Next TV deal should include a pay-per-game option

[Kram]

Quite a fair argument too. Bigfooty people can get overly wrapped up over what are relatively irrelevant issues at times.

Agree to a point but then you get people like this bloke on here last year ranting how he couldn't have Foxtel due to its disgraceful price because he has a family, then reveals that he has a 700K mortgage and paying off 2 late model cars for himself and his wife.

If you are a massive footy/sports fan it's not that much to budget for if that means cutting down on eating out or drinking less booze or whatever.

 

[barracoutta]

Time for the league to catch up with American sports and create their own league pass like the NBA, where you can watch any game you like online whenever you want, you can even watch old games from the season. You would pay a one off fee, let's say $100 for season and another fee for finals.

 

[melbournemartin]

I do find it crazy that I get near-HD quality in Switzerland whilst my mates listen to the radio because they can't afford Foxtel.

 

[Underdog]

All these continued suggestions regarding Internet streaming solutions. IMO until the NBN is inplace, these solutions are going to fill little more than a niche market.

The AFL will need to decide whether this model is not only viable but moreso than an arrangement with Foxtel.

Let's not forget that viability extends beyond revenue.

Additionally, comparing an Australian revenue model with a US one implemented with the NBA is comparing apples with oranges.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Brasher]

If Labar's NBN got up it would not surprise me at all that by 2020 there will be a large amount of internet TV's on the market and the AFL will sell their games directly to the consumer.

We don't need the NBN to do this....the NFL's equivalent, Gamepass, is a service that is available now that includes packages that provide all game access, selected teams, playoffs, etc.

The issue in Australia is that there are only a handful of suitors capable of paying and broadcasting football, couple that with the small population, and a near monopoly on service delivery and their is no need for a la carte football packages. One size fits all. No need to product differentiate or be innovative.

Live, HD quality broadcasting of all games is as good as it gets.

 

[theflea]

I suspect they know the premium structure of Foxtel is more lucrative than a high quantity, low margin option. Otherwise they would be doing so.

Of course its probably more value to them doing it this way but what they may lose in normal revenue they may make it up with new customers. Im sure they have done the figures and they probably dont add up. My post was really a hail mary.

 

[Underdog]

Of course its probably more value to them doing it this way but I what they may lose in normal revenue they may make it up with new customers. Im sure they have done the figures and they probably dont add up.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[Taylor]

I don't believe Foxtel, and by extension the AFL, will cripple their income streams by splitting out options to buy individual games. It makes the value of their product reduce, to watch all games each week you need to buy Foxtel's package and then the sports package on top. I agree that there are a substantial amount of people who would take up their service if you could purchase ONLY the sports package but an even larger number have already coughed up the $25 a month in order to get the sports on top, these people will rollback their service to sports only over night.

I believe that it would cripple their model, they would be opening their product to more people and making less money for it. That's bad for football, I know that sounds ridiculous because more people involved should be good for the game, but less money means less ability for the code to give back.

I would buy only a sports package to watch all games each week, a bit of cricket etc but since that will never be an option I will buy the entire package and plan my finances accordingly.

 

[CF]

More whinging about foxtel? Get over it.

Costs me roughly about $25 a week which is hardly budget busting. What do you think internet streaming providers will charge in the future. Probably about the same. It's not a viable business option for foxtel to provide a pay per game option how would they make money out of that. You'd have to pay a huge set up fee for connection and equipment to then what..watch one game a week. Stupid idea.

You don't own football, and football doesn't owe anyone free coverage at all.

 

[RUNVS]

We don't need the NBN to do this....the NFL's equivalent, Gamepass, is a service that is available now that includes packages that provide all game access, selected teams, playoffs, etc.

The issue in Australia is that there are only a handful of suitors capable of paying and broadcasting football, couple that with the small population, and a near monopoly on service delivery and their is no need for a la carte football packages. One size fits all. No need to product differentiate or be innovative.

Live, HD quality broadcasting of all games is as good as it gets.

We need the NBN for internet TV and things like that. In order to get HD quality you need to download something like 4mb a second and those kinds of speeds need the NBN.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Foxtel will never be an out-of-date business model because they are one of the few media organisations who can stump up enough money to purchase what is truly valuable: live sport. The AFL and Fox will piss in each other's pockets as they have mutual interests. The AFL isn't going to spend billions of dollars setting up their own media arm to compete with Foxtel when they can just pocket 500m (and increasing exponentially) every five years for Fox to broadcast it for them.

If basketball in Australia could set up NBL.TV in the space of a few months ready for the start of the 2012 season I can see no reason why the AFL can't set one up too. The AFL already have a huge internal media set-up anyway, with all the interviews, highlights and match replays, plus their own "news" bureau, adding a live streaming function shouldn't break the bank.

 

[Liger]

A couple of years? The NBN has passed 207,500 homes, and that's to say nothing of how many houses have chosen to take it up (70,000 in case you're wondering.) Foxtel has decades left before there's even talk of a viable alternative.

It won't be taken up until it's fully realised but once it's in every neighbourhood it'll replace DSL very quickly because everything will be forced onto it. People still use dial-up, still have analogue TVs but they are falling behind the pack fast. Same will occur with fibre-optic, those on it will get the benefits and those who resist will fall behind the pack.
Foxtel has years left, not decades - unless it completely revamps it's business model. They are testing the waters with their Apps and with the XBox subscriptions too.

The internet is pretty rosy in Melbourne, especially if you have Telstra Cable. But, there are people in the bush still struggling on dialup and there are people in regional centres who have to wait for a youtube clip to buffer before streaming. We're miles off streaming live sport in HD.

That's why they are rolling out fibre-optics in regional areas first. DSL works fine for HD streams already - thou not proper FULL 1080p 60fps HD which is what we should have by now. The point of fibre-optics is that EVERYONE on the street can be pumping HD into their house, going full speed on the internet, making phone calls and everything else at once and there won't be any buffer or quality issues unlike DSL which can get clogged up if too many people are relying on the same copper cables and the exchange gets over loaded - which is what happens in regional areas if your not very close to the exchange.

Foxtel will never be an out-of-date business model because they are one of the few media organisations who can stump up enough money to purchase what is truly valuable: live sport. The AFL and Fox will piss in each other's pockets as they have mutual interests. The AFL isn't going to spend billions of dollars setting up their own media arm to compete with Foxtel when they can just pocket 500m (and increasing exponentially) every five years for Fox to broadcast it for them.

Foxtel is ALREADY an out-of-date business model because it's irrelevant if you have a good internet connection and know how to get TV shows, ads removed, in HD, minutes after they are aired in the US. Why anyone would pay for the internet, then pay again for Foxtel to watch TV is old thinking that's not far away from being removed from logic. It's a generational gap issue. Old folks won't be quick on the up take but kids buying their first homes or moving out into rentals won't pay for both and they certainly won't get a Sat dish on their roof over getting the internet.

But you right about sport holding it together - that is the only thing keeping Foxtel relevant but again, that will change when the delivery system changes and forces their hand. It's in Foxtels interest to move people to On Demand internet based subscriptions because then they don't have to pay for IQ boxes, installations of Dishes, maintenance and all the workers that go along with it. They just need some coders to write software which will cut down their overheads by a country mile. It will allow them to become an internet based service, cut back on all the installation issues, reduce their prices and re-design their company to be modelled off Netflix / Hulu on demand systems. If they don't that then it will fail hard when netflix and hulu branch out of the USA.

 

[Underdog]

If basketball in Australia could set up NBL.TV in the space of a few months ready for the start of the 2012 season I can see no reason why the AFL can't set one up too. The AFL already have a huge internal media set-up anyway, with all the interviews, highlights and match replays, plus their own "news" bureau, adding a live streaming function shouldn't break the bank.

Firstly, the NBL are starved of coverage FTA or paid. They have minimal revenue from coverage. The AFL have a sizeable revenue stream from coverage.

Secondly, there is a huge difference in demand between the AFL and NBL which adds considerable cost and risk.

