SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[mistaTea]

That is a risk many companies have. The trick is to make it tricky to steal or copy.

Yes no doubt - my point though is that I don't think it is fair to take a crack at Sky because so many people are thieves. That is a separate issue, and one that a number of companies face (as you rightly point out).

I should also state that, I do not have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Sky Tv. Without a doubt, they have a Herculean task ahead of themselves, including (in no particular order):

1. Battling Piracy
2. Competing with other premium content providers (Amazon, Netflix, Lightbox)
3. Competing for Sporting rights against Spark (and possibly other entrants)
4. Convincing content creators to unbundle their content more so that Sky can offer smaller and cheaper packages (to stabilise or even grow their subscriber base)
5. Release of their new (and much needed) set top boxes

However, those 'experts' who blog about Sky TV's imminent and certain demise are jumping the gun a bit in my view. The company does still have some (narrow moat) competitive advantages. And remember, Vodafone need Sky to do well to ensure they maintain a competitive offering against Spark. If Spark won all of the Sport (and Sky went under) then that would leave Vodafone in a perilous situation. It would not surprise me at all if Vodafone teamed up with Sky to make damn sure they held on to the big sporting events (Investec, tennis, cricket, hockey etc).

Pure speculation of course. Only time will tell if the new CEO makes enough of a difference in time.

[Stranger_Danger]

If companies start going bust because it is easy to steal their product instead of paying for it (and becomes so normal that people start bragging about their proficiency in theft...) then God help us all.

I agree 100% with you. God help us all.

Despite knowing how to, I avoided stealing content for over a decade, being a big believer in the value of IP, willing and able to pay for it.

In the end, it got too hard to remain a paying customer. The DVD's I wanted became basically unavailable in NZ. Various firms treating customers with contempt - literally, the only reason I cancelled Sky is I couldn't get them to fix a problem.

I paid for it at least five years past the point where I knew easily where to get for free each thing I was paying for. On a regular basis, I would go to one of these places to get something I was **already paying Sky for** , but they couldn't deliver due to a rain fade issue.

Eventually, even I, big believer in paying for IP, gave in and moved to the dark side.

If the dark side got me eventually, how the heck do you propose Sky will have a long term customer base? Everybody under 30 that I know has only ever known free content, and unlike you and me, they don't see it as stealing.

[mistaTea]

If the dark side got me eventually, how the heck do you propose Sky will have a long term customer base? Everybody under 30 that I know has only ever known free content, and unlike you and me, they don't see it as stealing.

Very true - I have even had discussions with a 46 year old man at work who steals all of his content. He gets upset when I suggest there is a moral issue with theft...he readily comes up with all sorts of reasons as to why it is not in fact theft, and even if it was - the crime is totally victimless...

Back to the real world.

Piracy is clearly a bigger issue for Sky than Netflix etc in many ways. Remember though, Sky is merely a content distributor. They are not in this alone...I would expect them to be working with all of their major partners to tackle this. It is in the content creators best interests to limit Piracy too.

I do not believe Sky's whack-a-mole approach (whereby they want to get internet providers to police Piracy) is the way forward. Ultimately, I believe, they have to work closely with their content creator partners to further unbundle their packages. Piracy will alway be an issue for them, but a reduced issue if people can pay a modest fee for only the content they want.

I have the Premium Package with VodafoneTV. About $90 a month for the works. Now, for me, $3/day (less than the cost of a flat white) does not seem outrageous considering I have more Movies, Box Sets, interest channels and Sport than I could ever watch... but I appreciate there is a large cohort of potential subscribers that are more price sensitive.

[Zaphod]

I do not believe Sky's whack-a-mole approach (whereby they want to get internet providers to police Piracy) is the way forward. Ultimately, I believe, they have to work closely with their content creator partners to further unbundle their packages. Piracy will alway be an issue for them, but a reduced issue if people can pay a modest fee for only the content they want.

Agreed - however Sky's content licencing agreements with content providers (according to a colleague who is involved) does stipulate that they must take any and all practicable steps to stop piracy.

I have the Premium Package with VodafoneTV. About $90 a month for the works. Now, for me, $3/day (less than the cost of a flat white) does not seem outrageous considering I have more Movies, Box Sets, interest channels and Sport than I could ever watch... but I appreciate there is a large cohort of potential subscribers that are more price sensitive.

For those customers there are alternatives such as Netflix, which is IMO, filled with an ever increasing suite of rather dire exclusives and elderly back catalogues.

[mistaTea]

For those customers there are alternatives such as Netflix, which is IMO, filled with an ever increasing suite of rather dire exclusives and elderly back catalogues.

Indeed. Though I think it is nuts to compare Netflix against traditional Sky TV. If one were to make a fair comparison (apples with apples, as it were) then you would have to compare the content offerings and price points of Netflix vs NEON.

The NEON UX is pretty crappy compared to Netflix, but the overall offering is very competitive IMO. Certainly the NEON content is better than most of the stuff on Netflix as they have all the HBO and Showtime Box Sets etc and most of the Movies Sky offer.

If the Millennials are unaware about the advantages of a NEON subscription, well then that is a failing on Sky's part for not promoting it aggressively enough.

[tga_trader]

I have the Premium Package with VodafoneTV. About $90 a month for the works. Now, for me, $3/day (less than the cost of a flat white) does not seem outrageous considering I have more Movies, Box Sets, interest channels and Sport than I could ever watch... but I appreciate there is a large cohort of potential subscribers that are more price sensitive.

See it's not even the cost of sky for me, its having what I want, when I want it, and Sky doesn't even remotely fulfill that.
The content creators / distributors are their own enemy. I would happily pay MORE than the price of sky if I could have on demand access to EVERYTHING. Instead I need to have Netflix, Neon, Lightbox, Google Play Movies and there is still so much content that is on none of them, that there is literally no legal way to watch.
Lightbox is the only service that has 'Preacher'...but they only have Season 2 & 3...?

[mistaTea]

See it's not even the cost of sky for me, its having what I want, when I want it, and Sky doesn't even remotely fulfill that.
The content creators / distributors are their own enemy. I would happily pay MORE than the price of sky if I could have on demand access to EVERYTHING. Instead I need to have Netflix, Neon, Lightbox, Google Play Movies and there is still so much content that is on none of them, that there is literally no legal way to watch.
Lightbox is the only service that has 'Preacher'...but they only have Season 2 & 3...?

Apparently the next generation of SKY boxes (which have been delayed - like most major projects are, I suppose) will behave like a content aggregator. You would still need your Netflix subscriptions etc...but you would be able to search in the Sky Portal, and all matches (regardless of which platform they live on) will be surfaced. So you could search "James Bond" and it would return all James Bond results from Sky, Netflix, Lightbox and whatever else you subscribe to.

I doubt that functionality would be available in the first release, but if they did introduce that type of feature in the future it would make finding and consuming content so much easier.

[Stranger_Danger]

See it's not even the cost of sky for me, its having what I want, when I want it, and Sky doesn't even remotely fulfill that.
The content creators / distributors are their own enemy. I would happily pay MORE than the price of sky if I could have on demand access to EVERYTHING. Instead I need to have Netflix, Neon, Lightbox, Google Play Movies and there is still so much content that is on none of them, that there is literally no legal way to watch.
Lightbox is the only service that has 'Preacher'...but they only have Season 2 & 3...?

Yep, the "answer" to Sky is various online services, of differing quality, that may or may not have the show you want.

There is one place I've found that has everything though - the dark side.

That's the issue. Even if you're happy to pay. Even if you believe piracy is theft. Even if you, like me, spent years resisting the cold hard fact that it is easier to obtain content by NOT paying than it is to obtain it by paying.

This is the problem that a company like Sky faces. If in doubt, you start a shop selling burgers for $10, and I'll start a shop next door giving burgers away for free. Let's see where people get their burgers.

Of course, I will quickly go broke, but the dark side doesn't have that issue - it's giving away other people's burgers for free, and it can and will go on doing so as long as people make those burgers.

Good luck Sky in fighting those dynamics long term.

[mistaTea]

This is the problem that a company like Sky faces. If in doubt, you start a shop selling burgers for $10, and I'll start a shop next door giving burgers away for free. Let's see where people get their burgers.

Of course, I will quickly go broke, but the dark side doesn't have that issue - it's giving away other people's burgers for free, and it can and will go on doing so as long as people make those burgers.

Good luck Sky in fighting those dynamics long term.

For your analogy to work...Company 2 would have to somehow steal the raw ingredients to enable them to then somehow produce and distribute their burgers for free.

Even if that were possible (and it is one hell of a stretch, but I'm trying to work with you here...), ultimately in the long run we (the consumers) all lose out. The farmers and bakers who produce the key ingredients will go out of business and then there will be no more raw ingredients for the burgers to be assembled and distributed.

So with the digital content you claim to reluctantly steal - ultimately, if too many people formed the same view, you would effectively be shafting yourselves (in the long run).

I do take on board some of the points you make, however content Piracy is a complex issue and 'armchair commentators' like you and I don't really know what we are talking about.

[Stranger_Danger]

For your analogy to work...Company 2 would have to somehow steal the raw ingredients to enable them to then somehow produce and distribute their burgers for free.

Even if that were possible (and it is one hell of a stretch, but I'm trying to work with you here...), ultimately in the long run we (the consumers) all lose out. The farmers and bakers who produce the key ingredients will go out of business and then there will be no more raw ingredients for the burgers to be assembled and distributed.

So with the digital content you claim to reluctantly steal - ultimately, if too many people formed the same view, you would effectively be shafting yourselves (in the long run).

I do take on board some of the points you make, however content Piracy is a complex issue and 'armchair commentators' like you and I don't really know what we are talking about.

The funny thing is, we're actually in full agreement. The only difference is you are observing the filth, whereas with a long pause in the middle, I have now decided to roll around in it.

What makes sense for one person breaks down if everyone does it, and everyone is shafting themselves in the long term. Agreed.

People are not thinking long term at all, and I haven't got a clue what the funding model will be in 20 years time. If you look at the musicians capable of selling out a stadium, most of those stars were created before the funding model for music broke down. Now, you have a bunch of 60 year olds on stage singing old songs, every young person with a band can "release an album" for almost nothing, but boy has distribution, and making any money, got harder.

Is this the future for movies and television?

Quite possibly, but unless the actors can find the equivalent of accepting that recordings are basically unpaid ads for their live shows, then putting on a ticketed concert and touring with it, the consequences could be even worse.