Unless they can come up with a new business model, they I don't see how they avoid going the way of the video rental stores.
Printable View
Unless they can come up with a new business model, they I don't see how they avoid going the way of the video rental stores.
Writing about Numbnuts...maybe the NZ stock Exchange should issue a "please explain" letter why the SKT share price closed 1.4% up today when the overall market fell 0.2%...
People seem to be in agreement that Sky's days are numbered, so why are people still happy to invest? I would've expected the sp to have plummeted in recent times. Are people after the dividends in the short term? Or do the shareholders disagree with the general sentiment out there?
Good question, but what part of this is not the SP plummeting? Check out the monthly chart approaching all time lows. Looks like a plummet to me, albeit in slow mo.
Attachment 8828
SKT is is deep sh1t, it is going south big time and has been for what is now a long time. After a long and successful reign with outstanding profits and dividends consistent with a monopoly supplier, Shareholders sometimes need to wake up to whether they are the frog that is being boiled, slowly cooked ending up dead in a frog soup.
I've never seen so much backlash on Social Media for a change in pricing before. They have really pissed people off. Also they should of thought that most people subscribing to Fan Pass would be younger, more like to stream and more likely to post on Social. So glad I didn't invest, thanks Roger for talking some sense into me with this one.
I think people realise it's going to be a slow death and they are still (currently) a very profitable business. They still have a monopoly on sports rights so they have a few years left to reenergise their business model before they start to lose their hold on sporting rights. With strong leadership and a new direction to the digital age the SP would present value, but sadly they are dearly lacking in both departments.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11850847
Clasping for money.
Probably a good idea they save up as much as they can they are going to need it. Come 2020 when the Rugby rights are up - it all looks bad. Firstly the Rugby guys will be in an incredibly strong negotiating position knowing how desperate they will be to keep it. Then all sorts of others will probably take a ping at it to steal the market - or knock sky over - maybe even the likes of their old mates at Voda, but seems likely at least Spark will have a go, which will drive up the prices - when surely the prices SKY can charge the public are already maxed which will kill the profit margins - and then finally going by international trends - they rights are now being split between Satellite and Streaming, meaning they might actually end up paying the same but losing the online rights to someone else like a Spark or something - which will really hurt as they have proven time and time again competition is not something they can deal with. Streaming is getting to be a big deal now, what will be it like 3 years from now - SKY had the chance of a massive headstart in that tech which will inevitably be the standard in the next decades - but they are throwing it away.
At the very least even if they execute flawlessly and lock up the sports into themselves and convince people to keep the archaic decoders in their houses (and when does Sky ever do anything flawlessly) they will simply end up paying a lot more for the same. So yeah, all not looking so good.
The thing with all this is that SKY produces the games via OSB which it purchased several years back (one of the most brilliant moves Fellet has made). OSB has several production trucks costing tens of millions of dollars each. No one else in NZ is equipped to produce the games. Broadcasting them via OTT if you have the feed is the easy bit. It would take a ton of capital to setup a rival production company. Then there's experience, commentators, etc. They are actually in a stronger position than most realise.
In the context of Sky changing the subscription model, that says their costs stay the same but they take an immediate hit on revenue by stopping the daily and weekly subscriptions. This gaff imo to move online subscribers to the set top box subscription model, is a poorly thought out move. Sky need to show its shareholders how they forecast a successful outcome by reducing revenue and sustaining costs.
I feel like Sky should partner with United Airlines and Pepsi somehow..
Aggressively pursuing those who illegally streamed the Parker fight the same week they made it harder for people to view their sport offerings online, not the greatest PR exercise.
Looks like a dying monopoly desperately trying to hold on IMO....Adapt or Die
I suppose the only thing is if a lot of that cost and set-up is geared towards broadcasting via satellite or standard TV -rather than via the interweb. Depends how deep someone like Spark's pockets are. And with staff, commentators etc, if Sky lose the rights, then those people lose their jobs, and the new broadcaster will be hiring.
The cost to create content and broadcast it is already sunk cost, whether to satellite or internet. Sky have simply, and stupidly, changed the subscription model, eliminating short term viewer revenue on some strange monopolistic idea that online sports fans will revert to paying a monthly fee that is more than the set-top-box subscribers, or a yearly fee. Good luck with that.
Fellet even went as far as likening Sky to Netfliks by suggesting a monthly fee model (only) is a legitimate response to market. Idiot has no idea about internet distribution, not a skerrick of credibility. Netfliks is about $13 a month all you can eat. You can watch movies 24x7 and not pay a cent more. Lightbox as well. Sky has lost the plot, they have disenfranchised existing short term Fanpass subscribers and set themselves up for an immediate revenue hiding and massive uncertainty around future online subscription revenues.
Who hires these product marketing numpty's? Hey Sky boss I got a great idea, let's kill off an existing revenue stream by shutting down short term Fanpass subscriptions, and those numb nut subscribers are so addicted to Sky Sports that they'll sign up to a monthly charge greater than ordering a set top box and the truely no hoper addicts will pay us a fortune for an annual subscription. Weeping.
Good grief. Sky really flushed the baby with the bathwater on this one. Watch the revenue closely shareholders, it's going down down down and the expense line isn't changing, not a bit.
Oh, and watch how they manipulate the subscriber statistics, we all know they're in free-fall for the set-top-box subscribers, but see if you can figure out whether they're incorporating the internet subscribers as well, cos those are propping up legacy subscribers (albeit not sustainably) but now those online subscriber numbers just got slashed by killing off the daily and weekly Fanpass.
I'm very interested in this.
To be honest I think they'll get a spike in subscriber's now or at least dulling of the subscriber drop (in their next report). They just did an offer with $150 credit for a 6 month contract. A lot of people will do that for the Lions tour now they can't get fanpass at a decent price. Most of those people will then cancel in 6 months time. Sky is being extremely short sighted in everything they do. Even Neon is an expensive flop.
A Sky TV insider tells NBR its Fanpass service has fewer than 10,000 active users – and indicates it’s well below the company’s goals.
The insider says Sky’s aim is to keep hold the line on traditional subs while growing the online, no-contract services Neon and Fanpass. That hasn’t been happening.
With Sky's first-half 2017 result, total subscriber numbers fell 5.2% to 816,135 and profit fell as additions to Fanpass and Neon failed to offset those who deserted their decoder (the company did not break down numbers for each service).
https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/sky-in...anpass-numbers
Copyright NBR. Cannot be reproduced without permission.
Read more: https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/sky-in...anpass-numbers
Follow us: @TheNBR on Twitter | NBROnline on Facebook
I purchased the day pass 3-4 times in the last year @ $15 a pop just to watch a single Super Rugby match. I thought that $15 was an insane price just to watch one match, but I had no interested in buying a more "economical" weekly or monthly price and then having to watch things that I am not interested in just to get my "money's worth".
I would never purchase a monthly or six-monthly pass, so they have lost my whimsical purchases to the local pub. I would assume that the margin on a day pass would have been huge, so I really don't get this short-sighted decision. Maybe they will bring these options back "due to customer demand" after the Lions tour...
I have just received a telephone call from a marketer pushing "Fiber TV" which includes access to SKY Sports.
I didn't ask if it was a SKY product but assume if sports comes bundled it is.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Edit: It may not be a SKY product. If you go to the support page on their web site and hover your mouse over the postal address link the alt text shows an address in suburban Christchurch.
What's the website? Sounds like someone selling an Android box with illegal sports access. Wonder how they got your info too?
Judging by the crude website def not a sky product.
Sky sports uk
The website...it...hurts my eyes
Sounds like a customised Kodi TV Box, Kodi is an open source bit of software that searches the web for streaming links that quite a few people are starting to use.
Some guys in London were recently arrested for selling these customised tv boxes
Is this one one everyone is talking about?
http://fibretvnz.co.nz/
That would get shut down pretty quickly would it not?
Now illegal in Europe (with *stringent fines and jail time) but maybe not here (yet)?
*After a number of Kodi arrests were made last month a man accused of selling "fully loaded" boxes has now been fined a massive £250,000.Malcolm Mayes, from Hartlepool, sold IPTV boxes, sometimes referred to as ‘Kodi’ boxes or ‘Android’ boxes, which had been modified to allow the users to freely view content that should otherwise be paid for.
Do yourself a favour and go onto Aliexpress - You can search 'Android box' or 'IPTV' and you'll get thousands or different boxes, majority of them are Kodi in one form or another.
I just recently upgraded and use the hybrid box linked below ie. It has dual TV tuners for both types of aerial - Sky Satellite and UHF fuzzy aerial as well as the media player components.
No need to switch between HDMI channels, you just use the one remote to switch between the different programs from within the box ie. freeview/KODI/Netflix/Internet browser.
You can also connect a portable hard drive and it can record NZ freeview for up to and hour delay, pre-program daily/weekly/monthly scheduled recording.
Using these tv boxes are far superior products to using chromecast and the likes IMO, as the boxes have a direct power source.
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/pro...787308219.html
In the UK it's Trading Standards who brought the cases and it's for breach of copyright. Not sure whether that applies in NZ or whether Trading Standards here would see it as part of their job?
The NBR reports that Sky is taking action against streaming box providers using Kodi with their lawyers serving a 'cease and desist' letter for breach of copyright to Matamata based 'MyBox' provider selling a Kodi Box and SKT being successful in getting the 'MyBox' Facebook page taken down.
This article is behind the NBR paywall:
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sky-tv...ge-cg-p-203034
This is going to be 'whack-a-mole' stuff for SKT...
Yes, and that approach worked well for the music and film industry...
Sky need to be embracing change, not fruitlessly trying to fight it.
Yes, you cannot condone the actions of these people. However the fact that a market for it exists shows that Skys business model is outdated and that are fighting this in a way that has never worked and will not work. All it does is create more bad will for a company that already has a poor PR brand.
The answer to music pirates was iTunes, not suing Napster.
The answer to film / TV pirates was Netflix, not suing people for torrenting.
The answer to pirating sports streams is...? Fanpass was a partial answer due to its flexibility. To remove it and hope to force people back into locked in expensive contracts when alternatives - albeit questionable in their legality and usability - exist seems shortsighted.
Disclaimer not a SKT holder.
But is there a "cheap" answer so far as sport is concerned though? Isn't there too much money involved - in sportsmens/womens' retainers and wages; transfer fees; sponsorship costs; venue overheads; production costs etc - for top sport to be anything but expensive for screen viewers?
Disc: Another "not a SKT holder".
Sorry guys and gals but that horse has well and truly bolted. Sport is an industry now and no amount of nostalgic wishing is going to change that. More's the pity.
:(
That's right inhuman, imho, Sky are taking a very risky gamble (calculated?) that by removing the option of short term online subscriptions to sports content through Fanpass, and only retaining longer term subscriptions, in the hope that subscribers will either revert to set-top-box subscriptions or pay a premium to view online. Well good luck with that!
What they don't seem to understand is that the population of potential online subscribers is vast and growing, but it's also transient, short on interest and patience, and used to getting what they want, when they want, online, right now. Just what they want, nothing more, immediately.
So far since their disastrous decision, there's been a few weeks of footy games and lots of other sports, so Sky will already have decent evidence as to whether their gamble is paying off. If only they reported subscribers by channel, shareholders would eventually have some inkling as to whether the 'strategy' was working. But they treat shareholders like mushrooms, in the dark and fed on BS.
All the while, their Fanpass costs of distribution remain the same while they've compromised the revenue side. I think it is a shortsighted and cynical move not inconsistent with a monopoly supplier who naively assume that their entire distribution model cannot be disrupted into oblivion. It will certainly spawn a whole new and much larger wave of illegal distribution.
