COMMENT: If you ever want evidence that we are not tech savvy, that so much of what you hear in media is the baffling hot air of techheads, not real people, and not everyone has a smart phone, a pile of apps, or AirDrop pictures, then look at the results of the "opinion compare" survey into what we think about Spark Sport - and their chances of making the gargantuan shift required to stream our national sport.
Before you look at that, look at the last census: part of the reason it turned out to be a catastrophic mess was the government department concerned had clearly been sucked in by all the buzzword bollocks spouted about how switched on we all were, how tech savvy we were, and how connected our modern society is.
A decent chunk was stuck online and none of us did it, hence the whole thing imploded, and the head of Stats NZ had to quit in humiliation.
• Angry and devastated: How Kiwis feel about streaming Rugby World Cup
• Amazon wins exclusive US Open rights for the UK - then its stream crashes
• Three weeks from Rugby World Cup, more trouble for Spark Sport
• Sky TV's king-hit bid to keep rugby as competition with Spark heats up
Now, to be fair to Spark, it's sort of not their fault too many of us don't have a clue. But, and this is the critical corporate issue, it is their problem.
The survey found 57 per cent of us had a negative response to streaming, that's not surprising. It found 31 per cent are annoyed, in other words this is what I have been saying all along: Spark took something that was dear to us (rugby) and changed the rules.
And in changing the rules they dumped the problem on our lap. It's like the accountant telling you, 'You can do your own taxes this year, I'm on holiday'.
The survey found 16 per cent were "angry" (odd response). Really not a lot of point being angry about something you can't control.
Now, where it got or gets interesting is it requires the punter to actually do something about it. Having changed the rules, we needed to think and act. What was streaming, and what do I need to do to get it to my place?
Then came the inevitable issues. One, you needed good internet. If you don't have it, you're stuffed, hence you're probably angry.
Two, you might have to buy some stuff. Chromecast, a new TV, you need to pay Spark, and you're already paying Sky, if not Lightbox or Netflix.
But three was the killer: not only are you grappling with all this stuff, it then has issues. It doesn't work and the media go nuts because everyone loves to rain on trouble. And when you read about the trouble, because let's be honest, the chances of you actually watching the sport that went wrong was negligible, you then panicked and maybe got angry again.
'They're cocking up my sport, how can they do this?' That's on Spark, they should have been a lot better than they were for reassurances' sake.
But here's the simple truth: in a free market where sport is for sale, Spark saw a gap and grabbed it. That's competition, maybe blame Sky for being asleep at the wheel. Why be angry at a company with an eye for a chance? Yes, streaming is different, but so was satellite, so was colour, and so was moving pictures.
Another simple truth? We don't like change, but what is also true, is Spark carry a responsibility.
Tech and modernity is all well and good, but they've dipped their toe into a new business with culturally the most significant thing they could possibly have tried - so they have to deliver.
If there was anger at the concept, wait till you see the anger if they can't deliver.