Sky TV

Godder

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577592" data-time="1462597190">
hmmm, maybe I need to hit Vodafone up, MySky is free, but the HD ticket isnt...have my phone and broadband attached to it as well.</blockquote>
 
We've got phone and broadband as well, but it's cable Internet on the old Telstra network.

TeWaio

Sky really annoys me with their huge volume of really terrible adverts. You pay for the TV, then they jam adverts down your throat as another revenue stream. And every second one is for Sky, which you already clearly fucking have. 
I like the BBC a lot more. The draconian nature of the licence fee used to piss me off in principle, but it really is such good value.

JC

Bump. So Sky's response is to raise their prices. 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80092907/sky-tv-to-raise-prices-as-annual-content-costs-rise-by-30-million</a>

taniwharugby

surely the economics aint that hard to grasp?
 
A golf club I used to belong to keep putting thier prices up to compensate the members they are losing....

aucklandwarlord

Prior to us leaving NZ we had discussed that when our one year contract with Sky was up we would be ditching it. It was a combination of:
 
- Shit movies on the movie channel
- Having to pay extra for Soho when you could get the same content on netflix
- TVNZ pop up channels generally having more games of NFL and NBA per week than ESPN
- Being unable to access those pop up channels through the sky box
- ESPN playing female NCAA ten pin bowling instead of NBA playoff games
- Continual price rises while advertising also increased and content was lost 
 
The tipping point for me was when they refused to get the NZ v South Africa cricket games because they reckoned they were being held to ransom. If they want to hold a monopoly and call themselves the home of cricket then they should have made sure that they could get all that cricket. To be fair, I probably wouldn't have even got up to watch the games live, but it would have been nice to be able to catch a replay the following morning. 
 
When we rang up to cancel our movies package 6 months ago, the helpful call centre guy told us that we would be better off cancelling our subscription and rejoining and we'd get sky sport free for a year (was a promotion they were running at the time). We did that and our sky plus internet bill went from about $150 to $110 per month, just for dropping movies. 
 
They don't play heaps of live Warriors games over here on true visions, but there are a tonne of reliable streams on the internet which have exactly the same commentators etc.

Crucial

That article brings up an interesting point from the CEO. He is saying that his customers are leaving and telling him why yet he thinks they are wrong. 
So either Sky have deliberately chosen to ignore their market to eke out as much as they can for as long as possible before dying or they are really thick. 
They state that they have had to pay an eye watering amount for rugby, which they paid because it is the backbone of any future they have. Lose rugby and they will struggle to be relevant at all. 
There will come a point where they will struggle to pay the increasing demands from rugby I reckon, and by then the need for satellite service will be less.

Hooroo

Which isn't great news for Rugby.
 
If Sky goes belly up to the now numerous internet and tv versions out there then there will be less money to bid for Rugby rights, no?
 
 
 
I have kind of re-read what I wrote and I have disagreed with myself before posting as there could be more competition for rights but I imagine each provider has a smaller subscription base and therefore less money....
 
Oh I don't know enough, it's obvious

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="580426" data-time="1463477712">
<div>
When we rang up to cancel our movies package 6 months ago, the helpful call centre guy told us that we would be better off cancelling our subscription and rejoining and we'd get sky sport free for a year (was a promotion they were running at the time). We did that and our sky plus internet bill went from about $150 to $110 per month, just for dropping movies. 
 
 
</div>
</blockquote>
that's the kicker isn't it, they offer deals to new members, free this free that for 6/12 months or whatever, but never any deals for existing customers. I used to get a free movie voucher each year on my birthday, but they haven't sent me the voucher for years.+
 
Had the same issue with my power company, had a minor issue a few years back, told them I'd been a loyal customer and this issue was the first time I had considered moving, wasn't a threat just saying I had thought about it, they immediately offered me a $200 credit if I agree to stay on for another year!!

jegga

Well we are ditching sky movies, we watch Netflix mostly . 
Minus the chilling part .

No Quarter

Generally with competing companies, you do not lose many customers due to the "product". You lose the majority of your customers to the competition because of a bad customer experience they have had.
 
However Sky is bucking that trend, they are genuinely losing customers due to a shitty product.
 
The packages they offer are ridiculous - Sky Sports for just $25 a month! Oh but you have to pay $70 a month for the "basic" package first. I mean WTF?
 
