SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[Sideshow Bob]

Whether decided to not let SPK in the door, for the relationship and as a precursor to keeping the next Olympics?

[Bobdn]

Sky has the Olympics, winter and summer, rapped up for the next 5 years.

https://www.sky.co.nz/-/mk_pressrelease_160324

[mistaTea]

I think 2020 will be a big year for Sky. A number of things will happen in the streaming space, and I predict it includes:

1. Rebranding and enhancements to NEON. Much better UX, and the ability to rent Box Office movies with 'one click'. If they can hold the price at $13.95 for HD it will then be a much more compelling offer than Netflix. They could also offer a more expensive package for 4K.

2. Release of more traditional bundles via a new streaming app. Sky GO on steroids (and on the big screen). Packages will immediately become cheaper as there is no MySky fee. As it is a cheaper distribution model they should be able to offer more competitive pricing for bundles - and make bundles cheaper as you add them on to existing packages. People with dodgy internet out in the whops will still end up paying high satellite prices (prices which would probably increase over time as the satellite base continues to dwindle...)

3. Enter the broadband market. I don't think their Vodafone partnership has generated many brand new customers (many will be ex satellite customers who were convinced to try Vodafone TV when they rang Sky to cancel their subscription). So it makes sense to sell internet like Sky TV UK - and they have hundreds of thousands of customers they could immediately target with a marketing campaign.

4. Restoration of a dividend. 5c/share twice a year would be about $43M a year. They can comfortably afford that.


That's what I would do anyway - but my speculation is worth zilch. It's fun though!

[sl234]

I agree, I'm quite optimistic on SKT despite the recent kerfuffles with SPK, they still hold the majority of sporting contracts in NZ and have the premier broadcasting outfit in NZ. Spark doesn't even come close in what they have behind their streaming services, and they simply don't have the capability to run what Sky has going on right now. I think the last sub count was in June this year at 780K, down about 10% from last year, but considering the barrage of bad news that they've gone through I'd say that's a very strong market share for a company with crappy valuation it has now.
My Dad still works at Sky in the broadcasting team, and alot of restructuring has taken place over the last year, but things are quietly optimistic with the new CEO and I'd like to think they're worth alot more than 90c a share.

[mistaTea]

. I think the last sub count was in June this year at 780K, down about 10% from last year, but considering the barrage of bad news that they've gone through I'd say that's a very strong market share for a company with crappy valuation it has now.

Last annual report has total subs @ 778,840 - up slightly from 767,727 the year before. They lost a chunk more satellite customers though (more profitable) but increased their streaming subscriptions significantly (VodafoneTV, Sky Sport NOW and NEON).

As this trend continues I would expect much higher subscriptions moving forward but lower ARPU. And remember, the RugbyPass subscribers will be included in the total subscriber count in the report in Feb. That should push subs back over 800K.
With NEON being so cheap now I expect their subs to increase too.
VodafoneTV subs should increase too now that you can buy their STB outright (and don't have to join Vodafone as your ISP).
Sky Sport NOW should grow too - a standalone sport offering customers have been calling for - for a long time now. I use it and the app is good, so people should warm to using it.

But of course I would expect the great results in the streaming space to be tempered with significant satellite net cancellations. Unfortunately Sky still have not moved on price (they haven't even reduced the MySky fee, nor have they tweaked their bundles yet to make it cheaper to add more bundles once you are already a subscriber). So many satellite customers will head for the door.
Some of them will be convinced to take a cheaper option (VTV, NEON, Sky Sport NOW). But many of them will be so annoyed with Sky that they won't be interested (not in the short term anyway).

So Feb Half Year results are going to be interesting. Really looking forward to reading the report.

[RTM]

1. Rebranding and enhancements to NEON. Much better UX, and the ability to rent Box Office movies with 'one click'. If they can hold the price at $13.95 for HD it will then be a much more compelling offer than Netflix. They could also offer a more expensive package for 4K.

IMO I think they need to avoid doing things like this. That's similar to what they have done in the past and I don't think endears them to their customers at all.

