Upgrading to sky+ for existing customers seems way more expensive than
for new customers. £149 + £60 installation, compared to £99.

Been with sky for years now. Seems like they don't care once they've
got you in the fold.

Has anyone tried cancelling sky and then having a new installation
performed?
or
In the good old days you used to be able to barter with them on the
phone - anyone tried this recently either?

matpublic wrote:
> Upgrading to sky+ for existing customers seems way more expensive than
> for new customers. £149 + £60 installation, compared to £99.
>
> Been with sky for years now. Seems like they don't care once they've
> got you in the fold.
>
> Has anyone tried cancelling sky and then having a new installation
> performed?
> or
> In the good old days you used to be able to barter with them on the
> phone - anyone tried this recently either?
>
Look at it this way, if Sky didn't attract new customers, thereby
increasing their revenues (and profits), we may find ourselves with even
more hikes in the monthly subscription and with little or no more
choice. Incremental (new) monthly revenue is what it is all about.

To Sky a new customer subscribing to Sky+ is a minimum +/- £460 in the
first year and £360 p.a. thereafter. An existing Sky client with a
premium package getting Sky+ is worth a one off £209. It's clear what
business model is more attractive to Sky. IMO it does not make business
sense to offer the same deal to existing clients as it does to new clients.

I rang on Friday enquiring about upgrading and was quoted full price
€299 + €75. When I asked why, the reply I got was it was only if you
took the Multiroom package.

On 1 Feb 2005 23:37:06 -0800, matpublic wrote:
[..]

<sparky> wrote in message news:85cr
>I rang on Friday enquiring about upgrading and was quoted full price
> ?299 + ?75. When I asked why, the reply I got was it was only if you
> took the Multiroom package.
>
> On 1 Feb 2005 23:37:06 -0800, matpublic wrote:
>The way I see it, Sky can give a new customer Sky+ for £99, after 1 year
they can cancel and sell the box, how much revenue would that give Sky? It
would make much more sense to give the long term customers the same deal,
and have more chance of retaining the long term customer.
I've already had this out with Sky, they won't budge. I asked if they would
send me their reasons in writing. They did and made a mistake on the letter
quoting me £99 + free installation. (with Multiroom)
I phoned Sky about the letter, and they were quite happy to give me it at
this price without even asking for proof of the letter.
As for new installation, they tell you that nobody else in the household can
get the new customer deal, this is bull. I know loads of people at Sky and
they tell me, so long as the person has never been a Sky customer then they
are treated as a new customer, no matter who they are.
I also know a Sky engineer (self employed) He makes a fortune from
installing extra cable, Sky give you an allowance, I think it is 30m. After
that they charge £30 for every 10m of cable, they buy it for approx. £15 per
100m, robbing gits!

"Malice" <malice> wrote in message
news:n-va
> matpublic wrote:
> Look at it this way, if Sky didn't attract new customers, thereby
> increasing their revenues (and profits), we may find ourselves with even
> more hikes in the monthly subscription and with little or no more
> choice. Incremental (new) monthly revenue is what it is all about.
>
> To Sky a new customer subscribing to Sky+ is a minimum +/- £460 in the
> first year and £360 p.a. thereafter. An existing Sky client with a
> premium package getting Sky+ is worth a one off £209. It's clear what
> business model is more attractive to Sky. IMO it does not make business
> sense to offer the same deal to existing clients as it does to new
clients.

OK - accepting your rationale then - what if the customer was prepared to
cancel their subscription? What then?

The potential to lose this customers yearly subscription, or take a hit? I
would speculate, that a customer who's left Sky, is less likely to return,
than somebody who's never had Sky.

