This is not swimming at the Manukau heads in an outgoing tide, its much worse than that. Buying now is like standing in front of a Bullet Trian going downhill at 200 m.p.h. :eek2:
Printable View
This is not swimming at the Manukau heads in an outgoing tide, its much worse than that. Buying now is like standing in front of a Bullet Trian going downhill at 200 m.p.h. :eek2:
Futurist Derek Handley would have seen this coming. SKT very lucky to have him on the Board as they will have contingency plans.
Almost 4.5 Million shares traded.... Heavy trading... surely someone is interested in buying up.
Another 7M traded today.
16M traded in just the last two days - or roughly 4% of total shares outstanding.
So who is the patsy? The buyers or the sellers?
CFO is out
Long-time critics of Sky being outdated and run by old white men (who have been in their jobs too long) should be singing the new CEO's praises! A big clean-out is overdue, or so I hear!
Predictably though, the critics will position this as the company being in turmoil etc.
I expect a big shake-up in 2019 with Martin Stewart. Any fears that he will not be able to 'be his own man' with Fellet breathing down his neck as a Director, so far appear to be unfounded.
I am sure that he is - and with 16 years of IP, that will be challenging to replace.
It is also fair to say that Sky can't keep doing what they have been doing over the last few years if they have any hope of growing their subscription base. A drastically different approach will certainly be uncomfortable for a number of the Old Guard, and when that happens it is probably in everyones best interest to part ways.
This will all go swimmingly for Martin if his new approach leads to success. If he fails though, people will nail him for being too gung-ho and losing key talent in such short order etc etc.
"...Hollingworth had said he was considering throwing his hat in the ring for the top job when veteran CEO John Fellet announced his exit last year. However, Sky's board opted for Stewart to oversee the transition from a traditional satellite pay-TV broadcaster to a multi-platform entertainment business...."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12212892
About 28M traded today. Who is this mystery buyer?
Not necessarily a buyer.....
Algorithmic trading via direct market access with no change in beneficial ownership of the shares...
Buyer and seller potentially essentially the same entity.
If there is no beneficial owner change I think it's illegal in NZ. The broker who provides direct access is responsible to ensure clients dont do it either by accident or intentionally. I think Craig's or some other firm got a fine recently for this. Interesting new world of investment.
You are right about that, not legal to do that kind of trading here.
Amounts to market manipulation as one attempts to create the illusion that there is high interest in a stock.
The more likely explanation is that Kiltearn are dumping all of their stock in short order, causing the stock price to plunge while some other organisation is buying up just as aggressively.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if someone was trying to buy up to the 19.99% limit at a bargain price before attempting a takeover (and paying closer to intrinsic value for the remaining shares). That is what Vero tried with Tower a year or so back (though they were ultimately unsuccessful).
Looks like Blackrock are the stock-dumping culprits!
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...147/296979.pdf
Jupiter one of the buyers - picked up 4.24 million.
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...209/297072.pdf
Really interested to see who else was buying up large when Blackrock decided to tank the share price.
If we are to believe them... that they were just rebalancing due to changes in the international indexes...then I think that is a crazy investment philosophy. To buy such a large stake in a company, only to realise a large loss in a relatively short period of time because of a change in The Dow?
Not my idea of investing.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111...n-stewart-vows
I am sure Chris Keall (now working for The Herald) will write an equally objective piece about Sky and the new CEO when he gets an interview (Yeah, right).
I appreciate robust journalism, and certainly Sky need to answer a number of frank questions - but Chris Keall is so biased against Sky while fawning over Spark. It's embarrassing to read.
Chris Keall's article.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12214820
New CEO not a fan of how Fanpass was sold amongst other things and maybe why the HO sport left
Yep.
However, Martin discussed a wide range of topics yet Chris (unsurprisingly) comes out with a negative and emotive headline: "New Sky TV boss trashes his company's own Fanpass service".
So, of all the things that were discussed - that was the most important talking point in Chris' mind.
He is incredibly biased, and surely can't honestly believe that what he prints is objective journalism.
And, for the record, though Fanpass pricing is absolutely ridiculous you can cast from the Fanpass app to your big screen (unless you buy the $15/month mobile-only option).
I used to pay close to $99.00 for just basic plus sport,when they brought in the new lower cost plans,I phoned them to sort out a new package,after being on hold for over a quarter of an hour,I emailed them to cancel and sent the decoder back to them.Just goes to show simply answering the phone might increase their customer base.
