Getting rid of Sky Sport 101

I think the comparison with NZ Post is becoming more and more apt. 

I previously predicted a reduction in content without a reduction in price, but they're going one better than that!

So if you look at the alternative, cut the dividend, drop out of the NZX50, become a takeover target...not in a good place this stock.  Long term they have a major problem on this current arrangement

Oh I understand the alternative option for them, but I think long term that is better than what is going to happen if they keep forcing the price up to cover supposed rising costs. 

Of course in their current situation I have a feeling they have already waited too long and are now in trouble either way. The Share price is dropping continuously at the moment, and their subscriber numbers have never before dropped by so many in a single year DOwn about 45,000 (5%) This year alone....previous losses were never more than about 10,000.

 

I think their story is still a yield stock. That means keeping revenue up so they have cash to pay shareholders.

That's probably their slowest path to becoming an acquisition target. 

Could be ugly after the FY announcement/dividend payment. There'll be a rush to the door.

They will keep sweating their existing customer base while trying to build up an alternative delivery method (app/internet) to try and bring customers back into the fold.  Gross customer numbers also don't break out whether a set top box subscriber has become an app subscriber which would make them less money

The way I see it is their best option is to be taken over by another larger broadcaster as such where they can leverage some of the costs already spent by the parent in terms of rights acquisitions. Then they have to pay for rugby, cricket and NRL

Slightly off topic but I have to chuckle a bit to myself when reading the herald article about the facebook steaming of the Parker fight.  The comments from some people that they only illegally streamed it because of the price and they did nothing wrong always makes me laugh.

Since when does a price out of your means condone theft?

I know everyone's views on steaming differs but if you accept the premise that steaming is illegal but try and justify it by crying foul on the price you are pushing Shark uphill.

My favourite counter argument that I have seen on facebook today is that once you buy it, you can invite some friends around to watch it, so streaming it to 20,000 strangers is the same thing.

It's streaming, it's not steaming. Completely unrelated to steam or any other vapors. 

Also, not necessarily defending streaming but paying $50 for a sharkty fight is outrageous. Every boxing fight being around that price is even more outrageous. No idea why anyone would pay that much for a boxing match that you aren't attending live anyway. I'd personally much rather run the near non-existent risk of streaming than pay $50.

Well, yes that's correct. But pay-per-view is excessively expensive for a family who already pay for Sky Sports and are then asked to shell out another $50 on top of that for was fight which might be over in a few rounds. That's about the same as a month of 4 channels on Fan Pass.

You're right, it doesn't justify illegal behaviour but the pricing structure does seem seriously out of whack

Tegal you will be proud of me. I don't know if I inadvertently steamed or not last night, but I found on YouTube the fight with some British commentary.

It was all going swimmingly until the last three three rounds when a little pesky advert popped up in the middle of the screen.

I think I may pay 50 bucks to watch it on TV for the actual title fight.

Sorry for the typo.

Yeah I don't agree with the price (set by duco BTW not sky) but just because something is out of your price bracket dosnt make it OK to steal.

There was a point about inviting mates over vs streaming it to others and while some could argue that as a grey area it's obviously two different things.

it's also the fact you already have to have sky to even be able to purchase the fight. I don't blame people for streaming. 

Sure that's something we can agree to disagree on, but for people to in their minds justify theft because of the price is quite funny.

I'm not sure a cinema or studio would be that happy if I rocked up paid for a ticket and live streamed the movie on facebook because the prices were too high.

you don't have to fork out $1000 a year before you can even pay for the movie ticket though. 

I didn't condone it, I'm just saying I can understand why people do it. 

You can't price people out, and then complain that they've found some other way to watch. If they'd offered it as a seperate online offering, I'd be more sympathetic. 

With tv/movies, it's like when they delay the showing of it for a couple of months after its release (in the US), then complain that people have streamed it online in that time. Can't have your cake and eat it too. 

Piracy is simply a cost of your model. 

you don't have to fork out $1000 a year to get PPV - there are several legit ways you can get the PPV without going to the piracy route.

