• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Sky to be more selective with sports rights strategy
<<
<
9 of 12
>>
>
samburrows
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“There is a chance of another recession happening that could put people off pay big prices for sport packagea whoever the broadcaster is”

And on this point specifically - during the last recession (2008-2009) the big winners in share price & revenues were companies such as Dominos and BSkyB, businesses which offer family services in direct to the home. Whilst your instinct that discretionary spend is often the first to be cut by households, for many families it will be expenses such as family meals out, trips to the cinema, trips to live sport and similar. For families these are very expensive and dwarf the cost of takeaways and satellite tv subscriptions, hence why the latter tend to do well in difficult economic circumstances.
Sirius C
25-11-2016
Originally Posted by samburrows:
“And on this point specifically - during the last recession (2008-2009) the big winners in share price & revenues were companies such as Dominos and BSkyB, businesses which offer family services in direct to the home. Whilst your instinct that discretionary spend is often the first to be cut by households, for many families it will be expenses such as family meals out, trips to the cinema, trips to live sport and similar. For families these are very expensive and dwarf the cost of takeaways and satellite tv subscriptions, hence why the latter tend to do well in difficult economic circumstances.”

I'd like to offer the slight caveat, I do agree with your broad point, that the period you mention coincided with LLU and cheaper telephony/broadband becoming widespread. Back in the day my parents (I was still at home then!) were paying £25 for Telewest's mid tier broadband plus £25 for talk unlimited. Sky to some extent "got away" with TV price rises as downward pressure on phone/broadband prices absorbed it to some degree.
zeebre12
25-11-2016
If HBO launch their own service and Amazon take the premier league in years to come Sky will be in bother
David_Flett1
25-11-2016
Originally Posted by zeebre12:
“If HBO launch their own service and Amazon take the premier league in years to come Sky will be in bother”

Some years away before HBO would consider launching a stand alone service in the UK although as per my earlier posts regarding this I do think that HBO will be asking for a substantial increase on the £55 million a year they receive now and if they cannot secure a good deal they now have the infrastructure and subscription management in place to launch a service. HBO are much more than TV shows and it also depends on the contract SKY have with Time Warner for movies. IT could make even more sense for Time Warner as a whole to have a service including movies, TV and possibly sport.

I don't think Amazon will be in a position or want to bid for any of the UK sporting rights as they are playing catch up in the entertainment streaming market with Netflix, Hulu and others. Netflix on the other hand cannot be ruled out as their is the possibility of a takeover by Disney which would make them the largest streaming service in the world and sport may be an area that could be a possible extension of their entertainment.

The media world is getting smaller with more mergers taking place and it would be difficult for SKY to fight those players if they so choose to enter the UK directly. That also makes SKY an attractive proposition for US mdia companies due to the drop in sterling and substantial drop in their shares also. But SKY isn't the only UK media company that looks attractive ITV is a strong proposition too.

Personally I think the next Premier and Champions League contracts will stay with SKY and BT but the it may be the last.
mlt11
27-11-2016
Back to the original title of the thread:

Per The Guardian:

"Sky has signed the biggest ever TV rights deal for netball in the UK after reaching a four-year agreement with England Netball, the sport’s governing body, that includes internationals and the domestic Superleague.

Sky will show all home England Test matches and for the first time will air all matches of the annual Quad series between England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Previously only matches featuring England had been shown. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Sky will air all of its netball coverage on its new Sky Sports Mix channel.................."

Not sure this particularly fits in with Sky being "more selective with sports rights" as per the original reports which prompted the thread title.

Netball is obviously much, much less important commercially than the much higher profile sports which Sky also show. However they've been showing netball for quite a while now and this new contract suggests they must think it is worthwhile to continue doing so.

And whilst it might be lower profile in the overall scheme of things I imagine it may well have quite a niche audience of people who don't follow many of the traditional, higher profile sports.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...dia_b-gdnmedia
samburrows
28-11-2016
Looks like a good "upsell" acquisition. May drive some modest growth of niche followers into taking a basic TV package ("much cheaper than I thought" crowd) with no need to subscribe to Sports.

Those sorts of customers may then be tempted by "free" broadband, discounted Sky Mobile, box sets, box office, the occasional upgrade opportunity to Cinema, Sports etc.
hendero
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Back to the original title of the thread:

Per The Guardian:

"Sky has signed the biggest ever TV rights deal for netball in the UK after reaching a four-year agreement with England Netball, the sport’s governing body, that includes internationals and the domestic Superleague.