Personally I dont think thats too unreasonable to bump up price for short termers, I paid for one month at that price to check it out without having to committ. There was one month back then that had an enormous amount of sport in it. I think it was Wimbledon and AB rugby tests (2 or 3 in that month). And there was Conon McGregor fighting Floyd too ! (Extra payment of course) But I consider I got great value.
And then a few months later I signed up for a year. Everyones a winner.
Actually no I did not pack it in because of the wait,Whilst on hold it gave me time to think about whether I actually needed Sky given that most of the sport I wanted was on Prime.I worked out I could buy a freeview recorder,for 3 months of sky subs and the rest as they say is all profit.
If Sky had answered their phone straight away,I would not have had time to ponder.You also have to remember that Sky had not answered for over 15 mins,so how much longer I might have been waiting is anyone's guess.
Paying a higher price for a no-contract, no minimum-term is completely acceptable business practice and pricing strategy.
I just think the $99/month is ridiculous, and too much of a hurdle for most people.
Though I obviously don't have their content cost figures to work from, I would have thought that they would end up with a pricing model something like:
1. $39.99 per month all you can eat Sky Sport 1 - 4, 6 month contract
2. $59.99 per month all you can eat Sky Sport 1 - 4, no contract, cancel anytime
3. Add additional channels (like ESPN) $4.99 per month, 6 month contract
Many more people may sign up for a month at 60 bucks to give it a go and then go on to take the contracted pricing if they are happy with the service.
There has to be a sweet spot for Sky where they take less revenue per subscriber, but are able to significantly increase their subscription base thereby maintaining a reasonable level of profitability.
Agree including for the "full package" as I have said before, they should be charging much if anything for the channels you can get on freeview, a lot of people will not pay and will not bother trying to stream it from some "dodgy site" or either take up Spark on the stuff they want when they want it
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/332602
John Fellet gone. All the criticisms before about Martin Stewart not being able to be his 'own man' with John in the background unfounded.
This guy is really cracking the whip! Will it turn into long-term tangible results though?
I'm a bit grumpy actually. Ages ago I foresaw a drop in SP and consequently sold out totally. And do you think I got tapped on the shoulder for the Chief Technology Officer job. No I didn't! And I obviously had the skills. Even now I am in a loosing position with some of my portfolio so I am still neck and neck with Handley's abilities. (Plus I am probably equally full of sh1te)
You gotta love all the PR crap in the announcement. What it should have said is...
John built a great business but then took his customers for granted treating them with contempt for years. Finally he saw the writing on the wall about 5 years after normal human beings did but he did little to change the business ensuring the new CEO would have to be heroic in his endeavours to save the dying dinosaur Sky.
Have to say though the new CEO is certainly trying hard to shake things up - pity he didnt get the job about 2015.
Personally I think John has been a very good CEO for Sky. Though he was not able to meet the rapid changes in consumer demand more recently, I am not willing to dog him completely. He has built a very profitable media company, and the new CEO now has an opportunity to capitalise on the many excellent assets John developed.
It is fair to say that consumer benefit fell to the wayside (likely due to Sky being a virtual monopoly for premium content for so long). This complacency in addition to the failed Sky-Vodafone merger has certainly cost the company dearly in recent years.
From here either Sky dies a slow and painful death, or this becomes the first chapter of a new book. Though Sky TV definitely need to improve their offerings, I do think NZ would be worse off if they folded. Just my personal opinion, but they do have a lot of really good content not available on more popular platforms such as Netflix.
They need to keep ALL sport and invest in other revenue streams to survive. Media industries in general are facing a tough time especially with Disney due to release their on demand service soon, Apple already announced theirs...interesting times ahead
Def need to hold all key sporting competitions that NZers value.
And they need to move away from this obsession with ARPU and price their products in a way that is competitive. Get rid of the $15/month MY Sky Box rental fee for a starter.
The market would value Sky much more if it had 1.5 million subscribers paying $35/month on average versus 750K subscribers paying $70/month on average. Even though the total revenue is exactly the same.
And I don't see why this couldn't be achieved since the vast majority of their costs are fixed. They stay the same whether they have 1 subscriber or 1 million.
If they offered Sky Starter + Entertainment + SOHO + Sport for $49.99/month they would get a lot of subscribers. Offer Movies as an add-on for another $10. No set top box fee (just treat it as the cost of doing business).
