Sky TV

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Their GUI was hopelessly out of date for years and years, and now they've upgraded to one that is only marginally better, but is so lagy it's nearly unusable as the box is way under-spec'd to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?

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="580514" data-time="1463536500">
<div>
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?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
100% and it's because they are going about it the wrong way. Their IR is awful and their customer service seems like it's terrible too. I'd hate to be the CEO though, as it's an almost impossible task to the balance the ledger on client satisfaction.

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580516" data-time="1463536874">
<div>
100% and it's because they are going about it the wrong way. Their IR is awful and their customer service seems like it's terrible too. I'd hate to be the CEO though, as it's an almost impossible task to the balance the ledger on client satisfaction.
</div>
</blockquote>
You mean for Sky only or companies in general?
 
I agree with JC that it appears that Sky have rest on the laurels for too long and need to scramble smartly to fix this.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580516" data-time="1463536874">
<div>
100% and it's because they are going about it the wrong way. Their IR is awful and their customer service seems like it's terrible too. I'd hate to be the CEO though, as it's an almost impossible task to the balance the ledger on client satisfaction.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Well it is if you choose to ignore the customer feedback and tell them you know better.
 
If the true cost of providing the Sports channels is $70 a month and people don't like the structure of paying $50 for basic access and $30 for Sport as an extra then offer them a $70 bundle for what they want. 
 
Trouble with this is that it exposes the cost of the basic package meaning hey would have to offer a reduction to those subscribers only taking basic.
 
I get that he is managing the current situation with a wary eye on the future, but they don't seem to be setting the future up very well by alienating the customers.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="580518" data-time="1463537412">
<div>
You mean for Sky only or companies in general?
 
I agree with JC that it appears that Sky have rest on the laurels for too long and need to scramble smartly to fix this.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Sky. You have a relatively small customer base compared to your competitors, but just as tough, if not higher, demands.
 
I'm actually agreeing with you and JC. I just think that Sky's job is extremely tough given the NZ marketplace, and they haven't done a great job in keeping their customers happy. Company IR and perception is extremely important. Often, more so then the product itself (See Apple haters).

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580516" data-time="1463536874">100% and it's because they are going about it the wrong way. Their IR is awful and their customer service seems like it's terrible too. I'd hate to be the CEO though, as it's an almost impossible task to the balance the ledger on client satisfaction.</blockquote>
 
Not as difficult if he understands his customers. 10 or 15 years ago they had a unique product that people were willing to pay a premium price for. The alternatives were frankly poor so Sky could harvest clients simply by increasing awareness of the product. Now it's commoditised. It doesn't matter what it costs to produce, people perceive that its value is less and it's pointless to fight that perception, because all you'll do is end up fighting your customers. 
Good companies have to recognise the moment when they have become so successful that their product has become mainstream and commoditised, and be ready with options that customers will consider add enough value that they're willing to pay the same or more for. I reckon Sky should be admitting to itself that now that it carries advertising its basic package is a direct competitor to free to air broadcasting and is therefore not capable of sustaining a charge. Its in-house programming such as rugby is unique and commands a premium, but the shopping channel? Why am I paying for companies to advertise at me?

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580509" data-time="1463536308">
<div>
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. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I agree the overall price is not outrageous, and as I said they have a place in the market still as satellite is the most reliable way to provide HD quality pictures in NZ. With the rollout of fibre that is finally beginning to change though. The way they deliver their content is the problem. Crappy hardware, crappy software, forcing people to purchase channels they don't want, it's a big fucking mess. They should be doing a lot better then they are, but as JC said they have just rested on the laurels the past 20 - 30 years and it is now coming back to bite them.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="580523" data-time="1463538074">
<div>
Not as difficult if he understands his customers. 10 or 15 years ago they had a unique product that people were willing to pay a premium price for. The alternatives were frankly poor so Sky could harvest clients simply by increasing awareness of the product. Now it's commoditised. It doesn't matter what it costs to produce, people perceive that its value is less and it's pointless to fight that perception, because all you'll do is end up fighting your customers. 
Good companies have to recognise the moment when they have become so successful that their product has become mainstream and commoditised, and be ready with options that customers will consider add enough value that they're willing to pay the same or more for. I reckon Sky should be admitting to itself that now that it carries advertising its basic package is a direct competitor to free to air broadcasting and is therefore not capable of sustaining a charge. Its in-house programming such as rugby is unique and commands a premium, but the shopping channel? Why am I paying for companies to advertise at me?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Good points, again. The shopping channel one, I would guess is a source of revenue for them. The shopping channel probably pays them to broadcast, and then maybe would get a share of all revenue generated.
 
If I was the CEO, I would have gone down a completely different route. If they average is 100 p/month, I'd then charge 150 p/month for a premium service - where you get all the channels plus better customer service and a few extra tidbids which may only account for $10 p/month cost to them but $50 p/month to the user. I think they may be surprised how many people would actually sign up for it, and it could help subsidise the rest. Kind of like how htey are charging $70 p/month for 
"basic" then $25 p/month for sports, then real costs are probably $20 p/month for basic and $70 for sports.
 
Or maybe I've just lived in HK too long, where the locals love to be seen to be paying for the top tier, to help show their wealth & prosperity (read, money).

jegga

I've contemplated ditching the whole thing but without the doco channels and soho I'd probably have to talk to my family . We all prefer it this way.

The Silver Fern

Sky TV