The reason they’re doing this that way is to expose the brand. They’re so far behind 7plus, 9Now and iveiw that they need to be this awkward obviousness to expose the brand to people who wouldn’t even know 10 exists.
There’s plenty of those. I’m at a bbq and people here don’t know 10 own paramount+ or have the rights to football.
How’s Ten planning on monetising this broadcast. Not seen any squeeze/scroll/popup ads, let alone taking advantage of things like the goal keeper’s injury to take 30 seconds or something.
Maybe it’ll be different in the A-Leagues where they could probably get the play held up a bit - but FTA football won’t work if they are going to go 45 minutes without ads unless there’s a goal kicked.
Perhaps just a tactic to use the match as an ad for Paramount+?
Going a bit off-topic here but reckon it would be better if 10 just refers o it as 10Play. Not only is “10Play on demand” clunky but referring to it as such doesn’t make sense when 10 are promoting sports events which will be watched live.
I was actually disappointed with how the 10 broadcast handled that. While it was mentioned, it was done only really briefly and felt like the broadcast wanted to move on really quickly rather than allow the panel to discuss the issue for a few minutess.
10 did a good job tonight with the Matilda’s match.
Ten’s coverage of the Matilda’s match ended with the “10/ Paramount+: Home of Football” ad, that mentioned the A-League (Men and Women); Socceroos, Matildas and the FFA Cup).
That’s good. I was a bit worried that a lot of people wouldn’t have been aware that the match was on Bold and it would have impacted the ratings as a result, but it’s good to hear that they have advertised the match.