Sky will show all home England Test matches and for the first time will air all matches of the annual Quad series between England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Previously only matches featuring England had been shown. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Sky will air all of its netball coverage on its new Sky Sports Mix channel.................."

Not sure this particularly fits in with Sky being "more selective with sports rights" as per the original reports which prompted the thread title.

Netball is obviously much, much less important commercially than the much higher profile sports which Sky also show. However they've been showing netball for quite a while now and this new contract suggests they must think it is worthwhile to continue doing so.

And whilst it might be lower profile in the overall scheme of things I imagine it may well have quite a niche audience of people who don't follow many of the traditional, higher profile sports.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...dia_b-gdnmedia”

I never really understood the point of netball as a sport. Surely everyone is aware of basketball, in which the participants are allowed to run and jump, and which is on the Olympic schedule. Netball is like something out of the 1920's, when women weren't expected to play sports in the same way as men, and were supposed to be as ladylike as possible.

Still, good for the sport to have the new Sky deal, if it gets some more youngsters playing it better that than spending 16 hours a day on Facebook. No doubt if the BBC was doing this we'd be lectured on these forums how much they care about public service while Sky just loves money.
derek500
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“
Netball is obviously much, much less important commercially than the much higher profile sports which Sky also show. However they've been showing netball for quite a while now and this new contract suggests they must think it is worthwhile to continue doing so.
”

This is where Sky's return path data from 7m+ homes comes into its own.

BARB don't do niche. Impossible with such a small panel.
Sirius C
28-11-2016
Or, more likely, Sky have found a cheap way to fill hours of their schedule. Also ticks an equality box.
Glob_blob
28-11-2016
Just get a feeling that sky might drop tennis tv contract when runs out in 2017
mlt11
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by samburrows:
“Looks like a good "upsell" acquisition. May drive some modest growth of niche followers into taking a basic TV package ("much cheaper than I thought" crowd) with no need to subscribe to Sports.

Those sorts of customers may then be tempted by "free" broadband, discounted Sky Mobile, box sets, box office, the occasional upgrade opportunity to Cinema, Sports etc.”

Originally Posted by Sirius C:
“Or, more likely, Sky have found a cheap way to fill hours of their schedule. Also ticks an equality box.”

I would agree with both of the above posts.

Yes, it will be a cheap way of filling hours (though even if the rights are very cheap there's still the cost of producing live outside broadcasts) - but at the same time it may well also do the things suggested in post 206.

It's also a bit different from other sports rights in the sense that it's all going to be shown on Mix.
mlt11
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by Glob_blob:
“Just get a feeling that sky might drop tennis tv contract when runs out in 2017”

Sky's ATP tennis rights actually expire at the end of 2018.
mightymillie
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by hendero:
“I never really understood the point of netball as a sport. Surely everyone is aware of basketball, in which the participants are allowed to run and jump, and which is on the Olympic schedule. Netball is like something out of the 1920's, when women weren't expected to play sports in the same way as men, and were supposed to be as ladylike as possible.”

Participation in Netball is up 25% over the last decade, which will certainly be attractive to Sky. As others have said, netball is likely to attract people who wouldn't otherwise subscribe to Sky Sports.


Originally Posted by derek500:
“This is where Sky's return path data from 7m+ homes comes into its own.

BARB don't do niche. Impossible with such a small panel.”

Will you stop going on about Sky's return path data:
-Most Sky boxes have no return path
-The data collected doesn't tell Sky how many people were watching a programme, or even whether the TV was switched on.
-BARB's figures will be many multitudes more accurate at measuring number of viewers and audience demographics. The full BARB data has a margin if error of less than 2%.
-Sky's return path data can give you no reliable data about viewing figures, no reliable data about demographics, and only limited data about viewing trends.



Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I would agree with both of the above posts.

Yes, it will be a cheap way of filling hours (though even if the rights are very cheap there's still the cost of producing live outside broadcasts) - but at the same time it may well also do the things suggested in post 206.

It's also a bit different from other sports rights in the sense that it's all going to be shown on Mix.”