Of course, that all assumes that somebody _would_ be prepared to cancel
their prescription, or at least sound convincing enough. Acksherly, I do
speak from experience - as a long time Sky subscriber (many years) I managed
to swing a Sky+ (new, not refurb) 2 or 3 months back, for £99 including
installation - and I didn't even have to sound that convincing. I'd missed
out on one of the earlier deals (BT promotional code or some such), and I
tried ringing once, and got fobbed off. Then after reading peoples' accounts
on t'internet, I thought I'd give it another go - and I didn't actually need
to be that convincing, the girl I spoke to said something like "I've spoken
to my manager, and the only way you can have it for that price, is if you
threaten to cancel - are you saying you are threatening to cancel?" - I mean
phrased with that sort of question, what are you going to answer?

So I got it for £99, and after paying Sky subscription for many years
(around 1990), I kinda feel I was merely getting what's due. And to be
honest, after the first phone call a few weeks prior to the successful one,
I was considering binning Sky and getting a freeview PVR.

Douglas Hall wrote:

>
> OK - accepting your rationale then - what if the customer was prepared to
> cancel their subscription? What then?
Subscriber loses, Sky loses. That's business.
>
> The potential to lose this customers yearly subscription, or take a hit? I
> would speculate, that a customer who's left Sky, is less likely to return,
> than somebody who's never had Sky.
I would speculate that the chances are the same of either losing an
existing customer without access to subsidized Sky+ or losing a new
customer with a new Sky+ system after 1 year. If there was a greater
chance of losing an existing customer I'm sure we'd be seeing Sky doing
a lot more to preempt them from leaving. But I suspect their subscriber
database history over 15 years (?) is telling them a different story,
and that offering similar deals to the relatively small number of people
who whinge the most, will be the most cost effective way.


>
> Of course, that all assumes that somebody _would_ be prepared to cancel
> their prescription, or at least sound convincing enough. Acksherly, I do
> speak from experience - as a long time Sky subscriber (many years) I managed
> to swing a Sky+ (new, not refurb) 2 or 3 months back, for £99 including
> installation - and I didn't even have to sound that convincing. I'd missed
> out on one of the earlier deals (BT promotional code or some such), and I
> tried ringing once, and got fobbed off. Then after reading peoples' accounts
> on t'internet, I thought I'd give it another go - and I didn't actually need
> to be that convincing, the girl I spoke to said something like "I've spoken
> to my manager, and the only way you can have it for that price, is if you
> threaten to cancel - are you saying you are threatening to cancel?" - I mean
> phrased with that sort of question, what are you going to answer?
Acquiescing to a cheap Sky+ install when faced with a small number of
"disgruntled" existing customers threatening to cancel, is a lot
different than freely offering the same to all customers. Many long
term customers like me (1990 too) are happy with the value I get from
the existing subscriptions. If I thought Sky+ was worth the investment,
I wouldn't be quibbling about paying more than the price a new customer
was getting it at.

I would imagine Sky would lose a lot more money by offering heavily
subsidized installed boxes than by losing the margin on a relatively few
lost monthly subscription from existing clients.
[..]

"Malice" <malice> wrote in message
news:n-1q
> Douglas Hall wrote:
> >
> > OK - accepting your rationale then - what if the customer was prepared
to
> > cancel their subscription? What then?
>
> Subscriber loses, Sky loses. That's business.

Indeed - but would you speculate that Sky would prefer to retain this
business, or write it off?

> > The potential to lose this customers yearly subscription, or take a hit?
I
> > would speculate, that a customer who's left Sky, is less likely to
return,
> > than somebody who's never had Sky.
>
> I would speculate that the chances are the same of either losing an
> existing customer without access to subsidized Sky+ or losing a new
> customer with a new Sky+ system after 1 year.

That wasn't what I was saying, though. I was saying that I suspect that
somebody who's decided to unsubscribe, is less likely to rejoin, than
somebody who's never had Sky up to now, joining.

I say this because I know people who've cancel their subscriptions -
admittedly, not a representative sample, but all the same, somebody who's
been motivated to unsubscribe, is either disgruntled, or come around to the
view that it's simply not worth the money - or I suppose perhaps a smaller
group who've decided they just can't afford it.

