. I lost interest in Rugby and Cricket when it went behind the paywalls, and I suspect that is one reason why so many children today are more into video games, because they don't have that easy access to watching sports.

K8Toledo:

 

ockel:

 

K8Toledo:

 

 How will Sky survive until 2025? 

 

 

Good question!  I'm sure that before you posed it you had taken the current subscriber base, estimated satellite losses over each of the years, considered what might happen with the streaming base, estimated the ARPU for each of those groups, considered fixed and variable costs across the business, determined what the broad capital expenditure requirements were and worked out the cashflow for each of the 5 years?

 

 

 

How did you get on?  You're saying that the financials look dire and it'll be out of business by then?  Or was it just a DAQ?

 

Doesn't take a Business Analyst to see market trends or share prices steadily - & it's no secret SKY has been hemorrhaging customers in recent years. 

 

Whenever I meet a new client onsite who is also with SKY I ask why they have a SKY subscription. The response is always the same: Sport. No one ever says "great programming". 

 

From a sample of ~50 each year it's possible to see the bigger picture.

 

And it only takes a little reading to see that Sky churns 15% of its base per annum.  But net subscriber loss is not 15% of its base.  Share price is a reflection of investors perception of the future cashflows of a company (and is subjective).  For every willing seller that sees an overpriced company there is a willing buyer that sees value.  

The new CEO, with his strategy, has definitely hastened the cashflow trajectory of the business.  The current share price implies 5.7x of future earnings.  That seems about right for when the business starts to turn a loss based on the current strategy.  It'll earn cash until then and wont be bust but its ability to borrow will be severely constrained (as has been previously discussed).  As all its debtors pay in advance it can afford to keep the lights on beyond when it hits profit zero. 

So it looks like it'll be around in 2025.  I think your ability to see the bigger picture based on 50 people each year (of the 600,000 (?) subscribers) is a great crystal ball.  

mattwnz:

 

JPNZ: Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

 

 

 

The thing is the transmission via streaming over the internet is the future, and it is likely most broadcasting in the future is likely to go through it. We do already have streaming for movies, which has taken the place of regular video stores. The problem seems to be live events and a big bottle neck of viewers all at one time.  It is like building a motorway to copy with a days worth of traffic trying to use it in 1 hour. eg rush hour, you get congestion.

 

The government should just make all significant sport FTA, and broadcast it on FTA channels. Taxpayers do pay money to support sports, but then don't get the opportunity to watch them unless they pay. At least then everyone can watch it, and there wouldn't have been any of these types of problems. I don't mind paying a bit more in tax to cover this. The more people sharing the cost, potentially the more money these sports will get. I lost interest in Rugby and Cricket when it went behind the paywalls, and I suspect that is one reason why so many children today are more into video games, because they don't have that easy access to watching sports.

 

What makes sport more significant than arts or drama or culture?  None of these gets funded such that they get broadcast.  So they should too, right?  What makes sport, which is only one minor form of entertainment, so special?  Because you want it?  I dont want rugby broadcasting funded by my tax dollars.  I'd rather it be used to employ more teachers or more police or better hospitals.  

mattwnz:

 

JPNZ: Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

 

 

 

The thing is the transmission via streaming over the internet is the future, and it is likely most broadcasting in the future is likely to go through it. We do already have streaming for movies, which has taken the place of regular video stores. The problem seems to be live events and a big bottle neck of viewers all at one time.  It is like building a motorway to copy with a days worth of traffic trying to use it in 1 hour. eg rush hour, you get congestion.

Why do people seem to forget that Sky already streams all sports via SSN and Rugbypass, I have no doubt its the future. Its just not now.

mattwnz:

 

The government should just make all significant sport FTA, and broadcast it on FTA channels. Taxpayers do pay money to support sports, but then don't get the opportunity to watch them unless they pay. At least then everyone can watch it, and there wouldn't have been any of these types of problems. I don't mind paying a bit more in tax to cover this. The more people sharing the cost, potentially the more money these sports will get. I lost interest in Rugby and Cricket when it went behind the paywalls, and I suspect that is one reason why so many children today are more into video games, because they don't have that easy access to watching sports.

 

No way, user pays always will be. Can you imagine the uproar if the Government spent $400 million of taxpayers money on the All Blacks rights??

JPNZ:

 

 

 

Why do people seem to forget that Sky already streams all sports via SSN and Rugbypass, I have no doubt its the future. Its just not now.

 

 

 

From what I've read in forums they don't do catch up for most sports just highlights. I'd think lot of people home from work or something would rather watch a game/sport in own time, so Sky is dropping the ball in streaming. 

Not just Sports they're dropping the ball in other streaming entertainment areas as well, guessing they are worried about canalizing their satellite base which means they won't be up with the play on streaming.

K8Toledo:

 

Doesn't take a Business Analyst to see market trends or share prices steadily - & it's no secret SKY has been hemorrhaging customers in recent years. 

 

Whenever I meet a new client onsite who is also with SKY I ask why they have a SKY subscription. The response is always the same: Sport. No one ever says "great programming". 

 

From a sample of ~50 each year it's possible to see the bigger picture.

 

Wow ok. So its gone from 800,000 to 56? No. They have been losing customers, but its a small %. Its been years of hemorrhaging. So, 800,000+ to what? You must know. Do they make money? Share prices are not money?

If a person says they have Sky for sport it MUST be great programming surely?

From what I see, and its purely my IMHO, its jealousy. There, I said it

mattwnz:

 

JPNZ: Guess we don’t really need to worry. NZ Rugby choose the option with better reliability and higher viewer numbers and that’s that.

Bring on next super rugby season 😊

 

 

 

The thing is the transmission via streaming over the internet is the future, and it is likely most broadcasting in the future is likely to go through it. We do already have streaming for movies, which has taken the place of regular video stores. The problem seems to be live events and a big bottle neck of viewers all at one time.  It is like building a motorway to copy with a days worth of traffic trying to use it in 1 hour. eg rush hour, you get congestion.

 

 

 

The Spark issue wasnt a bottleneck. Thats really important. If it was, thats a whole new story, but it wasnt. They had 6 servers. The issue that day was only ONE was used, yet it satisfied 126,000 viewers. 

mattwnz:

 

 

 

The government should just make all significant sport FTA, and broadcast it on FTA channels. Taxpayers do pay money to support sports, but then don't get the opportunity to watch them unless they pay. At least then everyone can watch it, and there wouldn't have been any of these types of problems. I don't mind paying a bit more in tax to cover this. The more people sharing the cost, potentially the more money these sports will get. I lost interest in Rugby and Cricket when it went behind the paywalls, and I suspect that is one reason why so many children today are more into video games, because they don't have that easy access to watching sports.

 

Wimbledon does that. AUS does that I think? What is a significant sport? For some here its rugby, for others its league or netball or basketball. We have drivers in FIA (Formula 1,2,3)

You say you dont mind paying a bit more tax, I agree, but you've been here a while, more tax is evil. And taxpayers who hate sport wont want to pay. While rugger is  a big sport (so are others) its actually a minority population wise. 

I dont know the answer

ockel:

 

And it only takes a little reading to see that Sky churns 15% of its base per annum.  But net subscriber loss is not 15% of its base.  Share price is a reflection of investors perception of the future cashflows of a company (and is subjective).  For every willing seller that sees an overpriced company there is a willing buyer that sees value.  

 

The new CEO, with his strategy, has definitely hastened the cashflow trajectory of the business.  The current share price implies 5.7x of future earnings.  That seems about right for when the business starts to turn a loss based on the current strategy.  It'll earn cash until then and wont be bust but its ability to borrow will be severely constrained (as has been previously discussed).  As all its debtors pay in advance it can afford to keep the lights on beyond when it hits profit zero. 

 

So it looks like it'll be around in 2025.  I think your ability to see the bigger picture based on 50 people each year (of the 600,000 (?) subscribers) is a great crystal ball.  

 

Why are you focused on cashflow? yes, cashflow is more important than profit, as any accountant knows, but long term its about profit. Sky has downsized, and I agree, it will stay around. Worse case it becomes just Sky Sports, and it will survive.

tdgeek:

 

Wow ok. So its gone from 800,000 to 56? No. They have been losing customers, but its a small %. Its been years of hemorrhaging. So, 800,000+ to what? You must know. Do they make money? Share prices are not money?

 

If a person says they have Sky for sport it MUST be great programming surely?

 

From what I see, and its purely my IMHO, its jealousy. There, I said it

 

Sky satellite decoders went from a high of 860K or so to 628K in last financial report. 64K lost in last financial year alone with a decline in revenue of $50M to go with it. Hardly a small percentage either.

JPNZ:

 

 

 

Why do people seem to forget that Sky already streams all sports via SSN and Rugbypass, I have no doubt its the future. Its just not now.

 

 

 

No way, user pays always will be. Can you imagine the uproar if the Government spent $400 million of taxpayers money on the All Blacks rights??

 

I agree on the latter.

The former, why is streaming just not now? Are we back to eyes? Sky has 100% of the market as they can send the sport to everyone. But they dont. If Sky got the RWC, would subscribers grow from less then 700,000 to 1.6 million? No.