I would not be surprised if England Netball (or a sponsor) was paying the production costs.
derek500
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“



Will you stop going on about Sky's return path data:
-Most Sky boxes have no return path
-The data collected doesn't tell Sky how many people were watching a programme, or even whether the TV was switched on.
-BARB's figures will be many multitudes more accurate at measuring number of viewers and audience demographics. The full BARB data has a margin if error of less than 2%.
-Sky's return path data can give you no reliable data about viewing figures, no reliable data about demographics, and only limited data about viewing trends.
”

7.7m is the majority of Sky homes, so most.

Sky know the channel has been selected, so if a box is tuned to say Sky Sports Mix there's a good chance it's being watched.

Sky are interested in homes watching what they pay for. If there's one or five watching it's still one subscription. Of course Sky Q with up to five concurrent channels running at once will give them more insight.

Connected homes are linked with demographic information for AdSmart.

Netflix and Amazon seem to manage without BARB.

Here's a link worth reading.

https://corporate.sky.com/documents/...rigination.pdf
mikw
28-11-2016
Originally Posted by Sirius C:
“Or, more likely, Sky have found a cheap way to fill hours of their schedule. Also ticks an equality box.”

Certainly, in terms of sports rights, very cheap to fill hours.

Nothing to do with audience research or the return path
wolvesdavid
28-11-2016
I've played netball. It is actually more difficult to play well, than you would think. I'd imagine it will get a niche audience, and that it will provide weekly action for very little money.
Sirius C
28-11-2016
I always thought Derek500 closely resembled a Sky press release, instead it's just corporate information they push out alongside quarterly reports.

An interesting slide that tells you next to nothing about the appeal of Sky Sports Mix and a lot more about the success of their On Demand offering. Virgin Media have been pedalling those kinds of information since before they even adopted that name and, and I'm sure this will surprise literally no-one, a pay TV company is strongly interested in what their subscription households are watching. Is doesn't make the data better, for the purpose of demographics or viewing figures than BARB.
mightymillie
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by derek500:
“7.7m is the majority of Sky homes, so most.

Sky know the channel has been selected, so if a box is tuned to say Sky Sports Mix there's a good chance it's being watched.”

Firstly, there are 7.7m connected boxes, not connected boxes in 7.7m homes. Homes with multiroom have all their boxes connected, skewing the figures dramatically.

Secondly there are millions of Sky boxes being used by people without Sky subscriptions.

Thirdly, if a box is tuned to Sky Sports Mix, the probability of the television also being switched on is 50%. The television has two states. On or Off. Sky has no way of knowing this, so any judgement it makes on viewing figures from this data is already at least as inaccurate as it is accurate.


The Sky box reports the following for yesterday:

1230 Power on; Channel 103 selected.
1830 Channel 104 selected.
1900 Channel 101 selected.
1947 Channel 0214 selected.
2030 Channel 103 selected.
0215 Box goes into autostandby.


From that information, tell me how many 16-34 men watched The Chase.

The thing is, you can't. It could be any number from 0 to infinity.
That information tells you that someone in the household probably watched Loose Women, someone probably watched Hollyoaks, someone probably watched The One Show and someone probably watched I'm A Celebrity...

It doesn't tell you that they switched off the TV ten minutes in to The One Show because somebody came to the door. Or that someone sat on the remote half an hour later, causing the box to switch to UCB Ireland for 38 minutes until they switched on I'm A Celebrity.

That's why BARB data, with its scientific collection methods, and statistically representative panel, is far more accurate. It's why Sky uses BARB data to sell advertising and sponsorship.

The Sky box data gives Sky some insight into trends over longer time periods, and in particular which programmes are more likely to be timeshifted. But it doesn't tell them how many people are watching to the accuracy of BARB, and never will.
MARTYM8
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by Glob_blob:
“Just get a feeling that sky might drop tennis tv contract when runs out in 2017”

They have already dropped their most high profile rights for the US open tennis.

I expect they will keep the rights until Murray retires or stops being a top player.
David_Flett1
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“They have already dropped their most high profile rights for the US open tennis.

I expect they will keep the rights until Murray retires or stops being a top player.”

I also think with Federer and Nadal now struggling and maybe two more years before Murray and Djokovic also begin to slow down the future doesn't look too bright to sign up new contracts that may take them to 2020 and beyond. I like some of the tennis players coming through but I do not think we will have an era that we have enjoyed over the last 3 or 4 decades where we have so many rivalries and personalities.
BenFranklin
29-11-2016
People always say that, people were saying it when Sampras and Agassi stopped being top players.
derek500
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“Firstly, there are 7.7m connected boxes, not connected boxes in 7.7m homes. Homes with multiroom have all their boxes connected, skewing the figures dramatically.

