-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 11
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 10 Winner: Bulldog rick
-
The 2017 Rights Deal Discussion thread
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #577
Just in case folks think he's wrong - the FTA data from january - june 2015
NSW - 710.225 million (39%)
Vic - 440.247 million (24%)
QLD - 335.739 million (18%)
WA - 182.918 million (10%)
SA - 11.934 million (6%)
Tas/NT - 34.536 million (2%)
Total: 1.816 billion
QLD/NSW - 1.045 billion (58%)
NSW - 710.225 million (39%)
Vic/SA/WA - 736.101 million (41%)
Note: regional NSW pulls in 185 million in advertising = more than SA and WA.
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,859
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Regional New South Wales is not a single market. The claim is false and disengenuous.
I'd be surprised if the percentage splits have changed much since the last round of TV rights negotiations, or the time before that. I seem to recall a similar table being posted years ago.
Yep when I've watched TV in regional towns the ads are for local businesses not for ones on the other side of the state.
Bachars Beard
Team Captain
- Jul 26, 2015
- 305
- 368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Regardless of what they're advertisements for it's still advertising revenue at the end of the day. The number is still significant.
Its not one market though is it, whereas Perth is one market.
I think you will find Murdoch will play a very hard game with the NRL he dosent like being beaten at ANYTHING and hates CH 9
He will have a lot of say in what goes on at 10 and dont forget the massive reach of his papers.He is in Australia right now.
He is one person that you dont cross as many have found out to their misfortune The NRL might be laughing now but the game is far from over and Murdoch always plays to win.
oh, please! The NRL & Rugby League is intimately aware about how News Corp operate, and the telegraph have been bagging the NRL relentlessly since the ARLC took the game back and booted their News Corp lacky CEO. The power in these things is always with the content owners. If Murdoch has anyone to be blame it's one of your Commissioners.
The commercial FTA TV industry body doesn't distinguish between northern & southern NSW, so why are you arguing semantics?
in the second half of last year regional qld was bigger than Adelaide and regional NSW was bigger than Perth, regional dollars are worth the same as metro dollars.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #587
It specifically does. Look at regionalTAM. RegionalTAM splits regional markets into NNSW, SNSW, QLD, Vic, Tas (all), WA.
If you have to sell different ads for different businesses in different regions of the state then I'd say they are different markets, thats what the word means.
Regional TAM is not the commercial TV industry body.
Then why stop there? Sydney isn't one market, it is made up of many smaller markets comprising suburbs from Liverpool to Blacktown to Bondi. It is an argument about semantics.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #591
No the commercial tv industry body makes up its own ratings figures from its own ratings markets to pull advertising rates from thin air I guess....oh wait. No they dont. They are two separate markets.
FreeTV Australia, the industry body, doesn't distinguish between Northern & Southern NSW in a media release about advertising revenue.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #593
In a release comparing state by state revenue, it would have been the logical way to compare the states, and regionals in those states. It doesnt negate the fact that there are two separate regional markets in NSW. The advertising rates are derived from ratings, the ratings come from Oztam/Regionaltam.
I've been following 9's new deal for the NRL - it's been thoroughly interesting to dissect because there's no pay TV component (yet).
One big difference between FTA and Pay TV (IMO) is that sport is nowhere near as important to FTA TV as it is to Pay. With the advent of Netflix and the like, Pay TV without quality live sport is doomed. Why would anyone pay $50+ a month for a bunch of crap that they can get for a lot less and on demand through streaming? The only reason is live sport.
FTA TV is all about viewers, and they don't need sport to get those. Evidence of that can be found just last night - 7 just replaced their big budget latest restaurant piece of s**t reality crap with a show about cats. Their ratings doubled - cats outrated almost every AFL and NRL game this year. Why would FTA pay big bucks for sport when they can get the same number of viewers with some cheap dross from the US?
There is a big reason - to kill Foxtel. If you look at the NRL deal, it's pretty clear that the idea is to drain Foxtel of subscribers. Additional games on Thursday and Saturday nights, the latter will go up against pay TV. Monday nights will be Fox's sole exclusive product, and that won't be as marketable given there's a Thursday night game now. NRL fans are not as hardcore as AFL ones - most are probably just happy for a game to watch. With games now on FTA 4 days a week, why would you pay for Fox now? Previously you had to get Fox to follow the league, now (or at least in 2 years) you don't. It's not like Fox have NRL talk shows that rate, the only one is the Monday night post game show, so people aren't going to subscribe for that.
I believe Fox can still bid for all games, they just need to pay compo to Channel 9. They probably have to just to retain their subscribers.
One big difference between FTA and Pay TV (IMO) is that sport is nowhere near as important to FTA TV as it is to Pay. With the advent of Netflix and the like, Pay TV without quality live sport is doomed. Why would anyone pay $50+ a month for a bunch of crap that they can get for a lot less and on demand through streaming? The only reason is live sport.
FTA TV is all about viewers, and they don't need sport to get those. Evidence of that can be found just last night - 7 just replaced their big budget latest restaurant piece of s**t reality crap with a show about cats. Their ratings doubled - cats outrated almost every AFL and NRL game this year. Why would FTA pay big bucks for sport when they can get the same number of viewers with some cheap dross from the US?
There is a big reason - to kill Foxtel. If you look at the NRL deal, it's pretty clear that the idea is to drain Foxtel of subscribers. Additional games on Thursday and Saturday nights, the latter will go up against pay TV. Monday nights will be Fox's sole exclusive product, and that won't be as marketable given there's a Thursday night game now. NRL fans are not as hardcore as AFL ones - most are probably just happy for a game to watch. With games now on FTA 4 days a week, why would you pay for Fox now? Previously you had to get Fox to follow the league, now (or at least in 2 years) you don't. It's not like Fox have NRL talk shows that rate, the only one is the Monday night post game show, so people aren't going to subscribe for that.
I believe Fox can still bid for all games, they just need to pay compo to Channel 9. They probably have to just to retain their subscribers.
kaypee
All Australian
Reginal dollars are not worth the same: they're divided across various regional media companies
FTA are investing in sport and news because it guarantees live eyeballs at a time that audiences are fragmented across SVOD, STV & secondary channels.
Monday night football is dead under the new deal.
STV penetration is highest in NSW, with a large proportion of those subscribers to foxsports for NRL, they don't just watch because they have a casual interest, foxsports was built on the back of rugby league, it was the reason for the Super League War.
lol, it's the same currency, $100m in ad revenue in regional NSW is the same as $100m in ad revenue in Sydney. It has nothing to do with regional broadcasters.
kaypee
All Australian
Rubbish. $100 mil ad revenue in the regions takes greater airtime, and requires loads more ads. have you ever seen the ads in regional Australia?
A company earning 1m in annual revenue in Newcastle is earning the same as a company in Sydney earning 1m in annual revenue. How they earn it doesn't change the fact they are of equal monetary value.
Fox snub puts cash target in doubt
Take it with a grain of salt given the newspaper's owner, but the whole situation is fascinating.
Take it with a grain of salt given the newspaper's owner, but the whole situation is fascinating.
- Status
Similar threads
