Spark adds Formula 1 to sports line-up

Forums › Online streaming services › Spark adds Formula 1 to sports line-up

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#2114020 25-Oct-2018 18:51

Re 4k elsewhere, I'm pretty sure that was via a 'special box' and satellite, rather than via broadband?

spark. Any word on apps, android TV or Xbox One type support?

JPNZ

1715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

#2114025 25-Oct-2018 19:25

ockel:
From memory Sky charged $300 for a season of F1 - in the first year that Fanpass was offered. How Spark could justify double that price for a season, I have no idea.

You have to remember sky has a starting base of hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a lot more sports to spread costs over.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#2114036 25-Oct-2018 19:44

JPNZ:
ockel:

From memory Sky charged $300 for a season of F1 - in the first year that Fanpass was offered. How Spark could justify double that price for a season, I have no idea.

You have to remember sky has a starting base of hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a lot more sports to spread costs over.

Spark has millions of subscribers to spread its Spotify, Netflix, Lightbox and Lightbox sports to spread its costs over. Sky had to endure years of costs exceeding revenue before it could get enough subscribers to breakeven. Spark has the luxury of its broadband and mobile customers to subsidise its foray into sports.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114178 26-Oct-2018 07:21

ockel:

JPNZ:
ockel:

From memory Sky charged $300 for a season of F1 - in the first year that Fanpass was offered. How Spark could justify double that price for a season, I have no idea.

You have to remember sky has a starting base of hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a lot more sports to spread costs over.

Spark has millions of subscribers to spread its Spotify, Netflix, Lightbox and Lightbox sports to spread its costs over. Sky had to endure years of costs exceeding revenue before it could get enough subscribers to breakeven. Spark has the luxury of its broadband and mobile customers to subsidise its foray into sports.

I disagree. The telco business is hard, the big three are competing heavily, prices drop, causing others to drop, they add added value services such as Spotify etc to tackle churn, those freebies do cost. I believe the sports foray will be wanted to stand on its own feet and provide a profit, thereby adding diversification for Spark. To begin with, they have a very small range of sports, and the release mentions possible bundles (excluding RWC), possible short term passes, so there should be good options for serious or casual viewers to get traction. It also mentioned future sports to be announced. It could be a foray, or an assault IMHO. Each time 2 sports move from Sky to Spark, that's a 4 sport swing. If and when the range is a true range, and viewers have more than one sport they want, bundles come into play. Like any startup, early costs will exceed profit, so whether that's paid for by broadband revenue or not, that's normal, but I feel overall the plan is that sports is not a subsidised added value, but a profit generating arm.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#2114186 26-Oct-2018 07:42

tdgeek:
I disagree. The telco business is hard, the big three are competing heavily, prices drop, causing others to drop, they add added value services such as Spotify etc to tackle churn, those freebies do cost. I believe the sports foray will be wanted to stand on its own feet and provide a profit, thereby adding diversification for Spark. To begin with, they have a very small range of sports, and the release mentions possible bundles (excluding RWC), possible short term passes, so there should be good options for serious or casual viewers to get traction. It also mentioned future sports to be announced. It could be a foray, or an assault IMHO. Each time 2 sports move from Sky to Spark, that's a 4 sport swing. If and when the range is a true range, and viewers have more than one sport they want, bundles come into play. Like any startup, early costs will exceed profit, so whether that's paid for by broadband revenue or not, that's normal, but I feel overall the plan is that sports is not a subsidised added value, but a profit generating arm.

Yeah, I think it should stand on its own two feet as well. Just like Lightbox (that unreported business that telco customers are subsidising) and yet it doesn't. Why is sport different?