I like the reference someone made to 'whack the mole', as trying to battle this illegal reaction is also naive whereas taking the opposite stance, that providing gratuitous access to content that is quick, easy and cheap, anytime, anywhere, without contract for extended content, would open the distribution model and make it far less worthwhile to trying to subvert it, or work around it illegally.
All this angst for denying $14 bucks to watch a game or a week of sports, and to come back time and time again with their $14 bucks .. ad infinitum, for life! Sky have rocks in their head and should fire the morons who put this awful product strategy into play, disenfranchising a growing online sports viewing customer base, opening up an illegal online distribution tsunami, and compromising the future of their brand and shareholder wealth.
I could go on.
Disc: own SKT? you must be joking!
In the meantime i have an app with lightbox and a tv with chromecast and can cast all manner of stuff to the telly. Why do i need a set top box. A sky app and a couple of bucks for a super rugby match and id probably be in.
I agree killing Fan Pass has to be one of the craziest moves they've made (or haven't made) yet. Classic timing with the Lions Tour and no doubt seen as a way to get some new subscribers on a contract until they limp to the next big event.
I'm sure you are right, but I think something will need to change.
There is a poster on this thread on Geekzone called "Talkiet" with some very interesting perspectives. Basically suggesting that the current sport funding model relies on cross subsidisation from other subscibers (e.g. those on the basic package I guess), and that a "pay-per-sporting code" model would likely be very expensive for those who cared about a particular sport. Have a read of post #1776313 5-May-2017 14:17 on page 1 of that thread for an overview.
I am forming the view that it is a broken system. Consumers only want to pay for what they are interested in, but the embedded costs in each sporting code are too high to support that model.
Thanks, cyclist. "Talkiet" is pretty much on the mark with that, IMO.
The big proviso to the above is the inclusion of sporting codes into the current broadcast model whether it's Pay TV (SKT) or Free To Air (FTA).
For example, when the America's Cup was on FTA - effectively because FTAs don't collect money from the consumers, the funding came from the advertisers who pay to have the commercials run on the network (and not necessarily those being shown during the telecast either but that's another post) and whoever provides funding to the network e.g. potentially taxpayers in the case of TVNZ via NZOnAir etc. It's not a particularly efficient model for the folk paying for the advertising either as you can't necessarily target the advertising to the folk you actually want to walk in your door/jump on your website and/or hand you some money so there's a lot of cross subsidies.
The flipside is that if SKT and FTA don't want to screen your code because they don't think it's worth their while, then it's hard to get sponsorship for your code, harder to have the best players retained locally and harder to attract people to your code in the first place. You could be the world's best speedway bike rider but you won't make much here because apart from a small hard core who will sit in the stands, no one will see you.
If you can figure out how to broadcast your sport via the internet in a professional and inexpensive way then that open opportunities esp if you disintermediate SKT or the FTA's but if you do get enough eyeballs, then someone like SKT or an FTA will pay to broadcast your code but they probably won't allow you to continue to distribute digitally. But you'd probably whore yourself because it's easy to take a wedge of cash on a regular basis than be subject to the whims of folk who pay per view - ask the ARU, they are in lose-lose because they don't want to cut a Super Rugby side but are addicted to the cash from the SANZAAR Super and Rugby Championship to stay afloat.
SKT also want to get that regular wedge of cash rather than be at the whim of folk who might or might not want to "tune in" depending on the interest... so it's a double edged sword. Having that mySky box at home is still sufficiently a lazy enough option for most of their subscriber base and they won't go broke in the short term if they sit on their hands because they continue to lock up content. It's mainly how long and how much money they throw at whacking the moles against the likes of MyBox, how much inertia the codes who are addicted to their cash continue to have and how long all the subscribers keep putting money in their jar.
