sharetrader
Page 125 of 1417 FirstFirst ... 25751151211221231241251261271281291351752256251125 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 14170
  1. #1241
    Handsome Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    759

    Default

    They need to keep ALL sport and invest in other revenue streams to survive. Media industries in general are facing a tough time especially with Disney due to release their on demand service soon, Apple already announced theirs...interesting times ahead

  2. #1242
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LAC View Post
    They need to keep ALL sport and invest in other revenue streams to survive. Media industries in general are facing a tough time especially with Disney due to release their on demand service soon, Apple already announced theirs...interesting times ahead
    Def need to hold all key sporting competitions that NZers value.

    And they need to move away from this obsession with ARPU and price their products in a way that is competitive. Get rid of the $15/month MY Sky Box rental fee for a starter.

    The market would value Sky much more if it had 1.5 million subscribers paying $35/month on average versus 750K subscribers paying $70/month on average. Even though the total revenue is exactly the same.

    And I don't see why this couldn't be achieved since the vast majority of their costs are fixed. They stay the same whether they have 1 subscriber or 1 million.

    If they offered Sky Starter + Entertainment + SOHO + Sport for $49.99/month they would get a lot of subscribers. Offer Movies as an add-on for another $10. No set top box fee (just treat it as the cost of doing business).

    Let people who truly just want Sport to stream on FANPASS for $34.99/month.

    Their CFO would need to play with the numbers (I am just some guy who doesn't know a hell of a lot at the end of the day...). But my imagination doesn't have to stretch too far to see how Sky could return to growth.

    They just have to accept that they probably can't maintain the same types of margins as they did 10 years ago, which is not to say that they cannot still have healthy margins going forward if they offer products and entertainment at a price that consumers really value.

  3. #1243
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470

    Default

    [QUOTE=mistaTea;753139]Personally I think John has been a very good CEO for Sky.

    When you preside over a share price that goes from $6+ to under $2 that is a hard premise to maintain even if he did a good job in the earlier years...

  4. #1244
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,808

    Default

    [QUOTE=Arbroath;753149]
    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    Personally I think John has been a very good CEO for Sky.

    When you preside over a share price that goes from $6+ to under $2 that is a hard premise to maintain even if he did a good job in the earlier years...
    Fair comment.

  5. #1245
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Make some good points mt
    Something will give if you have pay Netflix, Lightbox, Amazon Prime etc etc to get everything you want legally, starts adding up quite fast!.
    Yes sport is the draw card
    At very least Sky should have the one price for their current 2 "basic" packages as most of one of them is free on Freeview than adding sport, movies etc at a reasonable cost, will then keep and may be increase subscribers again

  6. #1246
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    D

    The market would value Sky much more if it had 1.5 million subscribers paying $35/month on average versus 750K subscribers paying $70/month on average. Even though the total revenue is exactly the same.
    Revenue wouldn't be the same, it would be greater due to advertising revenue.

    I remember the days when Sky was ad-free......sigh......

  7. #1247
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
    Revenue wouldn't be the same, it would be greater due to advertising revenue.

    I remember the days when Sky was ad-free......sigh......
    Perhaps.

    Advertising accounts for a very small portion of their revenue though, and it really pisses people off.
    If you are paying a premium price for content, getting ads (that are not even tailored to the user based on their viewing preferences) just feels downright cheeky.

    If they were to move to an On Demand focus I think advertising should reduce and advertising revenue would go down.

  8. #1248
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    As a Sports Fan I think SKY over the years has had a really detrimental effect on our society. Its been just to dam expensive for many folk to watch. And they have dominated sports broadcasting, especially live, to the extent....that well...many people have simply stopped watching and engaging in sport and formed other recreational habits. I think this is a contributor to a lot less people, kids, young adults, being engaged in sport and finding their recreation at the shopping malls in the weekends. Or other. And our Governments, unlike others, did not force a certain level of content onto "Free to Air TV".

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

  9. #1249
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    Perhaps.

    Advertising accounts for a very small portion of their revenue though, and it really pisses people off.
    If you are paying a premium price for content, getting ads (that are not even tailored to the user based on their viewing preferences) just feels downright cheeky.

    If they were to move to an On Demand focus I think advertising should reduce and advertising revenue would go down.
    Advertising 8.43% of what subscription revenue was in 2017
    In 2018 it was 7.45%.

    Indeed relatively much smaller than subscription but was a drop of $11m from 2017 to 2018. Presumably much of which would have dropped to the bottom line.

    Whichever way through subscription or advertising, they are going to have to tweak their model to better fend off competition.

  10. #1250
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post

    Indeed relatively much smaller than subscription but was a drop of $11m from 2017 to 2018. Presumably much of which would have dropped to the bottom line.
    No doubt, for the old Monopoly-Sky the advertising revenue has been 'money for jam'.

    Though I am sure the commercial realities dictate that advertising will continue (and ads, if done the right way can benefit consumers...), I agree that their model needs to change for them to stay relevant.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •