SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[mistaTea]

I hate SKY with a passion and look forward to their demise.

Without a doubt, Sky lost the customer-focus (partly due to having no real competition for entertainment until around 2014/2015...and only beginning to have Sport competition now with Spark...).

By forcing a massive potential cohort of avid Spots fans to purchase other packages (that they don't really want) before they could add sport on has not proven to be a winning strategy in the long term (even though generous profits were generated in the meantime).

Amongst the questionable decisions, it's not all doom and gloom though. Sky has pumped a lot of money into local communities through various sports productions, created many jobs in NZ and has generated significant tax revenues to help our various governments meet their social agendas.

With a little luck, and a brand new focus on value delivery - I sure hope we can win you back RTM.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=12216881

Gonna be interesting to see what the viewing experience turns out to be for the viewers without Fibre.

Even the fibre network would potentially struggle to keep up with the huge data spikes during live broadcasts if everyone was connected?

Does anyone know what the fibre capacity is in NZ before the network starts to groan?

[carrom74]

This news must be music to the ears for SKY..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12217868

[mistaTea]

This news must be music to the ears for SKY..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12217868

Well, they will definitely be watching how Spark get on with a keen interest.

In some ways it will be a blessing for Spark to have a few issues now while the demand for their app is relatively low (I think I read somewhere that they only have 9000 subscribers right now).

Otherwise they might get a false sense of security only to have it all go tits up during RWC, which would be a huge disaster.

Online streaming is a tough gig though - and, if I am not mistaken, the amount of issues will only increase over time as more and more people start consuming their content online (and data traffic jams occur during peak times).

Sounds like this particular issue was more to do with their platform though, not the network.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12218055

Now see, this is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to Chris Keall's bias reporting.

I guarantee you if Sky's FANPASS (or even traditional satellite coverage) had any issues he would be ripping the company a new one like he has in the past.

I swear this guy owns shares in Spark or something. This article is so mealy-mouthed, with each 'criticism' quickly followed by assertions that the issue was quickly resolved and everything is all good now.

No big attention-grabbing Headline either like "SPARK PLATFORM MELTDOWN" (or some other unreasonably strongly worded Headline like he does for many Sky articles...)

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12218774

Gapping it well before an announcement to the market about how much Shareholders have spent on Sport? :D

[Sideshow Bob]

Kiltearn buying a few more.....I thought they'd been selling down??

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/attachments/SKT/333139/298126.pdf

[SilverBack]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=12216881

Does anyone know what the fibre capacity is in NZ before the network starts to groan?

Now there is a complicated question. Which part of the network do you have in mind? The fibre tail circuits to the houses freom Chorus etc are quite adequate but then they are "multiplexed" into another fibre at a local cabinet or exchange using GPON and there will be another concentration at the exchange. From the exchange back to the ISP a "backbone" network exists to channnel all the traffic which usually needs to be then rerouted overseas using the Southern Cross cables (I cannot remember if the new competitor to Southern Cross has its cables operating yet). So which part of the network's capacity are you interested in? Microwave transmission also forms part of the backbone network.
The telcos are continually monitoring network activity and planning upgrades. These days mobile traffic is also an important load that passes across the backbone network from the cell towers.
I would not worry about capacity meeting demand. It has been a long time since I encountered serious degradation from increased usage. The main players have capacity planning well in hand and have been dealing with the explosion of activity over recent years rather well, I feel. Spark is still the main provider of the backbone network with other circuits from Vocus and the other outfit whose name escapes me but I think was taken over not so long ago anyway.

[mistaTea]

Now there is a complicated question. Which part of the network do you have in mind?

I suppose I am referring to the main conduit or "backbone", as you put it.

If, in addition to the normal internet traffic, an additional - say, 2 - 3 Petabytes per hour was suddenly put onto the network as a large number of residents stream the RWC in HD all at once... the network should handle it?

I know very little about networks to be fair, so I may be asking the wrong question.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12221518

Big (long overdue) slashes to pricing for FANPASS.

I contacted Chris Keall to let him know that it is possible already to stream FANPASS to the big screen (using Chromecast etc). This option is only disabled if you opt for the $15.99/month 'mobile only' option.

He emailed back acknowledgement of my email, but not sure if he will amend his article.

I thought they may have gone even sharper on the price if you took the 6 month contract option (like 30 bucks maybe). But then I remembered they have the special deal with Spark whereby their customers can get FANPASS for $30 a month of they sign up for 12 months. So I guess if they started offering it to everyone for $30 then the special Spark deal wouldn't be so special anymore? Just a thought.

[tga_trader]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12221518

Big (long overdue) slashes to pricing for FANPASS.

I contacted Chris Keall to let him know that it is possible already to stream FANPASS to the big screen (using Chromecast etc). This option is only disabled if you opt for the $15.99/month 'mobile only' option.

He emailed back acknowledgement of my email, but not sure if he will amend his article.

I thought they may have gone even sharper on the price if you took the 6 month contract option (like 30 bucks maybe). But then I remembered they have the special deal with Spark whereby their customers can get FANPASS for $30 a month of they sign up for 12 months. So I guess if they started offering it to everyone for $30 then the special Spark deal wouldn't be so special anymore? Just a thought.

A step in the right direction! $39 is still relatively reasonable though. Put all the channels on it (specifically the V8 supercars pop-up) and I'll sign up.

[mistaTea]

Agreed. I think that is probably what Martin is planning.

For 40 bucks a month you should get the vast majority of their sport content (possibly with add-ons for a nominal fee for some of the specialty sports that may be quite expensive to acquire).

[value_investor]

So far so good on the fan pass movement. I'm sure it helps keep operating costs down I'm sure they are quietly enjoying Spark having issues with their own video streaming platform having issues.

I'm finding that older generations are starting to embrace technology a little bit more now than they previously would. Perhaps gouging really does help people understand there are other ways.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12222415

Interesting write up in the Washington Post. We already see the fragmented options in NZ between Sky, Netflix and Lightbox. Now Sports is beginning to fragment with Spark making an entry.

As content production costs rise, and bidding wars push prices up further, the consumer ends up getting screwed. Plus, having to navigate across multiple platforms to try and find the content you want to watch is a poor user experience.

I think all the new streaming competition sounds good for the consumer in theory, but not so much in practice.

[Jay]

Generally agree mistatea, or is it just the older generation can't get around this interwebby thing :-).
Have also mentioned before, to get everything you may want you need to be subscribed to multiple platforms and the costs soon start to add up, not that I am suggesting we go back to one TV channel :eek2:, but one place/site that links to all these providers (and I don't mean the internet) , one site that brings all this together to get what you need - hang on sounds like Sky!, but needs to be online now at least, Would it work with someone like Sky as a "reseller" ?????
While I have subscribed to Spark for the WRC & F1 in the main, now that Sky does not have these or some other sports the price has not dropped. As has been mentioned reducing some prices may stem the flow or even get some clients back, so the net outcome is zero or even an increase
Martin seems to be making the right noises so far

[minimoke]

Generally agree mistatea, or is it just the older generation can't get around this interwebby thing :-).

Some of us have our Elders Certificate in Googling and Interweb Mastery so have a very good handle on such matters.

What we cant deal with is umpteen channels of dross, loaded with adverts to sift through

[flyingmariner]

Just curious why Morningstar has a buy recommendation on SKT with a chart that is all one way? I know buy low/sell high is an investment mantra but do these analysts know something?

[Jay]

Some of us have our Elders Certificate in Googling and Interweb Mastery so have a very good handle on such matters.

What we cant deal with is umpteen channels of dross, loaded with adverts to sift through
Ha ha agree
I hear some collegues at work going on about did you see this programme, that programme, seems as though it the best thing since sliced bread, apart from cost don't they do anything other than sit in front of the tv downloading all these series and most are not under 35 or so but their late 40's & 50's

[Entrep]

but do these analysts know something?
absolutely not

[676767]

Just curious why Morningstar has a buy recommendation on SKT with a chart that is all one way? I know buy low/sell high is an investment mantra but do these analysts know something?

They probably see a new CEO with both eyes open and access to a bit of capital.
Pretty bold to predict a turn around when nothing has operationally changed yet though.

[minimoke]

$60.00 early bird Spark price to watch the whole of the Rugby World Cup. That seems like good value to me. And a good idea to sell a "One Sport" package.

[Balance]

Just curious why Morningstar has a buy recommendation on SKT with a chart that is all one way? I know buy low/sell high is an investment mantra but do these analysts know something?

Always be on the look-out for the 'out of way' recommendations - that's where the real money is always made.

But obviously must be careful to pick the right 'out of way'.

A Sydney fund manager I know became a multi-millionaire several times over and retired by investing in News Corp and Westpac when both companies were completely out of favour in the early 1990s.

[mistaTea]

$60.00 early bird Spark price to watch the whole of the Rugby World Cup. That seems like good value to me. And a good idea to sell a "One Sport" package.

Agreed, $60 bucks is pretty sharp pricing for the avid rugby fan who will want to watch most of the games (not just the free AB's, semis and final).

I think allowing the consumer to pay a tournament fee (and therefore pick and choose which sports they want) is an interesting pricing model.

Not sure how much better off in reality the consumer would be in the end if this became the norm, though I am sure Sky will have to consider this as a model if Spark are successful in RWC.

All eyes will be on Spark's post-RWC annual return where they reveal how much the tournament cost etc.

[steveb]

Profits will also depend on the performance of our beloved all blacks.$60.00 would be a bargain if we win,not so good if we go out in the quarters.

Does anyone know if Spark have sold any advertising?

[mistaTea]

I see my old mate Simon is lamenting the 'negative press' about the RWC pricing release.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12222721

I think he might need to take a harden up pill. When you compare this to the kind of criticism Chris routinely writes about Sky (some fair, plenty not), this is a walk in the park.

[Marilyn Munroe]

Some of us have our Elders Certificate in Googling and Interweb Mastery so have a very good handle on such matters.

What we cant deal with is umpteen channels of dross, loaded with adverts to sift through

Off topic:
Check out this Firefox extension;

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12225275

Not sure if this was a similar 'server issue' that Sky recently had with NEON, but this is certainly not a good look for Spark, and a number of people will now wish Sky had the RWC rights to ensure a smooth broadcast.

On the other hand, Spark are better to have these kinds of issues now on tournaments that have relatively low viewership. It gives them more opportunities to learn and ensure these types of problems don't occur during RWC.

Regardless, live broadcasts streamed over the internet is still very much the Wild Wild West. Watch this space.

[BlackCross]

We're impressed with SKY's service response to a connector fault on our dish antenna which has been up around 17 years without a problem. Rang at 2.30 and it was fixed by 3.30 p.m. Just saying as I occasionally get a little annoyed by the constant knocking of the service which we see as decent value for money. Also annoyed that Spark have picked up UK soccer as neither I, nor many of those I know, want to be faffing about and (hopefully) casting (especially live at at 3 a.m.) rather than just switching the TV on. Won't bother to subscribe and will just watch MoTD's and the EFL on Quest for free.

[RTM]

We're impressed with SKY's service response to a connector fault on our dish antenna which has been up around 17 years without a problem. Rang at 2.30 and it was fixed by 3.30 p.m. Just saying as I occasionally get a little annoyed by the constant knocking of the service which we see as decent value for money. Also annoyed that Spark have picked up UK soccer as neither I, nor many of those I know, want to be faffing about and (hopefully) casting (especially live at at 3 a.m.) rather than just switching the TV on. Won't bother to subscribe and will just watch MoTD's and the EFL on Quest for free.

Were they quick to offer you a better deal on your subscription when they were offering sport + basic for ~$50.00 (from memory, might have been less at times) to attract new subscribers ? I took these deals several times....my friends on regular subscriptions were p***ed.

Were they quick to upgrade your decoder with new units with additional disk space when they were available ? These were being handed out left right and centre to new subscribers on the above mentioned deals.

Pleased you got great service, but in my experience they have shown scant consideration to their loyal customers.

[steveb]

Were they quick to offer you a better deal on your subscription when they were offering sport + basic for ~$50.00 (from memory, might have been less at times) to attract new subscribers ? I took these deals several times....my friends on regular subscriptions were p***ed.

Were they quick to upgrade your decoder with new units with additional disk space when they were available ? These were being handed out left right and centre to new subscribers on the above mentioned deals.

Pleased you got great service, but in my experience they have shown scant consideration to their loyal customers.
Yes it,s not till the loyal customer gives notice,that that the Sky retention team move in,offering all sorts of goodies to retain the once loyal customer,what Sky do not seem to comprehend is if they looked after their loyal customers in the first place,they could sack the retention team and do away with all the deals!

[mistaTea]

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/112399353/speculation-sky-television-may-take-on-spark-by-entering-broadband-market

An interesting thought. Just speculation at this point from FNZC from what I can see.

[mistaTea]

I find myself wondering - if Sky and Vodafone had initiated the merger now (i.e post the Spark Sport incursion into streaming live sport) would the Comcom give it's blessing?

[carrom74]

Another senior manager departure...The new boss in town seems to have a long sturdy broom...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112521795/fourth-senior-manager-in-three-months-resigns-from-sky-television

[Baa_Baa]

Despite my misgivings in recent years I like this new CEO and what he is saying and doing. A new broom on a beleaguered stock with an entrenched customer base, could be worth a punt.

[peat]

whether you're TA or FA or both in my opinion you really wanna see something happen before you jump in here.
too much risk for any prudent investor (and you may be proud not to be prudent and that's okay too)
cause there may be well potential but there isn't any signal or recognition of that yet ....

10524

hope is not a strategy.

[Entrep]

Very sound advice peat

[Marilyn Munroe]

The umpires at the Aussie Competition and Consumer Commission have matched their fellow umpires at the Kiwi Commerce Commission by calling a no ball on plans by Vodafone(under arm bowlers division) to merge with broadband provider and mobile reseller the TPG Group like the Kiwis did on the Vodafone SKY merger.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/accc-vodafone-tpg-decision/11090578

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[mistaTea]

The umpires at the Aussie Competition and Consumer Commission have matched their fellow umpires at the Kiwi Commerce Commission by calling a no ball on plans by Vodafone(under arm bowlers division) to merge with broadband provider and mobile reseller the TPG Group like the Kiwis did on the Vodafone SKY merger.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/accc-vodafone-tpg-decision/11090578

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

On first pass, it looks like their decision was as poor as the NZ 'experts' who blocked the Vodafone-Sky deal.

Seems odd to block TPG from merging with Vodafone based on a speculation that they will independently enter the mobile market as a 4th competitor if they aren't allowed to merge.

No doubt Telstra and Optus lobbied hard, just like Spark did here. Understandably.

[see weed]

On first pass, it looks like their decision was as poor as the NZ 'experts' who blocked the Vodafone-Sky deal.

Seems odd to block TPG from merging with Vodafone based on a speculation that they will independently enter the mobile market as a 4th competitor if they aren't allowed to merge.

No doubt Telstra and Optus lobbied hard, just like Spark did here. Understandably.
Looks like 1.20 is the low for last 4 weeks. Is it a deliberate block at 1.20 to support the price, while really, they are selling bits and pieces.
If it is the bottom, maybe good time buy.

[SilverBack]

Looks like 1.20 is the low for last 4 weeks. Is it a deliberate block at 1.20 to support the price, while really, they are selling bits and pieces.
If it is the bottom, maybe good time buy.