Interesting reading about this new "threat" to SKY - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1194637360632303/ and http://apps.employment.govt.nz/deter...uckland_28.pdf. This "press release" or whatever you want to call it is also quite entertaining http://mediapa.co.nz/power-pr-ecomme...ky-television/ - yes, apparently Media PA is a real company with real clients, but they've chosen to take on this person (who is clearly ripping off Kiwis that don't know any better) as a client and write press releases that are complete fantasy.
Would be great if the Herald or NBR had some decent journalists.
Abou to break 52wk low. Wouldnt be a surprise to see the share drop after vfnz merger.
Latest sign-up program for Sky TV in Hamilton. Sky Basic + Sky Sports (incl BeIn Sports channels) + MySky box + Installation (if needed) = $9pw.
Smacks of desperation to me
But what a perfect way to infuriate existing subscribers
That is true but what is also true is that they now have a lot of lapsed subscribers - who handed back their decoders and MySky boxes and haven't come back... some of them were using the FanPass but a lot have simply vanished over the horizon for SKT and haven't been seen since... the question is what does SKT do - does it try to get them back... does it keep playing whack-a-mole with KODI box sellers and users... or does it change its model?
Or does it simply sit on its hands and watch the slow decline and continue milking the cash cow?
$36 per month !!!!! for Mysky ?? only got soho channel more and I pay over $100
They are doing everything they can do boost sub numbers for the Lions tour and improve profitability. Although this might work for the next year, they really are playing a short term game. They always rely on big sporting events to keep subs and subscriber's but theyre going to run out of gas if they continue to piss people off.
Does Sky ever report an NPS score for customer satisfaction? I wouldn't be surprised if it scored lower than Wilson carparking.
Ever hoping that your be hooked and keep it a small price to pay to get a long term customer.
Anyway be returning my sky next mth after must be 15yrs odd? dont need it anymore really only used it for cnbc, news, movies but most this is all available free now so whats the point bye bye sky:( but guess my pocket will be much happier :t_up:
Given the question for NPS is:
How likely is it that you would recommend [brand] to a friend or colleague?
I'd be surprised if the NPS score was actually positive.. as it would suggest that promoters were outweighed by detractors... on the other hand, if the customers who are still on the service are blindly loyal then they might still have a positive score. It would be the lapsed customers who'd be detractors....
Imagine a business that made $100m profit per year and that was declining year on year by 10%. The cost to fix this business might be to settle on a profit that might be $50m profit per year... which would still not guarantee the success of the business but perhaps allow it to find new areas to grow and stop the rot.
As a CEO, what do you do? to write off so much profit in one year would be a huge brave call but maybe the best call for the long term health of the company.
The easier option is to milk it for the next 4 years, build up your cash reserves and see what unfolds. It appears to be the road Sky is on now. Their share price down trend tells it all. Wonder where it will end?
Perhaps it needs to be taken over by a large multi national not already in the NZ market so they can make the structural changes that Sky cannot make while still being listed.
sky getting really agressive in there promotions - Im thinking things are not looking good this half must be trying to boost those subscriber numbers.
They are also one of the most up-voted NZ threads on Reddit at the moment - https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/...d_decision_to/
The hate is strong in the younger generation for sure.
Perhaps I missed it, but doesn't SKT traditionally increase subs on June 1st?
Last year they left movie channel pricing unchanged (the Netflix effect), but increased basic and sports pricing
Have they decided to forego the annual sub increase across the board this year?
From tomorrow, all Australians can watch what they want, when they want and where they want at a price that suits them best, from low-price, no-commitment, HD streaming up to a state-of the art viewing experience via our cable and satellite iQ3 set top box.”
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...dfc12779285b82
Foxtel seem to relise they need to change with the time WONDER IF SKY TV WILL EVER GET IT
It's certainly a step in the right direction, and represents an evolution of Sky's Neon service, however I'm sure there will be howls of indignation that services are still provided in bundles.
For the sake of investors, Sky need to be more forthcoming with their strategy for Neon.
Disc: Not an investor.
I'm a wee pissed off at sky.