> If there was a greater
> chance of losing an existing customer I'm sure we'd be seeing Sky doing
> a lot more to preempt them from leaving.

Well for those people that are actualy threatening to leave, and mean it,
they must be doing _something_ because I, and others, got Sky+ for the new
customer fee.

But my point wasn't specifically about them losing custom, per se - moreover
I was suggesting that somebody who's decided to unsubscribe is less likely
to re-subscribe, than somebody who's never had Sky of joining. That's just a
suggestion, but it's based on the people I know who have unsubscribed, and
consideration of the motivation that many will have had to unsubscribe.

> But I suspect their subscriber
> database history over 15 years (?) is telling them a different story,
> and that offering similar deals to the relatively small number of people
> who whinge the most, will be the most cost effective way.

Perhaps it is.

And I don't mind being labelled as a "whinge"-r if I get Sky+ at the best
rate I can ;-)

> > Of course, that all assumes that somebody _would_ be prepared to cancel
> > their prescription, or at least sound convincing enough. Acksherly, I do
> > speak from experience - as a long time Sky subscriber (many years) I
managed
> > to swing a Sky+ (new, not refurb) 2 or 3 months back, for £99 including
> > installation - and I didn't even have to sound that convincing. I'd
missed
> > out on one of the earlier deals (BT promotional code or some such), and
I
> > tried ringing once, and got fobbed off. Then after reading peoples'
accounts
> > on t'internet, I thought I'd give it another go - and I didn't actually
need
> > to be that convincing, the girl I spoke to said something like "I've
spoken
> > to my manager, and the only way you can have it for that price, is if
you
> > threaten to cancel - are you saying you are threatening to cancel?" - I
mean
> > phrased with that sort of question, what are you going to answer?
>
> Acquiescing to a cheap Sky+ install when faced with a small number of
> "disgruntled" existing customers threatening to cancel, is a lot
> different than freely offering the same to all customers.

Agreed.

But ultimately comes down to a similar rationale - if the customers are
incensed enough to leave, whether Sky are prepared to keep them. Bearing in
mind, there's probably plenty of subscribers who are perfectly happy with
their current setup, and aren't particularly motivated to go to Sky+.

> Many long
> term customers like me (1990 too) are happy with the value I get from
> the existing subscriptions.

I'm glad you think it's value for the money you spend.

> If I thought Sky+ was worth the investment,
> I wouldn't be quibbling about paying more than the price a new customer
> was getting it at.

Each to their own.

I'd rather quibble, them earn my custom, and personally save over a £100.

After all, my paid subscriptions over the past decade and a bit, I feel are
adequate compensation and subsidy for any discount I managed to obtain by
"whinge"-ing, as are the future subscriptions that I'm likely to pay. So
forgive me if I'm not bursting with sympathy for the big corporation that
felt it had to provide Sky+ to me for the same discounted rate that they
would offer a new customer.

What it really boils down to, is whether the costs balance between
encouraging new custom, and that which would leave because they don't get
the same discounted rate. And I suspect you have a point, taken in the
round, the numbers probably fair for the new custom. But as I said, I feel
that people who've been motivated to leave are much more less likely to ever
rejoin, than those people who've never had it, being courted to get it.
[..]

"Douglas Hall" <@> wrote in message
news:5944
[..]
> What it really boils down to, is whether the costs balance between
> encouraging new custom, and that which would leave because they don't get
> the same discounted rate. And I suspect you have a point, taken in the
> round, the numbers probably fair for the new custom. But as I said, I feel
> that people who've been motivated to leave are much more less likely to
> ever
> rejoin, than those people who've never had it, being courted to get it.
>> one,
I agree Douglas, I've been with them since the start of digital, I paid £200
for the digibox only for it to be given away free 2 months later.
I think I'm due a good deal from Sky, like many others.
As for value for money, it's like petrol, it's a rip off, but I could not do
without it.