Secondly there are millions of Sky boxes being used by people without Sky subscriptions.

Thirdly, if a box is tuned to Sky Sports Mix, the probability of the television also being switched on is 50%. The television has two states. On or Off. Sky has no way of knowing this, so any judgement it makes on viewing figures from this data is already at least as inaccurate as it is accurate.


The Sky box reports the following for yesterday:

1230 Power on; Channel 103 selected.
1830 Channel 104 selected.
1900 Channel 101 selected.
1947 Channel 0214 selected.
2030 Channel 103 selected.
0215 Box goes into autostandby.


From that information, tell me how many 16-34 men watched The Chase.

The thing is, you can't. It could be any number from 0 to infinity.
That information tells you that someone in the household probably watched Loose Women, someone probably watched Hollyoaks, someone probably watched The One Show and someone probably watched I'm A Celebrity...

It doesn't tell you that they switched off the TV ten minutes in to The One Show because somebody came to the door. Or that someone sat on the remote half an hour later, causing the box to switch to UCB Ireland for 38 minutes until they switched on I'm A Celebrity.

That's why BARB data, with its scientific collection methods, and statistically representative panel, is far more accurate. It's why Sky uses BARB data to sell advertising and sponsorship.

The Sky box data gives Sky some insight into trends over longer time periods, and in particular which programmes are more likely to be timeshifted. But it doesn't tell them how many people are watching to the accuracy of BARB, and never will.”

I don't disagree with any of that.

But, if a household turns to Sky Sports Mix to watch the Netball, Sky using their data will have a more accurate idea of the number of homes watching than BARB with their 2,000 or so homes with Sky.

For a niche sport such as Netball it would be almost impossible to get one Netball fan on the panel, and BARB wouldn't actively try. I assume it gets a zero rating from BARB?

I expect it's like Ladies Golf, that I'm involved with, the audience is mainly female golfers, club members and their families. Something Sky can monitor, but BARB is far too generic.
blueisthecolour
29-11-2016
Whenever someone suggests that a streaming company could bid for football rights you always have to remember the basic maths.

Under the current deal it costs the broadcaster an average of £10.2m for the rights to one game in the UK. I would suggest that the lowest number of games a broadcaster could pick and remain interesting to football fans is 30 a year - basically one every weekend. So that would cost £306m a year just for rights. I'm not sure what annual tv show production costs are but lets assume a modest £4m to make a round number of £310m.

So when you take away the 20% VAT that means that a streamer would need to bring in an extra £387.5m revenue a year just to break even. If we take Netflix as an example, they have about 5 million subscribers paying roughly £80 a year. Getting an extra £387.5m equates to them either doubling their subscriber base to 10 million, doubling their subscription fee (and keeping all their current customers) or doing a combination of the two. All of which is not going to happen. I suppose they could introduce advertising for such a live event but that wouldn't bring in a fortune.

Basically it wouldn't make any financial sense.
derek500
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“They have already dropped their most high profile rights for the US open tennis.”

True, but for most they're still watching using a Sky subscription. Many of the same pundits and commentators, just a different channel number.
ed1747
29-11-2016
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“Whenever someone suggests that a streaming company could bid for football rights you always have to remember the basic maths.

Under the current deal it costs the broadcaster an average of £10.2m for the rights to one game in the UK. I would suggest that the lowest number of games a broadcaster could pick and remain interesting to football fans is 30 a year - basically one every weekend. So that would cost £306m a year just for rights. I'm not sure what annual tv show production costs are but lets assume a modest £4m to make a round number of £310m.

So when you take away the 20% VAT that means that a streamer would need to bring in an extra £387.5m revenue a year just to break even. If we take Netflix as an example, they have about 5 million subscribers paying roughly £80 a year. Getting an extra £387.5m equates to them either doubling their subscriber base to 10 million, doubling their subscription fee (and keeping all their current customers) or doing a combination of the two. All of which is not going to happen. I suppose they could introduce advertising for such a live event but that wouldn't bring in a fortune.

Basically it wouldn't make any financial sense.”

Yes exactly. It only works for Sky/BT as they're selling packages to customers that include other services.
<<
<
9 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map