Watch Netflix ......
Printable View
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12313136
Never did like that Higgins guy - always seemed to be a bit slimy for my liking.
Nothing at all wrong with hoping to cash in on competition - but the delivery of his message is pretty average. Essentially, "Sky have been a wonderful partner...have helped grow Parker fom nothing into the success (by NZ standards anyway) that he is. However, if we even get a whiff that we might be able to get a few more $$$ then cya later Sky, long-term partnership be damned!".
I doubt Sky make very much money on the Parker fights. I am a boxing fan, and happily forked out the $39.99 for the Fury v Wilder fight but would not pay anything above my normal Sky Sport sub to watch Parker.
So I doubt Sky are going to get into a heated auction to retain Parker.
Personally, I don't know why DANZ don't just buy Sky given it is at a record low market cap. Rugby rights alone are worth $400M and the market cap has been as low as $220M. Rather than enter NZ with their own offering, which will not attract a lot of subs with boxing alone.. they will run at a loss for God knows how long...
They could buy Sky and imemdiately have close to 1,000,000 subs. Obviously they would have to pay a lot more than the current market cap to buy the whole company. Probably US$500M would do it - less than the total value of Sports rights alone that Sky hold and chump change for these guys.
Sad watching the very last cricket test to be shown on SKY
As Smithie and his mates lamented their demise I couldn’t help think I was also watching the demise of SKY
There will absolutely be a need for a good content aggregator now and in the future imo. It’s already hard to keep track of what is on each platform.
Imagine if Hulu, Showtime, FX, HBO, Vice, History Channel and all of their other content partners decided to go OTT.
Few of them would be able to make any money as standalone offerings and it would become a nightmare for consumers.
It is yet to be seen whether Sky are able to transition effectively and become that aggregator of choice in NZ - but they are giving it their best shot, and I think the odds are strongly in their favour.
Time will either prove that I am very wise...or incredibly foolish.
The other massive benefit is that Sky has their satellite network. Go and talk to a motorhome/caravanner (or someone that lives in rural areas) and see what they think of now not being able to watch any cricket without expensive data plans (that's if their holiday destination even has cell coverage). I think Sky has got a big advantage in being able to reach 100% of the country without any middle man or requirement for additional infrastructure. NZ Cricket have missed the mark with this call and they will suffer for it long term. I think Sky will still be round for a while yet and I am saying this as someone who had them disconnected in September (after being a 15+ year subscriber) and has used sky sport now for the last 3 months. Streaming over broadband/4G is ok but satellite is so much easier and reliable.
Agreed - satellite is still a [narrow moat] competitive advantage for the reasons you point out. It is the only way to get 100% coverage of NZ in a reliable way. People will be quick to point out that you do get 'atmospheric conditions' errors with satellite - but that it very much the exception to the rule. As a whole it is very very reliable.
The problem is that it is now very expensive relative to streaming. John Fellet pointed out a couple of years back that he would love to be able to wave his magic wand and turn off the satellite - he would reduce his OPEX (pre-IFRS 16) by $50M or so. That would include all of the lease costs plus other supporting infrastructure.
Then you have to consider the cost of setting up new customers. Sending out a STB and a technician to get the customer sorted is another cost.
All of these costs add up and ultimately push the price of the bundles up. To make it worth Sky's while they also have to insist on a compulsory Starter package for $25. That is another hurdle for customers (it just would not be worth their while to sell SOHO for $9.99/month as a standalone...).
So even though satellite is very reliable etc, people are still leaving in droves because OTT providers have such cheap offerings that are 'good enough'.
That will all change soon though. Within the next couple of months we will see the two new offerings. The merged NEON-Lightbox... and the other platform that will allow you to stream entertainment and sport.
It is this second option that interests me most. As they will no longer have to send technicians out with set top boxes etc... the bundles they offer should be more competitively priced.
They should also have no issue offering SOHO as a standalone etc.
So yeah - satellite still has advantages but the business model can't compete effectively anymore. NZ Cricket made a big call ditching Sky after such a long partnership. Cricket fans now need to pay $60/month minimum (between Sky Sport NOW and Spark Sport) if they want to watch the cricket. So I can imagine there are some very unhappy people out there.
I am referring to legal streaming of course.
Theft has always been a problem for the industry and there will always be people who prefer to steal no matter how good or cheap Sky (or any other provider for that matter) make their offerings.
Why you would take on the moral hazard of theft when you can get a wide selection of great content on NEON for $13.95/month (only 47 cents per day!) is beyond me.
Those are not the people that they will be able to appeal to. It's more people like me who refuse to steal and don't want to p1ss around torrenting or using a VPN to try and find a free provider.
I just want to use a great app with a great selection of content for a reasonable price.
As a rural Sky satelitte subscriber and keen cricket fan how happy do you think I am?
No NZ cricket on Sky anymore and limited broadband means NZ cricket have lost me....d1ckheads
As my wife is an Aussie I think I'll have to just watch the sandpaper scrubbers
just a bit off topic but NZME have lost the radio broadcast rights as well.One has to ask if NZ cricket know what they are doing!
Well, they went for the bigger payday. Their long-term relationship with Sky or what is ultimately best for the cricket fan's back pockets didn't come into the equation really.
Spark Sport needed a top tier sport like Cricket and were prepared to pay a lot more money than Sky to gain the rights.
NZ Cricket's line that 'streaming is the future' is the reason they went with Spark is nonsense. Sky have a great streaming platform too - so they can distribute NZ Cricket's content via a modern streaming platform or satellite...whatever the consumer prefers based on their own personal circumstance.
If Spark Sport was the only streaming platform in NZ then fine, I could understand that argument. But it is not the case.
I would have had more respect for them if they were just honest to the fans and said "Yeah, you will have to pay more and watch all of the cricket over two different platforms...but we got a very big cheque doing it this way, and ultimately that is what mattered. Earnings maximisation."
Nothing at all wrong with maximising your earnings - but just be honest about it and accept the negatives (in terms of fan reaction) with the positives (more money).
When will it dawn on some people that subscribing to all these platforms is/will be costing an arm and leg - I "only" have sky - by satelittle- basic + sport and use Spark for the FI and WRC and maybe the local cricket this year now.
As mentioned above need a legal content provider, hang on there is was/one called Sky :)
If sky want to save a bit of money, why do they need 27 "commentators" at the Super rubgy/test games - 3 main commentatotrs, then another 1 or two do interviews then another 2-3 give half time/full time analysis and so it goes....
have they never heard of multi-tasking :confused:
The same could be said for Radio Sport with their cutting the cricket commentary. I remember back 30 years ago when Bryan Waddle would commentate solo the whole day. There were a few ad breaks (time for him to have a drink etc) from time to time, but heck it would have been a whole lot cheaper than the plethora of comms with them switching around every 20 minutes like they are doing currently.
You have to wonder if sky could be a takeover target. Just for the sports rights alone. But when the rugby rights do come up for renewel in years to come are they even going to be offer the same sum as last time. I don't see any major rise in share price till August when there next results due. But also would anyone want to try to take over such product this year with everything being so unstable