The TV rights thread

[CC_Roosters]

As mentioned previously in this & other threads, changes will be noticed in One HD's programming from next Monday - mainly the night time shows on weekdays. More stuff like they're already using on Tuesdays - aimed at 25-54 year old males from what I read.

It's a business decision to adjust from being purely a sports channel ( that was rating poorly & spending too much money ), not a conspiracy to "make things easier for Fox Sports" as suggested by some.

I think the 2 NRL shows will stay, but I suppose we'll find out next week what their future holds....

What have the two shows ratings been like? I have seen both shows now and i was impressed by both, good to have shows that have discussion and insight rather than the "footy shows" lighter take on things.

 

[Collingwood Storm]

3AW, not quite sure how reliable they are.

Well at the start of their sports program tonight they had 2 news exclusives... the first was about fraud, where $500k was taken from an AFL club and police were involved... the second was that Ch10 have slashed costs and have only $250mil total for programming which means no tv rights for sport.

Will be interested to see how it plays out with the Murdoch interest in 10 and fox sports.

 

[Whos Ya Daddy]

Looks like we're gonna get f**ked again.

Only harder this time.

 

[andrew057]

Well at the start of their sports program tonight they had 2 news exclusives... the first was about fraud, where $500k was taken from an AFL club and police were involved... the second was that Ch10 have slashed costs and have only $250mil total for programming which means no tv rights for sport.

Will be interested to see how it plays out with the Murdoch interest in 10 and fox sports.

250mil for 1 year?

How does that compare to 7 and 9?

 

[Perth Red]

We'll let them have SOO for $200mill and they can spend the other $50 on some sad cooking and dancing shows!

 

[gutterfax]

We'll let them have SOO for $200mill and they can spend the other $50 on some sad cooking and dancing shows!

:lol:

 

[Ray Mosters]

No, we dont need 10.

9 are guaranteed to be involved because they have the first and last rights, and all we need is a seriously involved Channel 7 and we are away.

Their capacity obviously depends how much they make on whatever AFL they cant offload, but assuming the answer is "a bucketload" 7 will be going hard and will push 9 way out

 

[BDGS]

How much of the AFL deal did Foxtel pay?

 

[docbrown]

No, we dont need 10.

9 are guaranteed to be involved because they have the first and last rights, and all we need is a seriously involved Channel 7 and we are away.

Indeed.

On the topic of 10 and their multichannels, you'd surprised at the level of puzzlement when they announced that 11 would be effectively a "youth-channel".

When you look at 7 & 9, their digitals are a counter to their main programming. 9 skews to an older 40+ demo, so Go had a youth-vibe and Gem a female hook. 7 skews to families, so 7 mate programs blokes stuff.

10 skews young and they set up 11 that skews... young?

Replacing One HD with their old 90's formula of cheap American imports isn't going to work. They should simply shut down 11 and remarket 1 into a family channel.

Of all the winter sports content 10/1 can buy however, NRL best fits within their existing demo because its youth audience % share is greater than Cricket, AFL & Union and almost on par with Soccer (but that plays in the non-ratings period).

 

[IllawarraGiant]

Good post, Doc.

the bit Im trying to get my head around is what happens to competitive FTA bidding if Ten are basically ruled out? Seven may put create a competivie environment for Origin and Tests, but the regular season bids seems a one horse race. How do the rights for that get driven up?

I dont see a need to compare the rights to AFL, but it should be noted that their FTA figure actually flatlined (which by default is regular season)... is there a chance that ours will too? - or worse, given no competitive environment.

I'm starting to think that our overall increase in this round of rights will ultimately only come from breaking up Origin and Tests.

 

[Raiders_Premiers]

:lol:

 

[docbrown]

Good post, Doc.

the bit Im trying to get my head around is what happens to competitive FTA bidding if Ten are basically ruled out? Seven may put create a competivie environment for Origin and Tests, but the regular season bids seems a one horse race. How do the rights for that get driven up?

I dont see a need to compare the rights to AFL, but it should be noted that their FTA figure actually flatlined (which by default is regular season)... is there a chance that ours will too? - or worse, given no competitive environment.