Disc: an investor....
i would be too looks like it wants to go lower. im not a holder but a soon not to be sky payer so guess thats another customer lost, i would be interested in returning if they had pick and pay options for channels but with the arrogance of sky wont hold my breath from this dinosaur.
Agree, buy what you want when you want it, nothing more nothing less. Interesting if I'm correct, there's no objection from anyone here to paying for Sky content. Just object to paying for content that isn't and won't be consumed. Sky really are demonstrating a profound ignorance of the internet content consumption, I guess it's that they are mired in an old school commercial model that just simply can't compete, so they perpetuate the tired old worn out model for as long as they can stay profitable and solvent. A slow glide to oblivion.
I would say SKY will be in panic mode soon , customer numbers dropping at the pace they are mean they will be outbid for content in the future which will perpetuate the decline in customer numbers and sky know this hence there all out advertising blitz ( why does a monopoly need to do this? think about it ) its in a terminal decline under its current model.
How may channels are their in the basic package, lots, Mainly watch about 3 or 4 of them, occasionally a few others, Plus sport, ditched the movies as hardly ever had time to watch them.
Pick and choose options would be much better
There must be only about 3 people that watch some channels!
The one saving Grace is their sports coverage is fantastic. Fanpass could of big much bigger at the old price point if they promoted it more. I think they were worried they'd lose full subscription customers to the service.
I think sky needs to move quickly, however it seems like they're wanting to hold onto things like the Lions to keep their customers. How long can huge sporting events go on for? Eventually there's going to be a year with no world cups that people are hugely interested in and subscriber's will fall sharply. Seems like there just waiting for that to happen before changing their approach?
The Lions Tour came up and they probably didn't see the uptick in satellite subscribers like previous major events (assuming they intend to watch it via Fan Pass instead, which makes them less money), so they basically shut down Fan Pass so that people would be forced to buy the satellite service instead. They basically killed their most promising new product for some new subscribers for 6 months.
I got rid of Sky a few years ago...don't miss all the endless repeats of The World's Deadliest Catch.. (how many times do you need to watch someone dredge up a few crabs from the ocean floor?)
I would however pay for just a Sports Package. ..Do like the Rugby League..go the Warriors, but until Sky gets with the new world they won't be making any money out of me..I won't be investing any money with them ethier
Neil Campling of Northern Trust with a bit of insight into the World Wide fall off in popularity of major sports broadcasting
Premier League football suffered the biggest drop in viewing on Sky TV for at least seven years, raising questions over the popularity of live sports as well as the sustainability of a lucrative source of funding for English clubs.
Average viewing on Sky’s live TV channels fell 14 per cent over the past season even after it paid two-thirds more to show the matches under the latest three-year deal with the Premier League at about £10m per game......
....We see the BARB data as the latest in a long line of statistics which suggest the viewing trends of live action sports is going the same way as other forms of linear TV.....
....The Champions League final coverage over the weekend in the US saw flat viewership versus 2016 but down 18% from 2015. (Source: SMW). Major League Baseball, on Fox, over the weekend was down 19% in ratings and 16% in viewership from last year. (Source SBD)
Weekend NASCAR Cup Series racing fell 16% in both ratings and viewership YoY. (Source: SMW). The Champions League final in the UK, averaged just 2.8M TV Viewers (Source: The Times). The only ray of light has been in the NHL Stanley cup finals in which the surprising run of the Nashville Predators has captured interest ....
...ports programming represents an outsized source of costs but has historically been seen as an important lever for subscriptions and distribution. ESPN has long been considered to be the biggest beneficiary of the cable TV bundle. The sports “must have” content has enabled ESPN to negotiate ever higher rates with cable TV providers and then insisting that it’s content be in all of the channel bundles regardless of whether the consumer wants the channel is now faced with falling ratings, accelerating subscriber declines and surging content costs. Whereas others now see this position as an unwanted and unfair “ESPN tax” on their PayTV bundle. The rise of skinny bundles, cord cutting, cord shaving and alternative OTT technologies will likely continue to pressure the Live sports TV industry. We’d much rather invest in the next generation of sports; namely eGaming and eSports.
