Sky TV
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580516" data-time="1463536874">
<div>
<p>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 <strong>it's an almost impossible task to the balance the ledger on client satisfaction.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well it is if you choose to ignore the customer feedback and tell them you know better.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="580518" data-time="1463537412">
<div>
<p>You mean for Sky only or companies in general?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Sky. You have a relatively small customer base compared to your competitors, but just as tough, if not higher, demands.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580516" data-time="1463536874"><p>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.</p></blockquote>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="580509" data-time="1463536308">
<div>
<p>What a bunch of first-world problems!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="580523" data-time="1463538074">
<div>
<p>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.<br><br>
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?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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 <br>
"basic" then $25 p/month for sports, then real costs are probably $20 p/month for basic and $70 for sports.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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).</p> -
<p>Yep, better bundles or some modular ability to pick and choose the channels you want. Which would be tough to manage but at least improve the standard packages.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And stop charging extra to get HD ffs - that shit riles me no end. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="580531" data-time="1463540814">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not having to talk to your family...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Priceless</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Paekakboyz" data-cid="580535" data-time="1463541429">
<div>
<p>Not having to talk to your family...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Priceless</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That should be a tie-up with mastercard advertising campaign surely!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A few snapshots of husbands bored shitless listening to family crap, followed by a picture with sky at the bargain of 99 p/month direct debit or something.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Who needs Ogilvy!</p> -
<p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.</p>
<p>NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. </p>
<p>The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.</p>
<p>I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?</p>
<p>Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p> -
<p>And it looks like nobody is going to pick up the English premiership next year.. just to damn expensive. </p>
<p>It must be exorbitant.. because Sky must know it would geta lot of subscribers form it (not me!).. so I save my angst for the greedy pricks trying to sell these rights so Rooney can afford a harem of grannies and a new Vauxhall.</p> -
<p>I didnt even know how much Sky cost until I started reading this thread.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have had no issues with the new interface - it is definitely an improvement on the old one - and it cost me nothing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is it ideal - hell no, but it more than meets my needs which admittedley are single occupier household (so HDD is planty big enough), watches 10 hrs TV (all sources)/week.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I still find that there are times when there is "nothing to watch" but thank fuck for that because watching TV is well down my list of things I enjoy doing anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When UFB finally becomes available to me, I may revisit but I'll probably just keep sky and purchase some other stuff to supplement it - and then never watch it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It seems from reading on here that their customer service sucks but they are hardly alone their. JC's apple story is great but I bet if he'd gone through the normal cs channels he'd have got short shrift.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By NZ standards Sky and monolithic and in common with most organisations they're struggling to adjust from pretty much having a monopoly to being commoditised.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Two responses to becoming a commodity, work really hard to become special and the provider of choice will accepting that their is always going to be a sizeable minority who will show zero loyalty no matter what you do. Or decide you can afford to let the fickle pricks go because their is still a majority who through general satisfaction or inertia will stick with you unless you get really, really, really bad and you mine them for everything you can.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Loads of industries choose the second option. I don't think Sky have consciously decided on this strategy. It's probably more a case of their own inability to get in front of the wave and some internal cultural issues that have always been there but are now more obvious. Nevertheless through deliberate choice or dumb luck it could still be the best medium term approach.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wish them well because like a lot of others I think they bring value to the NZ sporting scene if not necessarily our viewing one.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="580546" data-time="1463543056"><p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.<br>
NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.<br>
<br>
Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. <br>
The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.<br>
I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.<br>
<br>
So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?<br>
Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.<br>
<br>
I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.<br>
<br>
I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Very good points BSG. I don't think Sky don't have a place in my lounge, I think they aren't really clear in their own mind what that place is. They don't seem to get that in many ways people's perceptions are at least as important as reality, and the perception among many is that the overall price of their offering is inflated by forcing customers to pay for a basic offering that is really no better than what the terrestrials offer. They don't offer anything like the UK's Sky One channel that commissions its own content and that's a problem because they don't have a differentiator that isn't on an extra cost channel: dramas on SoHo, rugby and netball on Sky Sports and... what else? <br><br>
And things are going to get worse, as you say. The core consumers are probably middle aged like me. When today's teens have their own households how many will pay for Sky?<br><br>
I want Sky to do well for the very reason you give, i.e. that they fund rugby to a level nobody else is likely to. But they're not showing many signs that they have plans to keep them in the game longer term. They make it as difficult as possible to be loyal. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="580590" data-time="1463555491">
<div>
<p>Very good points BSG. I don't think Sky don't have a place in my lounge, I think they aren't really clear in their own mind what that place is. They don't seem to get that in many ways people's perceptions are at least as important as reality, and the perception among many is that the overall price of their offering is inflated by forcing customers to pay for a basic offering that is really no better than what the terrestrials offer. They don't offer anything like the UK's Sky One channel that commissions its own content and that's a problem because they don't have a differentiator that isn't on an extra cost channel: dramas on SoHo, rugby and netball on Sky Sports and... what else?<br><br>
And things are going to get worse, as you say. The core consumers are probably middle aged like me. When today's teens have their own households how many will pay for Sky?<br><br>
I want Sky to do well for the very reason you give, i.e. that they fund rugby to a level nobody else is likely to. But they're not showing many signs that they have plans to keep them in the game longer term. They make it as difficult as possible to be loyal.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Sure they dont commision shows. But I think the basic package is getting better, The Zone (very good sci fi stuff), Duke, Jones, Comedy Central ,The Box(plenty of good shows IMO)... all channels that offer standard TV fare. I think they have actually made an incredible effort to up the content game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree they are in trouble, but part of me thinks it Turkeys voting for xmas. Sky has been good for NZ and very good for NZ sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The middle age curmudgeon on me thinks a Sky news channel would be good, that actually.. you know.. did journalism. Give up on netrality, have shows with no shame about bias, give Cameron Slater an hour, give Bomber Bradbury an hour.</p>
<p>Yeah... probably a bad idea.. but a lot of fun</p> -
<p>you mean SkyNZ that is a NZ channel rather than the Aus one labelled Sky NZ?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree there is some good content in the Basic package, and I;d say that is thier bread and butter and where they make the bigger margins, whereas the SS and Movie channels are probably all but breaking even...</p> -
Slater AND Bradbury on a Sky News Channel? Well, that's not grounds for cancelling Sky. <br><br>
That's grounds for nuking my TV from orbit...<br><br>
Though, there's definitely room for something other than the Ferald, Stuffed, and One News making a live cross to where something happened ten hours ago.. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="580546" data-time="1463543056">
<div>
<p>I think there is a severe ignorance from most people about the challenges Sky faces and the benefits it brings to all of us.</p>
<p>NZ sport needs Sky, Skysports is not a standalone entity, it has to be bundled with a basic package, otherwise they either charge a fortune for Sports alone, or they dont get much money.. and therefore cannot afford to sponsor or pay much for sport.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of you guys need to be REALLY careful of what you wish for. The online model is fucking horrible for consumers. If you want as direct comparison, look at Netflix, Neon, Lightbox etc etc.. what a bloody horrible system. I like a few shows that each one of those has.. what am i supposed to do? get all 3? pay for all 3? Great.. I am paying $45 a month for ... standard TV.. and we have not even got to Sports yet. </p>
<p>The online crowd that got english soccer this year .. not getting it next year... to expensive. No money in it. But lets say they were breaking even.. another crowd gets golf (already happened), another gets cricket.. a 3rd gets rugby.. a 4th gets league.... and another gets some of the US sports.</p>
<p>I have to subscribe to 6-7 services just to get my sports? Fuck that.. it is expensive and a pain in the ass. And the kicker.... they probably wouldn't support NZ sport as much... no money in college sport. No money in club rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So lets say I ditch some of the sports I like.. and only pay to watch just Rugby ,cricket.. and some US sports.. probably at least another $40 a month? And what exactly do I have?</p>
<p>Less than I currently do and 6-7 logins and online issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not as fan of the way things are going, and I think the consumer is going to pay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Sky do an average job of customer relations, but they are convenient as hell, and the cost is very reasonable. Sure I wish I could get just sport for $30 a month.. but I also wish Netflix had every single decent program in the world.. wasn't geo blocked and only cost $8 a month.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I have found some of the comments in here interesting. It's definitely a good idea for Sky to bundle their products. It's a lot easier to negotiate when you are in Sky's position than an independent provider. If you enjoy any niche sports at all they will all go as soon as Sky is off TV. Tennis, sevens, A-League, NBL, triathlon, domestic netball, cricket. A lot of those sports there just isn't the subscriber base for an independent provider to provide an unbundled package. Even if Sky just unbundled their spots package from the basic package there would still be a lot of problems. Sky already have released a season pass for Super Rugby and it was way too expensive for people to actually buy it. Sky Sports without the basic package would still be very expensive and then you are screwed if you want to watch both.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not saying Sky's current pricing structure is the best for the consumer but it is definitely best for Sky.</p> -
<p>Interesting read on the differing viewpoints. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I completely agree with BSG that it would be a pain in the ass to have to subscribe to half a dozen different subscribers to pick up all the sports I want to watch, but the problem is sky is already losing sports, but their pricing is increasing. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>For example, they lost the English premiership (I don't watch it, but it's still not there for me if I wanted to watch it) and the price remained the same. They're no longer the only channel showing NFL or NBA so they don't have a monopoly on that anymore. In fact, with watch and bet on the TAB, you can basically watch any NBA game you want so long as you have money in your account, albeit in pretty average quality. They couldn't provide the South African cricket tour last year, yet their price remained the same, despite calling themselves the home of cricket. Throughout the five years we were with sky, we had price rises almost every year. Not big ones, but rises nonetheless. Couple that with what seems to be a massive increase in ads and it seems you're paying more but getting less. Then if I want to watch the Joseph Parker fights, I pay and extra $40 for one sided undercard bouts and fights that thus far have struggled to get past the second round (I know PPV is a different kettle of fish as well). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>And that's just the sport. Sky Movies channel just seems to play the same 10 movies on repeat throughout a week and I've seen every simpsons re-run on The Box. I'd have to pay more to get rialto, SoHo, the arts channel (or whatever that channel is that plays all the rock concerts) which are some of the only things I'd really want to watch on there. Plus, I can't watch any of the TVNZ pop-up channels unless I unplug my skybox and work out how to use freeview. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not saying it'd be a good thing for Sky TV to lose it's customer base and start to struggle. I really enjoyed mysky and the convenience that things like series-link offered. But I'm not gonna just keep absent mindedly paying the increases if I don't feel it offers me good value for money anymore. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess our decision that we would ditch them was backgrounded by the fact that with a young family the weekends of watching 3 games of super rugby and 3 games of NRL were pretty much gone, and Monday/Tuesday afternoon NFL plans were scuttled by daycare pickups etc. The only sport I would watch with any regularity now are Warriors, All Blacks and BoP Steamers games, plus the occasional game of NFL football when I had a spare 3 and a half hours. Even then, two of those four are often pretty hard to watch.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some kind of pay per view option for Warriors or All Blacks games would have been an ideal set up for us. </p> -
<p>This is the official line on the website:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<p>We are aware that not every SKY customer has the same viewing requirements, and because of the way we package our programming we are not able to supply the exact mix of channels to suit all of our customers.</p>
<div> </div>
<div>Our packages are designed to provide a broad mix of channels to cater for most tastes. Most pay television companies worldwide operate in the same manner, as the matrix of package choices to support "ala carte" viewing is very complicated.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It would be wonderful if customers were able to tailor packages to their viewing preferences, but the reality is that it would be no cheaper for you to choose the channels you request as they would be more expensive on an individual basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Check out our prices and packages for a breakdown of which channels are included in our packages and our current prices.</div>
</blockquote> -
I'd recommend rugbypass.com, it gets all rugby and all rugby league. $15 usd per month.<br><br>
It's only available for Asia but a vpn will do the trick.