Their GUI was hopelessly out of date for years and years, and now they've upgraded to one that is only marginally better, but is so lagy it's nearly unusable as the box is way under-spec'd to handle the new software. That's not good enough.
 
Honestly I can actually understand the increase in price as the content gets more expensive, but if you present that content in such a shitty way with such shitty packages then people will get fed up and move to other forms of media.
 
They still have a place in the market, as satellite is still the most reliable way of providing HD quality programming in NZ, but they need to do a massive re-think on how they are offering the content they have.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="580459" data-time="1463516312">
<div>
Which isn't great news for Rugby.
 
If Sky goes belly up to the now numerous internet and tv versions out there then there will be less money to bid for Rugby rights, no?
 
 
 
I have kind of re-read what I wrote and I have disagreed with myself before posting as there could be more competition for rights but I imagine each provider has a smaller subscription base and therefore less money....
 
Oh I don't know enough, it's obvious
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I understand what you mean.
 
I suppose that what I was getting at is that the current model relies on people paying for something they don't want so that Sky can pay for the content that people do want.
This just screams out that they need to change their model to survive.
It could be a bit more complicated though. I imagine that part of the rugby deal is also that the rugby product itself is not seen as expensive.
The bit I don't get is why they can't just be upfront and say there are effectively subsidies across products underpinned by the general subscription. With the current tech they could easily offer a Sports only satellite package at the relevant cost (which is what people want) alongside the traditional set up so people can decide.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="580463" data-time="1463519333">
<div>
The packages they offer are ridiculous - Sky Sports for just $25 a month! Oh but you have to pay $70 a month for the "basic" package first. I mean WTF?
 
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
typical Ferner, didn't read the article posted ....it says SS is going up $1.61 to $29.90 per month!

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="580463" data-time="1463519333">
 
Their GUI was hopelessly out of date for years and years, and now they've upgraded to one that is only marginally better, but is so lagy it's nearly unusable as the box is way under-spec'd to handle the new software. That's not good enough.</blockquote>
 
They seem to be a company that has had a near monopoly for so long that they've rested on their laurels. They're the Nokia of digital media. IMO they should be leveraging their connection to the wider Sky ecosystem. It's now 2 1/2 years since I last used SkyHD in the UK but it was better then than the current Sky offering here. The boxes were bigger - 3TB - much more powerful, the gui was better and it had features like undelete and copy out to a recorder. And the remote functioned as a universal remote. Why don't they just licence the UK design? 
The latest gui over here seems to have been under tested in the field. If you try to dismiss the banner by hitting return and you get the timing wrong you end up changing channels to the one before the current one. How is that a feature? And if it's not why wasn't it captured during UAT? 
The extra-cost HD pass is a joke, especially now with the gumboot terrestrial channels having gone HD. 
As for the article, any CEO who tells his staff that the customers are wrong should be asking himself if he still has the necessary passion for the job. Of course the customers may end up with fewer channels if you offer them bundles. Does he think we don't know that? It's what we're specifically asking for. Their own feedback is telling them that, and his justification ignores the fact that the additional channels are of no marginal value to his customers.

Hooroo

OK, so here is how it is going to go.
 
 
I'm going to buy shares in Sky and convince mates to do so as well, prompting that piece from you JC and then we will elect you to Chair the board to change the direction.
 
Sky shares will be only worth a penny or two surely.....

Rembrandt

We're seriously considering dropping it now even though we split the price with another household who gets the web-access. I only watch it for sports and although it was great during the world cup I'm finding when rugby is at socialble hours I'd rather be watching at a mates or at the pub, also finding the HDD far too small so any games I do try to record normally get missed due to fuckin series link of 'The bachelor' or 'home and fuckin garden'...and then bloody 'Sunwolves vs Kings' taking the remainder of the space, would be nice if I could series link certain teams playing. I am concerned what the demise of Sky could mean for rugby here as the coverage they do do is absolutely top-notch. I'd love to just pay per competition..although if that turns out too expensive then I would probably go to other means...

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="577400" data-time="1462518849">
<div>
Wait what ?!? 
Do you live in a cave ?
</div>
</blockquote>
I told you, sasquach

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="580498" data-time="1463533532"> JC and then we will elect you to Chair the board.</blockquote>
 
Why, what am I being punished for? 
I'll give you a story that will make you feel even worse about this clown. Long story short, after nearly 4 years my MacBook Pro needs a new battery. It's built in and can't be changed by the user as it's glued onto the top assembly, i.e. the keyboard and trackpad have to be changed at the same time. All well known and expected, but when I bought the thing there was a standard price for the job at the Apple Store of 139 quid. You can get the job done in any Apple Store in Oz for about 270 Aussie Pesos. Here in NZ the Approved Apple Repair place quoted me $870 for the parts plus 1 and 1/2 hours labour. Plus GST. Of course the warranty has long expired, so it's my dime. 
So anyway I wrote to Tim Cook to have a moan and resigned myself to having to either throw the computer away or stump up over a grand. But he, the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, has done something about it. His office called me, then contacted the service people to find out what was going on, checked vs Oz prices etc, then came back with a solution where I pay for labour and they provide the materials for the service agent to fit. I get it back tomorrow. 
The moral is a good CEO is worth more than gold to a company. The sweaty Frank Cannon PI lookalike at Sky is just a placeman not a leader.

MajorRage

What a bunch of first-world problems!
 
It's just TV! Sky have to balance maximising shareholder value against customers wants and needs. The flag debate has shown that kiwi's on the whole aren't really into change (unless it saves them money, or the ability to stick it to the man / fishheads in corporate / john key, but just because the average kiwi thinks like that, it doesn't mean that the costs of running the business stay the same. Take a look at the EPL broadcasting deals over the year to see the exponential growth. Then take into account the cross section of the community thinks they should be able to have live rugby, cricket, football, nba, netball, not to mention other local minority sports and see how you think the maths works out.
 
I still remember Sky coming out in the 80's and 90's. I remember my Mum giving to my Dad for his birthday one year and it wsa 39.95 a month. So what is it now, 90 a month, or approximately 125% increase over about 30 years. I think you'll find given that the product is exponentially better, and thus also exponentially more expensive to create, that it's an absolute bargain. I wish I paid only 90 NZD a month for what sky offers. I pay double that and get probably 10% the programming.
 
I don't deal with Sky's customer service, and it does sound like they have problems there. But reality is that better customer service = higher premiums. I'm sure many of you are ditching with success for internet related streaming, but trust me, pricing on that is only going one way, and what do you think is going to happen in a couple of years when 45,000 ex-sky customers are all trying to watch the NZ-Aus match from the same cheaper online streaming site using (in a lot of areas) a creaking broad band architecture? Anybody remember buffering?
 
JC is spot on with his points, but the reality is that Sky need to make sweeping changes across things which improve their relations with their customers. Not go back to 1990 pricing, for 2016 quality. As then they will properly go bust, and what do you think is going to happen then.

Hooroo

Chalkl and Cheese.
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="580507" data-time="1463536037">
<div>
Why, what am I being punished for? 
I'll give you a story that will make you feel even worse about this clown. Long story short, after nearly 4 years my MacBook Pro needs a new battery. It's built in and can't be changed by the user as it's glued onto the top assembly, i.e. the keyboard and trackpad have to be changed at the same time. All well known and expected, but when I bought the thing there was a standard price for the job at the Apple Store of 139 quid. You can get the job done in any Apple Store in Oz for about 270 Aussie Pesos. Here in NZ the Approved Apple Repair place quoted me $870 for the parts plus 1 and 1/2 hours labour. Plus GST. Of course the warranty has long expired, so it's my dime. 
So anyway I wrote to Tim Cook to have a moan and resigned myself to having to either throw the computer away or stump up over a grand. But he, the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, has done something about it. His office called me, then contacted the service people to find out what was going on, checked vs Oz prices etc, then came back with a solution where I pay for labour and they provide the materials for the service agent to fit. I get it back tomorrow. 
The moral is a good CEO is worth more than gold to a company. The sweaty Frank Cannon PI lookalike at Sky is just a placeman not a leader.
</div>
</blockquote>
Good story. Chalk and Cheese in leadership!

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580509" data-time="1463536308">
<div>
 
 
JC is spot on with his points, but the reality is that Sky need to make sweeping changes across things which improve their relations with their customers. Not go back to 1990 pricing, for 2016 quality. As then they will properly go bust, and what do you think is going to happen then. 
</div>
</blockquote>
But there is no 2016 quality, currently.
 
Surely you can see that Sky offereing less and asking for more is not really the best business practise?

The Silver Fern

Sky TV