So, what do you mean by "bits and pieces". They cannot sell spectrum rights without screwing their own customers, if they can on-sell at all. Can they on-sell programming rights? I doubt it - I would think that all they can do is let them expire. Do they own property in downtown Auckland? If so, that is definitely a candidate. Transmission towers and sites perhaps but they would need a lease-back. What else could they sell? I am open to being illumined since I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about this sector.

[see weed]

So, what do you mean by "bits and pieces". They cannot sell spectrum rights without screwing their own customers, if they can on-sell at all. Can they on-sell programming rights? I doubt it - I would think that all they can do is let them expire. Do they own property in downtown Auckland? If so, that is definitely a candidate. Transmission towers and sites perhaps but they would need a lease-back. What else could they sell? I am open to being illumined since I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about this sector.
Sorry, I meant shareholders selling bits and pieces of their shares.

[brend]

Sky is a June balance date right?

I called sky wanting to cancel because I wanted to change to fanpass, just for sports.

They offered me sky sports for the next 3months for free, with no conditions. I'm only on the starter plan which is like $25 per month.

Smells of Desperation to keep the subscriber numbers up for year end???

[JeremyALD]

Sky is a June balance date right?

I called sky wanting to cancel because I wanted to change to fanpass, just for sports.

They offered me sky sports for the next 3months for free, with no conditions. I'm only on the starter plan which is like $25 per month.

Smells of Desperation to keep the subscriber numbers up for year end???

Considering the Cricket World Cup is on this coming month that's a bit of a worry.

I do think Martin Stewart knows what he is doing though, so let's wait and see

[mistaTea]

Smells of Desperation to keep the subscriber numbers up for year end???

No doubt there will be pressure to keep the subscriptions up for the next reporting season.
Especially since the last season of Game of Thrones was only 6 episodes...and has finished before the magic June 30 date. Each year they would get a flood of NEON subscriptions for GOT, and then the majority of those subscribers would drop off soon after, but that would usually only be picked up in the next round of reporting.

Personally, I am not sure why people dip in and out of NEON like that as I think $11.99 a month is great value for the Box Sets ($20 if you want to throw in movies too).

I imagine they have offered you 3 months of free Sky Sport in the hope that you will stay on with your existing package after the free period ends (and therefore pay more over time). Their New Business offers are very aggressive with the freebies right now too.

Personally I think they should have just let you go to FANPASS since that platform is clearly going to play a massive role in their future.

If they want to keep satellite as a viable option for the masses, they need to drop (or significantly reduce) the MySky fee. That is, in my view, a significant hurdle.

Even if you just want Sport...the normal price for a satellite subscriber is (approx) $25 Starter + $30 Sport + $15 MySky = $70/month. Absolutely ridiculous.

Especially when you consider that each Set Top Box probably only costs Sky around $200 or so...and is written off the books over 4 years. How can charging $180 a year to rent the box make any kind of sense? I understand that old 'Monopoly Sky' was able to get away with this, but things are so different now.

[Jay]

As I have said before the 2 "starter" options should be $25 combined as most you can get "free" from Freeview.
I actually "bought" my MySky some years ago, have had it replaced a couple of times due to faults, and they also upgraded it to the HD version when I asked for it for no extra.
So probably in the 2 years or so it has turned "free" rather than paying the monthly rental on it and now giving you HD free my sub went down!

[mistaTea]

So probably in the 2 years or so it has turned "free" rather than paying the monthly rental on it and now giving you HD free my sub went down!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if you were to ever cancel your subscription you still need to return the decoder.

No doubt the option you used to "buy" the decoder (which I don't think is even an option anymore) is cheaper than paying the monthly rental after you have been a customer for a certain period of time - you don't actually own it.

Vodafone TV do not charge a set top box fee. With prolific OTT competition, if your business model still relies on a STB my view is that you need to treat it as the cost of doing business nowadays.

And I agree that, at least on the surface, charging $25 entry for 'Starter' is a bit cheeky given the majority of the channels offered are Freeview.

And remember, the entry is effectively $40 now in reality.
The vast majority of people in this day and age would expect the ability to record and watch later on demand as stock standard functionality. So just getting Starter + My Sky is gonna sting you $40 before you have even added any of the channels that you actually want.

Significant changes are needed, and I do believe that Martin Stewart is the man to do it.

[RTM]

Sky is a June balance date right?

I called sky wanting to cancel because I wanted to change to fanpass, just for sports.

They offered me sky sports for the next 3months for free, with no conditions. I'm only on the starter plan which is like $25 per month.

Smells of Desperation to keep the subscriber numbers up for year end???

And there it is again mistaTea. Regular loyal subscribers get stung with an inflated price. And unloyal subsribers are rewarded.
I've commented on this previously. I've been streaming from SPARK Sport. Other than a few teething problems...and of course lack of content....it's been pretty good. F1 especially. Bring it on !

[mistaTea]

And there it is again mistaTea. Regular loyal subscribers get stung with an inflated price. And unloyal subsribers are rewarded.
I've commented on this previously. I've been streaming from SPARK Sport. Other than a few teething problems...and of course lack of content....it's been pretty good. F1 especially. Bring it on !

Yeah, I am optimistic that they will get their pricing right. They have to, and the new boss isn’t saddled with the baggage of previous years and previous decisions.

Rather than offering Sky Sport free for 1 month and 3 months of free MySky to entice people...how about just get your damn pricing right so that you are competitive in the first place and people want to subscribe to your services? You shouldn’t have to offer these massive bribes to get people in the door...and then hold them hostage for 12 months by locking them into a contract.

At the end of the day, I would much rather have 1 million subscribers paying an average of $55 a month than 750,000 subscribers paying an average of $75 a month - even though revenue would be slightly lower. And the market would be much more optimistic about Sky too.

And if you gave people Starter + Soho + Sport for $55 all in, I think you would have no trouble getting (and keeping) subscribers. Delighted customers may even be prepared to add movies for another tenner. The customer wins, we win.

[Baa_Baa]

Yeah, I am optimistic that they will get their pricing right. They have to, and the new boss isn’t saddled with the baggage of previous years and previous decisions.

Rather than offering Sky Sport free for 1 month and 3 months of free MySky to entice people...how about just get your damn pricing right so that you are competitive in the first place and people want to subscribe to your services? You shouldn’t have to offer these massive bribes to get people in the door...and then hold them hostage for 12 months by locking them into a contract.

At the end of the day, I would much rather have 1 million subscribers paying an average of $55 a month than 750,000 subscribers paying an average of $75 a month - even though revenue would be slightly lower. And the market would be much more optimistic about Sky too.

And if you gave people Starter + Soho + Sport for $55 all in, I think you would have no trouble getting (and keeping) subscribers. Delighted customers may even be prepared to add movies for another tenner. The customer wins, we win.

I think the new boss gets it (refreshing), but it is more the point whether Sky can revert to a now more accepted media consumption/price model, and delivery model, quickly enough to leverage their still impressive although greatly diminished customer base, while not compromising the long tail and revenue from ignorant customers who will persevere with outdated technologies and limited viewing choices as a consequence.

[RTM]

:confused:
I think the new boss gets it (refreshing), but it is more the point whether Sky can revert to a now more accepted media consumption/price model, and delivery model, quickly enough to leverage their still impressive although greatly diminished customer base, while not compromising the long tail and revenue from ignorant customers who will persevere with outdated technologies and limited viewing choices as a consequence.

These dam customers ! The bane of every business !!!

[mistaTea]

... while not compromising the long tail and revenue from ignorant customers who will persevere with outdated technologies and limited viewing choices as a consequence.

I think the winning strategy here will be to do the right thing by all of their customers by pricing their products appropriately. Relying on a segment of your customer base to continue being gouged due to apathy or ignorance would further doom Sky from a brand perspective.

Sky TV is largely restricted in terms of how their channels are bundled, however the way these bundles are priced is completely in their control.

In addition to their ‘build your own’ packages they could create some pre-set bundles like Vodafone TV.
Have an Entertainment package (starter, entertainment, movies + SOHO) for $39. 99

Sport package (starter + Sport) for $39.99

Sport Plus (starter + Sport + SOHO) for $45

Premium (starter + entertainment + movies + SOHO + Sport) for $60

No My Sky fee, and you can still add specialty channels like Star Plus, Bein Sports etc on top.

Clearly, I have just made these numbers up and Sky would have to work out what pricing points are viable. But setting prices around these levels would help reverse the declining subscription numbers, and improve Brand Perception.

And we all have to accept that the $100M+ profit days for Sky are over. Profits will be smaller in the future, as ARPU shrinks and content costs increase.

Shrinking ARPU is just fine so long as it is due to Sky adjusting prices down and lifting subscriptions.

Not what we have seen recently which is prices increase and customers heading for the door in droves.

[JeremyALD]

To me SKY seems like one of the best value stocks on the NZX right now. Good dividends, a ridiculously low PE of 5 and a customer base of over 700k customers.

Sure they have been significantly disrupted but with a refreshed leadership team and still very strong sport rights I think they are reasonably placed to start making better decisions. They do have some good products - fanpass with lower pricing, neon with HBO content and SKY GO has been dramatically improved of late. Sky Movies has always been a weakness in my view - but when you're competing against the likes of streaming and Netflix it's never going to win a lot of customers.

Probably need to wait for the next report before I dip in, but in a very expensive market there is some logic to thinking about sky at this point imo.

[tga_trader]

...neon....

Neon is a pile of shyte. We got it recently to binge watch a couple of programs, and we will not renew once we're done. I can see why they don't offer a free trial like everyone else. The user interface is terrible, the features are lacking, and it crashes at the end of most episodes. It is miles behind lightbox, and even further behind netflix.
The only thing holding sky together is their (ever reducing) content. If competitors offered the SAME content, no body would willingly choose sky.
What happens once Disney has their streaming service up, and they take back the rights to everything Disney, Pixar Marvel, Starwars, and 20th Century Fox? Does Sky lose all that content entirely, or do they face huge increase on purchasing the rights?
Add to that increase pressure (ie increased content cost) from Spark Sport and decreasing subscriber base and the new CEO has a massive job ahead of him. If he can pull it off it will be the greatest success story ever.

[mistaTea]

Neon is a pile of shyte... The user interface is terrible, the features are lacking, and it crashes at the end of most episodes. It is miles behind lightbox, and even further behind netflix.


Can I ask how you are watching NEON? I used to try and watch it using the NEON app on an old SmartTV I had in the past, and it was absolute bollocks. Would crash on me regularly. If I paused a show to go and make a cup of tea, when I came back and hit play...it would play for 5 seconds and then crash.


However, when I started to chromecast from my iPhone all of my problems disappeared. It was much easier using my smartphone as a remote to search for content, and it reliably delivered a high quality stream. The smartphone app has a decent UI in my view. Still not as good as the Netflix UI in some areas....but I wouldn't personally describe it as a "pile of shyte".

[tga_trader]

There is no app for it on our TV so it's chromecast from either tablet or smartphone. Don't have any streaming or casting issues with any other service. Ironically the only issue we've ever had like this is with Fan Pass and again I'll never spend another cent on it.

[mistaTea]

There is no app for it on our TV so it's chromecast from either tablet or smartphone. Don't have any streaming or casting issues with any other service. Ironically the only issue we've ever had like this is with Fan Pass and again I'll never spend another cent on it.

Hmmmn, completely inexplicable. I have cast both NEON and FANPASS and the service was flawless. I just recently used FANPASS to stream the Joshua v Ruiz fight and it was great.

Oh well, I guess Sky won't be looking forward to your custom in the future :eek2:

[Sideshow Bob]

SKY accelerates focus on streaming services

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/336549

There was an article in the Herald the other day (behind paywall) indicating a lot of change at SKY, but questioning if it was too late.

[mistaTea]

SKY accelerates focus on streaming services

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/336549

There was an article in the Herald the other day (behind paywall) indicating a lot of change at SKY, but questioning if it was too late.

Initially I thought the Cisco Infinite Video Platform and 'Puck' were good ideas. However, on reflection - I did start to think they would be best suited saving their money to upgrade their NEON and FANPASS apps. Let people bring their own devices - I mean, it has worked wonderfully for Netflix.

Other companies, like Apple, are providing set top box systems that will ultimately allow the aggregation of content from different platforms. Sky would be better to enhance NEON, and collaborate with Apple to ensure NEON behaves as a 'Channel' on AppleTV. That way customers are more likely to have premium Sky content surfaced to them alongside content from Netflix, Lightbox, Apple etc etc...

God only knows how much money has already been spent on the new set top boxes though! I am sure it is a scary number.

[Sideshow Bob]

Initially I thought the Cisco Infinite Video Platform and 'Puck' were good ideas. However, on reflection - I did start to think they would be best suited saving their money to upgrade their NEON and FANPASS apps. Let people bring their own devices - I mean, it has worked wonderfully for Netflix.

Other companies, like Apple, are providing set top box systems that will ultimately allow the aggregation of content from different platforms. Sky would be better to enhance NEON, and collaborate with Apple to ensure NEON behaves as a 'Channel' on AppleTV. That way customers are more likely to have premium Sky content surfaced to them alongside content from Netflix, Lightbox, Apple etc etc...

God only knows how much money has already been spent on the new set top boxes though! I am sure it is a scary number.

NZ Herald article about dropping the puck - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12243553

[mistaTea]

NZ Herald article about dropping the puck - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12243553

According to Stuff, the new Sport App will be brand new...and run in conjunction with FANPASS...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113746881/sky-tv-to-launch-sports-app-in-august-cans-roll-out-of-puck-device

Bizarre if that is true. I would have thought they would just have one updated sport streaming app that has an On Demand focus.

I emailed Sky for clarification. If they don't reply I guess we will just have to wait until August to see how it all plays out.

[RTM]

According to Stuff, the new Sport App will be brand new...and run in conjunction with FANPASS...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113746881/sky-tv-to-launch-sports-app-in-august-cans-roll-out-of-puck-device

Bizarre if that is true. I would have thought they would just have one updated sport streaming app that has an On Demand focus.

I emailed Sky for clarification. If they don't reply I guess we will just have to wait until August to see how it all plays out.

Ah...that’s great Mr T. I was a bit worried for a while that u worked for Sky.
Cheers, RTM.

[mistaTea]

Ah...that’s great Mr T. I was a bit worried for a while that u worked for Sky.
Cheers, RTM.

LOL. Anyone who is not completely bearish on Sky TV MUST be an employee huh?


Sky came back with: "We’re not getting into details on this yet but will make a further announcement within the next few weeks"

So will have to wait and see, but I hope they end up with just one Sport App that has more content and flexible plans.

[mistaTea]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/113818094/paranoid-sky-v-spark-the-broadcast-bidding-war-that-could-save-nz-rugby

Not sure if "paranoid" is entirely fair, but clearly Sky are going to have to pony up more cash to retain key sporting rights.

[mistaTea]

What do you guys think the changes to NEON and FANPASS are likely to include?

[audiav]

After being on watch list for > 1 year I’ve followed ACC top up and had a nibble. Feel obliged to subscribe now.

[RTM]

After being on watch list for > 1 year I’ve followed ACC top up and had a nibble. Feel obliged to subscribe now.

Maybe they should offer 50% subscriptions to shareholders.
That would get my attention !

[waikare]

Maybe they should offer 50% subscriptions to shareholders.
That would get my attention !