I'm starting to think that our overall increase in this round of rights will ultimately only come from breaking up Origin and Tests.

It's all about competitive tension.

If 7 breaks 9's first and last rights monopoly, 9 will be effectively forced to bid blindly. Meanwhile it opens the gate for 7 & 10 to henpeck which elements they wish to compete for. Also all timeslots are open for direct bidding by Fox but it can work the other way, with the NRL group F2A packages for Fox's existing monopoly and then using it as leverage to increase Fox's deal. Then you also bring changes to structure - offer things like Sunday headers and increase running lengths, for instance have a 1:30pm to 6:00pm NRL block on a Sunday.

The more complex the variables, the more blind the networks are to each other's bid, the higher the deal.

It's really hard to put numbers on these things because there are so many variables involved. I did comment in another post though that by doing some of the things I've mentioned previously (Friday simulcasting, Sunday double headers, 2 Brisbane teams on F2A a week, having a combination of fixed/floating scheduling, perhaps extending the season by two weeks with 2 byes to create 2 more weeks of F2A matches) that our advertising revenue from F2A along could start to pull upwards of $90 million a year - not including the Halo. In fact, I believe that I may even be a little bit conservative in that. However that won't be the opening bid. The opening bid from 9 will be for the existing package and what they roughly consider to be their direct break even. After that the NRL can throw a variety of options at the networks.

If we can get real competitive tension across all platforms we can see some big increases. I have heard that one of the 12 shortlisted commissioners is a very well known media buyer and he's an expert at these negotiations. Plus LEK strategy are involved.

 

[BDGS]

It's all about competitive tension.

If 7 breaks 9's first and last rights monopoly, 9 will be effectively forced to bid blindly. Meanwhile it opens the gate for 7 & 10 to henpeck which elements they wish to compete for. Also all timeslots are open for direct bidding by Fox but it can work the other way, with the NRL group F2A packages for Fox's existing monopoly and then using it as leverage to increase Fox's deal. Then you also bring changes to structure - offer things like Sunday headers and increase running lengths, for instance have a 1:30pm to 6:00pm NRL block on a Sunday.

The more complex the variables, the more blind the networks are to each other's bid, the higher the deal.

It's really hard to put numbers on these things because there are so many variables involved. I did comment in another post though that by doing some of the things I've mentioned previously (Friday simulcasting, Sunday double headers, 2 Brisbane teams on F2A a week, having a combination of fixed/floating scheduling, perhaps extending the season by two weeks with 2 byes to create 2 more weeks of F2A matches) that our advertising revenue from F2A along could start to pull upwards of $90 million a year - not including the Halo. In fact, I believe that I may even be a little bit conservative in that. However that won't be the opening bid. The opening bid from 9 will be for the existing package and what they roughly consider to be their direct break even. After that the NRL can throw a variety of options at the networks.

If we can get real competitive tension across all platforms we can see some big increases. I have heard that one of the 12 shortlisted commissioners is a very well known media buyer and he's an expert at these negotiations. Plus LEK strategy are involved.

Another reason why we need to get the IC up!!!

 

[IllawarraGiant]

It's all about competitive tension.

If 7 breaks 9's first and last rights monopoly, 9 will be effectively forced to bid blindly. Meanwhile it opens the gate for 7 & 10 to henpeck which elements they wish to compete for. Also all timeslots are open for direct bidding by Fox but it can work the other way, with the NRL group F2A packages for Fox's existing monopoly and then using it as leverage to increase Fox's deal. Then you also bring changes to structure - offer things like Sunday headers and increase running lengths, for instance have a 1:30pm to 6:00pm NRL block on a Sunday.

The more complex the variables, the more blind the networks are to each other's bid, the higher the deal.

It's really hard to put numbers on these things because there are so many variables involved. I did comment in another post though that by doing some of the things I've mentioned previously (Friday simulcasting, Sunday double headers, 2 Brisbane teams on F2A a week, having a combination of fixed/floating scheduling, perhaps extending the season by two weeks with 2 byes to create 2 more weeks of F2A matches) that our advertising revenue from F2A along could start to pull upwards of $90 million a year - not including the Halo. In fact, I believe that I may even be a little bit conservative in that. However that won't be the opening bid. The opening bid from 9 will be for the existing package and what they roughly consider to be their direct break even. After that the NRL can throw a variety of options at the networks.

