Sky retentions

What's happened to sky retentions lately? I phoned up to cancel sky tv and broadband (now fibre is up) hoping for them to at least match the talktalk deal which includes sky sports, basic tv and fibre broadband for about £50/month. Sky is wanting £75/month (ish) for that.

To be fair Talktalk doesn't have HD I don't think so I was willing to go to £60/month, which they agreed to. I said I would phone back. Phoned back and accepted it but it turns out the other women had totally miscalculated it and it was actually going to be £82/month or something crazy.

All I'm really wanting is for them to match the talktalk deal (+£10/month for HD if required). It seems crazy.

TalkTalk is basement price, Sky positions itself as slightly more premium I guess.

You do get the Sky WiFi Clound too.

Best guess they've been required to consider actually making money over retaining customers, hence are not offering such deep discounts.

Playing price match with TalkTalk is usually a bad idea unless a complete bargain basement deal with the same content limitations.

Similar for me, it was the quickest retention call I had to date, the retention person, "we can't compete with that". That was the most useful information in the call.

Kept TV package with SKY, but cheaper to split the package.

I would not say, Ive had a bad experience, I would recommend SKY, but then I would do the same for my previous communication providers.

It's just frustrating they're willing to discount normal broadband so much, they would've beat TalkTalk on that. However, as soon as you want to add fibre there just seems to be no discounts available. Looks like splitting the package is probably the way to go.

No offers available to us at all when we looked into it recently. The only "discount" was available if we upgraded our TV package to sports and movies. Big whoop!! Took the pplunge and am moving, no calls, texts, letters from Sky. Looks like they are glad we're leaving. Using Quidco I got the +Net package with £100 cashback. Would've stayed with them if we could have got our fibre at the same price.

To match BT sky offered me free broadband for the year. However as I watch BTsport, it still worked out more expensive to stay, so I didn't.

In reply to a post by mr_mojo:

What's happened to sky retentions lately? I phoned up to cancel sky tv and broadband (now fibre is up) hoping for them to at least match the talktalk deal which includes sky sports, basic tv and fibre broadband for about £50/month. Sky is wanting £75/month (ish) for that.

To be fair Talktalk doesn't have HD I don't think so I was willing to go to £60/month, which they agreed to. I said I would phone back. Phoned back and accepted it but it turns out the other women had totally miscalculated it and it was actually going to be £82/month or something crazy.

All I'm really wanting is for them to match the talktalk deal (+£10/month for HD if required). It seems crazy.

Sky are getting smarter on retentions deals because they have finally clicked that lots will keep their package without any deal being offered.

In the past Sky gave you a deal (if you were out of contract) as soon as you said you wanted to cancel the TV element at least. Now Sky will let you cancel, and undoubtedly quite a few people buckle at this and backtrack on their supposed desire to cancel and decide they didn't actually want to cancel after all.

However if you call Sky's bluff and actually cancel Sky TV at least, Sky are likely to ring you within a few days of you cancelling and offer a deal.

Edited by deleted (Mon 08-Dec-14 14:45:47)

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Kept TV package with SKY, but cheaper to split the package.

You should have cancelled your TV package, and (as in my previous post) Sky would have rung you within a few days of cancelling to offer you a deal on you re-ordering TV from them.

"However if you call Sky's bluff and actually cancel Sky TV at least, Sky are likely to ring you within a few days of you cancelling and offer a deal."

By which point you've had Virgin installed and no longer need any of Sky's services.

Sky tried calling me 4 times within the first 10 days after I called to cancel. Unfortunately, they kept calling during the day when I was at work and despite my wife telling them every time that they would have to call back in the evening (and the caller acknowledging that they would), they never did! They just called back in the day again. Way to lose customers Sky!

Whilst I agree that Sky have got wise(r) to this kind of practice, it's a risky game to play whichever side you are on. Brinksmanship at it's finest.

In reply to a post by Nighty1973:

By which point you've had Virgin installed and no longer need any of Sky's services.

Not if you can't get cable.

In reply to a post by Nighty1973:

Whilst I agree that Sky have got wise(r) to this kind of practice, it's a risky game to play whichever side you are on. Brinksmanship at it's finest.

No risk attached at all on the part of the customer. Even if you want to retain Sky TV, as a customer you can't lose by cancelling because you have the 30 day cancellation period to change your mind. The reality is that Sky will "blink" first and offer a deal for people to stay (I got an immediate £50 credit, and 35% off my TV package for 12 months, plus no tie in to a contract, so I can cancel any time even though I got a deal).

I was being slightly light-hearted in what I said, hence the smiley. I could just have easily have said Talk Talk or BT TV or whatever.

As for Sky blinking first, that's fine if they actually get hold of the account holder, as I highlighted above. They utterly failed to get hold of me (by virtue of being unable to do what they needed to, and said they would, do) and after a week of failing they just gave up, so I have no idea if what they were going to offer me would have been worthwhile staying for or not.

As a result, they now have one less customer.

