gzt: Do existing contract spark subscribers get a netflix credit for the remainder of the contract period?

gzt: Do existing contract spark subscribers get a netflix credit for the remainder of the contract period?

I think you re contract to Spark for 24 months, then you get $180 added to your Netflix account

Rikkitic:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

That model cant work here, too few people. 

 

 

And why, in this age of worldwide instant communications, are we still locked into distribution models based on geographical location? If sports or anything else are too expensive for New Zealand, maybe the problem has to do with this nonsense. Any sport that attracts paying viewers in this country will also appeal elsewhere. If there has to be region-based distribution, at the very least our region should be Australasia, not just New Zealand. This is an artificial construct with no legitimate basis other than greed of content providers who want to be able to sell the same thing over and over again as many times as possible. Australians are also fans of Rugby, as are other countries. New Zealanders keep getting overcharged for things just because we happen to live in a small country. If economy of scale is the problem, then increase the scale.

 

 

 

Geographical is more aligned with TV.

Sports in NZ is expensive, as rugby charges an arm and a leg, as does IVESCO, (V8 Supercars) Golf, tennis, it all adds up. I don't see this as geographical issue, i.e. a TV series or movie is in USA but not here.

Sport can be international.but who cares about Super 14 outside of NZ? A passing interest. Who cares about V8 Supercars outside of NZ? 

I hear what you are saying but sport isn't such a geoblocking issue as TV and movies. Avatar the movie is global, but a lot of sport isnt.

EDIT

Actually a lot of sport is global. But perhaps the price we pay for global sport is inefficient compared to our population. Grand Slam tennis, F1, may be charged to us, higher per capita. We are small,not a bulk deal nation.

Who is "other than greed of content providers" ? Its not Sky as they don't rort. The sports owners can and do

Agree about the rorting. I am thinking of the content providers in this instance, not Sky specifically, though I do believe their business philosophy is charging as much as possible for as little as possible. If that no longer works for them, it isn't for lack of trying.

Rikkitic:

 

Australians are also fans of Rugby, as are other countries. New Zealanders keep getting overcharged for things just because we happen to live in a small country. If economy of scale is the problem, then increase the scale.

 

 

 

2 states are a fan of Rugby League, with some interested in Union (there are some league fans in Vic, but they're out-numbered buy soccer fans).

That leaves 4 states and a territory that couldn't give a toss.

So all up, there are probably less rugby union fans in Oz than there are in NZ, and some are probably ex-pat kiwis, poms and Pacific Islanders.

In Vic, SA, WA, Tas, and NT, the Wallabies playing anyone *might* get a mention on the sports news, but if you blink, you'd miss it.

So, all in all, no, Australians aren't fans of Rugby like Kiwis are, unless it's NRL (and you're from NSW and QLD). :)

 I think this is relevant. To me it shows the trend of the future. Ultimately NZ sport (and Sky) will become obscure sub-categories of some much larger media octopus, whether YouTube or Amazon or something else.

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=151&topicid=208841

CutCutCut:

 

Very interesting development. Seems very odd to support a direct competitor like that, is this the bell ringing the death knell of lightbox???

 

Netflix create content....and buys rights to content created by others.  

Lightbox only buys rights to content created by others.

They don't overlap much. Lightbox has had several shows (and seasons of shows) that Netflix hasn't had.   

Rikkitic:

 

Agree about the rorting. I am thinking of the content providers in this instance, not Sky specifically, though I do believe their business philosophy is charging as much as possible for as little as possible. If that no longer works for them, it isn't for lack of trying.

 

 

 

Based on what Sky provide and what profit they make Im happy with that, its acceptable. But the sports providers are rorters, they use the demand by customers to bleed every cent. If the Church of England got into a Sky sports equivalent if Sky ceased, they would be forced to charge the same.

Linuxluver:

 

CutCutCut:

 

Very interesting development. Seems very odd to support a direct competitor like that, is this the bell ringing the death knell of lightbox???

 

 

Netflix create content....and buys rights to content created by others.  

 

Lightbox only buys rights to content created by others.

They don't overlap much. Lightbox has had several shows (and seasons of shows) that Netflix hasn't had.   

 

Netflix originals?  AFAIK they just buy exclusive righst and mislead the name. The fully own dedicated TV production studios?

This is unfortunately the natural progression (and downside) of professional sport. The players continually want a bigger piece of the pie, so the sporting body has to charge more. The players see that the sport is earning more, so want a bigger piece of the pie, and so on and so on.

Football (or soccer) has to be the biggest culprit of this, look at what some of the top players are earning, its ludicrous, for kicking a ball up and down a pitch for 90 minutes (and yes, I know there is more to it, but at its most basic element, thats all it is).

Until someone (or everyone) stands up to these "sporting gods" and say no, we are not prepared to pay that price for your event, the sporting bodies will continue to push the boundaries of what they charge

tdgeek:

 

Linuxluver:

 

CutCutCut:

 

Very interesting development. Seems very odd to support a direct competitor like that, is this the bell ringing the death knell of lightbox???

 

 

Netflix create content....and buys rights to content created by others.  

 

Lightbox only buys rights to content created by others.

They don't overlap much. Lightbox has had several shows (and seasons of shows) that Netflix hasn't had.   

 

 

Netflix originals?  AFAIK they just buy exclusive righst and mislead the name. The fully own dedicated TV production studios?

 

Isn't it more that a production company or person pitches a idea to them and if they like they then get that company or person to produce the content and NETFLIX funds it rather then buying it after the fact?

Not sure but I would imagine that TV networks and companies like NETFLIX would have distribution and production separate for TAX and competition/monopoly reasons?

I signed up to this on Monday and still haven't got any Netflix codes has anyone else? Email from Spark said two days max.

myopinion:

 

I signed up to this on Monday and still haven't got any Netflix codes has anyone else? Email from Spark said two days max.

 

Do you use US or another country NF??

old3eyes:

 

myopinion:

 

I signed up to this on Monday and still haven't got any Netflix codes has anyone else? Email from Spark said two days max.

 

 

Do you use US or another country NF??

 

NZ account but that shouldn't make any difference to getting a code from Spark?

myopinion:

 

I signed up to this on Monday and still haven't got any Netflix codes has anyone else? Email from Spark said two days max.

 

I did too. Saw no action, so I contacted chat, the plan change had failed so a team will fix that. A fix easnt made from chat, it will just be fixed. Checked Tuesday in MySpark and the Activate Netflix was there, so followed that and it credited my NF account. If you have NF, you wont get a code. If you dont have NF, I assume you might need to create a NF on first month free, then that gets overridden by the credit