If we can get real competitive tension across all platforms we can see some big increases. I have heard that one of the 12 shortlisted commissioners is a very well known media buyer and he's an expert at these negotiations. Plus LEK strategy are involved.

Ok - so I now get competition for schedules between platforms (thanks) - so that will be healthy:

But- in any mix there must be a FTA component (and we need that to be as big as possible for maximising national exposure) - and - as there appears to be no competition to Channel 9 for this -doesnt this mean that, for whatever they do negotiate across platforms, once the dust has settled on the 'mix' 9 wont be compelled to pay a market rate for the FTA element- basically because they are the only bidder?

 

[docbrown]

Ok - so I now get competition for schedules between platforms (thanks) - so that will be healthy:

But- in any mix there must be a FTA component (and we need that to be as big as possible for maximising national exposure) - and - as there appears to be no competition to Channel 9 for this -doesnt this mean that, for whatever they do negotiate across platforms, once the dust has settled on the 'mix' 9 wont be compelled to pay a market rate for the FTA element- basically because they are the only bidder?

Not necessarily because unless 9 come out with a massive first bid - and by massive I mean over their existing profit margins and into major loss territory - then 7 will counterbid them by 20% in order to break up the first and last rights monopoly and at that point all the networks are competing blindly against each other for individual pieces of the pie.

But even if 9 put in a massive first bid based on their existing package and 7 are hessitant - the NRL can always then offer additional changes to the broadcasting structure in order to increase advertising revenue base for 7 (a few of those things I've already mentioned) and that will also attract 7 to pay overs and again breaks first/last rights. 9 can't change their existing package agreement, only the NRL can. If 7 bid more for a better package and it breaks 9's old agreement, then it's game on - because in that scenario we would probably be close to exceeding our previous deal based on the F2A component alone. That scenario is the least likely of the two however.

 

[IllawarraGiant]

Not necessarily because unless 9 come out with a massive first bid - and by massive I mean over their existing profit margins and into major loss territory -then 7 will counterbid them by 20% in order to break up the first and last rights monopoly and at that point all the networks are competing blindly against each other for individual pieces of the pie.

But even if 9 put in a massive first bid based on their existing package and 7 are hessitant - the NRL can always then offer additional changes to the broadcasting structure in order to increase advertising revenue base for 7 (a few of those things I've already mentioned) and that will also attract 7 to pay overs and again breaks first/last rights.

But that still brings us back to a serious bid by a second party ie a competitive market.. and I dont think 7 are in a position to seriously bid for the regular season: everyone more or less knows that if they bid at all for regular season they will bid just enough to make 9 pay a little more maybe. 9 can call that bluff pretty easily one way or another.

 

[juro]

This talk about 7 coming in with a first bid 20% higher to remove the first and last rights of 9 has me puzzled. Would 7 know what 9's opening bid is?

 

[gUt]

I have heard Gallop say a few times in interviews that "exclusivity" attracts a "premium" when the networks put a value on a the rights to a sport. In other words, a TV station will pay more if they get to show it all - NRL, SOO, 4N, etc. The implication is although it's tempting to break the various forms of the game up and sell them as separate packages, it might be less lucrative than this exclusivity premium.

Anyone know if he's talking out his arse?

 

[applesauce]

He is talking out his ass.

Even if 9 want to be "exclusive" so they have something others don't the other networks might not see it as valuable. It is in the eye of the beholder.

The major benefit with spread is the additional coverage in advertising games, during the news etc.

Gallop is just saying shit like that because he is in NEWS LTD's pocket.

 

[BDGS]

I have heard Gallop say a few times in interviews that "exclusivity" attracts a "premium" when the networks put a value on a the rights to a sport. In other words, a TV station will pay more if they get to show it all - NRL, SOO, 4N, etc. The implication is although it's tempting to break the various forms of the game up and sell them as separate packages, it might be less lucrative than this exclusivity premium.

Anyone know if he's talking out his arse?

To be fair he said the NRL is looking at that at the same time as looking at separating the rights.

I have a good feeling about this TV deal.