SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[LaserEyeKiwi]

Slimmed down single sport streaming products in NZ are bad for Sky's business model, and also bad for the majority of sports entities. It is the only option for rugbypass (sky doesn't own any other international streaming rights other than for rugby) so it makes sense for rugbypass which also happens to operate in a much larger addressable market where a single sport streaming product makes sense. Even standalone Sky sport subs aren't great for Sky, but are probably a necessity.

Bundle economics are at the heart of the success of sky - and if they offer a rugby only product then it would end up paradoxically becoming more expensive than the current sky sport bundle as the advantage of bundle economics breakdown and eventually disappear. (A rugby only streaming product offered in NZ would also increase the likelihood of NZR at some point in future simply offering it themselves instead of selling the rights, especially now that sky have outsourced their outdoor sports production capability)

Currently every sky subscriber subsidises the cost of Rugby content for those subscribers who do watch rugby. At $33.25 a month (The annual cost of SkySportNow divided by 12 months), I actually think Sky Sport Now is close to running at a loss/breakeven in terms of the cost of sports rights divided by the number of subscribers to sky sport (Satellite + streaming), but due to the fixed cost nature of sport content rights, then any extra or retained sport subscriber is better than a lost subscriber.

[mistaTea]

Bundle economics are at the heart of the success of sky -

Agreed, and most customers would continue to take the bundle even if single-sport offerings were available I suspect because you get a lot more value for your money.

But it is also fair to say that Sky need to consider all addressable markets. That would need to include considering a future where RP was made available to NZ. It might not make sense to do it in the end, but they need to look at it.

On a related note, I am keen to see what they do with their Sky Box bundles moving forward.

Personally, I think they need to scrap Sky Starter. A lot of the channels are Freeview anyway.

They should offer Freeview channels as automatically loaded and 'free' provided you take at least one bundle. Then they can move the other non-Freeview channels from Starter to Entertainment, and just have the one 'entertainment' package. Also include SOHO in the entertainment offering, not a standalone channel. Price the new Sky Entertainment at $40 per month.

If you just want Sky Sport, you should be able to take it without having to subscribe to Sky Entertainment (and, as described above - Freeview channels will automtically be loaded in addition to your Sky sub). But you have to pay the 'standalone' price of $40 per month). As a sweetner, if you do subscribe to Sky Entertainment, you can have Sport for $31.99.

The more bundles you add, the cheaper they become. If you have one bundle and add Sky Movies (normally $20/month) then you can have it for $15/month. If you have Entertainment + Sport and add Movies you can have it for $10/month.

So you encourage customers to add more channels by rewarding them with discounts.

MySky fee also needs to be reduced. $5/month max.

Then someone who wants Entertainment + Sport + Movies + MySky will pay $39.99 + $31.99 + $9.99 + $5 = $86.97 for 'The Works'. Obviously I have just made up the package prices, but the principal is there.

You simplify your bundles, remove the Sky Starter Hurdle for those who don't want any of Sky's entertainment offerings, and encourage customers to add more by discounting. And you make the MySky fee much more reasonable (if you have to charge it at all).

mistaTea for COO?

[airedale]

I thought about getting the Neon channel, but found that I would have to download the app and then cast to my TV. So I didn't bother as thought that it would be an add-on like the Movie channel. If it is a Sky business it should be in the Sky channels. I might have used the app but my wife would never use it to watch anything. She just switches the main set on and expects what she is looking for to be there and she would not faff around with apps and casting.

[LaserEyeKiwi]

Agreed, and most customers would continue to take the bundle even if single-sport offerings were available I suspect because you get a lot more value for your money.

But it is also fair to say that Sky need to consider all addressable markets. That would need to include considering a future where RP was made available to NZ. It might not make sense to do it in the end, but they need to look at it.

On a related note, I am keen to see what they do with their Sky Box bundles moving forward.

Personally, I think they need to scrap Sky Starter. A lot of the channels are Freeview anyway.

They should offer Freeview channels as automatically loaded and 'free' provided you take at least one bundle. Then they can move the other non-Freeview channels from Starter to Entertainment, and just have the one 'entertainment' package. Also include SOHO in the entertainment offering, not a standalone channel. Price the new Sky Entertainment at $40 per month.

If you just want Sky Sport, you should be able to take it without having to subscribe to Sky Entertainment (and, as described above - Freeview channels will automtically be loaded in addition to your Sky sub). But you have to pay the 'standalone' price of $40 per month). As a sweetner, if you do subscribe to Sky Entertainment, you can have Sport for $31.99.

The more bundles you add, the cheaper they become. If you have one bundle and add Sky Movies (normally $20/month) then you can have it for $15/month. If you have Entertainment + Sport and add Movies you can have it for $10/month.

So you encourage customers to add more channels by rewarding them with discounts.

MySky fee also needs to be reduced. $5/month max.

Then someone who wants Entertainment + Sport + Movies + MySky will pay $39.99 + $31.99 + $9.99 + $5 = $86.97 for 'The Works'. Obviously I have just made up the package prices, but the principal is there.

You simplify your bundles, remove the Sky Starter Hurdle for those who don't want any of Sky's entertainment offerings, and encourage customers to add more by discounting. And you make the MySky fee much more reasonable (if you have to charge it at all).

mistaTea for COO?

Sky's recent moves suggest they are open to experimentation with discounts on multiple offerings (giving Soho for free to multiple bundle subscribers as an example) - and in fact sky has always been like that in a way as sky sport is effectively offered at a discount below what it would normally cost as a standalone service (but which it hasn't been offered until recently).

