Hard News: The future: be careful what you wish for
76 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
You’ll have to ask yourself whether you want to pay $150 per Premier League season in addition to your Sky subscription. There is a downside to the disaggregation of content monopolies, at least in the short term.
There’s the rub of direct-to-consumer IP television. As expensive as Sky is, it’s a lot cheaper than buying all that content directly (assuming you could). Networks like Sky (and in the IPTV space, Hulu and Netflix) offer an economy of scale.
While it may seem appealing to simply be able to purchase access to the content you’re interested in, whether on a per-channel or per-program basis, it quickly adds up.
It’s for this reason that I still don’t think that the TV network model we’re used to will die – it will simply diversify and the platform will change. Hopefully.
But it’s a bit of a chicken and egg game at the moment – without a large potential audience the cost of licensing and curating content is very high. And without a lot of content it’s difficult to capture an audience (how is Quickflix going?). It needs a player with deep pockets to break the market open and play the long game on getting kiwis into online content in a meaningful way.
-
Rob Coup, in reply to
A recent series of articles by Ben Thompson discuss ESPN & AMC as examples of affiliate/ad revenue. Basically:
The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone.
* Networks earn much more per viewer than would be sustainable under a la carte pricing
* Networks are incentivised to create (or in ESPN’s case, buy rights to) great programming; making your content “must-watch” lets you raise your affiliate fees
* Viewers get access to multiple channels that are hyper-focused on specific niches. Sure, folks complain about paying for those niches, but only because they don’t realize others are subsidizing their particular interests
* Cable companies know the cable TV business, and would prefer to put up with customer disgruntlement over rising prices than become dumb pipesCable TV is socialism that works; subscribers pay equally for everything, and watch only what they want, to the benefit of everyone. Any “grand vision” Apple, or any other tech company, has for television is likely to sustain the current model, not disrupt it directly.
-
As much as I'm taking this through with my football friends, I'm also thinking that the arguements many have been making on the propagation of broadband choked by SkyTV restricting access (Game of Thrones season anyone?) does mean this is a positive development. If the TV3 negotiations plan out as speculated this may turn out to have been a very good week for NZ TV media.
-
I must be a Luddite. In our household the question is framed:
Sky? Why?
-
There were worst decisions made by TVNZ, such as the selling-off of the Natural History Unit for diddly-squat. I can recall Michael Stedman telling me a couple of years back that NHNZ was making a bigger annual profit than TVNZ.
Hundreds of hours of soccer? Hundreds of hours of kicking a ball around for 90 minutes, to end up with a scoreless draw??? I would rather chew my fingers off.
-
Tim Michie, in reply to
I do agree, the origianl sky is much preferable although I do indulge in the occasional pathetic when overcast and ask someone to change the channel.
-
A friend of mine was saying buying rights for Serie A is being considered by the group. Other leagues might be available as a "standalone subscription or a cheap upgrade to the premier league pass" if enough people are interested. Dunno if Sky has that tied up or not, or how much the other league rights would cost.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
A friend of mine was saying buying rights for Serie A is being considered by the group. Other leagues might be available as a “standalone subscription or a cheap upgrade to the premier league pass” if enough people are interested.
That's a pretty good guess, I think. They'll test demand and then add the other leagues for free or cheap.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I would rather chew my fingers off
we should have a non-beautiful-game party some time
-
Sacha, in reply to
this may turn out to have been a very good week for NZ TV media
Yes
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
There were worst decisions made by TVNZ, such as the selling-off of the Natural History Unit for diddly-squat. I can recall Michael Stedman telling me a couple of years back that NHNZ was making a bigger annual profit than TVNZ.
I think losing that strategic shareholding in Sky was more critical. And as Michael has pointed out, NHNZ wouldn’t have done nearly as well under TVNZ management.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
A recent series of articles by Ben Thompson discuss ESPN & AMC as examples of affiliate/ad revenue. Basically:
One key issue is that both of those produce the content they sell. Coliseum is just distributing imported content -- it's more like Netflix than a cable channel. Sky produces the local sports coverage it sells us, through a subsidiary (another gig that TVNZ used to have). It's a big step to offering local sport for Coliseum if it means producing coverage.
-
Strikes me that soccer is something that a small number of people care a lot about and would be prepared to pay $150 a month to watch Chelsea or whoever at 5am in the morning. The rest of the population would, if they want to watch at all, be quite happy spending a couple of hours watching a free-to-air delayed game packed out with ads.
-
Sacha, in reply to
And as Michael has pointed out, NHNZ wouldn’t have done nearly as well under TVNZ management
Recall him saying similar, yes. Good man.
-
Sacha, in reply to
$150 a month
per year
-
Peter Darlington, in reply to
I must be a Luddite. In our household the question is framed:
Sky? Why?
While Sky is mainly the preserve of us sports tragics, if you want to watch decent TV programming nowadays you have to have it, or wait until Prime catches up, or mess about with proxy rearranging. Like their sports coverage, Sky was just easy if you were prepared to pay the price.
-
Peter Darlington, in reply to
One key issue is that both of those produce the content they sell. Coliseum is just distributing imported content -- it's more like Netflix than a cable channel.
Delivery will be interesting. If they can get an AppleTV app and prove to have reliable and timely HD delivery they may be on to something. I never went for the illegal streams though, they were too painful to be bothered. I just won't bother rather than subject myself to that.
-
No rugby = end of Sky, simple as that. Sky suck. They are a monopoly who know it and have always treated their customers like shit, playing incessant promos and advertisments (I’ve have PAID already, you douches) and continually putting up new paywalls to new and interesting stuff, using their stranglehold on sport to sneer at anyone who moans about their rack-renting.
But anyway, nowadays no one I know has Sky for anything other than sport. You can download whatever movies or shows or entire series you want from any number of sites for free, when you want. It is only by controlling the league, union and soccer that Sky have you by the balls and boy, does that squeezing hurt. So if they lose the rugby, they will lose two thirds of their audience in a week, and most of the rest the following week. And I say good riddance to bad rubbish if that comes to pass.
The future for premium content is probably going to be more audience atomisation via the internet, but that will IMHO paradoxically possibly be good for free to air TV – it will potentially once again become the one place we can all have a shared experience for live and local content like news and current affairs.
-
Sacha, in reply to
one place we can all have a shared experience
Never going to happen again, no matter what the technology or other drivers.
-
SKY TV has gotten fat and rested on its laurels. As far as I'm concerned, it's increasingly a relic of the pre-Internet age, and I'm not surprised that SKY was a strong supporter of the Skynet Act. All the more so when Louis CK can pocket USD$1m from a single live on-demand comedy gig.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That's a stupid price. They should have started with at least $100 a month to see who bites. Premier League season tickets (different thing, I know) cost about $5k, so there must a group of people soccer-mad enough to fork out silly dollars.
-
Via the Internet? I've just bought an Apple TV and downloaded a movie. It ate 5Gb of my monthly broadband allowance. I wonder how much broadband a Premier League football game will take? How big a plan will users have to have to watch their favourite team play all their games? I think these guys are dreaming..
-
John Holley, in reply to
If you want to do IPTV etc., a unlimited data plan is good. Orcon is $100/month and that includes phone and unlimited NZ phone calls.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
I think these guys are dreaming..
So that's what those Google balloons are really for!
Not just a Helium deathwish or for selling ads to high country farmers, then...
\;- / -
This move by Coliseum raises the whole question of the hopelessly outdated and out-manoeuvred Kiwi share. How much content (not to mention government services) need to go solely online before our major political parties wake up to the realisation that a broadband internet connection is now an essentially a human right in an advanced first world country? We wouldn't be couching this discussion in terms "be careful what you wish for" if we approached internet access from a first principle that in 2013 internet access is as basic a requirement to be a fully participating citizen as the universal franchise itself.
Personally, I'd abandon Kiwi share as a relic of the 1980s and instead do a deal with a telco to provide free of charge to all homes that want one a broadband router connected to a free government portal that allowed access to a restriction portfolio of sites - anything ending with .govt.nz, for example (and make radio NZ radionz.govt.nz while you were at it). The government could then negotiate with private providers as to who else might want in to access to the free state portal - for example, agree to do a deal with Microsoft to automatically give all New Zealanders a free outlook.com email address and a Skype account. And if such a portal existed, then it would be but a small matter for the government to do deals around free-to-portal sporting content via a state run online content provider.
This does create an ideological issue around net neutrality, but from the perspective of not being able to afford a phone line or an internet connection then high minded musing by typically well connected themselves internet commentators about net neutrality looks absurdly moot. And of course, a controlled portal means no politician could be attacked for providing free online porn to the nation.
Just for once, I would like to see a political party be bold on this sort of thing - although I am (perhaps foolishly) assuming that the SkyCity corporate box at Eden Park isn't a dual use one with Sky TV.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.