Personally these days I'm only interested in my own team's matches plus just the highlights from the rest of the league, be they playing soccer, cricket or rugby. Maybe it's over saturation and dislike of the huge payments made to the 'stars' that's turning me off to some extent.
Yet another PR nightmare for Sky TV with a commercial played after the Haka backfiring bigtime.
Fanpass worked like a dream last night, watched the Lions/AB's game (brilliant) and America's Cup, flawless delivery. So sad that I had to buy a whole month $100 and they have the sneaky roll over so if I don't cancel, it's another $100. In this case there's a few more games to come so one more month sub works, but mostly it won't. Anyway, I have to say Fanpass is rock solid but their subscription model sucks and I hate them for that. I want to buy one game, or a day or a week maybe, but these aren't options anymore and SKY have just lost the ****ing plot by withdrawing them. Idiots, they can't see the internet woods for the trees.
SKY and Vodafone terminate their sale & purchase agreement
8:50am, 26 Jun 2017 | GENERAL
Further to the announcement of 1 March 2017, Sky Network Television Limited (“SKY”) (NZX: SKT; ASX: SKT) and Vodafone Europe B.V. , a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Group Plc, have now decided to terminate the sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) in relation to the proposed merger of SKY and Vodafone New Zealand.
The parties have also decided to withdraw the appeal of the Commerce Commission decision regarding the proposed merger.
SKY and Vodafone New Zealand will continue to work together to strengthen our commercial relationship for the benefit of the customers and the shareholders of our respective organisations.
under $3 soon i reckon
It might be a bargain at some point... and that point may be below $2
Sky cancelled hand back on the weekend :) $65 richer now per month and to top it off just got netflix free so all my tv is now free gee feels like a leap back in time lol.
Adapt or die. Netflix has come out with a record number of subscribers beating all market expectations even the highest ones. 13% gain in share price in a single day.
Sky still has time to change their model and move into stability instead of free falling. The way management are running this company though it doesn't sound like it will get to that point. Case in point, the changes to Fanpass might help improve profits and revenue in the short term due to the Lions tour but it really hurts their brand long term. People recognise it straight away that they are being gouged especially as deliberate as Sky did it. Spark was able to identify shifts in the market very early on and the negative connotations its name and product had under "Telecom" and "Xtra" but they were able to change things before it was too late.
I wouldn't hold my breath with Sky.
Insightful comments, completely agree!
I think they will get there eventually, they still make a chunk of cash.
On 940mill revenue they made NPAT of 140mil,
Netflix did 181mil from 8.8Billion,
I good acquisition will get their numbers up again, I think if Sky can start negotiating global rights on content then they have a potential to do well.
SKY TV hit that sort of margin because of the set top box model at $99/mo... which is not the way forward.
They need to really up the anti on NEON... 99% of my watch list is HBO - I do pay $20 a month and I am "content" with what I am getting.
Sports has to be broken away from the current packages, people ( me included ) would pay 30-50 dollars a month for sports.
I am picking they will continue to bleed the high margin model they have now until it hits some sort of equilibrium in the market.
Gain a large cash base to acquire some key content to help ramp up after a pivot down a new avenue.
Yes I totally agree! The STB model is over and they will still continue to milk that cow until the last few drops are left. What I am saying is that it's not going to be a massive change for Sky with regard to how the will get the content out, they have the platforms to stream the content and all they will need to close one tap and open the other. With big pockets it's going to need some other revenue stream to make up for the lower revenue though. Neon, SkyGo, FanPass etc etc isnt going to generate that $99/mo you are referring to in my opinion and they will acquire something, they would be crazy not to.
Bad day for sky a major s/h selling down
https://www.nzx.com/companies/SKT/announcements/304492
bad press today
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/950...wing-nightmare
and the chart technicals are terrible guess my call of under 3 is coming
as long as there is no one else to produce the rugby here in NZ sky will be alive