SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[fungus pudding]

And this is where unbundling sucks for the consumer. I am a cricket fan. Now I will have to subscribe to 2 services to watch my favourite team play. Consumers naively think they are getting better deals but in the end it will cost them more. Not to mention a host of other subscriptions to watch my other sports. Going to cost me a whole lot more than the $98 a month I pay to SKY which also gives me Soho, Fox, Disney for the kids, Sports and the ability to record, fast forward ads and off course the SKY GO streaming service when I am away from home.

Keep watching and you might just see Sky lower their prices, or at least drop the extortionate bundling and offer sports as a stand alone product.
Surely you can stream spark when away from home.

[blackcap]

Keep watching and you might just see Sky lower their prices, or at least drop the extortionate bundling and offer sports as a stand alone product.
Surely you can stream spark when away from home.

Yes I can stream Spark when away from home. Problem is I now have to subscribe to Spark for cricket and to Sky for cricket. So its a double cost. Agree SKY have been lazy and gouging with their prior behaviour yet all this increased competition is not good for certain types of consumers in the long run. Those like myself that like to sample a small amount of a wide variety of sports. For those that follow one sport religiously it is another matter.

[steveb]

Sky should be looking to set themselves up as a carrier for all the pay for view services like netflix disney spark etc,they could clip the ticket,and your rural problems would be solved.NZ is to small to have an all in fight over services,but I guess the big boys just like to flex their muscles!

[mistaTea]

When they split Sky Basic into Starter and Entertainment...

I now think they should have just dropped the price for Basic to $25. And ditch the MySky fee for those who sign up for 12 months (the door to door salesmen already do this anyway).

Even once your 12 months contract ends, reward the loyalty (i.e. don't then be an idiot and start charging MySky).

With this way of thinking a customer could get Sky Starter + Sky Entertainment + Sport for $55/month. I reckon kiwis would think that is fair value. It is still $15/month higher than if you take Sky's sport-only streaming option...but in return you get a lot of content. You might not watch all of it, but it still gives a wide selection - great international news coverage, history channel etc.

If they did that, they would find that a number of customers would spend their savings on other content. Like, add SOHO for $10. Now you are getting $65 a month, and the customer is still reasonably happy. They would get less ARPU, but they would keep more customers. There has to be a sweet spot somewhere there for them in terms of charging a price that is still profitable in the long term, but also makes your customers feel like they are getting a fair go.

In my view this type of thinking is needed to look after the satellite base, while still agressively transitioning to the brave new streaming world.

[Sideshow Bob]

Smoke....fire??

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12275676

Share prices hasn't responded.....

[mistaTea]

I’ve given up trying to predict how the share market behaves.

I still can’t believe that the combined market value of Spark and Sky dropped by $300M yesterday because Spark bought some cricket.

It baffles me. How could Spark buying a portion of the overall cricket rights wipe $300M off the share market?

Thank God I’m not a day trader. I would be incredibly bad at it.

[macduffy]

It baffles me. How could Spark buying a portion of the overall cricket rights wipe $300M off the share market?

Thank God I’m not a day trader. I would be incredibly bad at it.

I don't think it's just the cricket but the signal it gives that SPK is prepared to risk considerable capital in pursuit of sport generally - more risk, more volatility.

[mistaTea]

I don't think it's just the cricket but the signal it gives that SPK is prepared to risk considerable capital in pursuit of sport generally - more risk, more volatility.

Correct - but two thirds of the $300M drop was caused by Spark shares! And they were the ones the media touted as the big ‘good news’ story.

[macduffy]

Correct - but two thirds of the $300M drop was caused by Spark shares! And they were the ones the media touted as the big ‘good news’ story.

But that's the media. The "market" draws its own conclusions.

[mistaTea]

Sky would also have problems with the internet if they waived the magic wand and streamed 100% of their content from tomorrow.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12275947

I reiterate, as much as we all like to dog the satellite as outdated technology - it is still the most reliable way to broadcast live sport. Sky Sport NOW fell over last night, but satellite customers had a great viewing experience.

Streaming is the way of the future, and internet technology is steadily improving. However both Spark and Sky will experience more issues with their online services. Sometimes it will be their fault, sometimes it won’t. Consumers won’t care - they will be straight oN Twitter and Facebook to blast them.

I use Sky Sport NOW because I moved into a new build that only has fibre. Rather than install a satellite on my roof I have made the choice to only stream all of my content. Most of the time it is just fine, but i accept the trade off is that I am at higher risk of having issues compared to it if had a satellite subscription.

But if I already had a satellite dish, and was already a satellite customer of Sky - I would be somewhat reluctant to hand my set top box back just yet in favour of Sky Sport NOW.

I will be meeting Martin Stewart next week, and I intend to discuss a whole range of issues with him including the folly of the existing satellite pricing structure, lack of reward for loyalty etc.