I'll be happy with a 20% discount for shareholders

[steveb]

I would expect most shareholders are going to be subscribers anyway so you probably have a better chance that they put your prices up! all to help the companies bottom line of course

[Balance]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12247494

Beyond the World Cup: Spark Sport boss confirms ambition to tackle Sky head-on

Sobering sort of headline for Sky shareholders.

With ABs, Sky might as well start winding down and call it quits as a mass market player.

[JeremyALD]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12247494

Beyond the World Cup: Spark Sport boss confirms ambition to tackle Sky head-on

Sobering sort of headline for Sky shareholders.

With ABs, Sky might as well start winding down and call it quits as a mass market player.

Spark will surely lose a lot of money on this. Sky TV will pay big $$ to keep their key rights and they the subscribers to do it

[moimoi]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12247494

Beyond the World Cup: Spark Sport boss confirms ambition to tackle Sky head-on

Sobering sort of headline for Sky shareholders.

With ABs, Sky might as well start winding down and call it quits as a mass market player.

Yup..and Telecom / Spark is renowned for its spectacularly successful investment decisions.....

How is that CDMA network going....?

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12247494

Sobering sort of headline for Sky shareholders.


I think SKY TV & its Shareholders sobered up some time ago. This is not new news - Chris Keall (a hardened Sky hater) has published a number of articles in the past which have discussed Spark's strong desire and ongoing commitment to gaining key sporting codes.

Spark Sport will only be viable if they can get some of the big tournaments. And, given the significant resource they have put into Spark Sport, of course they are going to bid very strongly when Rugby, Cricket, NRL rights etc are up for grabs.

Spark shareholders will only be happy with lower profits from the significant $$$ being spent if they can see it leading to higher profits long-term (either through making a profit from the sporting content in its own right, or by using it as a loss leader to gain additional broadband connections).

Sky TV, on the other hand, only exists to distribute content. They literally do not have a business if they do not hold on to key entertainment and sporting rights, whereas this is a nice 'value add' to Spark if they can pull it off, but is not a threat to their fundamental business if it fails.

As Sky have so much more to lose than Spark, I would expect them to fight extremely aggressively. And, as Mr Latch points out, I don't think it will just come down to price for everything (though the $$$ will clearly go up for the main codes).

[mistaTea]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/114088365/sparks-sports-strategy-becomes-clearer

Here is a more balanced article imo on Spark's future plans (compared to Chris' article that merely states the obvious - that Spark will bid hard for upcoming rights - and has an underlying sentiment that Sky must therefore be locked in a state of terror due to new competition).

[carrom74]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12248612

Well done Black Caps and SKY TV....

Go the Blackcaps and get the coveted trophy home!

[RTM]

Terrible result for NETFLIX. Wonder if this will increase people’s concerns with respect to SKY ?
Or whether the Live Sports will continue to be a sufficient life-buoy ?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX?p=NFLX&.tsrc=fin-srch

[Entrep]

Terrible result for NETFLIX. Wonder if this will increase people’s concerns with respect to SKY ?
Or whether the Live Sports will continue to be a sufficient life-buoy ?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX?p=NFLX&.tsrc=fin-srch

Netflix used to be the only streaming game in town. Now people are finding they need to sign up to several services to get all the shows they want. Who wants to run 5 accounts with different services? Not to mention the cost of doing so.

IMO that's where there is opportunity for SKY to swing it back their way, momentum to the aggregators (ie their old model, but streamed) but of course they are highly unlikely to get the rights to everything that would be required for this to happen.

Netflix was supposed to be the new aggregator but now the content creators themselves are learning they can stream also and taking it back (eg losing The Office and Friends). More fragmentation. Netflix is making its own content to fight this and has seen it coming for a long time.

You know the one place/service where I can still get everything I want in the above scenario? Piracy/torrents

[Marilyn Munroe]

Here is a link to Sky's new marketing guru plugging his book on National Radio;

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018704485/how-to-build-a-better-brand

I thought his plan for marketing Sky was vague. Given his track record of success in previous roles including Cullen Airlines it would be a good idea to watch what he does.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[Timesurfer]

Sky still has a way to go to win me over.
Netflix probably suffering from its foray into politics.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12250916

Good news, though I imagine Sky needed to pony up a bit more than usual to keep it out of Spark/TVNZ's hands.

[Joshuatree]

Netflix used to be the only streaming game in town. Now people are finding they need to sign up to several services to get all the shows they want. Who wants to run 5 accounts with different services? Not to mention the cost of doing so.

IMO that's where there is opportunity for SKY to swing it back their way, momentum to the aggregators (ie their old model, but streamed) but of course they are highly unlikely to get the rights to everything that would be required for this to happen.

Netflix was supposed to be the new aggregator but now the content creators themselves are learning they can stream also and taking it back (eg losing The Office and Friends). More fragmentation. Netflix is making its own content to fight this and has seen it coming for a long time.

You know the one place/service where I can still get everything I want in the above scenario? Piracy/torrents

"Is torrenting legal or illegal? Torrenting itself isn’t illegal, but downloading unsanctioned copyrighted material is. It’s not always immediately apparent which content is legal to torrent and which isn’t. Some fall in a gray area, so you may find yourself unwittingly on the wrong side of the law."

Is torrenting safe? Is it illegal? Are you likely to be caught? - Comparitechhttps://www.comparitech.com › Blog › VPN & Privacy (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEu6yp2b_jAhXp63MBHdbVBEcQFjAQegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.comparitech.com%2Fblog%2Fvpn-privacy%2Fis-torrenting-safe-illegal-will-you-be-caught%2F&usg=AOvVaw35_97inXLaenW7-29_t39O)




Had to Google what you meant by "Piracy/Torrents" .Now i know





Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2019 - TorrentFreakhttps://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-popular-torrent-sites-of-2019/ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEu6yp2b_jAhXp63MBHdbVBEcQFjAJegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftorrentfreak.com%2Ftop-10-most-popular-torrent-sites-of-2019%2F&usg=AOvVaw1E3aKiyQ_LowHVrl_AATTq)

[Stranger_Danger]

You know the one place/service where I can still get everything I want in the above scenario? Piracy/torrents

Yup, that is the issue. I'll spend a couple hours studying Sky TV as a possible investment, totally seeing a lot of value *in theory*, then I'll unwind by watching anything I want, from anywhere I want, for free.

It is really hard to see any long term competitive advantage that a company like Sky now has in the delivery of either movies or pre-recorded television programs.

About all that is keeping the lights on is live programs, especially sport. But as a result, TV channels globally are bidding insane amounts of money for anything of this nature, even in an environment of ever declining ratings. Witness the deals done by World Wrestling Entertainment last year to provide a product that is getting worse and less popular by the month, as reflected in the rapidly falling ratings. So why did Fox and USA pay so much? Live content.

It's easy to see a scenario where the TV and movies that Sky provides are available more cheaply or free elsewhere, while the live stuff, especially sport, becomes so expensive they're delivering it for almost no profit.

SKT stands out as dirt cheap in a world of expensive shares, but I still think it is more likely a value trap than a bargain.

[Baa_Baa]

You know the one place/service where I can still get everything I want in the above scenario? Piracy/torrents

While you are correct, it is easy to underestimate (imo) the lack of technical capability of the general populous that could take advantage of these 'work arounds'. Sky survives presently on customer apathy, it is likely that their customer base have few ideas about, or ability to watch whatever they want on the internet by consuming illegal content through invisible streams.

[mistaTea]

While you are correct, it is easy to underestimate (imo) the lack of technical capability of the general populous that could take advantage of these 'work arounds'. Sky survives presently on customer apathy, it is likely that their customer base have few ideas about, or ability to watch whatever they want on the internet by consuming illegal content through invisible streams.

I tend to agree that a large portion of the populous would struggle to figure out how to pirate content and get it up on their big screen.

Piracy is definitely Sky TV's largest competitor though. Personally, I think people are damned silly to do it. Quite apart from the clear moral hazard in doing so, they expose themselves to all sorts of viruses with this activity. And one should support the industries they want to see more of by paying for the service.

I appreciate that many people who do think they have a right to steal content would greet the above comments with a blank stare though.

Ultimately, Sky need to keep improving their streaming platforms to combat this. If people can access a reliable and user friendly service that has a range of great content they will pay for it. Paying 67 cents a day for NEON (40c a day if you just take SOHO) is chump change for the VAST majority of Kiwis. Sky just need to fix the usability quirks, enhance the content options available and I don't think they will have too much trouble increasing subscriptions. Same goes for FANPASS.

If they can convince the large segment of the population who want content, but are not interested in an every-channel expensive satellite subscription, to look at NEON and FANPASS you could get $59 per user right there (ARPU would actually be $29.50 because they would be viewed as two separate subscribers. However it is the same person coughing up $59/month). No stuffing around with set top boxes, and technicians doing site visits to get the customer up and running. Just money in the bank.

Oh, and can they hurry up get NEON on AppleTV already?! They have been promising this since 2016...

[Sideshow Bob]

Interesting.

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/338292

[mistaTea]

Sky Sport NOW just landed.

Upgraded my iPhone app and have had a bit of a play. I have to say...wow. The content and functionality available is so far ahead of FANPASS it's not funny.

Looking forward to having a go on my AppleTV app later tonight and see how it works on the big screen.

Thumbs up from me.

[Leftfield]

Interesting changes going on at SKY. When does a sell share become a buy again?

Sky buys RugbyPass (https://www.nzx.com/announcements/339233)

[silu]

I left Sky just to join Sky Sports Now. Obviously a little bit of a bummer not being able to watch one thing on the TV and watch another on the laptop but then I don't have to pay for Sky Basic anymore which I never watched anyway. Had some issues with the app on a PS4 when I switched between the rugby and the cricket several times then broadcasting stopped working. But it restarted relatively quickly. For once its way better than SkyGo already which always was a dog.

[mistaTea]

The only thing that is potentially dubious about the deal is the fact that Sky are paying for half of the deal by issuing new shares. The current SP is very low compared to what a long-term investor would realistically pay to buy all of Sky Television.

So using equity to fund the payment right now could be wealth destroying to existing shareholders.

The only way this would make sense to me is if the US$40M is much lower than Sky would have needed to pay for an all cash deal. The existing owners may have been happy to settle on a lower purchase price knowing they will get a big block of Sky shares and can participate in the upside over time.

Otherwise, if US$40M fairly values Rugby Pass (or represents a premium to intrinsic value) and Sky just paid using undervalued shares...that would not be good at all.

[mistaTea]

Dug a little deeper to see where they currently have the rights to stream rugby...

"RugbyPass coverage throughout Asia (Zone 1 & 2) includes every game from the Rugby Championship, 6 Nations, Heineken Champions Cup, Challenge Cup, Super Rugby, Gallagher Premiership, Premiership Cup, Pro 14, Mitre 10 Cup, Currie Cup and RugbyPass TV.

Zone 1 & 2 countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

Zone 3 coverage includes every game from The Rugby Championship, Gallagher Premiership, Super Rugby, Mitre10 Cup and Currie Cup live and on-demand and subscriptions are available in the following countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, & Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine.

RugbyPass subscriptions in Australia (Zone 4) include every game from the Pro14 and Heineken Champions Cup plus selected matches from the Challenge Cup live and on-demand.

Zone 5 subscriptions which cover the rest of the world currently include access to RugbyPassTV which includes all of our shows & documentaries.

Zone 6 subscribers get access to every match from The Rugby Championship, Super Rugby, Mitre 10 Cup, Currie Cup, plus RugbyPassTV throughout Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Noway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden."

So they do have quite a wide audience indeed, in places where interest in rugby is growing.

I did some back of the envelope math earlier...they reckon there are 120M rugby fans worldwide. Let's assume that seems reasonable for now, but remove 20M of those (to be on the safe side) since rugby rights are pretty well locked up in NZ, UK, Aussie and South Africa...

So of the 100M fans RugbyPass could potentially reach...If they could provide enough content to convince just 1% to pay US$15/month to subscribe every month, the earnings generated for Sky could easily be NZ$300M-400M over 10 years.

No doubt, Sky have ambitions to go far beyond that and I will be watching this space with interest. One would think, at the very least, this move puts Sky in a much stronger position to keep Super Rugby and other key rugby competitions far from Spark Sport's grasp.

[carrom74]

I am getting more nervous with regards to the live streaming of RWC... May be its better to hit the Pubs(where SKY's boxes wouldn't fail) rather than rely on Spark Sport:)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12259661

[RTM]

I am getting more nervous with regards to the live streaming of RWC... May be its better to hit the Pubs(where SKY's boxes wouldn't fail) rather than rely on Spark Sport:)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12259661

Good that they have these experiences BEFORE the RWC. Hopefully it assists them with resolving the problems.
Yes...always better to go to the Pub. I've found that not having SKY certainly makes me more social. Maybe that is a good thing ?

[mistaTea]

Good that they have these experiences BEFORE the RWC. Hopefully it assists them with resolving the problems.


Yes that is true - and if Spark are able to retain credibility (which a successful RWC stream would achieve) it will keep Sky honest. No way would Sky have implemented so many changes so quickly without Spark Sport existing. In fact, it is unclear if John Fellet would have resigned and brought Martin on without the increased pressure of Sports rights being challenged by a serious OTT player.

However...

Unfortunately for Spark, their content delivery model has so many moving parts. It is entirely possible that their hardware and software could do an excellent job, yet their stream could still fall over for a variety of reasons completely outside of their control.

They do have TVNZ to fall back on. I wonder though, if they had issues and had to switch over to TVNZ...and then TVNZ On Demand suddenly had a massive spike of users streaming...that could be another headache?

Let's see what happens. Even if they stream ok, their stream rate of 30fps is going to give consumers a relatively poor quality product compared to what many are used to. Will be interesting to see what the masses make of it.

[mistaTea]

https://thespinoff.co.nz/sports/17-08-2019/the-best-matchup-in-rugby-is-a-long-way-from-the-field/

[Marilyn Munroe]

Prediction is hard but I'm not going to let that stop me.

The link mistaTea posts above is interesting. Bur I come to a different conclusion than the writer.

The battle between SKY and Spark will produce a winner but it will be a battle victory rather than winning the war.

The article mentions some sports franchisers going direct to viewers but discounts this for Rugby because of unknowns about technical issues.

History is littered with incumbents who assume opponents technical difficulties will give them continued superiority on the battle field.

There a two factors which herald change, the AV1 open video codec and the high penetration rate of domestic fiber in New Zealand.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[ratkin]

Yes that is true - and if Spark are able to retain credibility (which a successful RWC stream would achieve) it will keep Sky honest. No way would Sky have implemented so many changes so quickly without Spark Sport existing. In fact, it is unclear if John Fellet would have resigned and brought Martin on without the increased pressure of Sports rights being challenged by a serious OTT player.

However...

Unfortunately for Spark, their content delivery model has so many moving parts. It is entirely possible that their hardware and software could do an excellent job, yet their stream could still fall over for a variety of reasons completely outside of their control.

They do have TVNZ to fall back on. I wonder though, if they had issues and had to switch over to TVNZ...and then TVNZ On Demand suddenly had a massive spike of users streaming...that could be another headache?

Let's see what happens. Even if they stream ok, their stream rate of 30fps is going to give consumers a relatively poor quality product compared to what many are used to. Will be interesting to see what the masses make of it.

The premier league is being streamed really well by Spark, have heard nothing but good things from fellow subscribers. They all really enjoying the actual games and the extensive array of available highlights

[mistaTea]

The premier league is being streamed really well by Spark...

There have been a few hiccups, but overall not a disaster and most people have been happy with the service I believe.

They have a small audience right now though - less than 20,000, or so I read.

Sky Sport just released stats on viewership for the Bledisloe match. 500K satellite views, and 55K via internet (Sky Sport NOW).

So even though Sky Sport NOW is new and only has about 10% of Sky's sports viewers...it still had a lot more traffic than the Spark Sport platform so far.

When Spark have hundreds of thousands of viewers streaming key RWC matches on their platform, it will be a different story. I am not suggesting their platform can't cope with the traffic (I have no reason to believe that they will not succeed in streaming) - but if a certain % of their viewers consistently have issues (irrespective if the issue is caused by something in Spark's control or not) then the sheer volume of complaints could potentially be very large.

Streaming is difficult. Spark have certainly put processes in place to give themselves the best chance - but we will just have to wait and see how they go.

And they are a long way off from being able to boast a service that has the same quality and is as reliable as Sky TV imho.

[steveb]

I wonder how many views they had on Prime?

My personal opinion would be that Spark have so much riding on the world cup,they are going to put a huge effort into getting it right,but if you fancy a punt buy some Sky shares now and hope for a balls up!

[Baa_Baa]

There have been a few hiccups, but overall not a disaster and most people have been happy with the service I believe.

They have a small audience right now though - less than 20,000, or so I read.

Sky Sport just released stats on viewership for the Bledisloe match. 500K satellite views, and 55K via internet (Sky Sport NOW).

So even though Sky Sport NOW is new and only has about 10% of Sky's sports viewers...it still had a lot more traffic than the Spark Sport platform so far.

When Spark have hundreds of thousands of viewers streaming key RWC matches on their platform, it will be a different story. I am not suggesting their platform can't cope with the traffic (I have no reason to believe that they will not succeed in streaming) - but if a certain % of their viewers consistently have issues (irrespective if the issue is caused by something in Spark's control or not) then the sheer volume of complaints could potentially be very large.

Streaming is difficult. Spark have certainly put processes in place to give themselves the best chance - but we will just have to wait and see how they go.

And they are a long way off from being able to boast a service that has the same quality and is as reliable as Sky TV imho.

Just to be clear, Spark have outsourced the livestream platform provision to https://www.istreamplanet.com scroll down the page have have a look at the numbers of concurrent viewers they boast and the big brand events they've hosted.

[mistaTea]

Just to be clear, Spark have outsourced the livestream platform provision to https://www.istreamplanet.com scroll down the page have have a look at the numbers of concurrent viewers they boast and the big brand events they've hosted.

Yes I think their relationship with their platform streaming provider is well understood. It has certainly been well documented.

Which is why, if there are any issues, I don’t think it will be due to any issues within Sparks control. They have partnered with a reputable organisation that boast best in breed sport streaming apps etc.

If there is an issue for them it will more likely be due to all of the other moving parts outside their influence and/or customer equipment issues etc

Of course they may also stream the entire tournament without a single mishap or glitch.

[clearasmud]

Hi guys I'm in today for the divis.
Am I dumb?

[carrom74]

Hi guys I'm in today for the divis.
Am I dumb?

I am expecting a reduced dividend.. may be 5 cents.

[clearasmud]

I was assuming that but maybe not this time?

[mistaTea]

I was assuming that but maybe not this time?

Well, given there are more shares outstanding now...even if they paid out the same amount as the interim dividend, it would end up dropping (on a per-share basis) to 7 cents.

Let's see what Martin has to say tomorrow. After the RP purchase, and with SANZAAR rugby rights etc coming up for tender soon, I imagine the final dividend could be reduced to make sure the Balance Sheet is strong.

People buying the stock for dividends might be disappointed if that is the case.
The long-term investor, however, won't give a sh1t. If the money can be used more effectively by the company (as opposed to distributing as a payment that is subject to tax to the shareholder) then the company should retain the capital in my view.

[Marilyn Munroe]

Disney knocks out a brick in SKY's wall.

"Disney+ streaming service confirmed launch in New Zealand."

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22106

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[RTM]

Disney knocks out a brick in SKY's wall.

"Disney+ streaming service confirmed launch in New Zealand."

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22106

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

Yes, the wall is in trouble. (watching Game of Thrones (S8) at the moment)
The main reason I would consider SKY is for Live Sport. For me that is the key to their survival.

[mistaTea]

Disney knocks out a brick in SKY's wall.

"Disney+ streaming service confirmed launch in New Zealand."

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22106

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

Is it confirmed that Sky NZ will lose the rights to broadcast Disney shows once Disney+ is live in NZ?

Or do that just have non-exclusive rights to Disney, meaning consumers will be able to watch Disney as part of their Sky Basic package, NEON or go to Disney+ direct?

[tga_trader]

Is it confirmed that Sky NZ will lose the rights to broadcast Disney shows once Disney+ is live in NZ?

Or do that just have non-exclusive rights to Disney, meaning consumers will be able to watch Disney as part of their Sky Basic package, NEON or go to Disney+ direct?

I'm really surprised it's happening so soon, and that there hasn't been an announcement by SKY.
Will they still have the Disney channel?
Will they still get broadcast rights to Disney Group Movies?
Does it change the cost of their rights if it's no longer exclusive?
Will they have a partnership with Disney to offer Disney+ cheaper to SKY subscribers?
Will Disney partner with Lightbox like they've done with Hulu in the States?

All of this will have an impact on revenue/costs and therefore share value. And if SKY doesn't have the answer to all of those questions, then what have they been doing for the last 12 months?

[bull....]

no dividend declared , obviously they are going to use the money to chase content. be interesting if spark go for the kill being in the far superior financial position

[Balance]

no dividend declared , obviously they are going to use the money to chase content. be interesting if spark go for the kill being in the far superior financial position

Sobering for shareholders and investors who invested for yield - final dividend cut from 15c to 12.5c to 7.5c to zero!

Back to the early days when Sky paid no dividends when its focus was on building up subscriber numbers?

Let's do the time warp again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umj0gu5nEGs

[percy]

no dividend declared , obviously they are going to use the money to chase content. be interesting if spark go for the kill being in the far superior financial position

The divie made SKT look attractive.
No divie, SKT share price may look rather ugly.

[Sideshow Bob]

The divie made SKT look attractive.
No divie, SKT share price may look rather ugly.

Always use to pump out the free cashflow.

Hmmmmm…..

[LAC]

Will be an interesting day for Sky sp today

[RTM]

The divie made SKT look attractive.
No divie, SKT share price may look rather ugly.

The question will be how much slack will their current shareholders cut them ? I suspect this will be based on an estimation of when they might be able to turn things around and re-establish their dividend. People who need the dividend and have a well diversified portfolio can accept 1 or maybe 2 periods with out a dividend. Beyond that, they will be evaluating whether to hold them pretty carefully. The competition from Spark and others….the way they have annoyed some of their customers....they've got a tough road ahead. Can they turn this around in 12 months ? Doubtful IMO.

Disc: Not holding but do monitor as an interested ex-customer.

[bull....]

The question will be how much slack will their current shareholders cut them ? I suspect this will be based on an estimation of when they might be able to turn things around and re-establish their dividend. People who need the dividend and have a well diversified portfolio can accept 1 or maybe 2 periods with out a dividend. Beyond that, they will be evaluating whether to hold them pretty carefully. The competition from Spark and others….the way they have annoyed some of their customers....they've got a tough road ahead. Can they turn this around in 12 months ? Doubtful IMO.

Disc: Not holding but do monitor as an interested ex-customer.

if spark gets the best sports content offering i would say the days are numbered for skt. cutting the div altogether is normally the a big warning sign of a company in trouble

[LAC]

SKT dont hold a lot of debt and if the SP tanks, there's a good business case to get acquired by one of the bigger fish out there

[RTM]

SKT dont hold a lot of debt and if the SP tanks, there's a good business case to get acquired by one of the bigger fish out there

Good addon to SPARK ?:)

[carrom74]

Good addon to SPARK ?:)

That would be awesome!

[Schrodinger]

The future looks bad. The product is average at best. Sunset company. You can use Google to get realtime content for virtually no cost. Even watered down Netflix is better.

Only Baby Boomers have subs? What is defensible...?

[Well Endowed]

hmmm not sure this the best use of money promoting the brand?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12260880

[tga_trader]

hmmm not sure this the best use of money promoting the brand?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12260880
Now we wait for Spark Sport to hit back with 'Eden SPARK Stadium'

[Kia21]

Just had a quick squiz through the annual report, jeez that doesn't look good. Burning cash, $400M worth of Goodwill still on the books, only $4m in the bank. Yikes!

[RTM]

Just had a quick squiz through the annual report, jeez that doesn't look good. Burning cash, $400M worth of Goodwill still on the books, only $4m in the bank. Yikes!

Can someone please educate me as to what $400M of Goodwill is with respect to Sky ?
Serious question....Science Grad. Thx.

[mistaTea]

Can someone please educate me as to what $400M of Goodwill is with respect to Sky ?
Serious question....Science Grad. Thx.

The Goodwill carried on the books comes from back in 2005 when Independent Newspapers Ltd (INL) and Sky merged.

A company called "Mergeco" was set up and purchased all of the shares in Sky, and all of the shares in INL. Mergeco was then renamed SKY NETWORK TELEVISION. As a result, about 1.5B was recorded on the Balance Sheet as an intangible "Goodwill" asset reflecting the INL brand value at the time.

The deal stacked up back in 2005 and gained shareholder approval etc. However the world has moved on, and even though the original INL Goodwill value has been amortised over the years, that remaining asset value was not representative of the true value in 2019.

Sky wrote off $360M of Goodwill last year. They have opted to be even more aggressive this year and write off another $670M. They could have written off less, but opted to rip the plaster off.
Basically, given the state of the media industry and the future direction the company needs to take...writing INL off the books is the right thing to do. It would be disingenuous to pretend that the INL intangibles were still worth over $1B in 2019.

A bold move, but it does mean the bottom line GAAP profit looks terrifying. Underlying earnings and cash flows are not affected at all though.

Hope that helps.

[RTM]

The Goodwill carried on the books comes from back in 2005 when Independent Newspapers Ltd (INL) and Sky merged.

A company called "Mergeco" was set up and purchased all of the shares in Sky, and all of the shares in INL. Mergeco was then renamed SKY NETWORK TELEVISION. As a result, about 1.5B was recorded on the Balance Sheet as an intangible "Goodwill" asset reflecting the INL brand value at the time.

The deal stacked up back in 2005 and gained shareholder approval etc. However the world has moved on, and even though the original INL Goodwill value has been amortised over the years, that remaining asset value was not representative of the true value in 2019.

Sky wrote off $360M of Goodwill last year. They have opted to be even more aggressive this year and write off another $670M. They could have written off less, but opted to rip the plaster off.
Basically, given the state of the media industry and the future direction the company needs to take...writing INL off the books is the right thing to do. It would be disingenuous to pretend that the INL intangibles were still worth over $1B in 2019.

A bold move, but it does mean the bottom line GAAP profit looks terrifying. Underlying earnings and cash flows are not affected at all though.

Hope that helps.

Yes it does, thanks. I was unaware that this had occurred....although I did have some knowledge of where Goodwill comes from. I am pleased it is not from a Television series that they decided not to make, or something like that. ��
Would they have been prompted by their auditors to do this ?

[whatsup]

The Goodwill carried on the books comes from back in 2005 when Independent Newspapers Ltd (INL) and Sky merged.

A company called "Mergeco" was set up and purchased all of the shares in Sky, and all of the shares in INL. Mergeco was then renamed SKY NETWORK TELEVISION. As a result, about 1.5B was recorded on the Balance Sheet as an intangible "Goodwill" asset reflecting the INL brand value at the time.

The deal stacked up back in 2005 and gained shareholder approval etc. However the world has moved on, and even though the original INL Goodwill value has been amortised over the years, that remaining asset value was not representative of the true value in 2019.

Sky wrote off $360M of Goodwill last year. They have opted to be even more aggressive this year and write off another $670M. They could have written off less, but opted to rip the plaster off.
Basically, given the state of the media industry and the future direction the company needs to take...writing INL off the books is the right thing to do. It would be disingenuous to pretend that the INL intangibles were still worth over $1B in 2019.

A bold move, but it does mean the bottom line GAAP profit looks terrifying. Underlying earnings and cash flows are not affected at all though.

Hope that helps.


What were the assets of INL again , the Dominion and what other news papers?

[mistaTea]

What were the assets of INL again , the Dominion and what other news papers?

At one point they owned around 80 publications etc.

But by 2005 they had sold pretty much all of them. They were majority owner of Sky at the time though - and Sky was their main remaining asset after selling off the papers, magazines, Stuff.co.nz etc etc. So the decision to merge was eventually made. And with that merger Sky inherited a large Goodwill asset.

Would have to try and dig into the old Annual Reports to get a more detailed understanding of how the deal was constructed.

[mistaTea]

Hi guys I'm in today for the divis.
Am I dumb?

Well, I guess that didn’t work out as planned...

[clearasmud]

True.
Why are you so confident with this stock?
Do you have much of a stake.?

[mistaTea]

True.
Why are you so confident with this stock?
Do you have much of a stake.?

1. I like the business & management.
2. Yes.

[Entrep]

I have to agree this new CEO is doing pretty much exactly what was needed.
No comment on whether this is priced right though.

[mistaTea]

Sky just reverted to a single NEON package (TV + Movies) and slashed the price to $13.95 per month.

Pretty aggressive.

[tga_trader]

Sky just reverted to a single NEON package (TV + Movies) and slashed the price to $13.95 per month.

Pretty aggressive.

And best of all...they automatically lowered the price for existing customers. This truely is a whole new SKY.

[Stranger_Danger]

Very interesting.

The new CEO has increased the short term risks to dividends, revenue and profits, but it does appear that he's going to have an honest go at ensuring Sky actually has a future.

[Leftfield]

And best of all...they automatically lowered the price for existing customers. This truely is a whole new SKY.

New management making a lot of brave moves..... going to be interesting to see if they can turn this one around. (Don't hold but watching with interest.)

[mistaTea]

And best of all...they automatically lowered the price for existing customers. This truely is a whole new SKY.

Unless you were on the TV-only package for $11.99/month.

They will have to pay $2/month more but are going to get a vast array of movies in return.

[Bobdn]

Gee, Twitter and facebook are awash with comments about just how good Sky was and how they never dropped the ball (pun intended) on big games. So unfair! Are these people crazy?

Sky is just for the fuddy-duddy who hasn't embraced the new technology. It's for those sticks in the mud who can't be bothered: buying a chrome cast; upgrading a TV; finding out that the new TV was not quite the right model; updating a device to stream to the TV; finding out that the whole thing wasn't working anyway and then switching back to broadcast TV to watch it on Duke anyway. Just Luddites.

I streamed the Cricket World Cup via Sky, it worked well but assume they must have just got lucky. Oh and the Ashes worked perfectly too in 1080p and not one frame was dropped over 25 days of cricket but yeah, what would Sky know. Just so yesterday.

And then there's this bloke, some marketing expert with decades of experience who claims:

"But as a sports fan, I know the picture on Spark Sport is not as good as it would be on Sky.

Goodale says the point of technology is really to move things forward and improve the experience, but Spark simply hasn't done that in this instance.

"You have to ask whether Spark really needs to be in this space when there have been operations like Sky doing it for a long time and do it really well."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12269788

Wow, this guy needs to get with the programme. Sky, you know, is just not sexy.