Let people who truly just want Sport to stream on FANPASS for $34.99/month.
Their CFO would need to play with the numbers (I am just some guy who doesn't know a hell of a lot at the end of the day...). But my imagination doesn't have to stretch too far to see how Sky could return to growth.
They just have to accept that they probably can't maintain the same types of margins as they did 10 years ago, which is not to say that they cannot still have healthy margins going forward if they offer products and entertainment at a price that consumers really value.
[QUOTE=mistaTea;753139]Personally I think John has been a very good CEO for Sky.
When you preside over a share price that goes from $6+ to under $2 that is a hard premise to maintain even if he did a good job in the earlier years...
Make some good points mt
Something will give if you have pay Netflix, Lightbox, Amazon Prime etc etc to get everything you want legally, starts adding up quite fast!.
Yes sport is the draw card
At very least Sky should have the one price for their current 2 "basic" packages as most of one of them is free on Freeview than adding sport, movies etc at a reasonable cost, will then keep and may be increase subscribers again
Perhaps.
Advertising accounts for a very small portion of their revenue though, and it really pisses people off.
If you are paying a premium price for content, getting ads (that are not even tailored to the user based on their viewing preferences) just feels downright cheeky.
If they were to move to an On Demand focus I think advertising should reduce and advertising revenue would go down.
As a Sports Fan I think SKY over the years has had a really detrimental effect on our society. Its been just to dam expensive for many folk to watch. And they have dominated sports broadcasting, especially live, to the extent....that well...many people have simply stopped watching and engaging in sport and formed other recreational habits. I think this is a contributor to a lot less people, kids, young adults, being engaged in sport and finding their recreation at the shopping malls in the weekends. Or other. And our Governments, unlike others, did not force a certain level of content onto "Free to Air TV".
I hate SKY with a passion and look forward to their demise.
Advertising 8.43% of what subscription revenue was in 2017
In 2018 it was 7.45%.
Indeed relatively much smaller than subscription but was a drop of $11m from 2017 to 2018. Presumably much of which would have dropped to the bottom line.
Whichever way through subscription or advertising, they are going to have to tweak their model to better fend off competition.
No doubt, for the old Monopoly-Sky the advertising revenue has been 'money for jam'.
Though I am sure the commercial realities dictate that advertising will continue (and ads, if done the right way can benefit consumers...), I agree that their model needs to change for them to stay relevant.
Without a doubt, Sky lost the customer-focus (partly due to having no real competition for entertainment until around 2014/2015...and only beginning to have Sport competition now with Spark...).
By forcing a massive potential cohort of avid Spots fans to purchase other packages (that they don't really want) before they could add sport on has not proven to be a winning strategy in the long term (even though generous profits were generated in the meantime).
Amongst the questionable decisions, it's not all doom and gloom though. Sky has pumped a lot of money into local communities through various sports productions, created many jobs in NZ and has generated significant tax revenues to help our various governments meet their social agendas.
With a little luck, and a brand new focus on value delivery - I sure hope we can win you back RTM.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technolog...ectid=12216881
Gonna be interesting to see what the viewing experience turns out to be for the viewers without Fibre.
Even the fibre network would potentially struggle to keep up with the huge data spikes during live broadcasts if everyone was connected?
Does anyone know what the fibre capacity is in NZ before the network starts to groan?
This news must be music to the ears for SKY..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/new...ectid=12217868
Well, they will definitely be watching how Spark get on with a keen interest.
In some ways it will be a blessing for Spark to have a few issues now while the demand for their app is relatively low (I think I read somewhere that they only have 9000 subscribers right now).
Otherwise they might get a false sense of security only to have it all go tits up during RWC, which would be a huge disaster.
Online streaming is a tough gig though - and, if I am not mistaken, the amount of issues will only increase over time as more and more people start consuming their content online (and data traffic jams occur during peak times).
Sounds like this particular issue was more to do with their platform though, not the network.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12218055
Now see, this is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to Chris Keall's bias reporting.
I guarantee you if Sky's FANPASS (or even traditional satellite coverage) had any issues he would be ripping the company a new one like he has in the past.
I swear this guy owns shares in Spark or something. This article is so mealy-mouthed, with each 'criticism' quickly followed by assertions that the issue was quickly resolved and everything is all good now.
No big attention-grabbing Headline either like "SPARK PLATFORM MELTDOWN" (or some other unreasonably strongly worded Headline like he does for many Sky articles...)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12218774
Gapping it well before an announcement to the market about how much Shareholders have spent on Sport? :D
Kiltearn buying a few more.....I thought they'd been selling down??
