.... Left to me there would be none of this 75% off or 50% off for 12 months nonsense. Glorified freeloaders in my opinion but I don't blame them for trying it on. A shame that Sky chases them and takes long term subscribers for granted. Hey ho >:(
If Sky didn’t provide these discounts, they’d have to accept a smaller subscriber base and lower profits- the smaller subscriber base because people who can’t or don’t want to pay full price won’t subscribe; and lower profits because the “fixed cost” nature of their pay-tv business model means that they increase profits by bringing in additional customers even on deep discounts, after they have exhausted the number of consumers that are willing to pay full price.
If Sky didn’t provide these discounts, they’d have to accept a smaller subscriber base and lower profits- the smaller subscriber base because people who can’t or don’t want to pay full price won’t subscribe; and lower profits because the “fixed cost” nature of their pay-tv business model means that they increase profits by bringing in additional customers even on deep discounts, after they have exhausted the number of consumers that are willing to pay full price.
I wonder, for Sky, whether over a period of time those attempting to churn to receive higher discount, and thus save money, is increasing which will ultimately be a problem the more and more who do it. Obviously as others mention, there will always be those who never challenge and keep paying the full whack but considering the amount of people who post here and elsewhere talking of retention discounts, makes me think there must be more now than in previous years as consumers get more savvy to this sort of thing. It's probably the main reason for the price increases for everyone else!
Single to dual recording.
Inclusion of Dolby Digital on certain channels.
Remote Record
Sky Go
Sky Go Extra
Anytime (now Showcase)
Sky Apps - Android and iOS
On demand (catch up, box sets, movies etc)
Introduction of HD
UI redesigns
Funny how the above often gets overlooked.
Lovely. But you fail to mention that things like HD and boxsets are not free offerings. A number of items on your list Sky claimed we were helping to fund development and then they charge us once it's released (And I remember the letter some years back from Sky telling us they were upping the price to fund HD). And actually companies normally improve their services via re-investing some of their profits. Only a few industries buck that trend and it's always due to the market dominance of one or two large companies.
I'm not saying Sky hasn't improved over the years, evidently they have. They do show more football and they do show more movies. And I don't begrudge a company's need to make a profit. The point of contention for me is that Sky really push their luck due to their market dominance and much of the subscription increase seems to go towards over bidding for football. And much of the other rises seems to be to reduce the amount they'd have to increase their sports price due to the cost of the football rights.
When you rise prices above inflation then your service becomes more expensive to the consumer. When you rise prices vastly above inflation then your service becomes questionable to the consumer. Sky just added over 10% to the cost of the Sports package which is way above inflation (plus profit) and the reason is not for improvements, it's because they overpaid again.
Get away with what? A private company putting prices up for a service that you have a choice of whether to take it or not?
.
Well that's the thing though isn't it? If we had a choice, we'd be able to switch over to DishSat, or VirginSat or something like that and get a similar offering of premium channels as well as base content, with some notable differences depending on what deals have been made by whom. In the United States there are competing satellite companies that both broadcast premium sports packages covering most of the major content of interest with some notable differences here and there.
There is no such choice here in the UK. It's Sky or it's nobody. You can insist on presenting that as an 'option' all you like, but it's not really an option at all. Even if you have the money to pay, and can afford these constant price increases (which I suppose I can as long as the financial manager of the family says so), it is still readily apparent that there is something not quite right about this situation. And not everybody can just switch to Virgin (I can't, which is really too bad).
Well that's the thing though isn't it? If we had a choice, we'd be able to switch over to DirectSat, or VirginSat and get a similar offering of premium channels as well as base content, with some notable differences depending on what deals have been made by whom. In the United States there are competing satellite companies that both broadcast premium sports packages covering most of the major content of interest with some notable differences here and there.
There is no such choice here in the UK. It's Sky or it's nobody. You can insist on presenting that as an 'option' all you like, but it's not really an option at all. Even if you have the money to pay, and can afford these constant price increases (which I suppose I can as long as the financial manager of the family says so), it is still readily apparent that there is something not quite right about this situation. And not everybody can just switch to Virgin (I can't, which is really too bad).
nothing stopping other companies launching satellite options though.
it's not sky's fault that no-one wants to try to compete with them in the that market (same goes for virgin with no cable competition).
That's fair enough. I have no problem with you playing the system, simply with Sky for making the offers in the first place.
It just seems to be the way of the world these days. If Sky only gave some indication that they valued loyal customers, instead of treating us as mugs and suckers, it would be something. A free month here or there or discount or something.
As I documented some weeks ago, I was reluctant to play the system, too, but in the end my hand was forced by Sky.
I have been with Sky since before they started charging (ie the late 80s onward) and had things like Sky Digital, HD and multiroom from the off. And paid the full package price.
When having to sell up and move to look after my mum I asked if they could offer anything if I chose to stay as the house I was going to had no Sky but did have Virgin. They checked my record, said my loyalty was outstanding, said they always rewarded this and then offered - to upgrade one of my two boxes from a Pace to a basic Amstrad for free. I had bought the Pace myself at box price to replace the failed Thomson.
Anyhow, meantime, my mum, whom I was moving to look after, enquired and got a great new customer deal (50% off for a year plus new wi fi boxes) if she instead of me applied to be the customer.
Obviously I would have been a complete idiot not to go this route as we are talking a lot of money saved which I needed as I gave up work to be a carer. I would have transferred my sub to the new house with a much lower offer than 50% from Sky - just something that indicated that they really did reward loyalty.
But, as you might expect, I have already had an offer from Sky to go back to them with big money off because I did go through with cancelling.
So - it may even prove that I will still have these offers a year from now, could thus get two great deals from Sky instead of one modest one I would have taken to stay loyal if they had reciprocated that loyalty.
Ergo, you can see why Sky and the market have created this position where you are stuffed unless you play the game. Sadly I see no alternative other than funding Sky's war chest if I do not.
A fair point but it is clear that many on deals are just chancers.
Ideally there would be more restrictions, either in terms of the extent of any discount or in terms of limitations on the number or frequency of deals offered to any individual. It is one thing to offer a short term introductory deal (for say 3 months) to encourage genuinely new subscribers but quite another to offer deals to serial cancellers. I'd just call their bluff.
As a Sky subscriber from the outset (top package throughout) I do resent the feeling that I am subsidising or being treated unfairly as compared to people who are simply trying it on.
Out of interest what deal/cost were you on when cancelling and what deal have you been offered to stay?
My first offer was 25% off for 6 months
then
50% off for 12 months
then
Pay £10 (HD fee only) choose any package free (this was the best offer!) just before their financial year end
then
75% off for 12 months
then back to
50% off for 12 months which is the current one and best of all I also managed to haggle free 2TB box as well with this
Then again I have been with Sky since the analogue days I remember paying £19.99 or £24.99 for Sky World so they realise I have already paid them thousands of pounds considering I have always had the top package, so I guess they can justify giving me these offers.
I don’t think everyone gets the same offers. I have a friend who cancelled his sub recently to go to Virgin and never heard anything back from Sky but he was with Sky only a couple of years before cancelling it.
It is clear that the longer you have been with Sky the better the offer you get from retention department.
Also it is good job you don't run Sky because calling serial cancellers’ bluff is not in their best interest. For any business it is better to get some money/custom than nothing.
It does not cost Sky a penny to switch my signal on but when they do, they are guaranteed for another £400 a year income from me, now when you multiply this with god knows how many other customers get the same offer then they bring in good amount of income that otherwise would not be there without those offers.
I don't think you are subsidising anything or anybody, in actual fact, without those offers many people would have cancelled months ago resulting your sub probably going up even higher.
I wonder, for Sky, whether over a period of time those attempting to churn to receive higher discount, and thus save money, is increasing which will ultimately be a problem the more and more who do it. ....
Of course, awareness of discounting can cause what Sky have previously referred to as "offer-riding". However, there are other reasons why to achieve higher profitability, Sky need to discount the service to an element of their customers.
I would guess that a proportion of the customer base cannot really afford the service, so the choice Sky have is to sell to them at a discount or accept the loss of their business.