[percy]

As an old fuddy-duddy I just can not be bothered with the new technology.
Installed Sky when it came to ChCh for Formula 1,and Rugby,.
Now no Formula 1, so I catch up on YouTube.
WCR I just went on line and read reports, and You Tube high lights this morning.
Must admit I had a fantastic day at Ashley Forest Rally Sprint today.Standard of driving was excellent.
Haydon Paddon was absolutely incredible.
Great meeting,great organisation.


ps.Own Spark shares and have Spark for phone and internet.
Do not own any Sky shares.

[Bobdn]

Nice that you had a lovely day out. I went for a ride on my scooter and bought some chelsea buns at New World.

I think this will be an interesting week ahead.

[tga_trader]

As an old fuddy-duddy I just can not be bothered with the new technology.
...so I catch up on YouTube.
It is literally exactly the same to stream on Spark Sport as it it to watch a video on Youtube. People get nervous when they hear 'streaming' or 'on demand' but you've been doing it on Youtube for years, it's just a different website or App.
Don't be scared of new technology Percy, you might find you like it.

[oldtech]

I'll accept part of your "fuddy-duddy" argument but not all of it.

To be honest, part of the fuddy-duddy argument would have to be aimed at my wife - she LIKES the fact that you push one button to turn on the TV, another button to turn on the Sky, and that's it. It's simple; it works. If she has to start firing up Netflix to watch one series, Amazon Prime to watch something else, Lightbox for a movie, TVNZ Ondemand for yet something else she just won't want to know.

Keep in mind also, that Sky still has the monopoly on UK TV, and the programs on there appeal to a lot of people. AFAIK there is no LEGAL alternative to watch UK TV here in NZ.

[blackcap]

I'll accept part of your "fuddy-duddy" argument but not all of it.

To be honest, part of the fuddy-duddy argument would have to be aimed at my wife - she LIKES the fact that you push one button to turn on the TV, another button to turn on the Sky, and that's it. It's simple; it works. If she has to start firing up Netflix to watch one series, Amazon Prime to watch something else, Lightbox for a movie, TVNZ Ondemand for yet something else she just won't want to know.

Keep in mind also, that Sky still has the monopoly on UK TV, and the programs on there appeal to a lot of people. AFAIK there is no LEGAL alternative to watch UK TV here in NZ.

For me its not even the fuddy duddy argument. I do not mind paying SKY $98 per month for the sports. If I had to pay NBA.com, ESPN, Spark Sport, EPL, ATP.com and cricket (when they start streaming) all a different subscription package it would be way more expensive to watch my sports. I do not begrudge SKY the bundling they have done. I believe un-bundling in the end will cost the consumer a heck of a lot more and leave them with less choice for $ than the past model. That said, SKY should have come to the party earlier with online content and all available at once (ie like Netflix)

[Sideshow Bob]

For me its not even the fuddy duddy argument. I do not mind paying SKY $98 per month for the sports. If I had to pay NBA.com, ESPN, Spark Sport, EPL, ATP.com and cricket (when they start streaming) all a different subscription package it would be way more expensive to watch my sports. I do not begrudge SKY the bundling they have done. I believe un-bundling in the end will cost the consumer a heck of a lot more and leave them with less choice for $ than the past model. That said, SKY should have come to the party earlier with online content and all available at once (ie like Netflix)

Fully agree. Unbundling will in the end make it difficult/costly for the consumer.

The problem for Sky is that they became fat, lazy and arrogant over the years with the lack of competition, and 'hated' by their customers for it. Fellet stayed waaaay too long and thought they were immune to competition, even when it did finally come.

Apparently they are talking about the rights to the next Rugby World Cup now. Wonder if Sparks little hiccup at the weekend impacts on that at all.

[mistaTea]

Apparently they are talking about the rights to the next Rugby World Cup now. Wonder if Sparks little hiccup at the weekend impacts on that at all.

I think Sky were in the drivers seat anyway for future rugby rights, including the next RWC. This fiasco from Spark might be the final nail in the coffin for anyone at Sanzaar, NZ Rugby etc who may have been keen to look at their offering.

Even if Spark managed to stream without any issues, this is still a huge commercial failure to them. And many Kiwi's have missed out on live coverage.

The biggest streaming volumes Spark were likely to get was the AB v SA match on Saturday. The rest of the AB pool matches won't draw massive crowds, and the AB presumed QF, both semis and the final will all be free live on TV1.

So the biggest volume they will likely get is 132,000 subscribers. Two issues with that:

1. It's probably fair to say that a significant chunk of that number got the tournament pass for free, if not the majority. So who knows how much revenue they generated for this tournament. If they paid $13M (as reported) for the tournament, they probably spent that again at least on their streaming platform, plus paying for the TVNZ coverage in Japan etc etc. So their sport offering has not been able to stand up on its own feet, and Spark shareholders are having to subsidise this project with profits from their core telco business.

2. Even though they were giving the tournament pass away for free in the end (to those who signed up for phone or internet plans), they could still only get 132,000 business and residential premises to sign up. If we look at the last AB match Sky broadcast (against Aussie), between Sky TV decoders and Sky Sport NOW...Sky had damn near 600,000 paying customers watch their live broadcast. The biggest rugby tournament in the world that Kiwi's absolutely love, and Spark could only get maybe one fifth of the audience Sky was able to. That is a terrible outcome for New Zealanders.

If I was negotiating sport broadcasting rights right now, I would think that Sky is the obvious choice. It was ironic that Sparks failure to make the new 'way of the future' streaming a success, meant they had to fall back to trusty Satellite on the Duke channel to save what was left of their bacon. I don't have access to Duke, so had to persevere with a fuzzy picture on Spark Sport, but from what I gather the satellite broadcast was perfect uninterrupted HD.

[Bobdn]

You make some excellent points, mistaTea.

Another interesting article - this guy wasn't taking any chances. The RWC was made available to commercial Sky customers through a pop up channel, I understand.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/sport/rugby-union/bar-owner-glad-he-picked-sky-instead-of-spark-sport/ar-AAHEh9N

[mistaTea]

For some time now, I have maintained that Sky TV's satellite platform remains a competitive advantage, not a disadvantage.

Sure, they do need to sort out their pricing to ensure customers feel they are getting more value than they are paying for, but in terms of the actual platform...it remains the most reliable method of broadcasting HD live sport from Cape Reinga to Bluff.

Sky Sport NOW will certainly grow in popularity over time, but having a significant satellite base means that Sky can shift to streaming as a process of evolution, not revolution. While internet technology is still improving, Sky will continue to be able to reach large audiences and carry a much smaller risk of a major meltdown. And New Zealanders have choice with them - if they don't like the reliability of streaming they can get a satellite Sport package for $55/month. If they are 'new age', have fibre and keen to take a Sport-only streaming option, Sky have them covered with a $39.99 offering. Customer's aren't forced one way or the other, it's entirely up to them.

[Marilyn Munroe]

As an old old poet wrote about a far distant mythical land;

"The old order changeth yielding place to the new."

Even if Sparks streaming of a major sports event turns out to be no more than the flash of distant guns on the horizon it is a portent of change.

As things progress streaming of video content will become more accepted and common. Here is a list of things I think will assist this change;

The high rate of penetration and uptake of domestic fibre in NZ,

The wider adoption of the IPV6 internet protocol and its built-in multicast options, and

The new sophisticated and bandwidth friendly AV1 video codec.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[blackcap]

Another downside to streaming is that the picture has a huge delay.

At the pub you can be watching your fav game. You get google notification that your team has scored a try. 40 seconds later you see the try on the screen. Half the pub is yahooing 40 seconds before said try and those without google wonder what is going to happen in 40 seconds.

Sky was slower but only by about 5-6 seconds from real time.

Streaming tennis at the US Open is getting a lot slower too.

Analogue is still the best for real time live commentary.

[mistaTea]

As an old old poet wrote about a far distant mythical land;

"The old order changeth yielding place to the new."

Even if Sparks streaming of a major sports event turns out to be no more than the flash of distant guns on the horizon it is a portent of change.

As things progress streaming of video content will become more accepted and common. Here is a list of things I think will assist this change;

The high rate of penetration and uptake of domestic fibre in NZ,

The wider adoption of the IPV6 internet protocol and its built-in multicast options, and

The new sophisticated and bandwidth friendly AV1 video codec.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

I don't think you will find a single person who will disagree with you that streaming is the way of the future. The new leaders at Sky have even acknowledged that, hence canning the Cisco Infinite Video platform, suspending the dividend and pumping resource into Sky Sport NOW and NEON.

But even though that is the case, and even though internet technology and availability will improve exponentially over the next few years...right now, it is still the Wild Wild West. For every success story of a live sporting stream, there are two others of failure and problems.

Sky are right to invest in this space...to invest in the way of the future, but they are also damned fortunate to have a reliable satellite backing while they take the time needed for the internet to improve, and for their systems to be upgraded appropriately too.

This Spark Sport fiasco is also a wake up call to Sky. Not to assume they are immune just because Sky Sport NOW has not had any problems so far.

[mistaTea]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rugby-world-cup-2019/2019/09/rugby-world-cup-2019-streaming-issue-never-came-up-in-testing-spark-sport.html

I bet Simon Moutter is relieved he is not the one having to carry the can. Second part of the interview is with Jolie Hodson. Interesting to watch her try and talk her way around the issue.

In desperation, she pulls out some pointless stats. Once they switched to simulcast on Duke, 126,000 customers stayed on Spark Sport. Well, that was in part because:

1. the message on Spark Sport (advising they had switched to Duke) only came late during the 2nd half, so viewers didn't know Spark had done that.
2. People like myself, who do stream all of our content, only have access to TVNZ On Demand - which does not have the Duke channel. So I had no choice but to persevere with a fuzzy, clear, fuzzy, clear, fuzzy picture throughout the game.

I stream via AppleTV, and have a 100Mb/s fibre connection - well set up for this tournament.

So her rubbish about "only a few devices" were having issues is unacceptable. It may well have been a relatively small number of devices that had the picture cut out or pixelate etc... but there would have been many, many more people like me who have Ultra Fast Internet and were able to stream the entire match, but the picture quality was awful.

If they are going to front up and apologise they should just leave it at that. Don't say sorry BUT it was our partners fault and then bullsh1t around the statistics to make it sound like the majority of viewers had an outstanding experience, just a few who had big problems.

[Beagle]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12272097

$235m for all black rights...stop the bus the world's gone completely mad.
Very pleased I am not a shareholder supporting what appears to be gross recklessness.

[blackcap]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12272097

$235m for all black rights...stop the bus the world's gone completely mad.
Very pleased I am not a shareholder supporting what appears to be gross recklessness.

To be fair it is for 5 years and includes Super Rugby. Not sure how much they pay at the moment for Super Rugby but $235m is a hell of a lot. I have gone off Super Rugby the last few years and I am sure I am not alone. Not sure it this is the way to go SKY.

[Sideshow Bob]

To be fair it is for 5 years and includes Super Rugby. Not sure how much they pay at the moment for Super Rugby but $235m is a hell of a lot. I have gone off Super Rugby the last few years and I am sure I am not alone. Not sure it this is the way to go SKY.

They realise that simply, they've just got to have the rugby, and without it they are toasted. Have to bet the house on it, to give them some more breathing room.

Roughly about 4x more per year than what Spark paid for the World Cup

[Beagle]

To be fair it is for 5 years and includes Super Rugby. Not sure how much they pay at the moment for Super Rugby but $235m is a hell of a lot. I have gone off Super Rugby the last few years and I am sure I am not alone. Not sure it this is the way to go SKY.

Gargantuan amount in the context of the market cap and the fact that shareholders are presently not getting any dividends.
Directors and management appear to be working hard to ensure their survival and are happy to work and be paid extremely well but expect shareholders will accept no payment while they embark on this highly experimental approach at massive cost. Amazing as it may seem, many people still tune into SKY to watch things other than Rugby and I am one of them and while a good game of rugby with a decent opponent is enjoyable its no more enjoyable than a good movie in my opinion. Guess I am not sport obsessed like many Kiwi's appear to be.

[Entrep]

Drastic times call for drastic measures. CEO has been making all the right moves to date. Also I read somewhere it's only $10M / year than they are already paying. Spark also proving that this streaming stuff isn't as easy as it seems and RWC viewership on Spark's platform is WAY DOWN. RNZ won't be happy with that. Whether it works is another matter, but I think they are doing what needs to be done. That's the position the company is in.

[RTM]

To be fair it is for 5 years and includes Super Rugby. Not sure how much they pay at the moment for Super Rugby but $235m is a hell of a lot. I have gone off Super Rugby the last few years and I am sure I am not alone. Not sure it this is the way to go SKY.

Super Rugby....the structure of the competition sucks. From memory we have one more year to go before they come up with a new format based on a round robin, might help.
Agree....I lost interest as well. Not having SKY didn't help either,

[mistaTea]

Ummm, guys - Sky could only dream of locking up rugby rights for $235M. They will be paying much more than that for 5 years. Nobody knows what they paid last time, but it has been speculated that rugby cost them $350M.

Now, the only relevance the $235M figure has is that it happens to be 50% of the company's market cap at the time they entered negotiations with Sanzaar and NZ Rugby. If I am not mistaken, under the companies act, any transaction that will be equal to or greater than 50% of market capitalisation needs to go to the shareholder vote. As the SP is in the toilet, they have had to go to the vote whereas they never had to in the past - they just got on with it.

If you guys are losing your minds thinking Sky just bid $235M then you would certainly have an apoplexy if you were ever privy to the actual amount they end up paying. Rugby is big business, and with new competition for rights plus inflation they will certainly need to pay more than they did 5 years ago.

But the amount extra they pay may not be as terrifying as a lot of people assume. They own RugbyPass now which is another card for them to play, and they also have naming rights to the Cake Tin (which allows them to offer a much greater fan experience in Wellington using their technology and broadcasting expertise).

Ultimately the most important factor will always be money, but Sky is developing additional selling points to help give them the edge.

[moimoi]

Could you explain what Sky could provide in terms of "fan experience" by having naming rights to the Cake Tin....?

[mistaTea]

Could you explain what Sky could provide in terms of "fan experience" by having naming rights to the Cake Tin....?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115199688/sky-tv-promises-to-improve-fan-experience-after-winning-naming-rights-for-wellington-venue

We won't have to wait too long before they share the ideas they have which ended up being worthy of implementation.

I think it is a given that they will have more large screens in key locations with the live sky sport broadcast (and commentary). So you won't miss out while lining up for food etc.

But there are also opportunities using apps etc to engage with fans more in the stands etc.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/341984

On one hand, I am dubious about the wisdom of issuing new shares to fund part of the acquisition (given the SP is so low).

But on the other hand, I wonder if Sky would have needed to pay more in an all-cash scenario.

I am glad the RugbyPass founder and key management are sticking around to grow the business, and they should be strongly motivated to do so since they will only get the big pay day in the future if they can increase the share price by a meaningful amount. .

[mcdongle]

But there are also opportunities using apps etc to engage with fans more in the stands etc.

Using Sparks 5G....

[mistaTea]

But there are also opportunities using apps etc to engage with fans more in the stands etc.

Using Sparks 5G....

Correct, but because Sky will he managing the production of the sporting events that they hold the rights to it gives them an advantage in terms of what kind of content is delivered.