- Igloo

- Pretty sure (to be confirmed) that any SKY subscriber with a decoder (even those on the $18.70 a month deal) can book PPV

- A pub - costs you a couple of beers

- organise a night at a mates and bring him some beers for the cost of the event

I would wager that most of this facebook piracy would still have happened if the price was $10 and you could get it direct because some people just want shark for free and are never going to pay for it and hide behind the cost/access excuses.


So now that we have established that access isn't the issue what is the difference between this and the cinema example I posted?

good point.

It's still nothing though. Studios and the government delay blu Ray release of films so they can be shown in the cinema first. Piracy is the cost of that model. 

Again, I'm not saying it's right, but I also think technology means people are going to do it. However I do also think that generally people do want to legally watch content, it just has to be timely, accessible and fairly priced. 

Obviously this is all subjective, but:

The boxing was timely. Having to go to a pub or a mates or have sky yourself (or use igloo? Which I'm sure nobody really knows about, plus you need an igloo box first I believe) isn't very accessible (like going to a cinema isn't accessible for some), and $50 IS overpriced. 

A cinema often isn't timely, they delay some kids films a couple months at times for the school holidays, and occasionally blockbusters so they don't clash with others. It isn't all that accessible for a lot as explained above, and the price has been increasing every year, it's up to $16-17 for a single ticket - which adds up when taking a family.

Clearly this model is more profitable than any other model, even when you factor the inevitable piracy into the equation - so they do it. 

Also, Reading Cinema dropped their price to $10 in the last week and have been selling cinemas out as a result. 

Was there on Saturday night and we thought it would be busy in town with people going to pubs etc to watch the boxing so the cinema won't be that busy, but went up to get our tickets an hour and a half beforehand then go get dinner just in case (have been caught out before by going up the last minute then getting stuck in a long queue). Place was absolutely mobbed, never seen it so busy so it was lucky we went so early. Lot of people in the queue buying tickets on their phone while waiting so they could get out of the line and go to the E-ticket desk. Guess the price drop has worked, and to be honest $10 (or $12.50 for 3D) seems about right. It's reasonable enough that people will start going again more regularly. 

We rarely went as it was just too expensive, plus if you're going on a Friday or Saturday night you're probably getting dinner out too. Last time we went around Xmas time it cost us $50-$60 for a 3D movie, a drink each and a popcorn to share for 2 of us. Felt sorry for people who would also have kids to take. At Reading's new price I can see us going to see the latest blockbusters more often.

As for the boxing, I didn't pay or stream it as I wasn't that interested (and as above was at the cinema). Don't condone the piracy but like Tegal I can see why some people do it. $50 does seem very high for something that could potentially have only last 30 seconds (remember Tua vs Cameron?) and from what I hear was filled with ads all night, especially when you have already paid for Sky. Yes you can go and watch it at the pub, but not always suitable for families with kids etc. Around $30 sounds more fair plus an option to pay for it through Fanpass without needing to have Sky.

One point that I haven't seen raised regarding the streaming is the question of whether live streams on Facebook play automatically like most videos and audio seem to. So how many of the views would have been people scrolling past for 20 seconds as opposed to watching the whole thing? I doubt all 100,000 people intentionally streamed the full thing.

Just want to ask: how am I supposed to watch the 2016 OFC Nations Cup Group A? No doubt will I be streaming it online. Oh no, it's illegal—Sky gives me no other option.

Pretty sure the all whites games are on SKY.  If the other games are not being shown and you stream them and no-one owns the rights then your not doing anything illegal.

sky could own the rights but choose not to broadcast non nz games.

True, hard to get annoyed at someone who streams something your not showing though

but you could fly overseas to somewhere that is showing it and watch it there. So you're still stealing if you're streaming. Accessibility. :p

Generally not. Almost always the rights packages come with an obligation to broadcast them. In fact, usually they come with stipulations about broadcast times, interruptions permitted etc etc.

Except in the EPL's case from next season (and Serie A's for the past few years) the Pacific Rim rights are owned by a company who only cares about Australia and can't or won't either broadcast here or onsell. The rights sellers should stipulate that the content be made available in all countries in the region but apparently they don't. So somebody does own the rights here and we're all thieves and crims for streaming it. Chopah's argument about the rights holders not really being able to get upset if they aren't showing it doesn't really square with the rest of his positions on this - justify it any way you want but it's still stealing (and I do it every single week when Roma is playing). 

wonder if the government could/should pass a law that dictates those holding sports (or even tv) rights have an obligation to make them available for people to view. 