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...139/298126.pdf
Now there is a complicated question. Which part of the network do you have in mind? The fibre tail circuits to the houses freom Chorus etc are quite adequate but then they are "multiplexed" into another fibre at a local cabinet or exchange using GPON and there will be another concentration at the exchange. From the exchange back to the ISP a "backbone" network exists to channnel all the traffic which usually needs to be then rerouted overseas using the Southern Cross cables (I cannot remember if the new competitor to Southern Cross has its cables operating yet). So which part of the network's capacity are you interested in? Microwave transmission also forms part of the backbone network.
The telcos are continually monitoring network activity and planning upgrades. These days mobile traffic is also an important load that passes across the backbone network from the cell towers.
I would not worry about capacity meeting demand. It has been a long time since I encountered serious degradation from increased usage. The main players have capacity planning well in hand and have been dealing with the explosion of activity over recent years rather well, I feel. Spark is still the main provider of the backbone network with other circuits from Vocus and the other outfit whose name escapes me but I think was taken over not so long ago anyway.
I suppose I am referring to the main conduit or "backbone", as you put it.
If, in addition to the normal internet traffic, an additional - say, 2 - 3 Petabytes per hour was suddenly put onto the network as a large number of residents stream the RWC in HD all at once... the network should handle it?
I know very little about networks to be fair, so I may be asking the wrong question.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12221518
Big (long overdue) slashes to pricing for FANPASS.
I contacted Chris Keall to let him know that it is possible already to stream FANPASS to the big screen (using Chromecast etc). This option is only disabled if you opt for the $15.99/month 'mobile only' option.
He emailed back acknowledgement of my email, but not sure if he will amend his article.
I thought they may have gone even sharper on the price if you took the 6 month contract option (like 30 bucks maybe). But then I remembered they have the special deal with Spark whereby their customers can get FANPASS for $30 a month of they sign up for 12 months. So I guess if they started offering it to everyone for $30 then the special Spark deal wouldn't be so special anymore? Just a thought.
Agreed. I think that is probably what Martin is planning.
For 40 bucks a month you should get the vast majority of their sport content (possibly with add-ons for a nominal fee for some of the specialty sports that may be quite expensive to acquire).
So far so good on the fan pass movement. I'm sure it helps keep operating costs down I'm sure they are quietly enjoying Spark having issues with their own video streaming platform having issues.
I'm finding that older generations are starting to embrace technology a little bit more now than they previously would. Perhaps gouging really does help people understand there are other ways.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12222415
Interesting write up in the Washington Post. We already see the fragmented options in NZ between Sky, Netflix and Lightbox. Now Sports is beginning to fragment with Spark making an entry.
As content production costs rise, and bidding wars push prices up further, the consumer ends up getting screwed. Plus, having to navigate across multiple platforms to try and find the content you want to watch is a poor user experience.
I think all the new streaming competition sounds good for the consumer in theory, but not so much in practice.
Generally agree mistatea, or is it just the older generation can't get around this interwebby thing :-).
Have also mentioned before, to get everything you may want you need to be subscribed to multiple platforms and the costs soon start to add up, not that I am suggesting we go back to one TV channel :eek2:, but one place/site that links to all these providers (and I don't mean the internet) , one site that brings all this together to get what you need - hang on sounds like Sky!, but needs to be online now at least, Would it work with someone like Sky as a "reseller" ?????
While I have subscribed to Spark for the WRC & F1 in the main, now that Sky does not have these or some other sports the price has not dropped. As has been mentioned reducing some prices may stem the flow or even get some clients back, so the net outcome is zero or even an increase
Martin seems to be making the right noises so far
Just curious why Morningstar has a buy recommendation on SKT with a chart that is all one way? I know buy low/sell high is an investment mantra but do these analysts know something?
Ha ha agree
I hear some collegues at work going on about did you see this programme, that programme, seems as though it the best thing since sliced bread, apart from cost don't they do anything other than sit in front of the tv downloading all these series and most are not under 35 or so but their late 40's & 50's
$60.00 early bird Spark price to watch the whole of the Rugby World Cup. That seems like good value to me. And a good idea to sell a "One Sport" package.
Always be on the look-out for the 'out of way' recommendations - that's where the real money is always made.
But obviously must be careful to pick the right 'out of way'.