[sb9]

Spark expands sport offering by securing NZ Cricket rights
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342420

Game over for Sky??

[blackcap]

Spark expands sport offering by securing NZ Cricket rights
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342420

Game over for Sky??

For me it is potentially a game changer. Cricket is a big reason why I do have SKY. Will have to wait and see what happens. Not happy about this though. Streaming cricket is going to be awful.

[Cricketfan]

Streaming cricket is going to be awful.

Why's that?

[Sideshow Bob]

Ouch....that has to be a bit of a dagger blow......

[bull....]

death of sky is near esp if spark get rugby and soccer and cricket

[Sideshow Bob]

One thought, Spark must be confident in being able to produce it? I understood that Sky do all the coverage and production within NZ.

Hopefully doesn't mean have Scotty and Beaver commentating?? ;):eek2:

[steveb]

I wonder what the advertising revenue was for the cricket,and will spark be ad free.The streaming quality should be good as the demand won't be as high as the world cup.But SP now .95cents and buyers all but gone.

[jonu]

I wonder what the advertising revenue was for the cricket,and will spark be ad free.The streaming quality should be good as the demand won't be as high as the world cup.But SP now .95cents and buyers all but gone.

Can't see why they would be ad free. Cricket lends itself beautifully to ads at the end of every over.

[100101]

Nah, I still have an order in!

[winner69]

The 5 year SKT chart tracks the demise of a company that did not change/adapt with the times

[sb9]

For me it is potentially a game changer. Cricket is a big reason why I do have SKY. Will have to wait and see what happens. Not happy about this though. Streaming cricket is going to be awful.

To be fair SKY had all the opportunity under the regime of Fellet & co to be more customer centric and be future proof in their offerings. Instead they just sat there with all greed and never really bothered to be listen to what customer wants and how new digital era of steaming is changing with competitors lurking in the corner.

[JeremyALD]

This really is a massive loss for Sky and it does show that Spark is serious. I thought they might drop the whole thing after the RWC, but clearly not.

Sky is pretty much holding onto Rugby now, what's left? If they lost that, game over.

[Ogg]

I'm tempted to buy some here. Who cares about the cricket. "Generation TV" won't cancel because of this.

If anything, this might be a turning point. Sky should drop all the Sports Channels, and just focus on things like "UK TV, Jones, Living, Discovery" etc. These shows cost nothing to buy and older generations will watch them right up until they die. The baby boomers still have another 30 years left.

Sub $1 is a great buy here.

[blackcap]

Why's that?

Because it is delayed by a heck of a lot so you are not getting pics in real time. Sky was about 5-7 seconds behind real time, streaming closer to 40 seconds behind. That is one reason. The second is streaming relies on too many differing factors. Broadband sometimes fails, so there is another complicating factor. IN addition the streaming picture is not as clear as the SKY one.

[silu]

Sky is keeping the money dry to go all out for the Sanzar Rugby rights which is very bad and expensive for the end consumer because I can't see Sky Sports Now dropping it's price. Sky Sports had/have a great product. Great production and talent. I'm upset at them for being asleep at the wheel for too long.

[Sideshow Bob]

To be fair SKY had all the opportunity under the regime of Fellet & co to be more customer centric and be future proof in their offerings. Instead they just sat there with all greed and never really bothered to be listen to what customer wants and how new digital era of steaming is changing with competitors lurking in the corner.

Definitely this. Fellet stayed way too long and left when his feet started to get wet.

[JeremyALD]

The basis is Sky used to have everything in sports. You had to buy sky if you wanted to watch sport. That certainly has changed now. Meanwhile sky movies ect is not an attractive proposition when you have the likes of Netflix and fibre. The share price really is showing doomsday, bad whens the last time there's been good news from sky.

Also they need to make an announcement about their position on losing these key rights. The silence is deafening

[steveb]

NZ Rugby and Sanzar are probably ****ting themselves about now,just signed a nice big fat deal with Sky and they could go down the toilet.They won't get much for their rights with no competition!

[Sideshow Bob]

Down 17% to 92c. Market loving it (not).

[ratkin]

Really will need unlimited data if want to stream test cricket.

Only people who should be concerned be delayed coverage is those who like a bet. As a betfair trader Sky was never any good as 5-7 seconds delay may as well be a lifetime. But if streaming is 40 seconds behind then even TAB punters will be too slow to take advantage of in running betting.
Radio sport coverage normally the quickest, and has the advantage of being able to watch betting markets while listening, rather than having to look at pictures

[ratkin]

Down 17% to 92c. Market loving it (not).

Is this an over reaction or just hastening the price to where it was eventually going to end up anyway?

[tga_trader]

V8 Supercars up for renewal next year as well. No doubt there's already talks underway. I've never been a sky subscriber, but that'll be the one that makes me subscribe to Spark Sport.
Will new subscribers be becoming a bit more cautious about signing up for a 12 month contract with Sky?

[sb9]

The basis is Sky used to have everything in sports. You had to buy sky if you wanted to watch sport. That certainly has changed now. Meanwhile sky movies ect is not an attractive proposition when you have the likes of Netflix and fibre. The share price really is showing doomsday, bad whens the last time there's been good news from sky.

Also they need to make an announcement about their position on losing these key rights. The silence is deafening

That's the crux of it. Sky used attractiveness of sport as a carrot to get subscribers to sign up for more than they would've. And that's exactly what Spark has attacked on to give customers choice of their ability to subscribe to what they choose to rather than burden of whole lot. Where Sky failed Spark saw a great opportunity.

[JeremyALD]

Is this an over reaction or just hastening the price to where it was eventually going to end up anyway?

It's not just the rights, it's also the fact that Spark have signed up to a 6 year deal. They aren't going away, which wasn't particularly clear with the change in CEO.

[tga_trader]

Where Sky failed Spark saw a great opportunity.
And they timed the 'attack' perfectly!

[ratkin]

My own sky subscription now hanging by a thread. Champions league football is about all I watch now on the sport channels.

[tga_trader]

SKY still has the rights for the 2020 and 2024 olympics (as well as the 2022 winter olympics). But that's a long time between events, so they'll just hope to retain the 'can't be bothered cancelling' subscribers.

[Beagle]

Only reason I stay with my SKY subscription is watching CNBC for international business. Sport is vastly overrated as a form of entertainment in my opinion.

[Dassets]

Reality is sport will disintermediate as will other content. Big issue occurred a couple of years ago when a big us outfit said they moving into aust and I guess available NZ. Sky has a big outdoor broadcast team. Massive. The redundancy big and writeoffs will potentially wipe these guys out.

[Beagle]

SKY movies losing the Disney Channel from 1 November 2019 which will disappoint a LOT of parents and their kids. Oh dear...things are grim.
This email just arrived this morning.


We’re making a change to our Sky Movies line up! From 1 November Sky Movies Family will replace Sky Movies Disney. Look out for some great titles coming out on Sky Movies Family over the next three months including:
Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse
The Lego Movie 2
The Secret Life Of Pets 2
Wonder Park
We’re also bringing on board some classic family favourites including:
Free Willy
Richie Rich
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
With seven great movie channels to choose from, as well as our fantastic range of pop-up channels, there’s more opportunity to binge on some great films – watch out for the Halloween pop-up coming soon!

We hope you enjoy Sky Movies Family from Friday 1 November 2019.

[Sideshow Bob]

Reality is sport will disintermediate as will other content. Big issue occurred a couple of years ago when a big us outfit said they moving into aust and I guess available NZ. Sky has a big outdoor broadcast team. Massive. The redundancy big and writeoffs will potentially wipe these guys out.

Or will they get a knock on the door from Spark??

[bull....]

Reality is sport will disintermediate as will other content. Big issue occurred a couple of years ago when a big us outfit said they moving into aust and I guess available NZ. Sky has a big outdoor broadcast team. Massive. The redundancy big and writeoffs will potentially wipe these guys out.

write offs and redundancies and increase in leaving subscribers , the company is dear i say history due to bad previous management.

[levin123]

This is really game over for SKY, I give them another 3-4 years MAX.

Content is king and they've utterly failed to adapt to a very dynamic market, with an absolute dinosaur at the helm for far too long, Board should have revolted a long time ago. D Handley doing too much futuring and not enough actual work.

The entertainment/film/premium drama market is absolutely saturated now with Disney+ and Apple TV+'s SVOD services entering the AU/NZ market in November, Netflix, and Spark's offering sucking out a lot of that content. HBO have a distribution deal in place with Sky currently but there is talk they will eventually launch their own SVOD service (HBO Now/Go), in AU/NZ which will mean they'll pull out of the Sky deal and Sky will lose all their premium drama from their Soho channel.

Re Sport, Premium Sport will always be a massive pull factor for Sky, and as Spark chip away at their rights portfolio, I can only see bad news in this area. Spark's SVOD costbase will be cheaper than Sky's and they have a very profitable Telco business so Spark Sport is really just an after thought albeit a high profile one.

I think the saving grace for Sky is that they have an absolutely entrenched position in the production side of Sports Broadcasting and for Spark to develop these capabilities is a significant investment they will be unwilling to take on I'd say - so not sure how that will go down.

Ultimately as plenty of others have mentioned Sky have been a victim of their own demise and I just feel bad for the Mum + Dad shareholders who may have lost out because of a greedy and quite terrible Board and management. A very slow moving train wreck but a wreck nonetheless.

[silu]

fwiw I'd be happy if all sport goes to Spark Sports. After nearly 30 years of a Sky customer I'm now "only" a Sky Sports Now subscriber and the quality through Spark Sports is way better than through Sky Sports Now.

[bull....]

This is really game over for SKY, I give them another 3-4 years MAX.

Content is king and they've utterly failed to adapt to a very dynamic market, with an absolute dinosaur at the helm for far too long, Board should have revolted a long time ago. D Handley doing too much futuring and not enough actual work.

The entertainment/film/premium drama market is absolutely saturated now with Disney+ and Apple TV+'s SVOD services entering the AU/NZ market in November, Netflix, and Spark's offering sucking out a lot of that content. HBO have a distribution deal in place with Sky currently but there is talk they will eventually launch their own SVOD service (HBO Now/Go), in AU/NZ which will mean they'll pull out of the Sky deal and Sky will lose all their premium drama from their Soho channel.

Re Sport, Premium Sport will always be a massive pull factor for Sky, and as Spark chip away at their rights portfolio, I can only see bad news in this area. Spark's SVOD costbase will be cheaper than Sky's and they have a very profitable Telco business so Spark Sport is really just an after thought albeit a high profile one.

I think the saving grace for Sky is that they have an absolutely entrenched position in the production side of Sports Broadcasting and for Spark to develop these capabilities is a significant investment they will be unwilling to take on I'd say - so not sure how that will go down.

Ultimately as plenty of others have mentioned Sky have been a victim of their own demise and I just feel bad for the Mum + Dad shareholders who may have lost out because of a greedy and quite terrible Board and management. A very slow moving train wreck but a wreck nonetheless.

no simpathy from this past subscriber to corporate greed

[winner69]

Only reason I stay with my SKY subscription is watching CNBC for international business. Sport is vastly overrated as a form of entertainment in my opinion.

Oh dear oh dear ...that’s sad

Watching those cheerleaders not good for you ...not even entertainment

[Entrep]

This is really game over for SKY, I give them another 3-4 years MAX.

Content is king and they've utterly failed to adapt to a very dynamic market, with an absolute dinosaur at the helm for far too long, Board should have revolted a long time ago. D Handley doing too much futuring and not enough actual work.

The entertainment/film/premium drama market is absolutely saturated now with Disney+ and Apple TV+'s SVOD services entering the AU/NZ market in November, Netflix, and Spark's offering sucking out a lot of that content. HBO have a distribution deal in place with Sky currently but there is talk they will eventually launch their own SVOD service (HBO Now/Go), in AU/NZ which will mean they'll pull out of the Sky deal and Sky will lose all their premium drama from their Soho channel.

Re Sport, Premium Sport will always be a massive pull factor for Sky, and as Spark chip away at their rights portfolio, I can only see bad news in this area. Spark's SVOD costbase will be cheaper than Sky's and they have a very profitable Telco business so Spark Sport is really just an after thought albeit a high profile one.

I think the saving grace for Sky is that they have an absolutely entrenched position in the production side of Sports Broadcasting and for Spark to develop these capabilities is a significant investment they will be unwilling to take on I'd say - so not sure how that will go down.

Ultimately as plenty of others have mentioned Sky have been a victim of their own demise and I just feel bad for the Mum + Dad shareholders who may have lost out because of a greedy and quite terrible Board and management. A very slow moving train wreck but a wreck nonetheless.

Hit the nail on the head.

Sky used to be "the home of sports" that is clearly no longer the case. There's zero reason to watch any of their other stuff and all that content (if it's worth anything) will be on its own SVOD platform very soon. Sky is going to be left with absolutely nothing.

Everyone talks about Fellet but what has the board done? Absolutely f all.

Edit: Sky response https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342436

[KiwiBuffett]

Not all us watch or care about rugby/cricket, I too jumped on the cable cutting bandwagon last year and cancelled Sky and just went with Netflix and Youtube Premium, however I found myself missing all the channels I use to watch on Sky like ESPN, Discovery, CNBC, MTV, TLC, Fox, Comedy Central, plus a few others.. so I just re-subscribed and got all that again for under $100 a month which is still a good deal relevant to the hours of entertainment/information i'll get.

The only thing I didn't get again was the movies package as I'll use Netflix for that, but other than Movies and potentially sport into the future, Sky is still the place for Kiwi's to get a lot more quality content, especially the baby boomers who will be watching a lot of TV as somebody else here mentioned, also most business/hotel contracts will continue. Streamers will continue to grow and have stolen market share no doubt and Sky has deserved to be re-priced downwards in recent years, but it's overdone imo and the streamers won't own 100% of the kiwi TV content market, so there will still be a place for SKY entertainment for many many more years into the future imo.

For the penny pinchers out there I understand it still looks overvalued vs cheap streaming services who will be increasing their prices over the coming years anyway, and for sports fanatics just using Sky for rugby/cricket I understand spark could be looking better into the future but at the end of the day I look what I spend on an average lunch/dinner out and then think what's an extra $100 per month for way more quality content choice compared to the limited library of dated content on streamers and low quality of youtube content.

I'm long SKT and picked up a few more shares today, excellent valuation here imo.

[Ogg]

Not all us watch or care about rugby/cricket, I too jumped on the cable cutting bandwagon last year and cancelled Sky and just went with Netflix and Youtube Premium, however I found myself missing all the channels I use to watch on Sky like ESPN, Discovery, CNBC, MTV, TLC, Fox, Comedy Central, plus a few others.. so I just re-subscribed and got all that again for under $100 a month which is still a good deal relevant to the hours of entertainment/information i'll get. .

https://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg

[mistaTea]

If you believe that all content providers are going to go direct to consumer for entertainment then yes, Sky will be doomed. They are a content aggregator after all - so if nobody is willing to sell them content they do not have a business.

It is far from clear whether this doomsday scenario will evantuate however. With Netflix, Disney+ and the new Apple TV service...the small NZ market is already saturdated with OTT SVOD providers. Kiwis who will enjoy Netflix, Disney and Apple content but also enjoy Showtime/HBO/FX etc will need to subscribe to NEON, Netflix, Disney+ and AppleTV+. That is already a lot of services to navigate between.

And it is yet to be seen how successful Disney and Apple are in NZ. Disney has some great content, but how many people will be willing to sign up? Their starting price is very cheap, but that just means they have to get a huge amount of subscriptions to justify their business model (versus the reliable income stream they had from Sky).

So with the market already saturated, does HBO keep going with Sky or do they go direct too with HBO Max? I can't know their thinking, but it is not clear to me (as it seems to be for some posters) that they will certainly break their relationship with Sky when their current deal expires in a few years time.

And with regards to sport... despite Martin Stewart's 'tough talk', Sky was never ever going to be able to outbid Spark for all A-List sporting content. It shouldn't really be a surprise.
John Fellet has pointed out on a number of occassions that winning content is the easiest thing in the world. Just keep doubling your offer and you eventually win! Except you don't actually win, if you pay way over the odds you ultimately lose.

No matter how wonderful a piece of content is, nothing is worth an infinite price. I suspect Spark have paid significantly over the odds again (like they did for RWC). The RWC has been a large financial loss to them, and I think cricket will be the same. There just won't be enough cricket fans in NZ with good enough internet speed willing to purchase a subscription from them to break even.

Sky will be bidding hard for key rights, but they will still have a line they cannot cross. A line where you are better off letting the other guy have it. And with their vast amounts of viewership data, I believe they are in the strongest position to ascertain how much each piece of content is really worth.

And, finally, missing out on NZ Cricket is far from ideal...but it does free up more cash to bid for other content. Spark will have given Spark Sport a generous budget to win sporting rights...but it will not be an infinite pool of money. SPK shareholders must also be wondering just how much of their money has been pumped into cricket, given their SP has also fallen by 1.63% ($137,778,370 off their market cap - approx double Sky TV's drop).

[Beagle]

Not all us watch or care about rugby/cricket, I too jumped on the cable cutting bandwagon last year and cancelled Sky and just went with Netflix and Youtube Premium, however I found myself missing all the channels I use to watch on Sky like ESPN, Discovery, CNBC, MTV, TLC, Fox, Comedy Central, plus a few others.. so I just re-subscribed and got all that again for under $100 a month which is still a good deal relevant to the hours of entertainment/information i'll get.

The only thing I didn't get again was the movies package as I'll use Netflix for that, but other than Movies and potentially sport into the future, Sky is still the place for Kiwi's to get a lot more quality content, especially the baby boomers who will be watching a lot of TV as somebody else here mentioned, also most business/hotel contracts will continue. Streamers will continue to grow and have stolen market share no doubt and Sky has deserved to be re-priced downwards in recent years, but it's overdone imo and the streamers won't own 100% of the kiwi TV content market, so there will still be a place for SKY entertainment for many many more years into the future imo.

For the penny pinchers out there I understand it still looks overvalued vs cheap streaming services who will be increasing their prices over the coming years anyway, and for sports fanatics just using Sky for rugby/cricket I understand spark could be looking better into the future but at the end of the day I look what I spend on an average lunch/dinner out and then think what's an extra $100 per month for way more quality content choice compared to the limited library of dated content on streamers and low quality of youtube content.

I'm long SKT and picked up a few more shares today, excellent valuation here imo.

Welcome to the forum. I get SKY basic, plus SKY entertainment (which is all their documentary and news channels and CNBC) and sky movies for $72.33 per month.
I own my My sky box so I can record and watch when I like in high definition and fast forward through the advertisements at 30x normal speed. Comes with high definition for free now and I think I get SOHO for free as well but I never watch it. Value isn't too bad in my opinion. There's only a limited amount of content on Netflix. Sport is vastly overrated, I wouldn't even pay $10 a month for it. Like you I think the model is durable for many years but if the new muppets running the show are going to throw VAST resources at sport and fail to understand that many people subscribe for reasons other than sport, then I think shareholders are on a one way hiding to nothing.

[bull....]

Not all us watch or care about rugby/cricket, I too jumped on the cable cutting bandwagon last year and cancelled Sky and just went with Netflix and Youtube Premium, however I found myself missing all the channels I use to watch on Sky like ESPN, Discovery, CNBC, MTV, TLC, Fox, Comedy Central, plus a few others.. so I just re-subscribed and got all that again for under $100 a month which is still a good deal relevant to the hours of entertainment/information i'll get.

The only thing I didn't get again was the movies package as I'll use Netflix for that, but other than Movies and potentially sport into the future, Sky is still the place for Kiwi's to get a lot more quality content, especially the baby boomers who will be watching a lot of TV as somebody else here mentioned, also most business/hotel contracts will continue. Streamers will continue to grow and have stolen market share no doubt and Sky has deserved to be re-priced downwards in recent years, but it's overdone imo and the streamers won't own 100% of the kiwi TV content market, so there will still be a place for SKY entertainment for many many more years into the future imo.

For the penny pinchers out there I understand it still looks overvalued vs cheap streaming services who will be increasing their prices over the coming years anyway, and for sports fanatics just using Sky for rugby/cricket I understand spark could be looking better into the future but at the end of the day I look what I spend on an average lunch/dinner out and then think what's an extra $100 per month for way more quality content choice compared to the limited library of dated content on streamers and low quality of youtube content.

I'm long SKT and picked up a few more shares today, excellent valuation here imo.

i hope its your popcorn money and not your retirement funds

[tga_trader]

c will need to sunscribe to NEON, Netflix, Disney+ and AppleTV+. That is already a lost of services to navigate between.
Yeah if you subscribe to all services simultaneously then the cost adds up, but with no contracts you don't need to have them all at once. We had lightbox, binge watched everything we needed to and cancelled it, then did the same with Neon. We've had Netflix permanently and will have Disney permanently. The content on Neon/lightbox and SKY for that matter isn't refreshed frequently enough that I want it full time, and I definitely don't want to be locked in to a 12 month contract.

[t.rexjr]

Sky still hold rights to Australian Cricket (Which includes the NZ tour) and apparently (so I'm told) overseas Black Cap games... So fans will now have to buy both... (or neither)

[levin123]

Not all us watch or care about rugby/cricket, I too jumped on the cable cutting bandwagon last year and cancelled Sky and just went with Netflix and Youtube Premium, however I found myself missing all the channels I use to watch on Sky like ESPN, Discovery, CNBC, MTV, TLC, Fox, Comedy Central, plus a few others.. so I just re-subscribed and got all that again for under $100 a month which is still a good deal relevant to the hours of entertainment/information i'll get

You're right in that most Boomers won't adapt easily to the streaming market and there is still a lot of benefit in being an aggregator of content - but - question how long that will last. ESPN majority owned by Disney and they have their own SVOD service in the US. Content producers have realised that there is more money to be made in direct to consumer SVOD platforms than long term distribution deals. SVOD gives them the ability to operate internationally at scale relatively inexpensively.

I just don't think this business is future proof at all and don't see why anyone would invest in it

[KiwiBuffett]

Quality insights @mistaTea and I agree, it's good to see SKT management with some capital prudence instead just bidding endlessly to secure everything, it's ok to let some things go and let the other guy overpay, could work out good in the long run anyway. And yes all these new streaming services have yet to be proven, there's bound to be a few losers which will upset lots of customers and shake confidence, then everything will be so fragmented having everything bundled up into one package will make sense again and there will always be content studios who don't distribute direct to consumers who can sell to Sky.

The current direction of the market and opinion on TV is like we would have to go to a different shop for your fruit, your vegetables, meat, wine, packaged goods, frozen goods, etc... you can do this for specific needs or you could just go to a supermarket. The reality is most markets are complex in nature and niche providers and aggregators will always exist in some shape or form imo.

[levin123]

If you believe that all content providers are going to go direct to consumer for entertainment then yes, Sky will be doomed. They are a content aggregator after all - so if nobody is willing to sell them content they do not have a business.

It is far from clear whether this doomsday scenario will evantuate however. With Netflix, Disney+ and the new Apple TV service...the small NZ market is already saturdated with OTT SVOD providers. Kiwis who will enjoy Netflix, Disney and Apple content but also enjoy Showtime/HBO/FX etc will need to subscribe to NEON, Netflix, Disney+ and AppleTV+. That is already a lot of services to navigate between.

And it is yet to be seen how successful Disney and Apple are in NZ. Disney has some great content, but how many people will be willing to sign up? Their starting price is very cheap, but that just means they have to get a huge amount of subscriptions to justify their business model (versus the reliable income stream they had from Sky).

So with the market already saturated, does HBO keep going with Sky or do they go direct too with HBO Max? I can't know their thinking, but it is not clear to me (as it seems to be for some posters) that they will certainly break their relationship with Sky when their current deal expires in a few years time.

And with regards to sport... despite Martin Stewart's 'tough talk', Sky was never ever going to be able to outbid Spark for all A-List sporting content. It shouldn't really be a surprise.
John Fellet has pointed out on a number of occassions that winning content is the easiest thing in the world. Just keep doubling your offer and you eventually win! Except you don't actually win, if you pay way over the odds you ultimately lose.

No matter how wonderful a piece of content is, nothing is worth an infinite price. I suspect Spark have paid significantly over the odds again (like they did for RWC). The RWC has been a large financial loss to them, and I think cricket will be the same. There just won't be enough cricket fans in NZ with good enough internet speed willing to purchase a subscription from them to break even.

Sky will be bidding hard for key rights, but they will still have a line they cannot cross. A line where you are better off letting the other guy have it. And with their vast amounts of viewership data, I believe they are in the strongest position to ascertain how much each piece of content is really worth.

And, finally, missing out on NZ Cricket is far from ideal...but it does free up more cash to bid for other content. Spark will have given Spark Sport a generous budget to win sporting rights...but it will not be an infinite pool of money. SPK shareholders must also be wondering just how much of their money has been pumped into cricket, given their SP has also fallen by 1.63% ($137,778,370 off their market cap - approx double Sky TV's drop).

Great analysis here and largely agree a part from the following points:

- Spark don't need to operate Spark Sport above water, and comparing their Market Cap drop to Sky's is misleading because of the size difference of the two companies. I'd be quite happy to see Spark Sport operating as a loss leader for the telco business. They are catching the wave in the right direction and that's all that matters at the moment.

- Saying that SKT now have more money free for other content is a bit of a fallacy because more money with less premium content available to throw it at is not a good thing - throwing a lot of money at 1.5 or 2nd tier sports is not going to be SKT's saviour.

I don't think the rats and mice channels will be enough to keep SKT afloat, premium drama and premium sport are what will do it and that looks less and less likely

[tga_trader]

The current direction of the market and opinion on TV is like we would have to go to a different shop for your fruit, your vegetables, meat, wine, packaged goods, frozen goods, etc... you can do this for specific needs or you could just go to a supermarket. The reality is most markets are complex in nature and niche providers and aggregators will always exist in some shape or form imo.
That is a perfect analogy, and the exact thing SKY did wrong. A supermarket has everything in one place but lets you choose what you buy. Sky makes you pay for brocolli, hummus and tampons when all you want is a box of beer.

[KiwiBuffett]

Welcome to the forum. There's only a limited amount of content on Netflix. Sport is vastly overrated, I wouldn't even pay $10 a month for it. Like you I think the model is durable for many years but if the new muppets running the show are going to throw VAST resources at sport and fail to understand that many people subscribe for reasons other than sport, then I think shareholders are on a one way hiding to nothing.

Thank you and glad to be here, and I agree 100%. Management can't bend over to a small group of sports fanatics, there's a lot more going on here and yes capital allocation and execution will be key. It's actually nice to see them turn down a bad number, instead of acquire at any cost, shows some discipline to the numbers. The future for Sky may not even involve sports, let's see how Spark sports goes I guess. Either way there's still a huge subscriber base, brand value and future for Sky as a aggregated content provider. I can easily see myself still being a subscriber and shareholder 10 years from now.

[KiwiBuffett]

i hope its your popcorn money and not your retirement funds

Yes not my biggest position but not my smallest either

[steveb]

Big question for you guys,do you think the commerce commission would sanction a takeover by spark,given the Vodafone/Sky merger failure?

[mistaTea]

Great analysis here and largely agree a part from the following points:

- Spark don't need to operate Spark Sport above water, and comparing their Market Cap drop to Sky's is misleading because of the size difference of the two companies. I'd be quite happy to see Spark Sport operating as a loss leader for the telco business. They are catching the wave in the right direction and that's all that matters at the moment.

- Saying that SKT now have more money free for other content is a bit of a fallacy because more money with less premium content available to throw it at is not a good thing - throwing a lot of money at 1.5 or 2nd tier sports is not going to be SKT's saviour.

I don't think the rats and mice channels will be enough to keep SKT afloat, premium drama and premium sport are what will do it and that looks less and less likely

With regards to being a loss leader, that will be true at the moment for sure. But Jeff Latch has been very clear in the past that the intention is for Spark Sport to stand up on its own two feet. To be a profitable business in its own right. As I say, Spark Sport does not have access to all of Spark earnings to go out and just win everything at any cost. They have a budget, and will have their own strategy for gaining content they feel will help build up a regular-paying subscription base.

So SPK shareholders would naturally be concerned about how much money is being spent and what return they can realistically expect. They love their generous dividends at the moment, don't forget.

My reference to Sky having more money to spend was not about them picking up 2nd tier sports. They now have more money for rugby and NRL. But once again, they will still have a maximum price that they can pay.

Let's say, for example, Sky could go to $450M for a 5 year SANZAAR contract. At the end of the day, if Spark came out and were willing to pay $550M, what should Sky do? Offer $600M? That would be a terrible outcome.
No, they would have to let Spark win it. A less terrible option.

If Spark then kept their price @$20/month (highly unlikely) they would need to get about 600,000 subscribers (by the time you take into account production costs etc) to break even. As much as we like to think of rugby as our national sport, there just aren't that many rugby fan households in NZ.

So SKy need to continue bidding hard - 'until it hurts' - but they have to also be able to walk away. It is a good thing imo because it shows Martin Stewart is bullish in the right areas, but isn't going completely crazy with the cheque book. He is still thinking of long term value for shareholders.

Now that there is serious competion for sport again, Sky will have to continue to modify their strategy to make sure they maintain contracts for all sport that matters to most kiwis (not just ALL sport). There is a world of difference in those approaches.

[KiwiBuffett]

That is a perfect analogy, and the exact thing SKY did wrong. A supermarket has everything in one place but lets you choose what you buy. Sky makes you pay for brocolli, hummus and tampons when all you want is a box of beer.

Yes I agree Sky could let customers customize a bit better what they want to watch and pay for but I imagine most new subscribers don't exactly know what they want yet because they've never seen these channels content before, but overall I'm still happy with what I get for the price I pay, I also like being patriotic towards a classic Kiwi company to get my content instead of switching to 8 different American providers to save a couple of bucks. Most people still pay $20 to watch one movie on a big screen.

[fungus pudding]

Because it is delayed by a heck of a lot so you are not getting pics in real time. Sky was about 5-7 seconds behind real time, streaming closer to 40 seconds behind. That is one reason. The second is streaming relies on too many differing factors. Broadband sometimes fails, so there is another complicating factor. IN addition the streaming picture is not as clear as the SKY one.

My experience of RWC on spark has been brilliant. Picture is so sharp -way ahead of sky.

[mistaTea]

Big question for you guys,do you think the commerce commission would sanction a takeover by spark,given the Vodafone/Sky merger failure?

They would have to reject it for all the same reasons they rejected it before. And, given Spark have invested so heavily in their own platform plus bidding over the odds for RWC and now cricket, I don't think they have any intention of making a play for Sky.

