SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[mistaTea]

Which brings me to the question - all these companies are reselling these bundled extras supplied by 3rd party providers, so should Sky consider changing its place in the supply chain? Rather than merely competing with all the other bundlers, should it also be offering its product to others as a supplier? Letting other power, broadband, mobile etc providers offer sky content as part of 12/24 month fixed term bundle plans seems like it would be a great way to reduce churn while also letting your competitors subsidize your product for their customer base, while also potentially reducing sky advertising & customer support costs (as all these other companies will promote the sky bundle deals and handle customer billing themselves.).

Sky have stated many times in the past that they are open to partnerships with anyone where they see value add.

If a power company wanted to offer bundles that included Sky products (most likely the streaming services) then Sky would go for it.

We already have a deal with Spark for both NEON and Sky Sport NOW.

We have deals with 2D for both NEON and Sky Sport NOW.

Yet to be seen what we do with Vodafone once they finish closing off the Vodafone TV service.

Sky have always been open to partnership deals.

[mistaTea]

Sky is big news today.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...PLAROOCEWXH24/

According to a miffed Wallace Sky were the ones who came begging him for a deal and then chickened out.

[moimoi]

Honestly the best thing Sky could do on a fundamental level to protect its long term future as a high margin content provider is to create some form of popular exclusive content (easier said than done!). If they cant do that then yes they need to keep expanding into other revenue generating areas that are not in structural decline.

Its amazing how there are now a bunch of businesses who are expanding outside there core area to offer bundles to get customers, often offering the bundled extras at not much above cost to attract/retain there core customers . Sky of course is offering broadband.

I was personally looking up trustpower Power+broadband+mobile offers yesterday to switch to (they also offer an additional amazing deal on free or almost free appliances - got my eye on a $2,5000 fridge that will only cost me $300 if I sign up).

Now consider slingshot: who have Broadband, Mobile, Power…..and now is offering insurance!

Eventually everyone is going to offer everything it seems.

Which brings me to the question - all these companies are reselling these bundled extras supplied by 3rd party providers, so should Sky consider changing its place in the supply chain? Rather than merely competing with all the other bundlers, should it also be offering its product to others as a supplier? Letting other power, broadband, mobile etc providers offer sky content as part of 12/24 month fixed term bundle plans seems like it would be a great way to reduce churn while also letting your competitors subsidize your product for their customer base, while also potentially reducing sky advertising & customer support costs (as all these other companies will promote the sky bundle deals and handle customer billing themselves.).

Which is why about 100 pages ago some on here were saying the sale of the outdoor broadcasting unit seemed a dumb idea. Rather than control the ability to create content they became a price taker.

GLTA

[mistaTea]

Which is why about 100 pages ago some on here were saying the sale of the outdoor broadcasting unit seemed a dumb idea. Rather than control the ability to create content they became a price taker.

GLTA

That is a different issue altogether. The fact that Sky used to record live sport did not mean that they 'owned' the content.

OSB was going to require a large CAPEX investment to bring the trucks/cameras etc up to scratch. And with NEP in the market, OSB didn't provide any moat to Sky anymore.

[LaserEyeKiwi]

Interesting article on Businessdesk with sources indicating the actual purchase price for Mediaworks was in the region of $300 million (!).

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/m...iaworks-u-turn

Also they were in final steps of several months of due diligence when the news leaked last week.

[LoungeLizzard]

Interesting article on Businessdesk with sources indicating the actual purchase price for Mediaworks was in the region of $300 million (!).

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/m...iaworks-u-turn

Also they were in final steps of several months of due diligence when the news leaked last week.

Jeez, sounds like we dodged a bullet.

Everyone who vented their spleen - and some I noticed were directly quoted in Stuff - can take a bow, for whatever small part they played in averting what would have been an unmitigated disaster.

[mistaTea]

Interesting article on Businessdesk with sources indicating the actual purchase price for Mediaworks was in the region of $300 million (!).

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/m...iaworks-u-turn

Also they were in final steps of several months of due diligence when the news leaked last week.

I don’t have a sub to business desk…

But the article no doubt highlights what an embarrassing fiasco this whole thing is.

Brings into question the judgement of Sophie and the board. A complete distraction when they should be focussing on the core.

How someone would pay ANY money for MW (let alone $300M!!!) is beyond me.

The only way that they can realistically get any shred of reputation back is to make a big payout to shareholders and invest in key areas that will support the base and grow streaming (which I outlined in a previous post).

[nztx]

I don’t have a sub to business desk…

But the article no doubt highlights what an embarrassing fiasco this whole thing is.

Brings into question the judgement of Sophie and the board. A complete distraction when they should be focussing on the core.

How someone would pay ANY money for MW (let alone $300M!!!) is beyond me.

The only way that they can realistically get any shred of reputation back is to make a big payout to shareholders and invest in key areas that will support the base and grow streaming (which I outlined in a previous post).

Agree with you Mr T .. have SKT Board learned anything out of this or will they continue to stumble forward ?

Why don't they now table a T/over for NZM .. all in shares / merger of course but after Cap Return & Dividend to clear out any surplus to current SKT Shareholders first ?

Would they be silly or imprudent enough to value NZM @ $1 biln after the MW aborted deal ?

[mistaTea]

Agree with you Mr T .. have SKT Board learned anything out of this or will they continue to stumble forward ?

Why don't they now table a T/over for NZM .. all in shares / merger of course but after Cap Return & Dividend to clear out any surplus to current SKT Shareholders first ?

Would they be silly or imprudent enough to value NZM @ $1 biln after the MW aborted deal ?

I think that a merger with NZME after the capital return and dividend payment is a plausible way forward.

They don’t have to value NZME at anything behind the current quoted value of its stock.

We just issue SKT shares to cover the prevailing market value of NZM shares. No cash needed or independent valuations.

It’s not a takeover - it’s a merger.

And NZM would be a much more interesting business to join forces with as opposed to MW. We already have a very warm business relationship with NZM…

So if no takeover materialised from PE or anyone else, NZM is an obvious way forward.

And I believe Michael Boggs is as keen as mustard. Especially with the TVNZ-RNZ merger getting clearance.

[Poet]

Agree with you Mr T .. have SKT Board learned anything out of this or will they continue to stumble forward ?

Why don't they now table a T/over for NZM .. all in shares / merger of course but after Cap Return & Dividend to clear out any surplus to current SKT Shareholders first ?

Would they be silly or imprudent enough to value NZM @ $1 biln after the MW aborted deal ?

Well, what a complete fiasco. Rumours say they were prepared to pay $300m of OUR money for Media Works, and they were still negotiating as of two weeks ago- you'd think private equity would have bitten their arm off weeks ago at that price - I guess there is no limit to greed when you have a sucker in your grasp eh?

In my opinion, and I'm not a large shareholder (but 300k shares, so not tiny either) I think the entire board should pack their bags and do the decent thing - they have absolutely (and I mean absolutely!) no credibility left. Certainly shouldn't bother looking around for some other deal to save face cause they will just stuff that up as well.

To quote Oliver Cromwell to parliament 1653

It is not fit that you should sit here any longer. You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing lately … In the name of God go.“