Thunderstorm on Sky’s horizon Maybe its has to unbundle channels

The Weekend Herald reports that Sky expects to have lost 45,000 subscribers by the end of the June 30 financial year. It has to do something to stem the flow. Salt Funds managing director Matt Goodson explained the problem.

“They have challenges and it appears that their audience is disaggregating somewhat. How they deal with that will be interesting to see, but the basic problem appears to be that they are having to charge too much for the non-rugby/sport packages in order to pay the ever-escalating costs of sports rights, but losing the audience that is not interested in watching those [sports] rights. Sky is having to charge too much for the non-rugby sport packages in order to pay the ever-escalating costs of sports rights.”

So, non-sports customers are paying too much and exiting the platform, he says. It can’t afford to raise the cost of the sports package too much because sports subscribers are the foundations customers.

That explanation fits our situation. We’re not a sporty household and the movies we like are usually not on offer with the Sky movies package. We ignore most of the channels on the basic package. Most of out time on Sky is watching these six channels. The first two are premium channels.

Rialto Channel: Because it is a bit offbeat and has some hidden jewels.

SoHo: Because it has must see top end US dramas.

History Channel: An eclectic mix of quality documentaries, once you get past the Third Reich obsession. 

CI. Sometimes dated but there are some very good crime and investigations documentaries.

Lifestyle Channel: Because someone in our house is obsessed with the Antiques Roadshow.

Anyway, for ages I was paying about $90 a month for something that I estimated was worth, say, $40 of $50 to me. It made more sense to go with Lightbox or Netflix, whose content was not as fresh good, but which are a fraction of the price. In my mind there are two long term solution to remedy (but not solve) the problem with non sport customers leaving. One is to unbundle its premium channels or include. The other is make them part of the basic package. But Soho and Rialto are nice earners for Sky.  Losing would send the business plan into a tailspin. And lets face it. Sky is in no rush to go down that road, Declaration: As a media commentator. I get Sky TV and Neon for free. Photo: YouTube.

 

 

 

 

 

× Featured

Labour Stumbles Back Into The Unhappy Shire

3 thoughts on “<span class="entry-title-primary">Thunderstorm on Sky’s horizon</span> <span class="entry-subtitle">Maybe its has to unbundle channels </span>”

  1. The Weekend Herald reports that Sky expects 45,000 subscribers for the year to June 30.

    Expects what from these subscribers? I assume to lose them but it isn’t entirely clear.

  2. What SKY has failed to realise is that these offerings, whether they be sports or drama, are available elsewhere. I watch all rugby matches and yet I don’t have SKY TV. I watch all the latest US TV and UK TV series that interest me and I see the episode a day after it shows in the respective country. I do it all for free. I can obtain this content digitally and use Chromecast to broadcast it to my TV set – so why do I need an archaic offering like SKY Television?

    Netflix, Lightbox and Neon are a little better – but only just. Often, I have seen the content before it arrives on their NZ-directed platforms. The way entertainment is broadcast and digested is rapidly changing. If media organisations are unable to address this then people will find alternative avenues to achieve what they wish to see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *