Sky changes

 

 

I thought the sanzar dispute had been resolved and a new deal already signed

 

Pressuring government might be more effective than pleading the case directly to Sky.

 

BUT, it would only work if the government thought there were 'brownie' points (votes and kudos) to be earned from doing something.

 

Reminds me: whatever happened to Mark Burgess? Ex NZ football rep and all that. And a founder of Sky if I remember correctly. 

 

Wonder if he still has the ear of anyone making the big decisions in the Sky empire?

 

If he still loves the 'beautiful game', he might be prepared to lend his weight to the push for continued football coverage on TV in this country - assuming HN's 'sauce' is correct in saying it's under threat. 

 

They even gotten Wide screen TV's so that some of the YF leadership could fit on your screen!

Would be an utterly bollocks decision on Skys part if they cut A-League coverage. I understand through August, September when they move the games around and play a lot of it delayed because they often have NPC, NRL, All Blacks and the start of a cricket season but through Nov-Feb all they have really is Cricket so no reason why they shouldn't be showing games.

I also think that we don't understand the ratings for the non-Nix games, I can't imagine they are very good and when all is said and done Sky are a commerical operation who aren't likely to throw money away. Though in saying all of that again I thought I heard or read somewhere that Sky don't actually pay for the other games its part of the deal they have with Fox for Nix coverage. Someone would no more about this than me.

 

Its not helpful to jump on Sky when we dont actually know what is going on, News has his sources and I imagine they are pretty good but perhaps waiting until something is confirmed before we all jump up and down on Sky

 

 

 

When Sky first started their sales point was that you get to choose the channels you wanted. So I did, Docos, Sports, news and movies and told them to dump the rest. then they said i had to put up and pay for the rest and that my choices were movies and or sport plus all the crap channels.

 

So much for viewer choice. TBH I spend most of my time on the doco channel, rarely watch news, dont subscribe to the movie channel and only watch football on the sports. I've lost any desire to watch Rugby over the years. Is there a difference between Union and League with the current style of play?

 

And I am still stuck with the crap channels. Grrrrrr. 

 

Long gone are the days when TV stations were solely there for public service, they are now purely businesses in the enterainment industry... pay television in particular relies on this, with subscriptions in addition to "traditional" revenue streams like advertising/sponsorship...

 

Therefore, SKY needs to make any decision it feels necessary based on numbers.  It's key numbers are subsribers and audience - what makes people subscribe, what makes them watch?  They have highly advanced technology that lets them track exactly that - they know how many people watch/MySKY any show at any time... from that they can ascertain what is popular, what is watched, and what "sells".

 

Sport is a great example, and the fundamental basis of pay-TV worldwide.  In NZ, rugby has more people watching it than any other sport - FACT... the audience numbers stack up, people get subscriptions to watch it, sponsors come on board because the numbers demonstrate a big captive audience - text-book stuff really... therefore they spend big money on producing and braodcasting, because they get it back and more through revenue.

 

Football is a more complex case, due to the variety of product available.  English Premier League football brings in a significant number of subscriptions for SKY - hence why they pay top dollar for the broadcast rights year after year.  It was one of the first significant products the company had, before they had rights to rugby, league or cricket, and was also one of the first to be moved to the satellite network from the UHF option... and the subscribers have followed, paying their money and showing their value... and in return they get numerous live matches, highlights shows, previews etc.

 

The sad reality is that other football - namely A-League and local NZ stuff - simply doesn't have the numbers.  And more to the point, with perhaps a few hundred excpetions (if that) it doesn't bring in any extra subscribers (out of the current nationwide pool of 750,000)... if 10,000 new subscriptions were taken up purely for Phoenix/A-League games, and the audience numbers shot up similarly, then the powers that be would sit up, take notice and respond accordingly.  But so far they've had no reason to.

 

Some people claim there is a big silent audience that would watch domestic football, for example if it was on... and yet several years ago, when SKY broadcast an NZFC highlights show each week, the audience numbers were lucky to exceed four figures in many instances... granted, it wasn't helped by the talentless git doing the game highlight voiceovers, but the facts are that the "people" saying they needed/deserved/were entitled to such a show, didn't consume the product on offer and the numbers clearly illustrated that. The times when matches are shown, like an NZFC final or whatever, is usually because either NZF pays for the cost of the broadcast, or SKY simply decides to do them a favour (which they are under no obligation to do).

 

With the A-League, it is most likely a case of cost outweighing return... unlike the English stuff, which is purchased ready-made, the Phoenix coverage needs to be produced locally... for example, last season there would be four presentation/commentary "staff" per match, plus editors etc to make buildup highlights, match coverage director and producer - all flown down from Auckland for every home match... that adds up to a lot of money across a season, and despite any contribution from the club or FFA, it most likely wasn't recouped back, let alone exceeded, by revenue.  Perhaps a revamp this year, with one staffer instead of four, makes better financial sense... perhaps that one person makes his own way to Wellington, or accepts a lesser per match fee... and did the quality of product produced by four really justify the extra cost, if one is seen as doing an adequate job for the audience?  these are the things that I imagine would factor into SKY's thinking, rather than what to football audience is "entitled" to. 

 

When the Kingz were in existence, costs were less as the broadcast sites were in Auckland, and it wasn't until Season 2 that the audience numbers allowed the cost of televising to approach break-even point... and after that it steadily declined... Phoenix audience numbers may be up, but there are greater costs too... all comes back to numbers.

 

 Now I'm no SKY apologist, and I believe there are many things that could be done at no significant extra cost that could massively enhance their football coverage - but at the end of the day they are making business decisions.  And they will know that even if people angry with this decision do cancel their subscriptions, it will only number in the hundreds, maybe less ... and they will no doubt be recouped in other ways.

 

The best solution is to find a genuine audience of 20,000 people who watch what they say they will, act in concert, and wield some financial muscle through their subscriptions... but sadly that doesn't currently exist.  If SKY lost English Prem coverage, they would lose a big number of subscriptions - if they stop showing A-League, they'll lose hardly any.

 

And the cost of producing match day coverage will preclude any of the free-to-air networks from picking it up, unless they find a sponsor with big cash.

 

Hate to sound all gloomy and depressing, and am not suggesting people don't contact SKY to voice their thoughts - that's your right as a customer.  But just expect to hear numbers - more football hours broadcast than any other sport, a wide range of product, demand in other areas etc.

 

At the end of the day, if there is still coverage of Phoenix matches, that's great.  If there are issues regarding quality of that coverage, and you can suggest ways of fixing them that are cost-effective, I'm sure the powers-that-be at SKY would be happy to listen to you.  And if you want there to be more TV shows about football etc, then simply find a company willing to foot the bill as sponsor, and I have no doubt you'll find a capable candidate to produce that show.  After all, that formual works for "Gone Fishin"... 

 

 

 

Then of course there's the highlights channel where you can watch them all over again as well as the rugby channel, not just Sky Sports 1 or 2.

 

I havent even out forward the case of games from the NPC that were played out years ago that weren't relevent to anything other than acting as a time slot filler.