Two very different articles written today about Sky. Astonishing.
The first is from Chris Keall, who seems to only ever consider the negatives. I don't think he actually knows a lot about broadcasting, so he fills in his knowledge gaps with speculation and personal opinion. In this latest one he makes a huge deal about the $5M paper loss NZ Rugby have observed on their 5% of Sky TV shares. He speculates that they are probably now wishing they just took cash instead for the whole deal.
That is one very negative way to look at it. In reality, with NZ Rugby being such a large shareholder now I doubt very much that they give a tinkers toss that the quoted value of their stock has dipped at the moment. They are more likely to ignore SP and behave as business owners - their focus will be on how the broadcasting company they own can help them with their ambitions to build the sport. An All Blacks centric offering on RugbyPass is one of many ideas they have to grow the brand and sport over the long term.
But don't expect that kind of thinking to ever enter Chris's 'journalism'.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12306355
Then on Stuff I come across a very different article:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainmen...--media-expert
Points out the challenges of streaming in a crowded market but, quite rightly, also points out that a combined Lightbox-NEON service stands a much better chance of being competitive (as opposed to the current state where they are standalone services competing against each other as well as the Muti-billlion dollar empires like Netflix, Disney etc).