SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[Well Endowed]

https://new.grabone.co.nz/electronic.../tv/p/sky-tv-1

I'm not someone who uses grabone, but still get the emails and noticed this deal. Another case of not offering existing customers the same offer as that of new customers which is always a bit of an insult.



disc: not holding, as not convinced recent moves have been strategically sound.

[Jay]

It says existing customers offer sold out - was there one???
If there was, why did they not email the offer to all existing clients and not just bury it in Grabone somewhere!

[mistaTea]

https://new.grabone.co.nz/electronic.../tv/p/sky-tv-1

I'm not someone who uses grabone, but still get the emails and noticed this deal. Another case of not offering existing customers the same offer as that of new customers which is always a bit of an insult.

https://skytv.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4079

This is where you redeem the GrabOne voucher it seems. Looks like an offer they are doing as part of 'Black Friday'.

The offer was for existing customers, not New Business.

I don't think it is realistic for them to offer their entire satellite customer base 50% off their current deal, regardless of what package they have.

I mean, the company does still need to make a profit!

[Baa_Baa]

Why would Sky sell OSB? Need the capital, get a better deal outsourcing? https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117...-sale-proposal

[mistaTea]

Why would Sky sell OSB? Need the capital, get a better deal outsourcing? https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117...-sale-proposal

Very interesting. If they bought it for $35M in 2010 I wonder how much NEP would pay to acquire it today.

I do know that Sky have made no bones about the need to reduce costs. Paying OSB staff, plus all the costs for the equipment and trucks etc...

I can see the temptation to get rid of those costs given their ability to produce their own local sporting content is no longer a competitive advantage.

Could make sense if NEP offer Sky pricing that is cheaper than their current OSB costs and provide the same high quality service.

[Baa_Baa]

The company is rapidly changing under new leadership, but the key metric for me is when they stifle customer losses, securing a base to grow from. Eyes on but not prepared to risk it just yet.

[mistaTea]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/analysis/sky-p...ers-back-queue

Some pretty stiff criticism from Shoeshine in this piece.

They don't offer any alternatives in terms of what Sky should be doing instead, of course.

I still expect underlying Owner Earnings to be slightly north of $100M at the next Annual Report. And I hope they don't pay a dividend again - rather use that huge sum of cash to sort out their streaming services and reduce debt even further.

They are much more likely to be able to generate a higher return reinvesting in the business than I will get if they give me the money (which is then taxed) and attempt to find some other investment opportunity in this market.

[mistaTea]

The Herald just posted an article about Vocus (Owner of Orcon, Slingshot) getting ready to have another crack at offloading their NZ assets.

That was 30 mins ago, and now the article has been pulled down mysteriously.

I remember this old article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12277295

Martin Stewart confirmed to media in October that he was in discussions with Vocus about possible partnerships with Sky. I assumed he meant wholesale agreements (like Sky have with Vodafone).

If Vocus are putting the NZ assets up for sale again, I wonder if there is an opportunity for Sky?

[Entrep]

I've been trying to work out if the SP would be higher or lower if Fellet was still in charge. Any opinion?

I think it would be higher than it is now were Fellet still there, and in a decline, but a slower one.

Stewart is making the tough decisions and has brought on the pain earlier than would have otherwise been felt under Fellet. He's doing what needed to be done to try and ensure long term survival and success (and eventual upward trajectory again).

But then again they say SP is the best indication of a company at any given point in time, so what does that say about Fellet v Stewart if my hypothesis is correct?

[mistaTea]

I've been trying to work out if the SP would be higher or lower if Fellet was still in charge. Any opinion?

I think it would be higher than it is now were Fellet still there, and in a decline, but a slower one.

Stewart is making the tough decisions and has brought on the pain earlier than would have otherwise been felt under Fellet. He's doing what needed to be done to try and ensure long term survival and success (and eventual upward trajectory again).

But then again they say SP is the best indication of a company at any given point in time, so what does that say about Fellet v Stewart if my hypothesis is correct?

Very interesting thought. Short answer: we can speculate all we want and never be any the wiser!

Having said that, speculating a bit can be fun though...so here is my two cents +GST...

I think it is hard to compare because both men have quite different strategies for Sky's future.

Fellet was betting big on Cisco's Infinite Video Platform. Stewart canned this pretty quickly when he came on board, and so shareholders had to eat a write-off to the tune of damn near $40M. That was real money down the tubes by the way, and obviously put even more pressure on the SP.

IVP had a lot of potential if you were still planning to have a set top box future. The UX is supposed to be very good from what I hear and IVP can seamlessly integrate with other 3rd Party Platforms. So, in theory, you could link in your Netflix, Amazon etc subscriptions to your IVP STB and all of your content from Sky, Netflix and whatever else you subscribe to could be presented to you in one easy-to-use platform. Being able to aggregate numerous platforms would be a huge plus.
It would work with satellite for those in poor internet areas, and also allow users to stream all of their content over the internet if they so chose.

Of course, that is still a capital intensive model though. You have to purchase a whole bunch if IVP boxes (being new tech, they won't be cheap starting out) which means you have to pass some or all of that cost on to the consumer. So you still end up with a 'My Sky' fee moving forward which is a big hurdle to getting people to sign up (and then retain them).

As much as I like a number of features IVP offer...I am personally with Martin Stewart in the decision to terminate the project, eat the cost and move to streaming. No doubt it has put extra pressure on the SP - but I couldn't care less about SP. I am more interested in how the business is likely to perform over time.
Sky Sport NOW and RugbyPass (both very good apps) are from Endeavour Streaming. If I was working with Prabhu (CTO) and the team I would be advocating hard to get Endeavour to build the 'new NEON' as well as provide an app for people to subscribe to traditional Sky channels however with a much more beefed up On Demand menu. As these methods of distributing content are less capital intensive, cheaper pricing can be offered. Customers can also sign up easily and start watching right away (as opposed to needing to contact Sky, get them to send out your IVP set-top box...wait a few days for it to arrive...possibly need tech assistance to get it working correctly. Just too much of a hassle).

So in summary - I agree that the SP may well be a little bit higher if Fellet was still in charge. But as much as I admire the tremendously profitable company John Fellet built...I think he had it wrong towards the end of his tenure in a number of areas, and the new guy has the right idea. Whether or not he can execute his vision effectively and turn the company's fortunes around is yet to be seen - but I like the plan so far.