I don't see how it's a suitable comparison.

 

[SaintLex]

Now tell me why on earth Foxtel would do that when it will likely encourage consumers to cut back on their subscriptions?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Firstly, the NBL are starved of coverage FTA or paid. They have minimal revenue from coverage. The AFL have a sizeable revenue stream from coverage.

Secondly, there is a huge difference in demand between the AFL and NBL which adds considerable cost and risk.

I don't see how it's a suitable comparison.

The comparison is in the setup costs and the technical feasibility. It won't be prohibitively expensive, if the NBL can do it, the AFL can do it. It is an option for the AFL to consider, they are not locked out of it.

Whether they want to do it or not is another question, but I wasn't addressing that. They could do it easily.

 

[Kwality]

Expect the next TV rights deal the AFL would set up their own IP TV service where you can stream to your computer. Under the current deal it only applies to mobiles and tablets.

Not sure if they'd do individual games though, still would likely be a monthly package. There would be a considerable overhead cost to do individual games.

Who will supply the pictures?

 

[Winter]

I actually prefer when North Melbourne games are being covered by Foxtel, a far better broadcast than 7.

 

[Brasher]

We need the NBN for internet TV and things like that. In order to get HD quality you need to download something like 4mb a second and those kinds of speeds need the NBN.

My existing NFL GamePass account suggests otherwise....full HD live streamed games (including the ability to watch multiple games on split screen), no buffering and no NBN.

A full game takes approx 3GB over 3 hours or average stream rate of 0.8mb per second.

 

[blackshadow]

Pay per game on IPTV would be a real winner for footy fans.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Who will supply the pictures?

Their own production crew, or they could sub it out to a production company.

I believe NBL.TV use a production company to produce their content that goes out over the internet stream. They did three or four games every weekend, while channel 10 did one or two.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

No. Payper view is an awful idea

 

[Brasher]

The method of delivery (Foxtel, internet etc) is secondary to what is being proposed here, that is user pays.

Sure it will be attractive for those who only want to pay for what they want to watch, there is nothing new about this technology via Foxtel today, we see it all the time with pay per view movies and flghts.

But be careful what you wish for..today we have a service that provides complete coverage of all games, at a one size fits all price. The motivation to want specific game packages for the viewer is to reduce cost which in turn obviously reduces Foxtel revenue. Reduced revenue means a smaller broadcasting contract for the AFL or more creative billing models (like paying a higher price for a blockbuster and smaller amounts for a game of less interest).

 

[Forward Press]

Cry a river

He's right. Edited.

 

[Inspector Malceski]

I can afford it but don't want to pay my hard earn to Murdoch.

Also foxtel is a monopoly = zero competition, good to see all the foxtel pets.

I find the AFL app being enough to catch the extra 2 games a week as 7mate shows 4/5 games a week live anyway!

 

[coldlunch]

Yeah, but those league passes blackout games in home markets because the cable companies pay for exclusive rights to those games. With 10 teams in Victoria, it'll be ace buying AFL league pass only for over half the games each week to be blacked out.

I sound like a Foxtel employee. But I don't have it. I had it last year, it was wonderful. For the cost of a coffee a day I could watch 9 games a week. But then I realised I'd rather pay through the nose for an NM membership, enjoy those coffees each day, and get out on the weekend.

It's easily affordable.

fair point re. the blackouts. i was under the impression it was only local FTA telecast games that were blocked, but thinking about it now you're probably right. the solution here though would be for the official AFL.tv stream subscription to run through Foxtel's existing stream service - just cut out the base channel package and pay for the AFL portion only. everyone wins.

i agree in a sense that Foxtel isn't THAT expensive, but it's more the principle of paying for something you will only use 5% of. the pricing system is explicitly structured to make people pay for what they don't need, and i'm not sure that's the way to win over the consumer in the end. another point, and i know i'm in a minority here but can't be the only one, is that sometimes i want to watch the game in the living room on the big screen, but in a shared house there are other times where i'll need to watch it in my room. short of paying for a second box, that's not at all convenient with Foxtel.