TV Times - Sky’s pushing the limit

I would hazard a guess that those of you out there who subscribe to Sky in some form have certain gripes about it.

It would not be too much of a punt to say that although you are probably not really willing to cancel your subscription, you still have big problems with the cost each month.

To have all channels including sports and movies will cost you £52 per month. Add another tenner to that for HD.

It is staggering, especially when you think you’re looking at almost £750 a year for it.

But, of course, while you admit that times are hard, you’re not going to cancel Sky any time soon.

Even if you’re willing to overlook the monumental costs, I would suggest you have other problems with Sky.

Long time subscribers know rewarding customer loyalty isn’t exactly Sky’s strong point.

The company bends over backwards to get new subscribers on board and they are certainly good at that given more than 10 million people are now signed up.

There are deals a-plenty out there if you are a new customer but they are distinctly lacking if you’ve been with them for several years.

This rant against Sky has nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch’s troubles elsewhere in the media world.

It has to do with the fact you can only feel cheated so much before you react.

Almost two weeks ago David Haye travelled to Germany to fight Wladimir Klitschko in a world heavyweight title bout.

For the privilege of watching such a prestigious event, Sky charged £14.99.

If, like me, you have come to terms with paying out £52 a month for Sky, you’ve probably made peace with the fact there will be occasions when you have to pay extra.

And using that rationale, it’s somewhere approaching reasonable to charge for a world heavyweight title fight which a British boxer has a decent chance of winning.

No doubt, Sky do push the boundaries of reasonable use of pay per view television.

It now seems that anything which captures the interest of more than a few members of the public outside the boxing faithful will be subject to an extra fee.

Take the heated grudge match between George Groves and James Degale in May.

It had a lot of people talking, so it was bumped to a pay per view programme, despite the fact it was only a domestic level bout.

Yet this is not the issue that raised my ire.

Going back to the Haye fight, many of Sky’s customers had problems ordering the programme and had to go without.

Sky’s helpful Twitter feed initially told people having trouble, to find their nearest pub.

I’d think if you’d decided to order the pay per view you probably wanted to avoid the hustle and bustle of a pub.

To appease those who had to go without, Sky took the frankly ridiculous decision to air the repeat showings the following day for free.

This meant you could take yourself off to bed and get up for the 9am repeat without discovering the outcome then watch as live.

In short, those who had shelled out were short changed yet again.

People who paid out £14.99 got the exact same as those who paid nothing.

And they make no attempt to compensate those people.