Win win, for me as well, I'm £9.00 better off by moving from Sky and moving from ADSL to FFTC, April I'll tackle the TV package. Sounds like I'm getting wise to sky.

In reply to a post by Nighty1973:

I was being slightly light-hearted in what I said, hence the smiley. I could just have easily have said Talk Talk or BT TV or whatever.

I would be in trouble if I moved from Sky to any of those you mention. My wife can't get a few programmes she watches with anyone else except Sky for TV, because BT TV etc. don't have the channels those programmes broadcast on.

In reply to a post by Nighty1973:

As for Sky blinking first, that's fine if they actually get hold of the account holder, as I highlighted above.

Very true. I have heard though that Sky are even emailing people who cancel with a deal, or putting the deal on their "My Sky" account on the net. Did you not get any email(s) from Sky, or an offer through your My Sky account online?

I think these deals Sky offer to retain customers, after they have cancelled, aren't even being handled by their usual retentions department, but a separate section.

In reply to a post by Nighty1973:

IThey utterly failed to get hold of me (by virtue of being unable to do what they needed to, and said they would, do) and after a week of failing they just gave up, so I have no idea if what they were going to offer me would have been worthwhile staying for or not.

Probably a similar deal to what I took that worked out for us (including the immediate £50 credit to my account) on the Entertainment package as an average of £14.03 a month, instead of £28.00 a month.

I may consider moving my fibre connection and 'phone to someone else other than Sky though, as the deal I got on those from Sky has run out (defo not Talk Talk though, even if they paid me).

Just had a very pleasant chat with Sky retentions and after a bit of negotiation we agreed that the cost would be £16.40 a month for BB and line rental (1 year contract), which is a satisfactory deal I reckon.Not quite as good as the £12.50 a month I got as a transferee from O2 ( this included anytime calls, the new tariff doesn't..it's an extra £5 a month) but hey, the Sky service is solid enough and we don't have to go through all the hassle of changing to a new provider who may be rubbish.

Fireants, I got the same offer from Lisa, and yes she was really (surprisingly) very pleasant, possibly the same lady as yours? I wanted to check one more company though.

I phone back later and Lindsey was the new agent. She said that Lisa had misread it, and that the offer is not available due to Lisa mis-reading the pricing and the real lowest price is actually £23.99

Also she told me in no uncertain terms that there was no need to contact them to move, and I should just contact my new supplier.

Hopefully you new deal has gone trough.

Sorry to hear that Crispy.
The deal was done on the spot...I said i'd call the operator back after I'd thought about it, but he said that it was a one time offer-take it or leave. Good sales tactic, but on the other hand not a bad deal either.Obviously you've got to do some research before you call Sky! It seemed to be significant that I am an ex-O2 customer.

just got a excellent deal of sky The Complete Bundle £33 a month for 12 months sky 50% off

Edited by deleted (Sat 13-Dec-14 23:17:41)

My Sky subscription ended yesterday and when I logged in to My Sky today to check all was cleared, it's offering me the same deal (any bundle half price for 12 months) or a free Samsung 7" Tab 4 tablet.

nice one did you accept the offer

Undecided. Given that I now have Virgin TV XL, there isn't really any need for it.

However, getting the Family Bundle for half price would give me Sky Atlantic back and Sky Go (which, scarily enough, is vastly superior to VM's TV Anywhere) and still be paying less overall than I used to.

Thinking cap is on.....

In reply to a post by JonDav:

I may consider moving my fibre connection and 'phone to someone else other than Sky though, as the deal I got on those from Sky has run out (defo not Talk Talk though, even if they paid me).

Sorted the fibre connection and 'phone element of my package today.

I rang Sky and simply asked if I was out of contract on net connection and 'phone. The person at Sky immediately asked me if I was thinking of moving and I obviously said "Yes - to PlusNet".

Ended up with a deal of line rental for £9.99 a month for 10 months, plus fibre connection half price for 6 months. That is on a 12 month contract, whereas the TV deal I got isn't on a contract at all (I got an immediate £50 credit, and 35% off my TV package for 12 month, as mentioned in an earlier post)

Yup, Sky retentions seem to be getting their act together quite well..bit sick I missed the £50 M&S voucher mentioned by Andrew in addition to the year's free BB though. I suppose I could call and cancel and reorder but hey....life's too short as they say!

A lot of the comments posted talk about 'bundles'.

I was wondering if any broadband-only customers have contacted Sky and had been offered any broadband-only retention deal after their 'welcome to sky' discounts had come to an end recently ?

Yup, that'll be me. £16.50 line rental and free unlimited broadband for a year.Weekend calls free, weekday calls chargeable. Broadband and phone only, no "bundles"

Sorry. When I quoted 'no bundles'. I meant to say broadband-only without line rental.

Edited by bill888 (Wed 24-Dec-14 15:21:10)

Maybe Santa will be kind and you'll get free BB too!

In reply to a post by JonDav:

In reply to a post by mr_mojo:

What's happened to sky retentions lately? I phoned up to cancel sky tv and broadband (now fibre is up) hoping for them to at least match the talktalk deal which includes sky sports, basic tv and fibre broadband for about £50/month. Sky is wanting £75/month (ish) for that.

To be fair Talktalk doesn't have HD I don't think so I was willing to go to £60/month, which they agreed to. I said I would phone back. Phoned back and accepted it but it turns out the other women had totally miscalculated it and it was actually going to be £82/month or something crazy.

All I'm really wanting is for them to match the talktalk deal (+£10/month for HD if required). It seems crazy.

Sky are getting smarter on retentions deals because they have finally clicked that lots will keep their package without any deal being offered.

In the past Sky gave you a deal (if you were out of contract) as soon as you said you wanted to cancel the TV element at least. Now Sky will let you cancel, and undoubtedly quite a few people buckle at this and backtrack on their supposed desire to cancel and decide they didn't actually want to cancel after all.

However if you call Sky's bluff and actually cancel Sky TV at least, Sky are likely to ring you within a few days of you cancelling and offer a deal.

I keep hearing this rumour yet sky have yet to ring me once since I cancelled my sky tv package years ago.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by JonDav:

In reply to a post by mr_mojo:

What's happened to sky retentions lately? I phoned up to cancel sky tv and broadband (now fibre is up) hoping for them to at least match the talktalk deal which includes sky sports, basic tv and fibre broadband for about £50/month. Sky is wanting £75/month (ish) for that.

To be fair Talktalk doesn't have HD I don't think so I was willing to go to £60/month, which they agreed to. I said I would phone back. Phoned back and accepted it but it turns out the other women had totally miscalculated it and it was actually going to be £82/month or something crazy.

All I'm really wanting is for them to match the talktalk deal (+£10/month for HD if required). It seems crazy.

Sky are getting smarter on retentions deals because they have finally clicked that lots will keep their package without any deal being offered.

In the past Sky gave you a deal (if you were out of contract) as soon as you said you wanted to cancel the TV element at least. Now Sky will let you cancel, and undoubtedly quite a few people buckle at this and backtrack on their supposed desire to cancel and decide they didn't actually want to cancel after all.

However if you call Sky's bluff and actually cancel Sky TV at least, Sky are likely to ring you within a few days of you cancelling and offer a deal.

I keep hearing this rumour yet sky have yet to ring me once since I cancelled my sky tv package years ago.

I was referring to the present day, not years ago.

Personally, I believe "retention deals" should be made illegal. A Service is a Service and the cheapskates/misers should not be subsidised by the unknowing/unwilling to haggle, honest citizens who would pay a fair price for the Service they require. So called "retention deals" just put up the price for the non-hagglers. With no "retention deals" we would see honest price competition across the board, and fair to all.

Just my personal opinion.

In reply to a post by JonDav:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by JonDav:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Sky are getting smarter on retentions deals because they have finally clicked that lots will keep their package without any deal being offered.

In the past Sky gave you a deal (if you were out of contract) as soon as you said you wanted to cancel the TV element at least. Now Sky will let you cancel, and undoubtedly quite a few people buckle at this and backtrack on their supposed desire to cancel and decide they didn't actually want to cancel after all.

However if you call Sky's bluff and actually cancel Sky TV at least, Sky are likely to ring you within a few days of you cancelling and offer a deal.

I keep hearing this rumour yet sky have yet to ring me once since I cancelled my sky tv package years ago.

I was referring to the present day, not years ago.

the same rumour existed years ago.

I see nothing wrong in a company rewarding loyalty. Far better in my opinion than introductory deals aimed at poaching customers, whereby loyal customers are paying more than the advertised prices.
Retention deals are offered by the company not asked for by the customer so where does the "cheapskates/misers" quote come from?
If you were offered a cheaper deal would you refuse it?
If there were no hagglers prices would not fall but in all likelihood go up together with the profits of the ISP's.

In reply to a post by Sceptic:

I see nothing wrong in a company rewarding loyalty.

Typically they only reward loyalty for people who moan, though.

In reply to a post by Sceptic:

Retention deals are offered by the company not asked for by the customer

On the contrary. The vast majority, if not all, of retention deals have to be asked (or moaned) for.

So in reality, they are not rewarding loyalty, rather appeasing people who moan every year about prices.

I can't understand the fuss about this. It's simple. I called them up to discuss the price . It seemed too high so I told them I was leaving. They matched the price of the other mob so I accepted the offer. Isn't this known colloquially these days as "price matching"?

We were just discussing the principle of retention deals in general, rather than your case specifically. I'm pretty sure that the companies cannot afford these generous retention deals for all customers, so it works off the principle of milking loyal "non haggling" customers to subsidise those customers that do haggle.

Out of interest, what was the other company offering £16.50 line rental and free unlimited broadband for a year you price matched with?

Edit: I'm guessing TalkTalk, although their line rental is £16.70. I only got 6 months half price BB from them when I signed up recently, so their introductory deals have got a bit better.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sat 27-Dec-14 23:41:20)

n get that with E/W calls for £15 till the end of the year. Cheaper than line rental with many others. Though only the big boys mentioned here, so must be like the comparison sites that just push suppliers that pay a referral fee.
http://www.fuelbroadband.co.uk/unlimited-broadband?s...

In reply to a post by professor973:

Though only the big boys mentioned here, so must be like the comparison sites that just push suppliers that pay a referral fee.
http://www.fuelbroadband.co.uk/unlimited-broadband?s...

Given that your link has affiliate code in it, maybe you are looking for referral fees too?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Though only the big boys mentioned here, so must be like the comparison sites that just push suppliers that pay a referral fee.
http://www.fuelbroadband.co.uk/unlimited-broadband?s...

Given that your link has affiliate code in it, maybe you are looking for referral fees too?

Well I haven't seen a link, though that is just the sort of snotty drivel I would expect for a reply here. The link is direct to their site, with NO referral links that I can see.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 28-Dec-14 02:00:50)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Out of interest, what was the other company offering £16.50 line rental and free unlimited broadband for a year you price matched with?

There isn't one as far as I know (and presumably they knew ) but it gave then an excuse to offer me this price......and who cares about non haggling customers? Do you always accept the first price you see for everything you buy or like most people look at the market? Presumably for Sky any customer is better than no customer.

I've two accounts with phone and adsl only - no tv. Both lines were transferred but no phone retention deal, just letters saying 'sorry to see you go'

Think there is not that much money in phone and adsl, just the TV market. At the time Sky were 4th cheapest out of 6 companies I looked at. Fuel was the cheapest (without cashback), but they did not answer my questions on their own bb forum which to me implies lots of bad stuff.

In reply to a post by fireants:

and who cares about non haggling customers?

Well, you should since they subsidise your broadband. If everyone haggled for yearly retention deals, the deals would very likely become a lot less generous.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

.. If everyone haggled for yearly retention deals, the deals would very likely become a lot less generous.

Exactly! Make retention deals illegal and offer "one price, per service, for all". Far more transparency in pricing and a fairer deal for all.

Awww, the poor ISPs handing out loss making deals, too the point where they are subsidised by non haggling (and trapped) customers. Bless one and all!

Think it is more why buy a cow, if you get you milk for free scenario though. Nice to extract that extra money even if it cost a bit more and is less profitable than feeding existing heard.

In reply to a post by fireants:

.....and who cares about non haggling customers?

The non-haggling customers are most likely the elderly, (brought up when manners counted), and the most vulnerable.

You feel OK with them subsidising your wants?

I googled Fuel. Its ads looked promising. Reasonable price for someone whom does not use the phone. It could have been the company I was after. Possibly another Freedom2surf in its heyday? Even would stay long term for a few quid extra a month, if the service was any good.

However after a good poke around I heard bad comments, very bad comments, and nothing positive. Told to google 'Primus'. I even put a few questions on its public forum but no answers. Even the very few, and simple questions that others asked that were answered took many days to get a response, if they ever got one.

Even with my unanswered post I thought they will kill since it is a few weeks old, but it is left to display their indifference.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Well I haven't seen a link, though that is just the sort of snotty drivel I would expect for a reply here. The link is direct to their site, with NO referral links that I can see.

Strange you haven't seen a link, since you're the one that posted it. So not really "snotty drivel", but you're welcome to your uninformed opinion of course.

Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see "?source=aw&awc=3552_1417035487_742da982eeb210fa31405718103eddf4" - which is a variable embedded within the link to make sure affiliate commission goes to the right affiliate.

If you haven't actually seen it before, you can see how it works here: https://darwin.affiliatewindow.com/merchant-profile/...

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 28-Dec-14 16:12:22)

I can't speak for fireants, but we, the end user have little control how Sky run its business. Perhaps it is a question you should ask Sky, and why they operate such business practices?

I have done my bit and am moving away soon, thought afterwards fear the pensioners will still be paying the same and will also not have moved.

My next goal is in February is to get a colleague who earns part time approx £6200 per year (her only job), and tempted by a sky person, foolishly paid about £86 a month for fibre and films, but does not watch them, to go to normal adsl

LOL Neil....You are talking to a pensioner (me) and actually being rather impolite by suggesting that because I'm old I don't have the ability to look after myself. Get real...there's a Tory government in Westminster and the world is run by financiers (and isn't Sky owned by Mr Murdoch?) Why not take a swipe at them rather than poor old vulnerable people like me who just want cheap broadband to keep in touch with our loved ones from our sheltered housing unit

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by JonDav:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

I keep hearing this rumour yet sky have yet to ring me once since I cancelled my sky tv package years ago.

I was referring to the present day, not years ago.

the same rumour existed years ago.

In my case it is fact, not a rumour.

Sky did ring me and give me a deal.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

Personally, I believe "retention deals" should be made illegal. A Service is a Service and the cheapskates/misers should not be subsidised by the unknowing/unwilling to haggle, honest citizens who would pay a fair price for the Service they require. So called "retention deals" just put up the price for the non-hagglers. With no "retention deals" we would see honest price competition across the board, and fair to all.

What would be next on your list to stop "deals" on?

Maybe stop shops from offering lower prices than their competitors to attract customers?

Perhaps ban Amazon for undercutting others?

Stop those petrol stations that offer lower fuel prices from doing that?

Do you avail yourself to any "deals" on shopping or petrol? If you do, then you are "guilty" of being a cheapskate/miser by your own definition.

In reply to a post by JonDav:

What would be next on your list to stop "deals" on?

Maybe stop shops from offering lower prices than their competitors to attract customers?

Perhaps ban Amazon for undercutting others?

Stop those petrol stations that offer lower fuel prices from doing that?

Do you avail yourself to any "deals" on shopping or petrol? If you do, then you are "guilty" of being a cheapskate/miser by your own definition.

Needless to say, you missed the whole point.

"Retention deals" rely on some customers subsidising those on retention deals.
All the examples you quote are for everyone, and the vendor prices according to his volume and profit margin.
Their pricing is transparent - everyone pays the same for the same product/service.

Edited by deleted (Mon 29-Dec-14 14:08:19)

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

"Retention deals" rely on some customers subsidising those on retention deals.

Do you have any evidence for this?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Do you have any evidence for this?

Take Sky TV. It costs Sky just the same to transmit their channels to one customer as it does to transmit to 10M+ customers. In a fair, transparent, world Sky's costs would be equally shared across it's customer base., We all know it isn't.

I thought not. You appear to be suggesting that retention deals are only done if they are self-financing which doesn't make sense.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by fireants:

and who cares about non haggling customers?

Well, you should since they subsidise your broadband. If everyone haggled for yearly retention deals, the deals would very likely become a lot less generous.

Sky wouldn't offer retention deals if it wasn't more profitable overall than not offering them.

So far from non-haggling customers subsidising haggling ones, the deals make Sky more money and either keep things cheaper for everyone and/or make more profit for Sky.

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

Sky wouldn't offer retention deals if it wasn't more profitable overall than not offering them.

Right a small, amount of profit (retention deal), is better than no profit (customer moves elsewhere). But the ISPs aren't willing to do something fair like automatically offer everyone the retention deal price, as it wouldn't make them enough profit, so they rely on some customers paying more than others for the same product at the same ISP.

Correct, but it still makes them more profit overall and so it isn't putting prices up for non-retention customers.

I've never understood why people don't haggle. Why would you pay more than you have to?

Do you think Sky themselves don't haggle/threaten to go elsewhere to get a good deal from their suppliers? Given that, are Sky (and every other company in the world) also in the wrong?

I haggle as much as possible. If it's possible to live a lifestyle that's over and above your income level by haggling then why wouldn't you?

Edited by _Resonance_ (Wed 31-Dec-14 15:52:32)

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

I haggle as much as possible. If it's possible to live a lifestyle that's over and above your income level by haggling then why wouldn't you?

Because it's simply not in a lot of peoples' nature to haggle. Call them stupid if you like. Personally I would prefer everyone was charged the same fair price for any given product at any given ISP, but I know we don't live in that world.

I wouldn't call them stupid, lacking on confidence maybe?

Haggling has happened from the birth of civilisation. It's still common in a lot of areas, hardly anybody pays full price for a car, or a house for example.

Get haggling, get the best price and don't worry about a company with £billions of income would be my advice, because they certainly don't worry about any other company when they're doing exactly the same thing, or their staff when they're haggling with a union over pay rises.

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

Correct, but it still makes them more profit overall and so it isn't putting prices up for non-retention customers.

Exactly.

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

I've never understood why people don't haggle. Why would you pay more than you have to?

The way I look at it is that it is my business to look after my money and get the most I can from it for my family and myself. If others want to dig deeper into their pockets than I have to for the same things, then that is their business.

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

I haggle as much as possible.

Same here. It is of no concern to me what profit X or Y is making if I haggle for a lower price than others might get by not haggling. I leave the decision to those I haggle with to decide if they want to take a lower price than they might charge other people.

Thanks Jondav and Resonance for putting the argument so eloquently..this whole discussion is a big waste of time and I'm sorry to have opened it up.
Sky have fixed costs and every subscriber is an extra amount of income so they go as low as they want to hook people.
If some people want to pay over the odds for the same service then that's up to them, and I'm very grateful to Neil for paying over the odds because of his principles, thus allowing me to get cheapish internet....Thanks on behalf of Rupert too...

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Do you have any evidence for this?

Take Sky TV. It costs Sky just the same to transmit their channels to one customer as it does to transmit to 10M+ customers. In a fair, transparent, world Sky's costs would be equally shared across it's customer base., We all know it isn't.

Sky have such a huge margin on their costs do you really think they make a loss on these retention deals. Of course they don't. I recently had a year of Sky TV for half price - all that means is they made less profit from me for a year than they made from a full paying customer. The point is though - they would still have made some profit from me.

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

I recently had a year of Sky TV for half price - all that means is they made less profit from me for a year than they made from a full paying customer.

I would say that the "full paying customer" is subsidising Sky's profit margin, (generally fixed and subject to scrutiny), favouring the hagglers.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

I recently had a year of Sky TV for half price - all that means is they made less profit from me for a year than they made from a full paying customer.

I would say that the "full paying customer" is subsidising Sky's profit margin, (generally fixed and subject to scrutiny), favouring the hagglers.

Nobody is subsidising anybody else. That simply isn't the way the business model of Sky works on the TV side of things.

Sky's costs are virtually "fixed" in terms of providing their TV services. Once Sky hit a break even figure, most after that figure is profit. If Sky don't hit their break even figure on TV supply costs, they would lose money. So assuming Sky hit the break even figure, any customer paying less than another customer is simply contributing less to Sky's bottom line than the customer paying more.

You could even argue that "hagglers" are protecting full paying customers from having to pay more, with a very simplistic illustration of how that could be:-

Sky fixed costs = £1.00
Sky full paying customer charge = £0.75
Therefore Sky loses £0.25 and has to increase charge by £0.25 so the full paying customer has to pay more.

Alternative
Sky fixed costs = £1.00
Sky full paying customer charge = £0.75
Sky customer that haggled charge = £0.50
Therefore Sky then makes a profit, and the full paying customer doesn't get a price increase.

So it could be argued that "hagglers" are actually subsidising "full paying customers" by protecting them from having to pay even more.

Full paying customers should thank those that haggle IMO, as us hagglers are keeping their prices down.

They dont haggle enough plenty of room for more haggle, as SKYPLC reported in September, operating profit of £316m, an 11% jump on the same period last year and 6% rise in revenue to £1.9bn in the three months to 30 September 2014.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SKY:LN/chart

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

They dont haggle enough plenty of room for more haggle, as SKYPLC reported in September, operating profit of £316m, an 11% jump on the same period last year and 6% rise in revenue to £1.9bn in the three months to 30 September 2014.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SKY:LN/chart

Sky over the last few years have actually seen their profits mainly decrease. In fact Sky made less profit Y/E June 2014 than they did Y/E June 2010. Only 1 year in the last 5 have Sky made less profit (2011) than they did in Y/E June 2014.

Also the Operating Margin of Sky has decreased considerably over the last few years. Their OM was the lowest for years in Y/E June 2014 @ 15.21% (e.g. the OM in Y/E June 2010 was 19.50%).

So the conclusion "plenty of room for more haggle" seems inaccurate because that would lead to even further decreases in OM and OP for Sky, which is probably one reason why Sky are now playing hard ball on retentions, to try and reverse the trend of decreasing margins and profits.

Edited by deleted (Sat 03-Jan-15 23:27:54)

That runs on the assumption that everyone who grabs a deal would've gone elsewhere or elected not to take any Sky channels via any operator otherwise, and Sky would receive zero revenue from them if they had gone elsewhere.

It also assumes that Sky's cost base is entirely fixed, which it is not. Variable costs include CPE and Openreach rental charges, along with costs to Sky of some third party channels sold to them on a per-viewer basis.

When deals are low enough Sky would actually receive more profit from customers leaving them and taking Sky channels from another operator, however churn is a very big metric for Sky and, hence, they take a loss of profitability or outright loss to keep this down.

EDIT: As it is it looks as though at least part of the motivation most recently has been to make the company more attractive to a potential suitor...

Edited by deleted (Sat 03-Jan-15 17:15:37)

Share price is a steady healthy increase, a few peaks and troughs normally around football rights time, over 5yrs, up and up and now currently seen as "fully valued".

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

That runs on the assumption that everyone who grabs a deal would've gone elsewhere or elected not to take any Sky channels via any operator otherwise, and Sky would receive zero revenue from them if they had gone elsewhere.

No "assumptions" at all, just merely facts on the business model that the TV side of Sky operates on. Once "break even" is met, from then on revenues are mainly profits. So no subsidising by anyone of anyone else, just merely some contribute less to Sky's bottom line than others once the "break even" figure is breached.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

It also assumes that Sky's cost base is entirely fixed, which it is not. Variable costs include CPE and Openreach rental charges, along with costs to Sky of some third party channels sold to them on a per-viewer basis.

Seeing as I wasn't referring to anything else but the TV side of Sky (as you can see by the reproduction of a key phrase in a previous post, put below), that point is completely irrelevant in the context of what I put.

In reply to a post by JonDav:

That simply isn't the way the business model of how Sky works on the TV side of things.

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Share price is a steady healthy increase, a few peaks and troughs normally around football rights time, over 5yrs, up and up and now currently seen as "fully valued".

Share price gains or losses are meaningless to a degree, unless you compare the performance with an index over the same time frame (so the FTSE 100 Index in the example of Sky). Also with Share Price movements time frame can give a very selective and sometimes false picture.

So for example with Sky compared to the FTSE 100 index over 3 months shows it has just about under performed the FTSE 100 index approx. 50% of the time, and over the entire 3 month period Sky has just about matched the FTSE 100 index. You can select other time periods and run a similar comparison. So, for example, the Sky SP is less now than it was 6 months ago (but in context, so is the FTSE 100 index overall).

Share prices very often reflect macro factors (hence the falls lately just based on the oil price), than the real "worth" of any particular company. Personally I think a lot of macro worries that depress a lot of shares are irrelevant to a lot of companies, but those companies may get marked down anyway based on herd mentality.

Seems I have opened a hornet's nest here!!

All I meant to say was that people should pay the same price for exactly the same service/product.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

Seems I have opened a hornet's nest here!!

All I meant to say was that people should pay the same price for exactly the same service/product.

On everything?

Why?

I should have added all those with the same supplier should pay the same.............

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

I should have added all those with the same supplier should pay the same.............

Ahh - bit of goal post moving now.

Same question though:- On everything?

So, for example, if I buy Dettol (manafactured and supplied by Reckitt Benckiser), it should be the same price wherever I buy it from because it is supplied by the same company?

In reply to a post by JonDav:

That runs on the assumption that everyone who grabs a deal would've gone elsewhere or elected not to take any Sky channels via any operator otherwise, and Sky would receive zero revenue from them if they had gone elsewhere.

No "assumptions" at all, just merely facts on the business model that the TV side of Sky operates on. Once "break even" is met, from then on revenues are mainly profits. So no subsidising by anyone of anyone else, just merely some contribute less to Sky's bottom line than others once the "break even" figure is breached.

You assume that Sky are fine with 'break even'. They aren't; they have a target profit margin and their charges reflect this, hence some customers will subsidise others to reach this depending on individual profitability per customer.

No idea what you are talking about as far as revenues being profit once break even point is met. That's kinda what 'break even' is, the point after which revenues are profit.

Fluff it all you want. People paying less for the same services are being subsidised by those paying more, same as in every other enterprise. Whether this subsidy is towards a company being profitable or the level of that profitability is irrelevant.

Sky don't operate on the premise of breaking even, but making a certain level of earnings per share, and adjust their pricing and costs accordingly to ensure they reach the level of profitability their shareholders expect.

You actually pointed this out with:

just merely some contribute less to Sky's bottom line than others

Some contribute less to something than others, hence are subsidised by them.

It's not a big deal - some customers will naturally subsidise others due to the different levels of profitability on the different products and bundles that Sky supply, but to suggest that retention discounts aren't being cross-subsidised is absurd. Sky's ongoing charges across the customer base have to reflect some retention spend alongside every other variation in profitability else they undershoot the guidance they supply their investors.

Edited by deleted (Sat 03-Jan-15 19:19:32)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

You assume that Sky are fine with 'break even'.

You seem to reading things in my posts which aren't there.

I just stated how the Sky TV business model works. No where have I even remotely suggested Sky (or any other company) would be "fine" with just breaking even.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

No idea what you are talking about as far as revenues being profit once break even point is met. That's kinda what 'break even' is, the point after which revenues are profit.

Yet again you are failing to grasp what I actually put, rather you have addressed what you seem to think I put.

So, for example, with Sky on supplying TV to homes there are a fixed costs which are relatively static (not completely static though). Once that fixed cost base has been exceeded in revenues, then profits multiply at a high rate, whereas have revenues below those fixed costs Sky are then in trouble. A different business model is where product costs are per unit effectively, so the more units you sell doesn't multiply percentage profits anywhere near as much. Magazines, newspapers, etc. operate on a similar business model to Sky TV.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Fluff it all you want. People paying less for the same services are being subsidised by those paying more, same as in every other enterprise. Whether this subsidy is towards a company being profitable or the level of that profitability is irrelevant.

"Dodgy" logic, plus a failure to understand how the business model of Sky TV actually works, doesn't make your assertions correct. Fact is that nobody is subsidising anybody else, and whatever prices people pay to Sky for TV just go towards their bottom line, once any break even cost base is breached. There are no robbing "Peters" to pay "Pauls".

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

making a certain level of earnings per share, and adjust their pricing and costs accordingly to ensure they reach the level of profitability their shareholders expect.

You seem to have totally ignored that most/all companies have to contend with competition, so prices for products/services have to be acceptable to customers, or no matter what fanciful prices any company would like to set based on shareholders expectations are pie in the sky (excuse the pun). Obviously in the "real world" usually a compromise on shareholders expectations and actual reality comes into play.

Anyway different types of shareholders expect various and different things from their investments, ranging from just high capital growth, through to growth plus income, or to just a highish income with little concern to capital growth.

As I'm clearly dealing with an investment analyst whose specialism is pay TV, alongside a specialism in ignoring the blatantly obvious with some dabbling in ignoring the meaning of words in the English language I'll leave you to it, Jon.