Yep - I have that deal, I pay $49 a month for a Basic, MySky, Sport and the HD ticket. 

Bargin, there's a huge discussion about it over at Geekzone if anyone wants more info - http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=106&t...

EPL rights as far as I understand do have a must show clause. 

by the way your paraphrasing - I said if no-one shows the games and no-one owns the rights your not doing anything illegal.

How much do they have to show though? Because in the past Sky aired about half the games live. (So is 1 game live ok?) Or does it have to be one game per slot live? Or is there some other middle ground?

If EPL has a must show clause then how will beIN be getting around it in NZ if they don't onsell to Sky? And you said "hard to get annoyed at someone who streams something your not showing though" :-)

Short answer is they won't. 

To answer another question I imagine there will be some kind of minimum expectation of coverage.

Enzo, that was a comment at the end of a discussion that suggested SKY might have the rights to the entire Nations cup and not be showing it, and in which case while still illegal to stream it (I never said it would be legal) it would be pretty rough to get cut up about it.

Plus as has just been covered most of these contracts would have must show clauses so that scenario that sky has the rest of the nation's cup is pretty unlikely.

How are non sky subscribers feeling about not being able to watch the games on fanpass? personally I'm pissed, I forked out to watch ASB Prem and A-league on fanpass and they drop the national team to a pop-up channel. They done that to the ferns previously aswell. Luckilyy there are alternatives (pub, illegal stream). The thing is I would actually pay the money to have fanpass access to the content (like netflix, lightbox) rather than pay monthly for their sharkty decoder.

I think that's the point. They'd prefer you to have the decoder so deliberately leave content off fanpass so it isn't really a viable long term option. 

Having said that, I read that you can now go back and view anything in the last 24 hours, which is a decent start toward on demand. So they're taking baby steps in the right direction. 

I don't think it's deliberate, I covered that earlier about other live sport/buildup being on at the same time as that first game, sport that is likely to rate better to be fair.  I also think they are missing a trick by having pop ups not available on fan pass.

I did have a tin foil hat on as I wrote that. But it's just the only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't include popup channels with fanpass. It may just be that it's more difficult than I think it is to include them. 

To be fair I don't know how hard/easy it is achieve either.  It just wouldn't make sense for them to screw themselves over.

I'm not sure, I feel like they don't want fans using their additional products as it might eat into their core market (Being the box under the TV).

When original single sport FanPASS came out for the Super Rugby season it was actually cheaper to get Sky for the 4 months of Super Rugby than it was to pay the $300 to get the Super Rugby only FanPass...

It has improved since then, but it is decisions like that, that lead me to question their thinking, also the $20 price tag on Neon when their direct competitiors are both charging $13 (If they had more, or better content I could understand, but it is just the HBO stuff right?)

there is def a softly softly approach to the online thing - for reasons I have covered already.  I just have a feeling there is some additional cost or hurdle for adding the popup channels, it seems like the only reason for me to not have added them to this point.

Neon is basically all rolling selection of SKY's entertainment programming - TV shows and Movies - not just HBO/SoHo

Neon is where it makes it obviosu something at Sky isnt thinking it through.

The competition is around the $13 mark and Neon is $20 for standard def.  Also SkyGo or Neon don't have PS3 apps.  I know a lot of people that use their last gen consoles as their media hubs, so they wont be getting cash from me if I cant use their services on a very widespread device, Netflix and Lightbox get my cash, while TVNZ on Demand gets some attention.

It just seems to be the same old thing, tech advances but Sky and other media companies try to change laws to keep their old business model rather than embracing new tech as a new way to reach new customers.  

As much as I don't like sky these days I would still hand them fistful's of money if they could provide me these old solutions like being able to stream their content (Skygo sharks the bed regularly to the point where the only thing I want it for (sports when I'm out of the house) doesn't work when I want it to.

Pfft tis what tis.