DS Forums

 
 

Sky feeling the heat?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-01-2009, 22:33
KDH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 563
Also even if you totally cancel your SKY Sub, your SKY HD box will still allow you to watch all the Free to air HD channels and the 100s of free to air SD channels.

.................but not record any of them.



.
KDH is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-01-2009, 00:08
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
Sorry to keep this way off topic thread alive but does anyone else find these Sky figures odd?

For a few years now I haven't personally heard of a single person who has taken up Sky but am aware of a steady stream giving it up. And yet every time the figures come out they claim to have a massive rise in customers. Also, if the churn is around 10% then they must lose around 250k customers a quarter so the actual number of customers signing up (or re-signing) must be 421k (171k new customers plus 250k to make up for the churn).

I'm sure Sky aren't lying about the figures because as a publically quoted company that would constitute a serious fraud but it's hard to make any sense of them.
You wouldn't make a city trader!

Recession - people stop going out and do things like rent DVDs, buy takeaway pizzas, subscribe to Sky - all because it's cheaper. Stock rises.

Depression - people have so little money that they don't rent DVDs, don't buy take away pizzas, cancel Sky - Stock falls.

We are in stage 1 (recession) at the moment.

Stage 2 (depression) will start sometime in 2010/11 and last for years.

Sell Sky stock in the middle of this year!

Last edited by MarioLanza : 29-01-2009 at 00:10. Reason: typos
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:19
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
How many Sky subscribers pay this each year and still spend the vast majority of their time watching the FTA channels?

.
My Brother has just subscribed to Sky as he got a HD telly (Samsung 42" 6 series - beautiful telly - the red one!).

He's got Sky HD+ in two room, Sky+ in two other rooms, Sky feed to 4 rooms in total!. Sports and movies on the main feed.

He won't tell me how much he is paying but it must be an enormous amount! He will certainly be bringing the average up.

As he has not subscribed to Sky before I'm convinced he'll mainly watch BBC and ITV!

He's never been interested in sports before and hasn't been to the cinema for 20 years.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:27
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
Theres plenty of ways to fiddle figures.

People going from Sky to FSFS can still be counted as customers.

Sky can offer cheap deals and of course these are new customers, but how many stay after the cheap deal is over.

Sky say the customers are going up.

That graph says their viewing figures are dropping like a stone.

Someone is lying unless there loads of people buying sky and simply not watching it.
That is all very interesting.

However, in their statement to the City they have said that the average income per customer is about £440. They cannot lie about this (well they can but they'd be in trouble if they did).

So, even if they included FSFS as customers, the average should include them. This would mean that the average per proper Sky subscriber would be even higher than £440!

EDIT: I would imagine that this figure includes advertising revenue and not just subscriptions.

Last edited by MarioLanza : 29-01-2009 at 00:51. Reason: typos
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:41
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
The real issue with sky plus & HD is that firstly you must pay for the + features if you don't subscribe to a sky package. second, with HD, you only get HD on the channels you subscribe to, so to get FULL value for the HD sub, you need to subscribe to the entire package. If you have an HD box but don't subscribe to any sky package, you have the FTA channels and virtually no recording ability or EPG. Sky is a total closed shop, and bearing in mind the cost but lack of real functionality, it's a very poor choice over Freesat, which is only going to get better. The freesat HDR will also get iPlayer and possibly other on demand functionality. I could go on. In simple terms, freesat wins hands down.

Nick
IMO there is no competition between Sky and Freesat.

As a consumer, you either want Pay TV or Free TV.

Freesat was only ever (officially) devised as an alternative to Freeview for those who will not be able to get Freeview after DSO.

Many Freesat fans have hyped it up as some sort of Sky killer. It is no such thing.

If you want live sport or recent movies you are going to have to subscribe to Sky / Virgin or Sentana (and to a lesser degree TopupTV).

If, like me, you're not that bothered then Freeview or Freesat are suitable.

I have both Freeview and Freesat (Freesat is only used for CNN, Bloomberg and the odd BBC HD program). On Freeview I record all sorts of programs but never get to see many of them. They get deleted to make way for new stuff. So, I suppose I'm not a big telly watcher who can justify the Sky subscription.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:43
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
Sky's figures show how many people are paying to use the Sky platform. They will probably include those who have purchased "Pay Once Watch Forever", at least in the initial "free" period before being cancelled. The viewing figures are probably only for Sky owned channels. There are many channels that are part of the Sky subscription that Sky don't own. The figures may, however, suggest that fewer people are watching the premium channels (Sports and Movies), or that the same number are watching them less often. These people are likely to reduce the level of subscription in the current economic climate, and are prime candidates for dropping Sky altogether in favour of Freeview or freesat.
Don't forget, Sky News, Sky 3 and the Sky Sports News channel are on Freeview and this is in about 10 million homes I believe. They could be adding these figures into their totals.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:46
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
It doesnt say a lot for skys own channels then.

Id have thought the sports would have been the #1 watched channels along with Sky 1 and the movie channels.
Sky sports and Sky movies are premium channels.

As they are so expensive they are bound to have fewer viewers.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 00:54
linkinpark875
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24,424
Sky figures are high as:

They offer telephone and broadband which save you money. And they offer the leading choice in HD channels in the UK.

Not to mention access to every pay channel and FTA channel in the UK. Half my viewing is between FTA and pay channels. I enjoy Sky HD and excellent broadband.

Freesat is good if you want free tv.
linkinpark875 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 01:15
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
Sky figures are high as:

They offer telephone and broadband which save you money. And they offer the leading choice in HD channels in the UK.

Not to mention access to every pay channel and FTA channel in the UK. Half my viewing is between FTA and pay channels. I enjoy Sky HD and excellent broadband.

Freesat is good if you want free tv.
Sky's best strategic move in the last 5 years was to get into broadband IMO. If people go for the minimum package they will stay there (unless finances prevent this) due to apathy and, they may subscribe to more profitable packages in the future.

I'm with TalkTalk and get a combined telephone and broadband package for about £22 per month (no TV or IPTV - which I'm not interested in due to the BBC's iPlayer).

In this package I can call any 01 and 02 number in the UK at any time of the day for free. I can also call 36 foreign countries for free also (shame I don't know anyone abroad in these countries!).

Given that we all have to pay £10 for BT's line rental this means I get free calls and broadband (I average a speed of 3.5M with a cap of 40G) for about £12. I can't see anyone beating this.

For me to move, someone is going to have to give one heck of a deal.

This is where Sky are being very clever - package deals. At the end of the day, if you can call who you want (evening and weekends only - sadly), use the Web and watch what you want on TV you are not going to go through the hastle of changing to, for example, Virgin Media, to save a few quid. Very clever of Sky for their long term prosperity.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 01:17
Blue Flame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Fife
Posts: 73
Sky figures are high as:

They offer telephone and broadband which save you money. And they offer the leading choice in HD channels in the UK.

Not to mention access to every pay channel and FTA channel in the UK. Half my viewing is between FTA and pay channels. I enjoy Sky HD and excellent broadband.

Freesat is good if you want free tv.
When we sat down and analysed it... the highest percentage of our viewing was the traditional five channels that we need no subscription for. Yes there is the occasional footie game.. and the 'Dexter' series on FX but it just did not warrant the new price of £57 a month.

It's no surprise that I am now on Freesat and I do have to say the humax's functionality and functions is way above the sky HD box.
Blue Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 01:18
Flyer 10
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,556
Sky sports and Sky movies are premium channels.

As they are so expensive they are bound to have fewer viewers.
But also offer the only things worth watching.

If I ever got sky, it would be when they go with a sports only package without the need to subscribe to all the other crap I would never watch.
Flyer 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 01:25
MarioLanza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,496
But also offer the only things worth watching.

If I ever got sky, it would be when they go with a sports only package without the need to subscribe to all the other crap I would never watch.
I agree with you.

That's why I stopped subscribing to Sky many years ago.

Apart from the big 5, I only watched about 5 other channels occasionally but had to pay for all the crud.

They are not stupid people (????). They must have calculated that they earn more money with packages than with a per channel subscription service.

I might be in the minority, but I refuse to pay for a package but, I would probably pay £5-8 pcm for Bloomberg on its own.
MarioLanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 04:48
Noiseboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tonbridge, Kent
Posts: 2,582
This is where Sky are being very clever - package deals. At the end of the day, if you can call who you want (evening and weekends only - sadly), use the Web and watch what you want on TV you are not going to go through the hastle of changing to, for example, Virgin Media, to save a few quid. Very clever of Sky for their long term prosperity.
Totally agree.

It's really interesting watching these debates, because even those of us who are instinctively anti-Sky get swept up in the euphoria of a price cut - "wait a minute... £49 for HD? 31 channels?!!" It takes some time before the true costs are revealed. And if that goes for us on this forum, you can bet it goes 100 times for the ordinary punter on the street. So combine that with the Broadband handcuffs, and you get an economic success story to buck the trend.

MarioLanza's comments of a recession vs depression are interesting - I'm inclined to agree. The trouble for freesat is that they too will suffer in a depression. Buying now is depression-proof, as it won't cost you anything at all to run when it really hits the fan... but freesat can hardly have this as the basis of an ad campaign!
Noiseboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 07:51
drumoyneguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 489
"Broadcaster BSkyB said it was creating 1,000 new jobs"

You don't do this unless things are going fairly well......
no you do it, to get your units in to peoples houses, so it can be a sign that things are not well or that they fear things could go bad
drumoyneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 08:50
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
IMO there is no competition between Sky and Freesat.
It's hard to see how you can possibly justify that when there are people posting here who have cancelled Sky because of what they can get on Freesat (and Freeview, I don't doubt). Surely that satisfies any criteria for two things to be in competition? People choose Freesat/Freeview and Sky lose income as a result.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 19:08
bignoise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,151
When we sat down and analysed it... the highest percentage of our viewing was the traditional five channels that we need no subscription for. Yes there is the occasional footie game.. and the 'Dexter' series on FX but it just did not warrant the new price of £57 a month.
There are certainly far too many people who have Sky and seem to think that the 'top package' is the only choice available. £57 a month gets you pretty much everything, whereas if you were more selective - e.g. just the entertainment pack and the basic HD chanels - then that's just £27 a month.
bignoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 19:14
bignoise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,151
Theres plenty of ways to fiddle figures.

People going from Sky to FSFS can still be counted as customers.

Sky can offer cheap deals and of course these are new customers, but how many stay after the cheap deal is over.

Sky say the customers are going up.

That graph says their viewing figures are dropping like a stone.

Someone is lying unless there loads of people buying sky and simply not watching it.
FSFS viewers can't be counted as customers, because they're not paying anything.

How many customers stay after the cheap deal is over? The churn figure indicates at least 90% do.

Viewing figures aren't "dropping like a stone" and that doesn't mean that the number of customers isn't going up, either. That Wikipedia chart shows SHARE of viewing over FOURTEEN YEARS. Big shock - back then everything was analogue, there were hardly any channels, and most of them were run by Sky. In 2009, there are, what, six or seven hundred channels. Of course Sky will have a smaller share of viewing as time goes on - a smaller share of a bigger market.

Threads like these are amazing. Yeah, Sky must really be "feeling the heat", what with more customers and more profit than ever before. I bet they're scared witless!
bignoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 19:14
ProDave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,307
I might be in the minority, but I refuse to pay for a package but, I would probably pay £5-8 pcm for Bloomberg on its own.
Have you looked lately?

Bloomberg is free, and has been for at least a year now.
ProDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 19:15
bignoise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,151
Bloomberg has been free for years! And didn't it just join Freesat today, also?
bignoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 19:36
drumoyneguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 489
FSFS viewers can't be counted as customers, because they're not paying anything.

How many customers stay after the cheap deal is over? The churn figure indicates at least 90% do.

Viewing figures aren't "dropping like a stone" and that doesn't mean that the number of customers isn't going up, either. That Wikipedia chart shows SHARE of viewing. Big shock - fourteen years ago everything was analogue, there were hardly any channels, and most of them were run by Sky. In 2009, there are, what, six or seven hundred channels. Of course Sky will have a smaller share of viewing as time goes on - but it's a smaller share of a bigger market.

Threads like these are amazing. Yeah, Sky must really be "feeling the heat", what with more customers and more profit than ever before. I bet they're scared witless!
mate no offence but who are you kiddng, i have just got rid of my sky plus box the reason i am not anti sky but when they ask you to rent the box just to use the record option thats just not on i liked to take up the odd deal but the idea that when i could not i could not use the box to record the free channels really got me. so i have freesat and sky have lost someone who was a customer
drumoyneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2009, 23:32
KevinMillican
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60
no you do it, to get your units in to peoples houses, so it can be a sign that things are not well or that they fear things could go bad
You could be on to something there - my Mother-in-law has had three sets of callers in the past week trying to get them to join Sky
KevinMillican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2009, 02:16
Flyer 10
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,556
FSFS viewers can't be counted as customers, because they're not paying anything.
They pay for the card which has to be changed once in a while. They are sky customers. They can easily be fudged into the figures.
Flyer 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2009, 09:28
Akey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 49
I think Sky have got something up there sleeve.

Jobbing the SkyHD boxes out must mean theres another box around the corner.

How can they fight FreeSat? A new box maybe ?

So they moved into Broadband....

What does BTvision offer?
What does Virgin offer?

Video on Demand ? IPTV ?

Hmmmm... I wonder where sky are going? Who's gonna want a 'normal' HD box when they can get an IPTV enabled HD box ?

Just a thought
Akey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2009, 09:42
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Who's gonna want a 'normal' HD box when they can get an IPTV enabled HD box ?
Well, I am for one! The whole point of a PVR is that it means you don't need to rely on what the TV companies choose to make available for later downloading. You are self contained.

Of course if anyone did something really radical, such as allowing you to buy single programmes or series for a reasonable amount and deliver them over IP that might be useful. The only trouble for Sky with that scenario is that is is absolutely contrary to their entire marketing philosophy which is to force people to buy things they don't want in order to get what they do.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2009, 10:00
Caxton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 24,059
It may be remembered also there was a long wait of a few weeks to get HD boxes installed just before Christmas as posted here by quite a few at the time. Sky are doing well despite many here would would be over the moon to see them fail. There were many who forecasted their downfall when digital terrestrial started, it never happened

It amuses me to see people who post "I have dumped Sky", who cares, do they post to say they cancelled their gym membership?
Caxton is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:09.