While I could deal with your points in turn there appears to be no point as your basic premise for your comments is incorrect, and your defensiveness is bizarre.

Edited by deleted (Sat 03-Jan-15 22:13:48)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As I'm clearly dealing with an investment analyst whose specialism is pay TV, alongside a specialism in ignoring the blatantly obvious with some dabbling in ignoring the meaning of words in the English language I'll leave you to it, Jon.

Most investment analysts are about as relevant to reality as pink unicorns are.

You obviously have some comprehension issues concerning the type of business model that Sky TV operates on. If you add to that totally inaccurate statements of what I was explaining (i.e. saying I was "fine" with Sky just going for "break even", when I never posted any such thing).

I suppose using "analysis" based on lack of comprehension, plus reading things that never existed, is bound to lead to arriving at completely erroneous and nonsensical conclusions.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

While I could deal with your points in turn there appears to be no point as your basic premise for your comments is incorrect, and your defensiveness is bizarre.

Which points? The points I actually posted, or the "points" you made up I posted?

Jon is clearly correct. Sky TV is extremely overpriced and many people don't see the value in paying full price. Many people are happy to pay the overpriced fees because they do think it is value for money.

Sky take a view that they will discount to those who don't think it is value for money as their TV costs are fixed.

In my own case, I 'haggled' half price TV for two years because I didn't think full price was value for money. In the end I cancelled because i didn't think half price was value for money either.

Well Sky don't seem to have increased many off their prices much in recent years unlike Virgin Media who increased my bill more than £10 over 18 months and Virgin give out discount and offers like their going out of fashion.

So maybe Sky is trying to keep pricing fair for everyone and not keep disappointing those with price increases (not taking into account Line Rental)

You keep mentioning "Fuel" but after looking at Broadbandchoices and the reviews on there, I have decided to ignore them.

I'm about two weeks away from the end of my discounted Fibre and phone deal with Sky. Cant see me staying as there are better deals elsewhere especially where paying up front for the phone line is a big saving which Sky does not do along with cheaper fibre deal. Is it worth waiting until the end of my contract what are the problems if I Jump now
Regards

With 2 weeks to go you can start the ball rolling to move. Not really "end of contract" just an end of discounted period. The contract continues at a different rate. There may be a notification period to your contract.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

With 2 weeks to go you can start the ball rolling to move. Not really "end of contract" just an end of discounted period. The contract continues at a different rate. There may be a notification period to your contract.

My Sky T&Cs booklet states 12 month contract so from that I'm assuming my discounted period and contract will end in two weeks time and if I don't move I will be paying double for fibre on a month rolling contract. Hence me looking elsewhere. My thinking is that If I sign up now with another provider there will be less of an overlap. Will I need a Mac coded from Sky as I intend to give them a call and see what they have to say

Edited by deleted (Mon 05-Jan-15 17:05:24)

Don't think you need MAC as you'll be Full LLU (phone and BB). Others will deny or confirm.

Simultaneous provide is required for no loss of either.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Don't think you need MAC as you'll be Full LLU (phone and BB). Others will deny or confirm.

Correct, no requirement to contact Sky for a MAC or to give notice.

In reply to a post by blinkbonny:

paying up front for the phone line is a big saving which Sky does not do

If you ring up, you can get this. I paid £140.40 up front which works out at £11.70 per month with free weekend calls.

When did you manage to get this? Sky withdrew their upfront line rental ages ago.

Fuel broadband is just a glossy cover over primus saver far as I know.

indeed.

I have worked for various companies including one right now, who are making clear losses on their operations, the losses are simply to keep and ideally grow their userbase in the market they operate in, the end game is they get brought out for an overall profit. The vast majority of losses in this case is marketing spend.

The bigger the userbase is its always seen as more potential profit. There has been many big transactions in the past of companies where the company is making no profit or very little profit but the value is in the userbase.

In accounting terms it's known as "good will"...

Profit isn't everything. A firm may be worth £50k, but it may have a really loyal customer base, how do you value that? Well if investors are willing to pay £150k for that business, then we could say the customer base (assuming no other good will) is likely worth £100k.

I think Sky broadband was a loss making scheme for quite sometime when they initially began.

And O2 broadband wasn't?

We know where they ended up!

Sorry for the late reply...

Last November. My phone was with BT on Line Rental Saver but I wanted to upgrade to Fibre which meant moving my phone to Sky. They offered Fibre at £5 per month for 12 months but I said I wasn't interested since I didn't want to pay full price for line rental. I said I would leave and go to PlusNet instead. They then offered me the LRS deal.

fwiw, in answer to my original post, it looks like Sky is still prepared to offer £5pcm for another 12 months for those ex-o2 customers who just have unlimited ADSL (no line rental) on Sky LLU.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t...

Sky have scrapped the supplement for not having Sky TV for new customers. I'm guessing a lot of ex-O2 customers do not have Sky TV, so that gives Sky more wiggle-room for retention deals.