Next Broadcasting Deal
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I think NZR could try and get Prime interested in funding the rugby.
As a subscriber, I'd hope so!
-
@antipodean said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I think NZR could try and get Prime interested in funding the rugby.
As a subscriber, I'd hope so!
I would subscribe to whoever had rugby. Only thing you don't want is it being split. Was in Wales on holiday just before xmas and one man in the pub where we watching a game reckoned he would have to pay 90 pound ($260) a month to watch all rugby with teams his team/s were involved in!
-
@taniwharugby said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
doesnt Sky own Prime
think @Nepia is talking Amazon Prime, not the Sky Channel "Prime", that has since become SkyOpen I think (probably to avoid such confusion)
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@taniwharugby said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
doesnt Sky own Prime
think @Nepia is talking Amazon Prime, not the Sky Channel "Prime", that has since become SkyOpen I think (probably to avoid such confusion)
Cheers, I was wondering why @Kiwiwomble thought Sky owned (Amazon) Prime.
OH! ignore me, as you were
agree with @antipodean, would be very happy seeing i already have AMAZON Prime, would even pay a small top up like i currently do for STAN
thats how you get it into new markets, put it on a service people already have...and when theyre bored...they might go..."maybe i'll try that"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@taniwharugby said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
doesnt Sky own Prime
think @Nepia is talking Amazon Prime, not the Sky Channel "Prime", that has since become SkyOpen I think (probably to avoid such confusion)
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@taniwharugby said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
doesnt Sky own Prime
think @Nepia is talking Amazon Prime, not the Sky Channel "Prime", that has since become SkyOpen I think (probably to avoid such confusion)
Cheers, I was wondering why @Kiwiwomble thought Sky owned (Amazon) Prime.
OH! ignore me, as you were
agree with @antipodean, would be very happy seeing i already have AMAZON Prime, would even pay a small top up like i currently do for STAN
thats how you get it into new markets, put it on a service people already have...and when theyre bored...they might go..."maybe i'll try that"
TBF, when I mentioned Prime I was only thinking NZ rights, I think Stan are locking up the rights here in Oz.
But, I'm with you both, I'd like it on Prime - would make that streamer less annoying (impossible to find anything, half the stuff is selling other channels etc) if I had guaranteed NZ rugby.
-
@Nepia dont aim too low, if youre talking to a global platform then go global
edit:...although this just popped up on my feed....
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I thought NZR+ was mostly just for outside of NZ?
I think they were hoping plenty of NZ-based people would sign up too as there is content not available anywhere else.
This seems like a Silver Lake initiative which you could eventually turn into a PPV platform to show live games.
-
what kind of stuff was on NZR+...was it just "behind the scenes" stuff?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
what kind of stuff was on NZR+...was it just "behind the scenes" stuff?
I watched the ABXV (I think) games on it.
-
Curiously who else wants to buy it? Has anyone else tabled a serious offer? Wonder if the offer was linked to rugby rankings (as winners tend to get more viewers). Also was SA still playing Super in previous contract?
-
@bayimports said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
Curiously who else wants to buy it? Has anyone else tabled a serious offer? Wonder if the offer was linked to rugby rankings (as winners tend to get more viewers). Also was SA still playing Super in previous contract?
There in lies the problem, noone else can afford it. Theyt not set up for streaming live sport etc, so be costs involved, and getting everything set up would probably cost a few $s.
-
Well it was always going to be the case really, Sky would have over-paid for the last deal to ensure that they get the broadcasting rights as their own business model would die if they don't have the rugby (and I believe they'd already lost the cricket to Spark sport?)
Now that Spark sport is dead Sky can do the right thing by their sharholders and squeeze the price on the deal, as we have noted - it's not like theres anyone else fighting for the rights atm?
-
NZ rugby investing in the infrastructure to broadcast from the major grounds would be an interesting move...so new broadcast partners had lower overhead to get their foot in the door...might drum up a little more competition
-
We really only have three or four stadiums that need the infrastructure and two of those will be indoors. If we fuck off the Caketin and Dunedin then it is two…
-
@Windows97 said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
Well it was always going to be the case really, Sky would have over-paid for the last deal to ensure that they get the broadcasting rights as their own business model would die if they don't have the rugby (and I believe they'd already lost the cricket to Spark sport?)
Now that Spark sport is dead Sky can do the right thing by their sharholders and squeeze the price on the deal, as we have noted - it's not like theres anyone else fighting for the rights atm?
Yeah, that's why my only suggestion was Prime as it could be an option to grow their market share in the streaming battle as they lag behind Netflix and Disney.
If as you say Sky are doing right by their shareholders then presumably they should decrease what they pay for the league too, although I'm not sure they will, I think they still operate with goodwill towards the league as it saved them in the early 90s.
-
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
-
@mariner4life and when they try and make changes there's a whole lot of self interest from all sorts of parties which means proper change doesn't happen.
-
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness
Sky's supidness and whittling of the product? what do you mean by that?
Sky's job is to make money. They sell subs and ads, and create the markets for those by buying products to watch. Their only real skin is to pay as little for that product as possible.
-
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness
Sky's supidness and whittling of the product? what do you mean by that?
Sky's job is to make money. They sell subs and ads, and create the markets for those by buying products to watch. Their only real skin is to pay as little for that product as possible.
Decreasing the money for the rugby is going to whittle down the product, which could lead to a decrease subs and ads, and at that point then they could have been stupid.
I'm not saying they are stupid now, or it's whittled down too far now, but clearly there is a cross over point, and Sky will want to make sure they don't cross it.
