Spark Sport
-
That just bloody sucks.
-
-
-
It won’t be good for the consumer if cricket is split (home/away) between Sky and Spark.
I would also question whether there is room for two OBU set ups in NZ. The costs involved with that will drive consumers costs.
Battles like this for domination in such a small market are wasteful -
@Yeetyaah said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Because the coverage will suffer form inexperience, viewership will go down, not everyone can get speeds good enough to stream and fragmentation fo rights means you need to pay more to watch cricket and rugby.
Your turn.. tell me how it is a good thing.
-
@Yeetyaah said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
I'll start.
Ads. I record the cricket and fast forward through the ads. This is really difficult with streaming due to not having a moving picture - just time. More important with cricket as they squeeze them between overs.
My internet connection is shit and is unlikely to change for the next 6 years. Buffering, freezing, restarting, all issues.
If people thought competition for sky was good, now we are likely to have to pay BOTH providers to get all of the content that I want to watch. I am at the moment for RWC.
I will think of more.
-
I really don't think cricket lends itself to this type of platform. I stream it overseas and watch probably 50% less as a result. Nothing like sitting on the couch and watching a lazy session, rather than having to boot up the device, worry about the occasional buffer etc.
Sky should buy the NZ in Aus & T20 WC packages and sit tight until they can buy the rights back off Spark for pennies on the dollar in 2-3 years.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Not saying it's good or bad. I know a lot of people are complaining about Spark having RWC rights. Personally, I don't watch cricket so this doesn't bother me at all. I'm just curious on opinions.
-
@Bovidae said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Welcome to the new world order where sports broadcasting rights are fragmented. OK, if you only want to pay for certain sports, but more expensive if you like a broad range of sports that are on different platforms.
Time to trawl the internet with my VPN looking for free to air platforms
-
@Chris-B said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@Bovidae said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
NZC selling their soul to the highest bidder. Do all of the Sky commentators now jump ship? Spark will have to provide all of the OBU infrastructure which is a totally different ballgame to streaming an overseas event.
I guess the details of who will do the production will emerge - but, that would be a pretty massive step away from their core business for Spark if they're going to do it themselves.
@Hooroo - I'll certainly be cancelling my summer subscription to Sky.
Not just yet, sounds like they have the cricket until April so this summer will still be on Sky.
I'm not personally fussed who airs the cricket but I obviously don't like the idea of Spark for home and Sky for away.
I would also add that if Sky want to get with the times they need to offer a sports only package. I'm not interested in paying for the "starter' package that is mainly just free to air channels that I would never watch anyway.
-
@No-Quarter said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
I would also add that if Sky want to get with the times they need to offer a sports only package. I'm not interested in paying for the "starter' package that is mainly just free to air channels that I would never watch anyway.
Fuck yes. I've thought that for so long, but they have/had the monopoly there so why would they? They know people only want it for sports but make more money off the rest of the shit. That's why I've never bought Sky.
-
Be interesting to see how Spark intend to provide to actual coverage of the action given Sky appear to own all the equipment required to film the games. Guess they will tender to Spark to supply that service given they probably still have to pay off loans on the Outside Broadcast equipment and can't have it standing idle earning no income, settling on an agreeable price for the service might be interesting given the circumstances.
-
@Bovidae said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Welcome to the new world order where sports broadcasting rights are fragmented. OK, if you only want to pay for certain sports, but more expensive if you like a broad range of sports that are on different platforms.
Or like this one, where some of the cricket is on Sky and some on Spark (and some of the rugby is on Sky and some on Spark - it's already here with RWC, but won't be any surprise to see further fragmentation where rights to various games are held by different unions).
Will have some impacts on viewership of plenty of less core sports as well. i.e. if I've got Sky I'll probably watch some athletics if it's on, as opposed to some other shit - but, I won't subscribe to Sky simply to watch athletics.
-
@Snowy said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Ads. I record the cricket and fast forward through the ads. This is really difficult with streaming due to not having a moving picture - just time. More important with cricket as they squeeze them between overs.
This
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Because the coverage will suffer form inexperience, viewership will go down, not everyone can get speeds good enough to stream and fragmentation fo rights means you need to pay more to watch cricket and rugby.
and this!
Sky have offered a poor service and have arrogantly taken us for granted but the fragmentation thing is potentially a nightmare. It already is for non sport programming and they aren't time sensitive and are perfect for streaming.
On a brighter note: SPARK if you need a commentator to replace Smithy I'm pretty much his size and age and I promise not to wank on about Hawkes Bay ad nauseum. GISSAJOB
-
The long-term sports broadcasting model will be like in the US where multiple networks broadcast the same sport. Aussie is similar.
The difference in the US is the majority are on FTA channels and their sports are conducive to having numerous ad breaks to generate revenue. OK for cricket but rugby? The last thing we want to hear is "Welcome back" ala Ray Warren after a commercial break.
-
-
@nzzp Have Spark given any guarantee that the price will remain at $20 per month? Someone has to pay for this new sporting content, and that's usually the consumer.
The big winner here will be NZR. They should be able to name their price as both Sky and Spark will be fighting hard for these rights. Sky's survival depends on retaining rugby.
-
@Bovidae said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@nzzp Have Spark given any guarantee that the price will remain at $20 per month? Someone has to pay for this new sporting content, and that's usually the consumer.
The big winner here will be NZR. They should be able to name their price as both Sky and Spark will be fighting hard for these rights. Sky's survival depends on retaining rugby.
Frankly, I ditched satellite sky a couple of years ago as I just wasn't getting value for money. With a young family, going to all the Blues home games, I was struggling to watch more than a game or two a fortnight. That worked out to twenty to forty dollars a game -- and while I love me some rugby, that's getting a bit silly.
Basically, if you're a big sport consumer (as I was as a student), Sky was awesome. When I don't have time, and have to pick and choose, having streaming makes a massive difference. Delayed start, no need to record, multiple devices can play it, can view it remotely when away from home, all big bonusses in my opinion.
Sky also treated customers like crap. Didn't care, didn't invest in any proper technology; their new CEO seems switched on, but they felt like the very example of a sunset industry. Hopefully the competition means both parties lift their game