Yes, start ups require time to hit their IRR hurdles but shouldn't shareholders know how those start-ups are performing? And whether management is executing it's strategy and whether that capital deployed is being best used in the overall business?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114191 26-Oct-2018 07:52

ockel:
tdgeek:

I disagree. The telco business is hard, the big three are competing heavily, prices drop, causing others to drop, they add added value services such as Spotify etc to tackle churn, those freebies do cost. I believe the sports foray will be wanted to stand on its own feet and provide a profit, thereby adding diversification for Spark. To begin with, they have a very small range of sports, and the release mentions possible bundles (excluding RWC), possible short term passes, so there should be good options for serious or casual viewers to get traction. It also mentioned future sports to be announced. It could be a foray, or an assault IMHO. Each time 2 sports move from Sky to Spark, that's a 4 sport swing. If and when the range is a true range, and viewers have more than one sport they want, bundles come into play. Like any startup, early costs will exceed profit, so whether that's paid for by broadband revenue or not, that's normal, but I feel overall the plan is that sports is not a subsidised added value, but a profit generating arm.

Yeah, I think it should stand on its own two feet as well. Just like Lightbox (that unreported business that telco customers are subsidising) and yet it doesn't. Why is sport different?

Yes, start ups require time to hit their IRR hurdles but shouldn't shareholders know how those start-ups are performing? And whether management is executing it's strategy and whether that capital deployed is being best used in the overall business?

1. Sport is different. There are a multitude of ways to watch TV content. Many FTA channels, Netflix, Lightbox, Youtube, etc. Sport though is a big drawcard, and you cant watch that on multiple legal sources. People pay big money to watch sport, but they will only pay peanuts to watch TV

2. I agree, but I haven't read anything that says your suggestion will or won't happen. I doubt it will though as Spark Sports, or whatever it will be named as, is part of Spark's business, so if it stays permanently and grows, you can assume its a good deployment. I assume Spark don't publicise the exact NP from each and every division and each and every product type.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#2114254 26-Oct-2018 09:29

tdgeek:

1. Sport is different. There are a multitude of ways to watch TV content. Many FTA channels, Netflix, Lightbox, Youtube, etc. Sport though is a big drawcard, and you cant watch that on multiple legal sources. People pay big money to watch sport, but they will only pay peanuts to watch TV

2. I agree, but I haven't read anything that says your suggestion will or won't happen. I doubt it will though as Spark Sports, or whatever it will be named as, is part of Spark's business, so if it stays permanently and grows, you can assume its a good deployment. I assume Spark don't publicise the exact NP from each and every division and each and every product type.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Sport is just another form of entertainment, just as it is another form of pastime in peoples lives. Sport appeals to some, just as drama appeals to others, or comedy or realitytv. Its is absolutely no different. Just as sport is a pastime to some, reading is to others, watching tv to another, etc etc. Sport is nothing special and shouldnt be treated as something special. Why do we quibble when $m are credited to the film industry and yet not quibble at the $m spent on "high performance" sport and in the next breath spend a pittance on the arts? Its an absolute scam to think that sport is somehow special. People pay big money to watch the cinema, people pay big money to watch a live concert, big money to go the ballet or opera. Should we consider those forms of entertainment more or less important than sport? Why?

2. Lightbox is a business that earns c$50m turnover per annum. It should, after all this time, be delivering ROIC>WACC. It barely gets a mention in Sparks financial reports. Trivial activities of $4-10m per annum get more mention. And you'd be very surprised at the level of granularity in Sparks financials. Revenue by activity within each division. Average spend by customers on different product groups. Expenditure. Profitability by segment. Will Lightbox Sports have any disclosure given its supposed to stand on its own two feet? Wasnt Lightbox supposed to do that? When it moved from Spark Ventures to Spark HMB, shouldnt it be standing on its own two feet? Is it? If not, why not?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114265 26-Oct-2018 09:50

ockel:

tdgeek:

1. Sport is different. There are a multitude of ways to watch TV content. Many FTA channels, Netflix, Lightbox, Youtube, etc. Sport though is a big drawcard, and you cant watch that on multiple legal sources. People pay big money to watch sport, but they will only pay peanuts to watch TV

2. I agree, but I haven't read anything that says your suggestion will or won't happen. I doubt it will though as Spark Sports, or whatever it will be named as, is part of Spark's business, so if it stays permanently and grows, you can assume its a good deployment. I assume Spark don't publicise the exact NP from each and every division and each and every product type.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Sport is just another form of entertainment, just as it is another form of pastime in peoples lives. Sport appeals to some, just as drama appeals to others, or comedy or realitytv. Its is absolutely no different. Just as sport is a pastime to some, reading is to others, watching tv to another, etc etc. Sport is nothing special and shouldnt be treated as something special. Why do we quibble when $m are credited to the film industry and yet not quibble at the $m spent on "high performance" sport and in the next breath spend a pittance on the arts? Its an absolute scam to think that sport is somehow special. People pay big money to watch the cinema, people pay big money to watch a live concert, big money to go the ballet or opera. Should we consider those forms of entertainment more or less important than sport? Why?

2. Lightbox is a business that earns c$50m turnover per annum. It should, after all this time, be delivering ROIC>WACC. It barely gets a mention in Sparks financial reports. Trivial activities of $4-10m per annum get more mention. And you'd be very surprised at the level of granularity in Sparks financials. Revenue by activity within each division. Average spend by customers on different product groups. Expenditure. Profitability by segment. Will Lightbox Sports have any disclosure given its supposed to stand on its own two feet? Wasnt Lightbox supposed to do that? When it moved from Spark Ventures to Spark HMB, shouldnt it be standing on its own two feet? Is it? If not, why not?

Would the average Joe pay $100 per month to watch TV? No. They pay nothing or $15 per month, some still complain that they want everything that exists on Earth for $20 per month. They might pay $100 for ballet, but not every month. But they will pay $100 per every month to access sport, and more. Sky has TV and Sport, it would not be here if it did not have sport. Sports costs and it pays.

IMO LB is a retention tool. IMO Sports is a business profit making tool

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2074

#2114272 26-Oct-2018 10:08

Sport is different in todays media market because of the live aspect of it. People have to watch sport live so they cant download it like you can with movies and TV , so the rights are important because you can charge a premium and know people will have to pay if they want to watch it, unlike other media.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114282 26-Oct-2018 10:18

While we can, and I do, watch sport non live (recorded, kept away from the news), another reason is that its not hard to find a blockbuster movie, let alone a good movie, they are everywhere, they are literally consumables, so you cannot charge much for them. Take the RWC final, any AB's match, a motor race with a Kiwi in it, or just a plain good motor race. Federer vs Nadal and so on. They are NOW. They are one-offs, they are special, so we will pay more to enjoy that one off experience.

divxmaster

67 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#2114494 26-Oct-2018 15:28

I was just asked by Spark that if Spark Sport was $25/month, would I be likely to use it.

Dont know if this would actually be the price as they are no doubt testing the market.

Cheers,

Divxmaster

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#2114501 26-Oct-2018 15:40

divxmaster:

I was just asked by Spark that if Spark Sport was $25/month, would I be likely to use it.

Dont know if this would actually be the price as they are no doubt testing the market.

Cheers,

Divxmaster

And your response, given the paucity of sports compared to Fanpass at $30/mth for a Spark customer?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

divxmaster

67 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#2114512 26-Oct-2018 16:14

Well I said yes,

that would be much cheaper than $30 per race as mentioned earlier in this thread.

I would depend on how many months you need it, the final race is Dec 1 2019, which is a pain, they

would probably charge you for all of December.

21 races x $30 = $630

10 months at $25 = $250.

I haven't missed a single race since 1981, and am not going to start now, so will get it one way

or another.

Cheers,

Divxmaster

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2114542 26-Oct-2018 16:43

With the events that Spark are picking up I feel there is another dominant players replacing Sky and the viewer will not be that better off in the long term.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114674 26-Oct-2018 20:03

MikeB4:

With the events that Spark are picking up I feel there is another dominant players replacing Sky and the viewer will not be that better off in the long term.

Can you explain why? Genuine question.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8