Although I think you may be overlooking the fact that sky split up what is now Starter & Entertainment not too long ago due to customer pressure that they cost too much as a base plan for which they needed to then add a sport sub on top of - so you would be reversing that effectively to much displeasure.

I think the majority of Skys gross margin is currently generated by Starter & Entertainment, I think margins on those bundles are probably over 75%, and the fact that you need one of those to get sky sport actually masks the true cost of sky sport.

Satellite subscribers, which are still the vast bulk of sport subscribers, are effectively paying a minimum of $58 for sky sport ($26 starter + $32 sport). That is all missing for a SkySportNow subscriber who has zero incentive or capability to sign up to any other sky content except for NEON (which as an aside is a far more attractive product than Movies+Soho).

I've been considering cancelling my satellite subscription for a few months. I was a Sky "Whale" spending $130 on the full subscription (Starter/entertainment/sport/moveis/mysky+), but got rid of movies so am down to $103 month. But I think it's time I switch to SkySportNow & Neon, as the only content I watch is on Sport & Soho - and regular free TV now have solid streaming apps. Sport & Neon will cost me just $43 month (Annual skysportnow pass + $10 neon through spark). I would gladly pay $60 for sport and NEON so there is definitely room for some sort of price increase.

I think there is the possibility Sky uses broadband as the new "Starter" - the margin from a monthly sky broadband connection (perhaps bringing $10-$15 a month profit to sky) being able to subsidise a reduced sport subscription price to broadband customers.

[Baa_Baa]

I thought about getting the Neon channel, but found that I would have to download the app and then cast to my TV. So I didn't bother as thought that it would be an add-on like the Movie channel. If it is a Sky business it should be in the Sky channels. I might have used the app but my wife would never use it to watch anything. She just switches the main set on and expects what she is looking for to be there and she would not faff around with apps and casting.

The Neon app is super easy to download and use, as others have said the content is very good. Getting a Chromecast for our older TV was also super simple but the modern TV's are already internet connected so can do Neon and Skysport direct from the TV. My better half was just like yours until I showed her some Neon (and Netflix content), now she's hooked and easily does it from her iPad herself with a few series she loves. We haven't had SkyTV STB or mySky for a few years now, haven't missed it either, or the bills.

[mistaTea]

Although I think you may be overlooking the fact that sky split up what is now Starter & Entertainment not too long ago due to customer pressure that they cost too much as a base plan for which they needed to then add a sport sub on top of - so you would be reversing that effectively to much displeasure.

All great points, but with regards to this particular comment...

Sky Basic used to be about $50/month. I am proposing sharper pricing but also removing it as an entry package. If you effectively recreated Sky Basic (but included SOHO) and priced it a bit cheaper...I don't think it would be an issue so long as customer's who just want Sport are not forced to buy the 'new Entertainment' package...

A different view would be that Sky should be looking to break down their bundles even further. That has merit too.

So long as there are 'standalone' offerings (priced accordingly) and you are incentivised to bundle more content with discounts I think Sky can continue to succeed.

[mistaTea]

The Neon app is super easy to download and use, as others have said the content is very good. Getting a Chromecast for our older TV was also super simple but the modern TV's are already internet connected so can do Neon and Skysport direct from the TV. My better half was just like yours until I showed her some Neon (and Netflix content), now she's hooked and easily does it from her iPad herself with a few series she loves. We haven't had SkyTV STB or mySky for a few years now, haven't missed it either, or the bills.

Yeah, if you just like SOHO and Sky Sport... much better value to go for Sky Sport NOW and NEON.

I have Sky Sport NOW (I got a super special of $299 Annual Pass - $24.92/month) - it has all the same channels as Sky Sport...but a fantastic Highlights and 'Features' section. Makes it so easy to find their On Demand content - of which there is a lot!

[LaserEyeKiwi]

All great points, but with regards to this particular comment...

Sky Basic used to be about $50/month. I am proposing sharper pricing but also removing it as an entry package. If you effectively recreated Sky Basic (but included SOHO) and priced it a bit cheaper...I don't think it would be an issue so long as customer's who just want Sport are not forced to buy the 'new Entertainment' package...

A different view would be that Sky should be looking to break down their bundles even further. That has merit too.

So long as there are 'standalone' offerings (priced accordingly) and you are incentivised to bundle more content with discounts I think Sky can continue to succeed.

Oh I had missed that - yes definitely options there for a non-compulsory entertainment bundle.

[mistaTea]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...wn-uk-19906109

So it looks like Sky UK are are not broadcasting this tournament at all.

Which means RP is the only destination for UK fans to legally stream it.

The UK alone could generate millions of subscriptions. And for 35 quid, it would be a no-brainer for rugby fans I would have thought.

I wonder what percentage of the earnings Sky are likely to keep? Anyone have any experience/insights in this area?

[daveypnz]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...wn-uk-19906109

So it looks like Sky UK are are not broadcasting this tournament at all.

Which means RP is the only destination for UK fans to legally stream it.

The UK alone could generate millions of subscriptions. And for 35 quid, it would be a no-brainer for rugby fans I would have thought.

I wonder what percentage of the earnings Sky are likely to keep? Anyone have any experience/insights in this area?

I wouldn't have been excited if Sky UK were broadcasting it.

I'm hoping revenue split will be 50/50 with NZR. NZR will benefit if the Sky SP rockets.

Millions of subs is optimistic but not impossible. There are approximately 13 million "avid" rugby fans in Europe, how many of those are willing to pay for a sub I don't know.