Likewise, Sky can either accept the loss of a customer to a competitor, or do something to retain their business.
I think it's important to remember that the scale/scope of discounting is controlled/budgeted by Sky, and they're unlikely to be doing it unless it aids profits overall.
.... It's probably the main reason for the price increases for everyone else!
I'd argue the opposite- the price is restrained by the point at which Sky predict that raising it further would cause an unacceptable number of customers to cancel (churn).
Lovely. But you fail to mention that things like HD and boxsets are not free offerings. A number of items on your list Sky claimed we were helping to fund development and then they charge us once it's released (And I remember the letter some years back from Sky telling us they were upping the price to fund HD). And actually companies normally improve their services via re-investing some of their profits. Only a few industries buck that trend and it's always due to the market dominance of one or two large companies.
I'm not saying Sky hasn't improved over the years, evidently they have. They do show more football and they do show more movies. And I don't begrudge a company's need to make a profit. The point of contention for me is that Sky really push their luck due to their market dominance and much of the subscription increase seems to go towards over bidding for football. And much of the other rises seems to be to reduce the amount they'd have to increase their sports price due to the cost of the football rights.
When you rise prices above inflation then your service becomes more expensive to the consumer. When you rise prices vastly above inflation then your service becomes questionable to the consumer. Sky just added over 10% to the cost of the Sports package which is way above inflation (plus profit) and the reason is not for improvements, it's because they overpaid again.
The cost for the services was not in question - what your subs helped towards was. Precisely why I didn't mention there could be further costs if you wish to take advantage of certain other improvements cited.
You do realise you are comparing apples and oranges? You simply can't compare mid-class European Leauge with the best club competition in the world.
Sky did realise what they lost when they pestered UEFA for another bidding but the ship has sailed.
BT must be praying every day that there are some domestic clubs actually in the Champions League when they take over the coverage.
The interest here will be an enormous amount less if there aren't, and it's not at all guaranteed.
The outrageous amount they paid for it won't look like quite so much of a coup then.
BT must be praying every day that there are some domestic clubs actually in the Champions League when they take over the coverage.
The interest here will be an enormous amount less if there aren't, and it's not at all guaranteed.
The outrageous amount they paid for it won't look like quite so much of a coup then.
As it stands, England have 3 guaranteed into the group stages, with the 4th placed team in a playoff.
Also, from 2015, the 4 team limit is being lifted, so if the winner from the previous year fails to qualify in the top 4, they DON'T take the 4th placed teams position, so in theory, you could have 5 teams in the competition (assuming someone from England won it and finished 5th or lower).
But as it stands, there should be 3 teams minimum.
Yes of course, what I should have said is that they should be praying that there are still some domestic teams left in by the later stages of the competition!
it's not sky's fault that no-one wants to try to compete with them in the that market (same goes for virgin with no cable competition).
Sky had competition in the form of BSB (which they brought out). Virgin Media is essentially an NTL that brought out the competition (Telewest, Cable and Wireless etc) and rebranded. Both are now in such a dominant position in their markets that it's almost impossible for any company to take them on.
The fault is not Sky's, agreed. The fault is a lack of proper regulation to prevent monopolies appearing in the market. Fortunately, there's now some alternatives that aren't direct competition but do allow customers other (weaker) options.
Sky had competition in the form of BSB (which they brought out). Virgin Media is essentially an NTL that brought out the competition (Telewest, Cable and Wireless etc) and rebranded. Both are now in such a dominant position in their markets that it's almost impossible for any company to take them on.
BSB was never going to succeed. Ok their technology was superior to what Sky was using but it was considerably more expensive and fairly unreliable. BTW Sky didn't buy out BSB, it was a 50:50 merger as both companies at the time were several £100m into the red.
BSB was never going to succeed. Ok their technology was superior to what Sky was using but it was considerably more expensive and fairly unreliable. BTW Sky didn't buy out BSB, it was a 50:50 merger as both companies at the time were several £100m into the red.
But it was a legimate competitor at the time. Sky haven't really had a competitor in large parts of the industry since which allows them to rise prices with less concern about losing customers to a competitor. It could be argued that Virgin is a competitor in some areas I suppose.
Incidentally, I've called Sky myself and removed by the Sports and Movies from my subscription as a result of the price rise. I asked if it was a busy time due to the price rise and the customer rep suggested it's been somewhat busier in regard to cancellations and downgrades than normal at this time of year.
But it was a legimate competitor at the time. Sky haven't really had a competitor in large parts of the industry since which allows them to rise prices with less concern about losing customers to a competitor. It could be argued that Virgin is a competitor in some areas I suppose.
It was a confrontation that never started, even Virgin/BBC pulled out early because they could see it's demise. The competition was very weak - a shame in one respect because it offered better quality audio/video, we could have had widescreen and HD much earlier.
I wonder how different things would have been if Murdoch had have gained approval to become apart of BSB consortium.
Incidentally, I've called Sky myself and removed by the Sports and Movies from my subscription as a result of the price rise. I asked if it was a busy time due to the price rise and the customer rep suggested it's been somewhat busier in regard to cancellations and downgrades than normal at this time of year.
Sally at her desk might have taken a few more calls because some work colleges are on holiday, she then adds 2+2 and gets 5. ;-)
That was last quarter. You won't see any impact until later in the year. Besides, downgrading is far more common than outright cancellations. I suspect the majority of people complaining about the price rise who have then called Sky have either downgraded or threatened to downgrade and been offered a deal.
That was last quarter. You won't see any impact until later in the year. Besides, downgrading is far more common than outright cancellations. I suspect the majority of people complaining about the price rise who have then called Sky have either downgraded or threatened to downgrade and been offered a deal.
that's you opinion with nothing to back it up, today I cancel my package was made an offer but not enough for me to stay. after reading the news that freesat is going to broadcast youtube that made my mind up
That was last quarter. You won't see any impact until later in the year. Besides, downgrading is far more common than outright cancellations. I suspect the majority of people complaining about the price rise who have then called Sky have either downgraded or threatened to downgrade and been offered a deal.
What impact are you expecting to see, a dramatic drop in TV subscriptions?
If like any other year Q3 won't show anything other than steady growth.
What's puzzling me is, why are customers cancelling/downgrading during June/July when the price rise doesn't come in to affect until September, I would have thought the influx of calls would have been throughout August taking the 31 days notice in to account.
What's puzzling me is, why are customers cancelling/downgrading during June/July when the price rise doesn't come in to affect until September, I would have thought the influx of calls would have been throughout August taking the 31 days notice in to account.
Sky charge in advance. So the price rise really comes into effect at the start of August.
No, the price rise takes effect from 1st September, all bills after that date will include the new prices, August bills are unaffected.
Per Sky:
When will the price rise happen?
Our prices will change from 1 September. However as you pay for your Sky bill a month in advance, you’ll first see a change in your August bill.
Why is the billing amount staggered?
You pay your Sky bill one month in advance, so this means you will start to see an increase in your August bill but not the full amount. ......
Regardless of billing date, any charges that relate to 1/9/14 or later will be charged at the new prices.
If a customer chooses to downgrade/cancel, then 31 days notice applies. Thus, to avoid being charged the higher price for any part of the notice period, notice would have to be given in the next few days, in order to downgrade/end the subscription in late August.
Comments
If Sky didn’t provide these discounts, they’d have to accept a smaller subscriber base and lower profits- the smaller subscriber base because people who can’t or don’t want to pay full price won’t subscribe; and lower profits because the “fixed cost” nature of their pay-tv business model means that they increase profits by bringing in additional customers even on deep discounts, after they have exhausted the number of consumers that are willing to pay full price.
I wonder, for Sky, whether over a period of time those attempting to churn to receive higher discount, and thus save money, is increasing which will ultimately be a problem the more and more who do it. Obviously as others mention, there will always be those who never challenge and keep paying the full whack but considering the amount of people who post here and elsewhere talking of retention discounts, makes me think there must be more now than in previous years as consumers get more savvy to this sort of thing. It's probably the main reason for the price increases for everyone else!
