Looks like the £10 HD Sub is here to stay

loz

Distinguished Member
Despite all the speculation and false rumour mongering, it turned out that the 'big announcement' yesterday was nothing more than the £49 HD box, which had already been revealed the week before.

"TV is changing" is nothing more than a reference to the shift to HD.

Looking at Sky's interim company report released yesterday it is evident that Sky have no plans to remove the £10 HD sub. They are highlighting to investors the increased revenue this is bringing (£80m this year), and clearly signalling that the reduced HD box price is only there to generate more HD subscriptions. Note that the subsidised box price is fully recovered in the first year of the HD sub contract.

At a headline box price of £49, we estimate an incremental cost of adding a Sky+HD customer (either new to Sky or existing customer upgrades) of £100. This cost is fully recovered within 12 months through the ongoing monthly revenue from the HD pack subscription.
As a result, we believe Sky+HD is an attractive opportunity for our business to invest at low risk to generate a significant and recurring revenue stream.

The only change to this is going to come when there is lower-cost competition.

The only thing that forced Sky to drop the £10 Sky+ fee was the widespread availability of low cost DTT recorders that incured no monthly costs, and made Sky+ look expensive in comparison.

Until there is a comprehensive free HD service, it looks like the £10 HD sub is here to stay
 
Last edited:

medl14971

Active Member
I still think they will keep to the old Sky + way and include the sub is you take movies and sports mixs

but dont have a clue when, lol
 

richard plumb

Distinguished Member
at those prices, it makes sense for them to phase out all sd boxes, and migrate to hd. Then they can reopen the queue for more sd channels which needs more space on the box for the epg, plus they get the ability to easily upsell hd over the phone. And only one epg to maintain
 

Tarbat

Well-known Member
JD has just stated at the Q&A session that the £9.75 charge for HD will definately stay. And has also stated that they have no intention of changing the HD subscription price.
 
Last edited:

Bachstrad

Well-known Member

potshot

Well-known Member
No doubt when freesat HD has a full set of channels in HD then sky will drop the £10 subscription. I know so many people who only have freeveiw because don't have to pay for extra channels and no doubt when freesat has the same amount of channels in HD as freeview loads will take that up instead of sky and a fair few with just a base pack will probably cancel sky and use freesat.
 

Bachstrad

Well-known Member
I don't think I've ever said you'd need to wipe egg off your face - what a very strange comment to make :confused:

It would be a strange comment to make if you didn't click on the link! :rotfl:

My post was in response to what you posted, which is why I quoted you. So I could argue that what you posted back in return was equally "strange"! :hiya:

ATB

Max
 

Bachstrad

Well-known Member
No doubt when freesat HD has a full set of channels in HD then sky will drop the £10 subscription. I know so many people who only have freeveiw because don't have to pay for extra channels and no doubt when freesat has the same amount of channels in HD as freeview loads will take that up instead of sky and a fair few with just a base pack will probably cancel sky and use freesat.

There will always be people who don't want to pay for a TV service. Freesat is a great way to receive an alternative digital satellite TV picture, particularly for those people who have poor Freeview reception.

However, anyone who thinks that Freesat, or Freeview will have an HD service to rival or even approach that of Sky HD is a liitle naieve and certainly very optimistic IMHO. I can't see that happening in the medium to long term, if ever!

ATB

Max
 

MWP1985

Well-known Member
Disappointing. I wouldn't hesitate to get a SkyHD box - even if it was £150 - if they dropped the subscription. At the very least, you'd think Sky would drop it if you subscribe to either the movies or sports (or both) packages as was the case with Sky+.
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
No doubt when freesat HD has a full set of channels in HD then sky will drop the £10 subscription. I know so many people who only have freeveiw because don't have to pay for extra channels and no doubt when freesat has the same amount of channels in HD as freeview loads will take that up instead of sky and a fair few with just a base pack will probably cancel sky and use freesat.

And your time frame for this fiction - 2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?
 

Broadz

Distinguished Member
At the very least, you'd think Sky would drop it if you subscribe to either the movies or sports (or both) packages as was the case with Sky+.

Why? Apart from the fact that both used to cost £10 when they first appeared, what on earth have Sky+ and Sky HD got to do with one another?

Sky+ lets you record channels that you subscribe to - and doesn't give you any extra channels.

Sky HD gives you up to 30 channels that you can't get from anywhere else - so, a bit like every other subscription package that Sky offer on a monthly basis. And, have Sky stopped charging for the Lifestyle Mix, the Music Mix, the News Mix, the Kid's Mix? Have Sky stopped charging for Sky Sports - which only gives you four extra channels? No. So why stop charging for the HD Pack, which gives you between 13 and 30 extra channels? Since when did Sky give television channels away for free that you can't get anywhere else?
 

Bachstrad

Well-known Member
Disappointing. I wouldn't hesitate to get a SkyHD box - even if it was £150 - if they dropped the subscription. At the very least, you'd think Sky would drop it if you subscribe to either the movies or sports (or both) packages as was the case with Sky+.

