Sky Sports News: it’s just not cricket

Friday 18th June was a disastrous day for sport. Forget England’s passable impression of an over 70s team in the scoreless bore-fest with Algeria, I’m talking about Sky’s decision to withdraw Sky Sports News from Freeview and turn it into a pay TV channel. One quotation which appeared beside the BBC report caught my eye. It reads as follows:

“There is a broad, emerging consensus that in the multi-media era it is insane to give content away for nothing”
Tim Luckhurst, Professor of Journalism, University of Kent

Interesting. Provocative. Utter claptrap.

The fact is that as the world becomes more advanced in terms of multi-media content, the easier it becomes to find content of similar quality and substance. Since I churned from the Sky platform to Freeview and subsequently Freesat last year, I have not once laid eyes on Sky Sports and my scarily useless knowledge of all things sporting has not diminished as a result. BBC Sport does the same job in terms of headlines and there are scores of places I can get my Spurs and Surrey fixes earlier than Sky could ever report the gist of the story. Indeed, most of the time Facebook and Twitter get there first.

There are three possible reasons why Sky have taken SSN away from Freeview.
1. They actually think it a valuable commodity. As discussed above, this is crazy. As media fragments, generic content such as SSN becomes less valuable, whereas the crown jewels become the prize. Where else can the UK public watch shows such as 24, Lost or Premier League Football? Professor Luckhurst described SSN as a “loss leader”. He is probably right, but will Sky 3 +1, which has replaced SSN on the Freeview EPG, be as successful?
2. They want to annoy Freeview. In times of recession, downturn and economic strife, downtrading becomes a serious concern for premier businesses. By taking away even the smallest piece of content from Freeview, Sky are flexing their muscles in a public way. It is worth PR in itself.
3. Murdoch’s pay wall is writ in stone. This could be a clear indication that Sky are aggressively pursuing the pay-per-view model for all of their content.

Whatever reason it is, I doubt that there will be serious ramifications for either Sky or Freeview which just makes the decision all the more puzzling.

Going back to the dear Professor, I think I may have been a little unfair. He is not entirely worng – he is just missing a word. Had he said “the wrong content” he would have been spot on. Giving away some of your content as a sweetener is vital – we have seen from our years of work with Which? that giving a free guide gives a much better quality of customer than prize draw. Customers recruited on brand values stay longer and are more profitable than those lured in on a false premise whose latency and inertia provides any revenue. These themes are explored in an article on the subscription business model which can be found on the mc&c website.



Tim Part, Business Development Manager