A Sydney fund manager I know became a multi-millionaire several times over and retired by investing in News Corp and Westpac when both companies were completely out of favour in the early 1990s.
Agreed, $60 bucks is pretty sharp pricing for the avid rugby fan who will want to watch most of the games (not just the free AB's, semis and final).
I think allowing the consumer to pay a tournament fee (and therefore pick and choose which sports they want) is an interesting pricing model.
Not sure how much better off in reality the consumer would be in the end if this became the norm, though I am sure Sky will have to consider this as a model if Spark are successful in RWC.
All eyes will be on Spark's post-RWC annual return where they reveal how much the tournament cost etc.
Profits will also depend on the performance of our beloved all blacks.$60.00 would be a bargain if we win,not so good if we go out in the quarters.
Does anyone know if Spark have sold any advertising?
I see my old mate Simon is lamenting the 'negative press' about the RWC pricing release.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12222721
I think he might need to take a harden up pill. When you compare this to the kind of criticism Chris routinely writes about Sky (some fair, plenty not), this is a walk in the park.
Off topic:
Check out this Firefox extension;
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/new...ectid=12225275
Not sure if this was a similar 'server issue' that Sky recently had with NEON, but this is certainly not a good look for Spark, and a number of people will now wish Sky had the RWC rights to ensure a smooth broadcast.
On the other hand, Spark are better to have these kinds of issues now on tournaments that have relatively low viewership. It gives them more opportunities to learn and ensure these types of problems don't occur during RWC.
Regardless, live broadcasts streamed over the internet is still very much the Wild Wild West. Watch this space.
We're impressed with SKY's service response to a connector fault on our dish antenna which has been up around 17 years without a problem. Rang at 2.30 and it was fixed by 3.30 p.m. Just saying as I occasionally get a little annoyed by the constant knocking of the service which we see as decent value for money. Also annoyed that Spark have picked up UK soccer as neither I, nor many of those I know, want to be faffing about and (hopefully) casting (especially live at at 3 a.m.) rather than just switching the TV on. Won't bother to subscribe and will just watch MoTD's and the EFL on Quest for free.
Were they quick to offer you a better deal on your subscription when they were offering sport + basic for ~$50.00 (from memory, might have been less at times) to attract new subscribers ? I took these deals several times....my friends on regular subscriptions were p***ed.
Were they quick to upgrade your decoder with new units with additional disk space when they were available ? These were being handed out left right and centre to new subscribers on the above mentioned deals.
Pleased you got great service, but in my experience they have shown scant consideration to their loyal customers.
Yes it,s not till the loyal customer gives notice,that that the Sky retention team move in,offering all sorts of goodies to retain the once loyal customer,what Sky do not seem to comprehend is if they looked after their loyal customers in the first place,they could sack the retention team and do away with all the deals!
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11239...oadband-market
An interesting thought. Just speculation at this point from FNZC from what I can see.
I find myself wondering - if Sky and Vodafone had initiated the merger now (i.e post the Spark Sport incursion into streaming live sport) would the Comcom give it's blessing?
Another senior manager departure...The new boss in town seems to have a long sturdy broom...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112...sky-television
Despite my misgivings in recent years I like this new CEO and what he is saying and doing. A new broom on a beleaguered stock with an entrenched customer base, could be worth a punt.
whether you're TA or FA or both in my opinion you really wanna see something happen before you jump in here.
too much risk for any prudent investor (and you may be proud not to be prudent and that's okay too)
cause there may be well potential but there isn't any signal or recognition of that yet ....
Attachment 10524
hope is not a strategy.
Very sound advice peat
The umpires at the Aussie Competition and Consumer Commission have matched their fellow umpires at the Kiwi Commerce Commission by calling a no ball on plans by Vodafone(under arm bowlers division) to merge with broadband provider and mobile reseller the TPG Group like the Kiwis did on the Vodafone SKY merger.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...ision/11090578
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
On first pass, it looks like their decision was as poor as the NZ 'experts' who blocked the Vodafone-Sky deal.
Seems odd to block TPG from merging with Vodafone based on a speculation that they will independently enter the mobile market as a 4th competitor if they aren't allowed to merge.
No doubt Telstra and Optus lobbied hard, just like Spark did here. Understandably.