Lovely. But you fail to mention that things like HD and boxsets are not free offerings. A number of items on your list Sky claimed we were helping to fund development and then they charge us once it's released (And I remember the letter some years back from Sky telling us they were upping the price to fund HD). And actually companies normally improve their services via re-investing some of their profits. Only a few industries buck that trend and it's always due to the market dominance of one or two large companies.
I'm not saying Sky hasn't improved over the years, evidently they have. They do show more football and they do show more movies. And I don't begrudge a company's need to make a profit. The point of contention for me is that Sky really push their luck due to their market dominance and much of the subscription increase seems to go towards over bidding for football. And much of the other rises seems to be to reduce the amount they'd have to increase their sports price due to the cost of the football rights.
When you rise prices above inflation then your service becomes more expensive to the consumer. When you rise prices vastly above inflation then your service becomes questionable to the consumer. Sky just added over 10% to the cost of the Sports package which is way above inflation (plus profit) and the reason is not for improvements, it's because they overpaid again.
Well that's the thing though isn't it? If we had a choice, we'd be able to switch over to DishSat, or VirginSat or something like that and get a similar offering of premium channels as well as base content, with some notable differences depending on what deals have been made by whom. In the United States there are competing satellite companies that both broadcast premium sports packages covering most of the major content of interest with some notable differences here and there.
There is no such choice here in the UK. It's Sky or it's nobody. You can insist on presenting that as an 'option' all you like, but it's not really an option at all. Even if you have the money to pay, and can afford these constant price increases (which I suppose I can as long as the financial manager of the family says so), it is still readily apparent that there is something not quite right about this situation. And not everybody can just switch to Virgin (I can't, which is really too bad).
nothing stopping other companies launching satellite options though.
it's not sky's fault that no-one wants to try to compete with them in the that market (same goes for virgin with no cable competition).
As I documented some weeks ago, I was reluctant to play the system, too, but in the end my hand was forced by Sky.
I have been with Sky since before they started charging (ie the late 80s onward) and had things like Sky Digital, HD and multiroom from the off. And paid the full package price.
When having to sell up and move to look after my mum I asked if they could offer anything if I chose to stay as the house I was going to had no Sky but did have Virgin. They checked my record, said my loyalty was outstanding, said they always rewarded this and then offered - to upgrade one of my two boxes from a Pace to a basic Amstrad for free. I had bought the Pace myself at box price to replace the failed Thomson.
Anyhow, meantime, my mum, whom I was moving to look after, enquired and got a great new customer deal (50% off for a year plus new wi fi boxes) if she instead of me applied to be the customer.
Obviously I would have been a complete idiot not to go this route as we are talking a lot of money saved which I needed as I gave up work to be a carer. I would have transferred my sub to the new house with a much lower offer than 50% from Sky - just something that indicated that they really did reward loyalty.
But, as you might expect, I have already had an offer from Sky to go back to them with big money off because I did go through with cancelling.
So - it may even prove that I will still have these offers a year from now, could thus get two great deals from Sky instead of one modest one I would have taken to stay loyal if they had reciprocated that loyalty.
Ergo, you can see why Sky and the market have created this position where you are stuffed unless you play the game. Sadly I see no alternative other than funding Sky's war chest if I do not.
You do realise you are comparing apples and oranges? You simply can't compare mid-class European Leauge with the best club competition in the world.
Sky did realise what they lost when they pestered UEFA for another bidding but the ship has sailed.
My first offer was 25% off for 6 months
then
50% off for 12 months
then
Pay £10 (HD fee only) choose any package free (this was the best offer!) just before their financial year end
then
75% off for 12 months
then back to
50% off for 12 months which is the current one and best of all I also managed to haggle free 2TB box as well with this
Then again I have been with Sky since the analogue days I remember paying £19.99 or £24.99 for Sky World so they realise I have already paid them thousands of pounds considering I have always had the top package, so I guess they can justify giving me these offers.
I don’t think everyone gets the same offers. I have a friend who cancelled his sub recently to go to Virgin and never heard anything back from Sky but he was with Sky only a couple of years before cancelling it.
It is clear that the longer you have been with Sky the better the offer you get from retention department.