Yep...going to be a fascinating 12-18 months. And that's not just with SKY. Marsden Maritime Holdings, Spark, Trump and USA, Brexit, etc. So pleased I am retired !

[mistaTea]

IMO I think they need to avoid doing things like this. That's similar to what they have done in the past and I don't think endears them to their customers at all.

Yep...going to be a fascinating 12-18 months. And that's not just with SKY. Marsden Maritime Holdings, Spark, Trump and USA, Brexit, etc. So pleased I am retired !

I think there are additional costs to Sky to stream in 4K, so having a tiered pricing model (like Netflix) would not be outrageous. And people who have invested in 4K UHD TV's are pretty philosophical about paying an extra $3 or $4 a month to maximise the potential of their TV.

The problem comes when what is currently new and exciting becomes old hat - yet companies like Sky insist on continuing to charge a premium for the service. This is where they went wrong with mySky.

When MySky came out (back around 2006 I think) people were happy to pay $15/month for the new tech. It was revolutionary at the time. However MySky is very much old tech now, yet 13 years later they still charge high prices for it.

I estimate MySky fees probably accounted for one third of their underlying profit last year. That is scary! That such a significant portion of their earnings comes from a bs fee...and now it makes it hard for them to do away with the fee altogether as they have become dependent on that money. However, if they don't drop it (or significantly reduce it) they will continue to see their satellite base dwindle at an unconfortable rate.

My view is they should bite the bullet and ditch the MySky fee altogether. Focus on upselling your customers new appropriately priced bundles. Some customers will just bank the savings (and be happier + less likely to leave) while others will spend their savings. So someone with Starter + Sport may be inclined to add SOHO for example.

Earnings would take a hit in the short-medium term, but it would go a long way to improving brand value. Long term this is the right way to go in my view.

[Jay]

I was one of those who "bought" Mysky way back. Got it upgraded for free when the HD 3 tuner version came out - think I have saved over the long run, they still replace it if it breaks down, older version did twice and they replaced it -one with someone else's who had just upgraded to the newer version at the time.
So ditching the Mysky fee won't save me anything and you get SOHO free now if you add Sport and/or Movies (I think) to the basic package - still think they should ditch the MySky fee and reduce the basic package price or go back to both "starter" packs for the same price as half of it is free in any event by other means
Agree with your last comment mrT

[mistaTea]

I was one of those who "bought" Mysky way back. Got it upgraded for free when the HD 3 tuner version came out - think I have saved over the long run, they still replace it if it breaks down, older version did twice and they replaced it -one with someone else's who had just upgraded to the newer version at the time.
So ditching the Mysky fee won't save me anything and you get SOHO free now if you add Sport and/or Movies (I think) to the basic package - still think they should ditch the MySky fee and reduce the basic package price or go back to both "starter" packs for the same price as half of it is free in any event by other means
Agree with your last comment mrT

They could revert back to Sky Basic, but offer it for $29.99 per month.

But don’t make it an entry barrier. If someone just wants Freeview channels, movies and SOHO with MySky offer them a bundle for $39.99 per month - 12 month contract or $49.99 no contract.

I think they do have some restrictions on how they currently bundle their offers but they need to sort it out with their content providers. Sky have to offer bundles that customers actually want.

Putting a $40/month hurdle fee between Sky Starter + MySky is just ludicrous in my view. Someone who wants to watch some Sport, Movies and SOHO ends up paying at least $90/month under their current pricing framework.

Nobody with a decent internet connection is going to pay that in 2019.

I discussed this at length with Martin Stewart. He seemed broadly in agreement and he said they are reviewing their current bundles and pricing etc. so watch this space.

[blackcap]

Putting a $40/month hurdle fee between Sky Starter + MySky is just ludicrous in my view. Someone who wants to watch some Sport, Movies and SOHO ends up paying at least $90/month under their current pricing framework.

Exactly correct. I want sport. But I am paying the $50 a month starter price just so I can access sport. Well its $25 now but still far too high. Nice to get Soho for free though as we do watch a bit on that channel.