I can understand why you would want Sky to drop the HD charge, but whilst loads of people are buying into Sky HD, why would they?

If it were your business, how would you justify to your shareholders and bankers that you were going to wipe off £75 million pounds of income per month from your balance sheet? Particularly as there is no competition for an HD service. I await your answer with interest.

Just for clarity, I'd like Sky to drop the HD sub too, who wouldn't? However, I can also see that Sky are a business and not a charity.

ATB

Max
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
Disappointing. I wouldn't hesitate to get a SkyHD box - even if it was £150 - if they dropped the subscription. At the very least, you'd think Sky would drop it if you subscribe to either the movies or sports (or both) packages as was the case with Sky+.

From a commercial point of view - given that the numbers of HD subscribers are increasing, why would they drop it.

You also have to realise that HD has a real cost to sky - sure they make a profit on it - but they still have to spend the money on the transponders etc.
 

ceepan

Standard Member
I can understand why you would want Sky to drop the HD charge, but whilst loads of people are buying into Sky HD, why would they?

If it were your business, how would you justify to your shareholders and bankers that you were going to wipe off £75 million pounds of income per month from your balance sheet?

I think you mean £75 million pounds of income per year don't you?
 

jwball

Active Member
It's interesting that sky put the prices up every year yet still manage to make over £300 million profit from just over 9 million subscribers. Based on that they could afford to hold the prices and still make a healthy profit. But as they are motivated by shareholders want more EPS they won't. It's about time Sky were motivated by customers instead, whilst still making a reasonable profit.
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
It's interesting that sky put the prices up every year yet still manage to make over £300 million profit from just over 9 million subscribers. Based on that they could afford to hold the prices and still make a healthy profit. But as they are motivated by shareholders want more EPS they won't. It's about time Sky were motivated by customers instead, whilst still making a reasonable profit.

Their profit is less than 7% of turnover - hardly excessive.
 

Bachstrad

Well-known Member
I think you mean £75 million pounds of income per year don't you?

No I meant £7.5 million pounds a month, I missed out the "."! :oops:

That's actually £90 million pounds a year!

ATB

Max
 

eric pisch

Distinguished Member
i cant see them droping the charge for a long time for 2 reasons

1) there is a cost in providing HD Content, especially with so many channels (more bandwidth, extra programme cost etc)

2) they have no competition in reality for HD content, the cable companys have few HD channels and they have butchered quality to keep the bandwidth down.

New EPG hmm looks good but dont want it if it means wiping my stored + content
 

Scapegoat

Well-known Member
The HD sub will always be something that splits opinions. I am willing to pay it and love the range of HD channels I get (Sci-Fi this week being yet another addition) and don't feel 'cheated', but of course I'd prefer it to go.

Currently Sky are still investing to increase HD - new channels, new studios, new OB etc etc. Whilst there is a need to invest capital to build the service I don't mind the extra charge too much.

The trick will be getting rid of it. Once a company is used to that type of income, it will be loathed to get rid. Even when most channels/kit are HD enabled.

Competition (as with Sky+) has been mentioned as one way it will happen.

Other options? How about they consider reducing the HD sub by the amount that the main subscription package goes up every year - this would not result in a sudden drop in revenuie, but instead a slow of growth. e.g. Sky World = £47 + Sky HD = £10 -> Sky World = £49 + Sky HD = £8. This would enable the revenue to be managed easier on the P&L.

In terms of dropping the charge for certain packages e.g. its free for Sky World etc. The impact is unknown - would this get enough addtional people upping there package to a more expensive one to compensate for the loss in HD subs?

If you don't like it, don't pay it is the simple answer. But if want HD TV then the alternatives are pretty poor. Virgin is awaful in comparison.

As for FreeSat - I don't see this as a competitor for Sky. You either want pay TV or not.
 

spluff

Active Member
with sky hd do you need to get the related mix to get the hd channel of it?
 

newboy2008

Active Member
with sky hd do you need to get the related mix to get the hd channel of it?

Thats what Sky want you to think.Try ringing up and ordering just Kids mix and HD pack.Then ask them what channels you will get in HD for your tenner a month.:D
 

Jaycee Dove

Active Member
Why does nobody ask these people to justify charging the HD sub TWICE if you have multiroom?

They can justify the sub - once. No argument from me.

But as you pay for the HD sub once and pay the sub to get your other mixes and pay your sub to duplicate these on multiroom charging an extra sub to duplicate the HD channels on multiroom is self evidently sheer exploitation.

It is a shame that nobody at the press launch had the guts to ask Sky to their face to justify something that we all know they could not justify.

Other than that if people pay it then we will charge it.

Which is not a corporate message I bet they want the press to hear. :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

JVC adds Filmmaker Mode to latest D-ILA projector firmware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins launches Px8 headphone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky set to launch its plug-and-play Sky Stream solution
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AV Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom