Why are so many people whinig about SKY?

[Cupart]

Reading through some of the post's in this forum (and other forums in general), I can help noticing how negative people are when it comes to SKY. I don't want to sound negative, and no, I don't work for SKY, but I just wanted my say in the ever lasting discussion regarding SKY's cost policy.

I can appreciate that we all want something for nothing, but have you thought of who's paying for these ideas of yours? If everyone is pulling the trick with using a new name every year to get a lower price the following will happen:

1. Prices will go up for the loyal customer who pays what it costs every month - year after year - to cover the gap that goes to the "new" joiner or the person who threatens to leave just to get a better cheaper deal (i.e. Sky+ at a heavily discount). What do you think a new digibox in reality cost (or the Sky+ box)? It's not free, and who pays for it? I do the loyal customer who doesn't pull these tricks...

2. Quality of channels (or getting new channels) won't improve because of this. The money is going to cover "losses" for new and better deals. Yes the advertising revenue will also cover some of this, but won't go far enough.

So what is all this whining about how much it costs and the poor quality of channels (have especially read about the whining of the movie channels). No one is to blame than you. Sad but true.

If you don't like it, don't get it.

And don't forget, that SKY is a business (not a charity) trying to make a profit just like any other business

[Horness]

Got no problem with Sky, except I wish that they would make the BBC channels an option.

In 5 years, I have not watched any BBC channels, I don't like the radio, I have no radio in my car, and I have no TV aerial fitted. Yet I have to pay my Sky subs, and this thing forced upon me which I never use called a TV Licence.

Every time I've called Sky they've been helpful. The engineer at the original install did a great job, and the engineer at the weekend who installed Sky+ with multiroom was also great (he even took his boots off every time he came into the house!).

No problem with Sky, but the BBC are the 21st century Dick Turpin's of this world. They're like McDonalds without the burgers - they sell sh*te and people love 'em!

I'm done. Honest. Soap box away.

[Cupart]

I totally agree with you, that there should be an option to certain channels. I'm blessed with the four national Irish channels through my SKY subscription and (MY GOD) is it more fun watching paint dry than spending quality time with these...

I still belive that I get a great value for my SKY subscription and would never be without it...

[jay61076]

Originally Posted by Horness

Got no problem with Sky, except I wish that they would make the BBC channels an option.

In 5 years, I have not watched any BBC channels, I don't like the radio, I have no radio in my car, and I have no TV aerial fitted. Yet I have to pay my Sky subs, and this thing forced upon me which I never use called a TV Licence.

Every time I've called Sky they've been helpful. The engineer at the original install did a great job, and the engineer at the weekend who installed Sky+ with multiroom was also great (he even took his boots off every time he came into the house!).

No problem with Sky, but the BBC are the 21st century Dick Turpin's of this world. They're like McDonalds without the burgers - they sell sh*te and people love 'em!

I'm done. Honest. Soap box away.

At least with sky we have a choice if we want to pay unlike the BBC where if you dont pay your nicked

All I can say is well said

[Horness]

All I can say is well said

I am unsure of the legalities of the TV licence.

1 - How can you be charged for something if you choose not to receive it? By the same legalities, does that mean homes can be charged for receiving Gas, even though they are on electric only? Just because someone has the "ability" to receive something, does not mean that they "are" receiving it.

2 - The TV licence covers you to receive BBC transmissions etc., however if you actually decide to watch the 265th repeat of Only Fools and Horses, haven't you actually already paid to see it? In which case the fee should be reduced by a percentage based on how much has already been transmitted that people have already paid for.

I would be happy for Sky to take off the BBC channels and radio and keep the fee the same, at least I could stop paying my TV licence then.

BBC=Thieves. Sh*t peddling Thieves at that.

[neilneil]

Originally Posted by Cupart

1. Prices will go up for the loyal customer who pays what it costs every month - year after year - to cover the gap that goes to the "new" joiner or the person who threatens to leave just to get a better cheaper deal (i.e. Sky+ at a heavily discount). What do you think a new digibox in reality cost (or the Sky+ box)? It's not free, and who pays for it? I do the loyal customer who doesn't pull these tricks...

But if Sky were to look after their existing customers better than to only give the good prices and deals to new customers then existing customers wouldn't feel so hard done by.

I have allways paid full subs for my channels and it annoys me when customer loyalty is not rewarded in any way and that we end up being taken advantage of subsidising the new customers.


-Neil

[Cupart]

Fair point Neil. Sky is no doing anything (or at least trying) to keep their customers happy by rewarding the long standing payers. I guess it would have been different if there was direct competition, but with the absolute absurd licenses set by Hollywood, we won't (as you're aware off) be - lawfully - able to receive packages from let say Canal plus or other mainland Europe suppliers of sat TV, but then again that's a different topic.

From a marketing point of view it costs (on average) 7 times more to gain a new customer than keeping one, but looking at the subscription figures of SKY, it seems like they're doing something right...

[Hodman]

I don't subscribe to SKY (I try not to watch too much tv).
However, their free to view news channel (sometimes available on ch5) is of a very high standard.

I see SKY are also pushing to be the first with HD in the UK.
This will be of benefit to the whole country if it pushes the BBC to follow suit.

[IanSimmons]

Hmm... A little too much enthusiasm for Mr. Murdoch in this thread. Luckily, I'm not a really big sports fan, so apart from Sky One (which is worth having, but not on its own), I never really saw the point of Sky. However even if I did, I REALLY object to handing money to any single player who monopolizes or dominates a media marketplace, so for that reason alone, I wouldn't get Sky if you paid me. (Ok - maybe if you gave me a nominal sum, say £100 pcm. BTW, I did have it for a month free of charge when the previous occupant of my house left the whole shebang behid for my benefit.)

I watch too much TV as it is, and with 5 analogue channels and Freeview there is no way I can get through all the stuff I want to watch and record.

On the BBC question, I can honestly understand why people object to paying for a service they don't use. However there will always be a place for a non-commercial station who aren't serving the marketplace, a media mogul or a government. It needs funding somehow (and the radio is brilliant). Given that the licence fee for the moment is inescapable, subscribing for a service with no competitors seems... well... crazy.

[Horness]

subscribing for a service with no competitors seems... well... crazy

Actually, I subscribe to Sky because I like the choice of channels available for the whole family (don't do the sports though).

Subscribing to a service without choice to opt out seems...crazy to me.

[gavan]

Originally Posted by Cupart

And don't forget, that SKY is a business (not a charity) trying to make a profit just like any other business

And don't forget that we're consumers.

Stupidly high prices, monopolistic practises that restrict viewer options (having to be on a sub to get stuff that's completely free on Freeview), charging for basic functionality of people's _own_ hardware (Sky+ box), dodgy firmware 'upgrades' and pathetic customer 'service' are not going to engender an overall positive attitude towards Sky.

If, for example, they charged 25 quid for a full-whack sub, didn't charge for Sky+ (or make you get an expensive bundle) and debugged their software before forcing it on us I for one would be pretty happy with them.


Gav

[gavan]

Originally Posted by Cupart

I totally agree with you, that there should be an option to certain channels. I'm blessed with the four national Irish channels through my SKY subscription and (MY GOD) is it more fun watching paint dry than spending quality time with these...

I still belive that I get a great value for my SKY subscription and would never be without it...

Wow - Sky 'bless' you by charging you a sub to get the channels that you are paying for with an Irish TV license anyway.

At least the BBC DSAT channels are FTA and not reliant on paying sky something like 15 quid a month just to receive.


Gav

[rasb0]

I'm happy with what I get for my money. It would be nice if it was cheaper but there you go. You have the choice not to subscribe. 12 months ago I changed back to Sky from Ntl for the very reason that Sky was cheaper and provided a wider choice.

I find Sky reasonable value for money.

The bone of contention is their CS Dept. which tends to be a little inconsistant with it's performance. Although on recent occasions it's been pretty good.

A loyalty bonus would be nice too (Having said that I've just had my free Sky+ 160 upgrade on the "Intro a Friend" promo, so I suppose that counts.)

Orange (telecoms) seem to have finally cottoned on to the fact that retaining customers is far more economical than losing custom (by offering better deals to newbies than existings), then trying to win it back. They now offer existing customers pretty much the same deals as new customers. There are one or two odd deals newbies can't get and vice-versa, but on the whole the idea is to retain custom. It's not rocket science.

[nickbrace]

Originally Posted by Horness

Got no problem with Sky, except I wish that they would make the BBC channels an option.

In 5 years, I have not watched any BBC channels, I don't like the radio, I have no radio in my car, and I have no TV aerial fitted. Yet I have to pay my Sky subs, and this thing forced upon me which I never use called a TV Licence.

Every time I've called Sky they've been helpful. The engineer at the original install did a great job, and the engineer at the weekend who installed Sky+ with multiroom was also great (he even took his boots off every time he came into the house!).

No problem with Sky, but the BBC are the 21st century Dick Turpin's of this world. They're like McDonalds without the burgers - they sell sh*te and people love 'em!

I'm done. Honest. Soap box away.

What a great post - I love it when people agree with me on the BBC issue - the tv licence is something from the 50's socialist world...........why on earth a government owns a tv channel is beyond me!!!

[Cupart]

While on the subject of the CS department: I have been working in a call centre (many years ago) and know what these poor soles go through. There is not one day where you don't get verbal abuse from customers who think they know what their rights are etc. Yes, you get some training on how to handle these cases, but when it comes down to reality it’s a different story. And yes, we (the customers) have the right to say what we feel about certain things but these agents answering calls don't have the power to make any decisions or have, let alone, set up the system in the first place.

TV license, I believe, is somewhat the right way to get Television without the input from the companies who advertise on this media. In all fairness, it’s the corporate world (i.e. the advertisers) who indirectly decides what we should watch of programs. Public TV should in theory give us a better and wider program choice for the masses. For example, look at the channels in the US. PBS offer a great choice of "intelligent" TV whereas the commercial channels are unwatchable (mainly because of the adverts every 5 min). This might sound a little opposite from my first post but I'm a little caught in the middle, as I don't want to pay a license for something I don't watch (i.e. the four Irish main channels). We don't pay road tax if we don't own a car, so what is the argument for paying TV license? Yes, I know that the license is actually a fee for owning a TV and not the output from the state broadcasters.

You have a very good point Gavan concerning the SKY+ feature that you have to pay extra for if you don't subscribe to (more or less) the full package. In a way, it’s like forcing customers to pay for something they have bought on before hand. I think SKY could charge this extra fee for the subsidised boxes but for the ones out of the 12 months contract, or if you have acquired one full price it should be free. I believe this would generate more business to SKY in general. You wouldn't be able to get the content out of the HDD without a subscription anyway, so what is the loss? It's in a way the same story as with the TV license.

To nickbrace, you're spot on :-)