So, what do you mean by "bits and pieces". They cannot sell spectrum rights without screwing their own customers, if they can on-sell at all. Can they on-sell programming rights? I doubt it - I would think that all they can do is let them expire. Do they own property in downtown Auckland? If so, that is definitely a candidate. Transmission towers and sites perhaps but they would need a lease-back. What else could they sell? I am open to being illumined since I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about this sector.
Sky is a June balance date right?
I called sky wanting to cancel because I wanted to change to fanpass, just for sports.
They offered me sky sports for the next 3months for free, with no conditions. I'm only on the starter plan which is like $25 per month.
Smells of Desperation to keep the subscriber numbers up for year end???
No doubt there will be pressure to keep the subscriptions up for the next reporting season.
Especially since the last season of Game of Thrones was only 6 episodes...and has finished before the magic June 30 date. Each year they would get a flood of NEON subscriptions for GOT, and then the majority of those subscribers would drop off soon after, but that would usually only be picked up in the next round of reporting.
Personally, I am not sure why people dip in and out of NEON like that as I think $11.99 a month is great value for the Box Sets ($20 if you want to throw in movies too).
I imagine they have offered you 3 months of free Sky Sport in the hope that you will stay on with your existing package after the free period ends (and therefore pay more over time). Their New Business offers are very aggressive with the freebies right now too.
Personally I think they should have just let you go to FANPASS since that platform is clearly going to play a massive role in their future.
If they want to keep satellite as a viable option for the masses, they need to drop (or significantly reduce) the MySky fee. That is, in my view, a significant hurdle.
Even if you just want Sport...the normal price for a satellite subscriber is (approx) $25 Starter + $30 Sport + $15 MySky = $70/month. Absolutely ridiculous.
Especially when you consider that each Set Top Box probably only costs Sky around $200 or so...and is written off the books over 4 years. How can charging $180 a year to rent the box make any kind of sense? I understand that old 'Monopoly Sky' was able to get away with this, but things are so different now.
As I have said before the 2 "starter" options should be $25 combined as most you can get "free" from Freeview.
I actually "bought" my MySky some years ago, have had it replaced a couple of times due to faults, and they also upgraded it to the HD version when I asked for it for no extra.
So probably in the 2 years or so it has turned "free" rather than paying the monthly rental on it and now giving you HD free my sub went down!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if you were to ever cancel your subscription you still need to return the decoder.
No doubt the option you used to "buy" the decoder (which I don't think is even an option anymore) is cheaper than paying the monthly rental after you have been a customer for a certain period of time - you don't actually own it.
Vodafone TV do not charge a set top box fee. With prolific OTT competition, if your business model still relies on a STB my view is that you need to treat it as the cost of doing business nowadays.
And I agree that, at least on the surface, charging $25 entry for 'Starter' is a bit cheeky given the majority of the channels offered are Freeview.
And remember, the entry is effectively $40 now in reality.
The vast majority of people in this day and age would expect the ability to record and watch later on demand as stock standard functionality. So just getting Starter + My Sky is gonna sting you $40 before you have even added any of the channels that you actually want.
Significant changes are needed, and I do believe that Martin Stewart is the man to do it.
And there it is again mistaTea. Regular loyal subscribers get stung with an inflated price. And unloyal subsribers are rewarded.
I've commented on this previously. I've been streaming from SPARK Sport. Other than a few teething problems...and of course lack of content....it's been pretty good. F1 especially. Bring it on !
Yeah, I am optimistic that they will get their pricing right. They have to, and the new boss isn’t saddled with the baggage of previous years and previous decisions.
Rather than offering Sky Sport free for 1 month and 3 months of free MySky to entice people...how about just get your damn pricing right so that you are competitive in the first place and people want to subscribe to your services? You shouldn’t have to offer these massive bribes to get people in the door...and then hold them hostage for 12 months by locking them into a contract.
At the end of the day, I would much rather have 1 million subscribers paying an average of $55 a month than 750,000 subscribers paying an average of $75 a month - even though revenue would be slightly lower. And the market would be much more optimistic about Sky too.
And if you gave people Starter + Soho + Sport for $55 all in, I think you would have no trouble getting (and keeping) subscribers. Delighted customers may even be prepared to add movies for another tenner. The customer wins, we win.
I think the new boss gets it (refreshing), but it is more the point whether Sky can revert to a now more accepted media consumption/price model, and delivery model, quickly enough to leverage their still impressive although greatly diminished customer base, while not compromising the long tail and revenue from ignorant customers who will persevere with outdated technologies and limited viewing choices as a consequence.