Also it is good job you don't run Sky because calling serial cancellers’ bluff is not in their best interest. For any business it is better to get some money/custom than nothing.
It does not cost Sky a penny to switch my signal on but when they do, they are guaranteed for another £400 a year income from me, now when you multiply this with god knows how many other customers get the same offer then they bring in good amount of income that otherwise would not be there without those offers.
I don't think you are subsidising anything or anybody, in actual fact, without those offers many people would have cancelled months ago resulting your sub probably going up even higher.
I would guess that a proportion of the customer base cannot really afford the service, so the choice Sky have is to sell to them at a discount or accept the loss of their business.
Likewise, Sky can either accept the loss of a customer to a competitor, or do something to retain their business.
I think it's important to remember that the scale/scope of discounting is controlled/budgeted by Sky, and they're unlikely to be doing it unless it aids profits overall.
I'd argue the opposite- the price is restrained by the point at which Sky predict that raising it further would cause an unacceptable number of customers to cancel (churn).
The interest here will be an enormous amount less if there aren't, and it's not at all guaranteed.
The outrageous amount they paid for it won't look like quite so much of a coup then.
They offered me everything except movies for £36 a month, i still said no and left
As it stands, England have 3 guaranteed into the group stages, with the 4th placed team in a playoff.
Also, from 2015, the 4 team limit is being lifted, so if the winner from the previous year fails to qualify in the top 4, they DON'T take the 4th placed teams position, so in theory, you could have 5 teams in the competition (assuming someone from England won it and finished 5th or lower).
But as it stands, there should be 3 teams minimum.
Sky had competition in the form of BSB (which they brought out). Virgin Media is essentially an NTL that brought out the competition (Telewest, Cable and Wireless etc) and rebranded. Both are now in such a dominant position in their markets that it's almost impossible for any company to take them on.
The fault is not Sky's, agreed. The fault is a lack of proper regulation to prevent monopolies appearing in the market. Fortunately, there's now some alternatives that aren't direct competition but do allow customers other (weaker) options.
BSB was never going to succeed. Ok their technology was superior to what Sky was using but it was considerably more expensive and fairly unreliable. BTW Sky didn't buy out BSB, it was a 50:50 merger as both companies at the time were several £100m into the red.
But it was a legimate competitor at the time. Sky haven't really had a competitor in large parts of the industry since which allows them to rise prices with less concern about losing customers to a competitor. It could be argued that Virgin is a competitor in some areas I suppose.
Incidentally, I've called Sky myself and removed by the Sports and Movies from my subscription as a result of the price rise. I asked if it was a busy time due to the price rise and the customer rep suggested it's been somewhat busier in regard to cancellations and downgrades than normal at this time of year.
I wonder how different things would have been if Murdoch had have gained approval to become apart of BSB consortium.
Sally at her desk might have taken a few more calls because some work colleges are on holiday, she then adds 2+2 and gets 5. ;-)
Sky adds more TV subscriptions
That was last quarter. You won't see any impact until later in the year. Besides, downgrading is far more common than outright cancellations. I suspect the majority of people complaining about the price rise who have then called Sky have either downgraded or threatened to downgrade and been offered a deal.
that's you opinion with nothing to back it up, today I cancel my package was made an offer but not enough for me to stay. after reading the news that freesat is going to broadcast youtube that made my mind up
What impact are you expecting to see, a dramatic drop in TV subscriptions?
If like any other year Q3 won't show anything other than steady growth.
What's puzzling me is, why are customers cancelling/downgrading during June/July when the price rise doesn't come in to affect until September, I would have thought the influx of calls would have been throughout August taking the 31 days notice in to account.
An opinion on a forum?? Surely not
Sky charge in advance. So the price rise really comes into effect at the start of August.
Regardless of billing date, any charges that relate to 1/9/14 or later will be charged at the new prices.
If a customer chooses to downgrade/cancel, then 31 days notice applies. Thus, to avoid being charged the higher price for any part of the notice period, notice would have to be given in the next few days, in order to downgrade/end the subscription in late August.
We see the same thread year after year warning us that nasty Rupert and co have gone one step too far this year and it will all blow up in their face.