Sky TV
-
Sky Television has announced that it is not the preferred bidder to broadcast the Rugby World Cup in 2019. Spark and Television New Zealand are understood to have agreed to put in a joint bid for the broadcasting rights, however it is not known if they are the front runner. If they are successful it is expected Spark would be likely to stream matches over the internet, with TVNZ providing free-to-air coverage.
Sky was also vulnerable to being outbid for end-of-year All Blacks tours
-
Sky TV will actually save money if this happens. As the article says, games from the QFs onwards have to be shown FTA (Sky used Prime for that purpose) so there isn't really a great financial benefit to them. Remember TV3 had the broadcasting rights for the 2007 RWC. The devil is in the details as they say. If, for example, TVNZ only shows the AB games, and you need Lightbox to watch other RWC games a large number of rugby fans like myself will be just as disappointed as those who don't have Sky.
I'd much rather Sky focus on SANZAAR (Super rugby, All Black tests) as well as NPC and 1st XV rugby because that is where the significant cost is with the OBUs and number of staff required to broadcast matches live. I doubt TVNZ, TV3 or the telcos could afford that investment and still provide FTA coverage.
-
@bovidae Maybe I misunderstand you, but if a lot of people want to watch the RWC and opt for a Lightbox subscription, there may be a big risk that they'll drop Sky. In that case, it won't save Sky money, but cost them. Overall, I think it may push people towards illegal streaming.
-
A lot of people just pay for a short-term Sky subscription to cover marquee events like a RWC and then dump Sky anyway. If Sky needs to install a dish for these new subscribers then they must be spending more in start-up costs for little return.
My main point is that Sky will make more money from SANZAAR rugby rights (via advertising and subscriptions) than a tournament held every 4 years. If TVNZ or another player put in competitive bids for the SANZAAR rights then Sky should be worried. Rugby, cricket, RL etc is their bread and butter.
-
Possibly, Duke does have plenty of sport. But if they bombarde us with ads.
TVNZ will have to provide app and on demand options too.
-
@bovidae I guess the issue here is Sky losing the RWC, we know NZR are looking at their options for their other 'products' so is this the beginning of the end for Sky, or putting them on notice that they will need to up their game?
I guess the main problem is, Sky is only about 2 or 3 years too slow into reacting with all their other issues, competition etc, so they will need to act quickly to get a plan in place going forward, problem is, they have still got their dinosaur blame everyone else at the helm until a new CEO is found.
-
Sky also pack in shitloads of their own ads under the guise of 'telling us about their other great content'. Bullshit. Not to mention paying extra for HD.
-
I'm referring to ads during games. That's what Ch.9 does with the RL with Warren's "welcome back" spiel. Remember the outcry with the Sky TV ad immediately after the haka?
-
I'm not going to defend Sky as they have been really slow with their uptake of new technology but the avid sports fan might get quite a shock if the situation eventuates where we have to pay different companies (Sky, Amazon, etc) to watch different sports. That will be more expensive than a single source of sport with one account.
-
Just some random thoughts on this associated issue.
In Oz, so Foxtel instead of Sky, but I much prefer watching sport broadcast via satellite on my TV then via the internet as the motion always seems a bit weird to me.
We always whinge about pay tv in these threads but I think we're forgetting how crap things were in the old days of one delayed televised game a week. I think the NZR should keep this in mind too.
They may be a dinosaur but until the other options start buying and providing all the content they're a necessary evil.
I really don't want to get to the point where I have to get 4 different internet subscriptions just to get my rugby fix.
-
@nepia I echo those sentiments. Sky costs me over $100 a month with multi room, etc but it has everything sports wise and I can record on my own decoders.
The real problem comes when they lose content (sports mostly). I won't be interested and will be forced into the multi subscription thing. I already have netflix and lightbox but how many more? And when is it going to become PPV? All of that is a pain in the bum. I don't like Sky as a monopoly, or a company, but the alternative doesn't look good.
-
@snowy Damn, over a $100 a month? That sucks. I only pay $39 (I always renegotiate with Telstra as I have my Fox through them, when they do a deal for new customers and get the same price, no multiroom but don't need it) but I only get sports, no movies, doco channels, or prestige TV etc.
-
@snowy Damn, over a $100 a month? That sucks. I only pay $39 (I always renegotiate with Telstra as I have my Fox through them, when they do a deal for new customers and get the same price, no multiroom but don't need it) but I only get sports, no movies, doco channels, or prestige TV etc.
Therein lies the problem. If you want sports you have to buy the basic package.
Sky also do deals for new customers - existing customers can get fucked apparently. Hence my hatred for them - also a necessary evil for me. Rocks and hard places are a regular spot for me with Sky.