Plus, the Fed Govt would have to cover the commercial costs of commercial content deals on the SBS side to fit in with the ABC Charter ban on advertising. Won’t happen. Would be like merging BBC and Channel Four in the UK, that won’t happen either, even though they are both public owned broadcasters. If anything, a future Govt may sell off SBS while they may still get some money for it.
I do wonder if there is scope for some cost sharing though through things like sharing facilities, or resources
that seems like a logical move to remove some duplication, and as has been thrown around for years as a cost saving, but there doesn’t ever seem to be any progress (or willingness) to go into that?
I would have thought that the ABC’s move to Parramatta (as controversial as it is) would have been an optimal opportunity for SBS to join in (or even take space at Ultimo that was allegedly freed up)
Like what? They already share the DAB+ platform. And are most likely to share a DVBT2 platform at some point in the future. SBS only has 2 sets of radio studios in Melbourne and Sydney and 2 TV studios in Sydney. If you know the set-up of both ABC and SBS in those cities, you will know that ABC Radio studios are mostly fully booked these days, especially more so now with added podcast output and TV News studios are fulltime reserved for their respective News services. Yes, back-office functions like HR and Payroll could be combined, but a nightmare if SBS and ABC stay as separate corporate bodies with separate policies and all, why bother? Very little money, if any would be saved with shared back-office functions. Reports going back 30 years say much the same.
ABC would be charging SBS commercial rates if they moved into Ultimo and rightly so. Much cheaper for them to stay at Artarmon in a building they fully own.
From above article.
Live news crosses for no apparent reason
If a road crash happened during the day, there’s a good chance you may see a news reporter on the scene in the 6pm bulletin in a Live cross. If only they had cameras there at the time.
Add another - live news cross to a location that has only a vague association to the news item.
This morning - cross to a Andrew McCormack in Melbourne standing near the Grand Prix facilities to discuss the Las Vegas GP.
This to me should send shivers down the spine of 7,9 etc.
This won’t be the last global deal of its kind where essentially they are shut out before even getting to the negotiating table (there have already been others on a basis for global rights but this feels like a major shift).
Wonder if the Globes will get nervous closer to the deal starting and encourage YouTube to look to on-sell highlights package to traditional broadcasters - especially for the first few years so they don’t fade from mainstream relevance.
YouTube also have a lot of work to do to increase awareness of their TV offering too, especially locally.
Agreed — this feels less like a one-off and more like a structural change. Once global rights are bundled at this scale, traditional players aren’t just outbid, they’re bypassed entirely. By the time anything reaches a “local” negotiation, the strategic decisions have already been made upstream. We’ve already seen this with WWE moving to Netflix — another example where a platform secures global scale, data, and audience ownership in one move. The Oscars going to YouTube reinforces the point: reach, data, and global distribution are now outweighing legacy prestige and linear economics. It’s hard to see how this doesn’t accelerate a future where major cultural moments are locked up by platforms before broadcasters even have a seat at the table.
The Globes or the Oscars?
I think you’re severely underestimating the reach of YouTube - especially by 2029. I can’t imagine they’d fade from mainstream relevance by going to the biggest video site in the world.
I didn’t realize until a few months ago but YT made a few original shows and movies a fair while a go. They haven’t really done a lot since then. Having said that It’s basically just a standard streaming service now. Very different to the old YT days.
Feature article in The Age and SMH today about STEM show Future Fixers. A pilot was shot but the education program had not been commissioned for a full series.
Found this post in the cesspool tha is FB local community groups.
You wanted more channels, you keep voting for idiots that fell for what Packer and Seven had always wanted.
Reap whst you sow.
they probably weren’t even born or of voting age when aggregation was mapped out 
No, but their parents were…
Came back to find more gems like this
Because the World Economic Forum really gives a shit about Northern NSW. 
Think you will find Packer did not want multi-channels, only Seven and the ABC did. Packer argued that we should have been HD only from the start too.