One does have to wonder if another player must be looking at Sky now with hungry eyes. Their SP is only about 4 times underlying earnings now.

I wonder if the commerce commision would block Infratil from doing a takeover since they own Vodafone now. It still makes a good strategic fot (Vodafone-Sky) and Spark would not be able to make the same claims about the two entities monopolising sport.

Spark have made it very clear since the failed merger that a Vodafone-Sky monopoly was never going to be the case in reality.

[mistaTea]

That is a perfect analogy, and the exact thing SKY did wrong. A supermarket has everything in one place but lets you choose what you buy. Sky makes you pay for brocolli, hummus and tampons when all you want is a box of beer.

Part of the way the bundles are currently structured is not actually Sky's fault. The content providers dictate what channels have to go together in a particular package.

It took a lot of work for Sky to negotiate with their key providers to split Sky Basic into Sky Starter and Sky Entertainment, for example.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not customers feel they get fair value for their Satellite subscription. With satellite subscription numbers continuing to fall, the answer for many seems to be NO.

I continue to advocate that Sky need to 'bundle their bundles'. If you ignore New Business Deals (and Save calls when people cancel) it would normally cost a household $70/month to get Sport via satellite (approx $25 Sky Starter, $31 Sky Sport and then $15 for MySky - and let's face it, in 2019 MySky functionality is the minimum that is expected).

A lot of people would think that is too much to pay, given they are happy to take or leave the other channels that come with it and only really want to watch the Sport offerings. And, given Sky's business model relies on a set top box (yet customer can subscribe to other OTT providerd without the need for a box) it seems absurd to have to pay a seperate fee for MySky.

In my view they need to come up with new 'Bundled Bundles'. For example, offer a Sport Package (Starter + Sport) for $49.99 12 month contract, no extra MySKy fee. They have loads of MySky boxes in storage so they can hand them out.

Then you could reward those loyal customers by saying "If you sign up for our Sport package, you can add Movies + SOHO for another $19.99 special loyaltly price).

You would find many people would spend their savings on buying more content. So now you have a household still paying $70/month for a wide range of content and feel pretty good about it. And that is $70 a month more than the $0 a month Sky are getting from the thousands who have cancelled their subs.

Obviously Sky would have to work through the numbers themselves to see what price points will work, but the principle is there.

I see no reason why they could not maintain a large profitable satellite base AND grow their SVOD paltforms.

[RTM]

My experience of RWC on spark has been brilliant. Picture is so sharp -way ahead of sky.

It’s been the same for me. When it’s working well, 99% of the time, it’s GREAT . Way better than the picture we get from Satellite Freeview.

[JeremyALD]

misatea, sky will 100% need to win rugby - whatever it costs. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

[RTM]

Only reason I stay with my SKY subscription is watching CNBC for international business. Sport is vastly overrated as a form of entertainment in my opinion.

I can send you a link that lets u watch CNBC FOX CNN and others pretty reliably if not in HD.
No VPN required. Easy. That was something I missed as well.

[mistaTea]

misatea, sky will 100% need to win rugby - whatever it costs. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

"Whatever it costs?" So, if SPK bid $900M...Sky should bid $1 billion?

Sky need to dig deep to try hold onto rugby absolutely, I agree 100%. But I do not agree that they should win it at any cost.

[Beagle]

misatea, sky will 100% need to win rugby - whatever it costs. I don't think there's any doubt about that.
I respectfully disagree, (actually couldn't disagree more), and think this is the sort of, "we must win this regardless of cost" mindset that will wreck the company and its resources and as its the mindset that's currently prevailing within managements current strategy and as such I think the company is presently uninvestable.

[Beagle]

I can send you a link that lets u watch CNBC FOX CNN and others pretty reliably if not in HD.
No VPN required. Easy. That was something I missed as well.

Thanks mate, CNBC not in HD on SKY anyway. Yes, please send me a link via PM or on here for others benefit.

[RTM]

misatea, sky will 100% need to win rugby - whatever it costs. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

The Super Rugby contest is a mess for another year. Personally I have little interest in the conference system contest. I don’t think that will save SKY with its current format.

[RTM]

I respectfully disagree, (actually couldn't disagree more), and think this is the sort of, "we must win this regardless of cost" mindset that will wreck the company and its resources and as its the mindset that's currently prevailing within managements current strategy and as such I think the company is presently uninvestable.

Sport is the ONLY reason I would consider SKY. To many other options for movies and other programming.
Disc. Not a subscriber or an investor currently.

[Entrep]

No one has mentioned piracy either - that hasn't gone anywhere.

In fact I just looked and a popular SOHO series is showing episode 6 in the US today. That same episode won't play on SKY until next week. They are playing episode 5 this week instead.

[moimoi]

Haven't SKY just bought a Rugby streaming platform....?

Is it too simplistic to believe that with that newfound expertise they could create and reliably provide a "volleyball" or "antiques revisited" streaming platform...?

[JeremyALD]

I respectfully disagree, (actually couldn't disagree more), and think this is the sort of, "we must win this regardless of cost" mindset that will wreck the company and its resources and as its the mindset that's currently prevailing within managements current strategy and as such I think the company is presently uninvestable.

They would lose hundreds of thousands of subscribers if they lost local rugby and All Blacks matches. You can't be the 'home of sports' without the All Blacks and the Black Caps can you?

With nearly 800k subscribers could they handle losing such subscriber numbers with the high fix costs they incur?

[mistaTea]

It would be a significant blow, nobody is saying it wouldn’t.

We are just highlighting that sky cannot pay ‘any price’ for the content.

It is entirely possible that Spark could outbid them. If they are willing to pay double what Sky is, then that’s that.

But if they do, who will it ultimately hurt more? Spark or Sky?

[fungus pudding]

It would be a significant blow, nobody is saying it wouldn’t.

We are just highlighting that sky cannot pay ‘any price’ for the content.

It is entirely possible that Spark could outbid them. If they are willing to pay double what Sky is, then that’s that.

But if they do, who will it ultimately hurt more? Spark or Sky?

Can you really see satellite broadcasting beating the internet? It's only a matter of time.

[mistaTea]

Can you really see satellite broadcasting beating the internet? It's only a matter of time.

Well, when did I say it would? I am 100% on board with the notion that online streaming is the future.

Sky would immediately shave about $50M off the OPEX if they could shut down the satellite tomorrow.

Streaming is here in the present and will continue to grow into the future. Sky have streaming options for both entertainment and Sport. I have been using Sky Sport NOW and it works well, no buffering so far. They are investing mostly into Sky Sport NOW and NEON, which is great as that is how more and more people will want to consume their content.

But I still see the satellite as an advantage in the short-medium term. It still means that Sky can reach the greatest audience by far, and reduces the risk of failures when large audiences tune in at once for a live match.

[Baa_Baa]

But I still see the satellite as an advantage in the short-medium term. It still means that Sky can reach the greatest audience by far, and reduces the risk of failures when large audiences tune in at once for a live match.

It only means they can reach their current subscribers, who are leaving in droves. What about all the internationals that follow NZ sport that have no satellite option? They have to simulcast on internet with an inferior product. If they’re doing that then there’s no need for satellite is there?

You do know that Sparks broadcast platform can cater for millions of viewers? They don’t do this by themselves.

Sky do seem to realise that internet streaming is the future but now they’re on the back foot And for that reason they have already fallen from prominent broadcaster to catching up. This market is moving very quickly now, more quickly than sky seem to be able to keep up with.

85% down Since their acquisition of INL and listing. Not a good look or track record.

[mistaTea]

It only means they can reach their current subscribers, who are leaving in droves. What about all the internationals that follow NZ sport that have no satellite option? They have to simulcast on internet with an inferior product. If they’re doing that then there’s no need for satellite is there?

You do know that Sparks broadcast platform can cater for millions of viewers? They don’t do this by themselves.

Sky do seem to realise that internet streaming is the future but now they’re on the back foot And for that reason they have already fallen from prominent broadcaster to catching up. This market is moving very quickly now, more quickly than sky seem to be able to keep up with.

85% down Since their acquisition of INL and listing. Not a good look or track record.

Very good points. But I don’t believe their satellite base is dwindling because the average kiwi cares whether their program is broadcast via streaming or satellite.

Numbers are dwindling because Sky have not priced their satellite offering competitively. Relative to Netflix, for example, paying $70 a month to get movies + SOHO (and needing to take starter and pay a MySky fee too) seems ridiculous. Especially when you can get most of the movies and SOHO content on Sky’s NEON platform for $13.95 a month.

I truly believe there is a place for both satellite and streaming packages in the medium term - but they have to rework their traditional packages and price it much more competitively.

ARPU will drop, but they have the potential to lift both satellite and streaming subscription numbers over time.

And I am aware that Spark has a very good platform and NZ has sufficient bandwidth to stream live events to large audiences. Even so, the internet is still the wild Wild West to some extent and there will be more problems for Spark.

Sky would also have problems with the internet if they waived the magic wand and streamed 100% of their content from tomorrow.

[RGR367]

Very good points. ..................

Numbers are dwindling because Sky have not priced their satellite offering competitively.

Sky would also have problems with the internet if they waived the magic wand and streamed 100% of their content from tomorrow.

Exactly! Fleecing their captured subscribers is the reason I cancelled my subscription after the RWC2011 here. Watching just rugby for the monthly price of it is too much then when you can get an internet streaming for most of sports for free.

Not a holder but money is still there to be made on existing subscribers now that the sp has gone down and its decline is inevitable.

[winner69]

Most on here seemed more clued up about the modern world and the future than that SKY Director guru DH

[Sideshow Bob]

Meantime, if you want to watch the Black Caps overseas, it's going to be Sky for a while.....

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342461

[blackcap]

Meantime, if you want to watch the Black Caps overseas, it's going to be Sky for a while.....

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342461

And this is where unbundling sucks for the consumer. I am a cricket fan. Now I will have to subscribe to 2 services to watch my favourite team play. Consumers naively think they are getting better deals but in the end it will cost them more. Not to mention a host of other subscriptions to watch my other sports. Going to cost me a whole lot more than the $98 a month I pay to SKY which also gives me Soho, Fox, Disney for the kids, Sports and the ability to record, fast forward ads and off course the SKY GO streaming service when I am away from home.

[tga_trader]

.... Disney for the kids....
Sorry to break it to you, but you're losing that on 30th November too.

[blackcap]

Sorry to break it to you, but you're losing that on 30th November too.

Yeah I know, so now I will have to find another subscription for them too. Oh well back to you tube.

[Sideshow Bob]

And this is where unbundling sucks for the consumer.

Sky have been lazy, arrogant, slow-to-changed, gouged their customers etc, but consumers have to be careful what they wish for......Sky had it all in the one place.

Not any longer...….

[fungus pudding]

And this is where unbundling sucks for the consumer. I am a cricket fan. Now I will have to subscribe to 2 services to watch my favourite team play. Consumers naively think they are getting better deals but in the end it will cost them more. Not to mention a host of other subscriptions to watch my other sports. Going to cost me a whole lot more than the $98 a month I pay to SKY which also gives me Soho, Fox, Disney for the kids, Sports and the ability to record, fast forward ads and off course the SKY GO streaming service when I am away from home.

Keep watching and you might just see Sky lower their prices, or at least drop the extortionate bundling and offer sports as a stand alone product.
Surely you can stream spark when away from home.

[blackcap]

Keep watching and you might just see Sky lower their prices, or at least drop the extortionate bundling and offer sports as a stand alone product.
Surely you can stream spark when away from home.

Yes I can stream Spark when away from home. Problem is I now have to subscribe to Spark for cricket and to Sky for cricket. So its a double cost. Agree SKY have been lazy and gouging with their prior behaviour yet all this increased competition is not good for certain types of consumers in the long run. Those like myself that like to sample a small amount of a wide variety of sports. For those that follow one sport religiously it is another matter.

[steveb]

Sky should be looking to set themselves up as a carrier for all the pay for view services like netflix disney spark etc,they could clip the ticket,and your rural problems would be solved.NZ is to small to have an all in fight over services,but I guess the big boys just like to flex their muscles!

[mistaTea]

When they split Sky Basic into Starter and Entertainment...

I now think they should have just dropped the price for Basic to $25. And ditch the MySky fee for those who sign up for 12 months (the door to door salesmen already do this anyway).

Even once your 12 months contract ends, reward the loyalty (i.e. don't then be an idiot and start charging MySky).

With this way of thinking a customer could get Sky Starter + Sky Entertainment + Sport for $55/month. I reckon kiwis would think that is fair value. It is still $15/month higher than if you take Sky's sport-only streaming option...but in return you get a lot of content. You might not watch all of it, but it still gives a wide selection - great international news coverage, history channel etc.

If they did that, they would find that a number of customers would spend their savings on other content. Like, add SOHO for $10. Now you are getting $65 a month, and the customer is still reasonably happy. They would get less ARPU, but they would keep more customers. There has to be a sweet spot somewhere there for them in terms of charging a price that is still profitable in the long term, but also makes your customers feel like they are getting a fair go.

In my view this type of thinking is needed to look after the satellite base, while still agressively transitioning to the brave new streaming world.

[Sideshow Bob]

Smoke....fire??

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12275676

Share prices hasn't responded.....

[mistaTea]

I’ve given up trying to predict how the share market behaves.

I still can’t believe that the combined market value of Spark and Sky dropped by $300M yesterday because Spark bought some cricket.

It baffles me. How could Spark buying a portion of the overall cricket rights wipe $300M off the share market?

Thank God I’m not a day trader. I would be incredibly bad at it.

[macduffy]

It baffles me. How could Spark buying a portion of the overall cricket rights wipe $300M off the share market?

Thank God I’m not a day trader. I would be incredibly bad at it.

I don't think it's just the cricket but the signal it gives that SPK is prepared to risk considerable capital in pursuit of sport generally - more risk, more volatility.

[mistaTea]

I don't think it's just the cricket but the signal it gives that SPK is prepared to risk considerable capital in pursuit of sport generally - more risk, more volatility.

Correct - but two thirds of the $300M drop was caused by Spark shares! And they were the ones the media touted as the big ‘good news’ story.

[macduffy]

Correct - but two thirds of the $300M drop was caused by Spark shares! And they were the ones the media touted as the big ‘good news’ story.

But that's the media. The "market" draws its own conclusions.

[mistaTea]

Sky would also have problems with the internet if they waived the magic wand and streamed 100% of their content from tomorrow.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12275947

I reiterate, as much as we all like to dog the satellite as outdated technology - it is still the most reliable way to broadcast live sport. Sky Sport NOW fell over last night, but satellite customers had a great viewing experience.

Streaming is the way of the future, and internet technology is steadily improving. However both Spark and Sky will experience more issues with their online services. Sometimes it will be their fault, sometimes it won’t. Consumers won’t care - they will be straight oN Twitter and Facebook to blast them.

I use Sky Sport NOW because I moved into a new build that only has fibre. Rather than install a satellite on my roof I have made the choice to only stream all of my content. Most of the time it is just fine, but i accept the trade off is that I am at higher risk of having issues compared to it if had a satellite subscription.

But if I already had a satellite dish, and was already a satellite customer of Sky - I would be somewhat reluctant to hand my set top box back just yet in favour of Sky Sport NOW.

I will be meeting Martin Stewart next week, and I intend to discuss a whole range of issues with him including the folly of the existing satellite pricing structure, lack of reward for loyalty etc.