The most recent example was Trump’s first TV interview that went to 60 Minutes and was shown as a special on TEN.
1 Like
Moonves is being handsomely paid by CBS. In a CBS filing to the SEC a couple of weeks ago, it showed that Moonves sold 150,00 CBS shares for c. $64.68 each and on the same day purchased 150,000 CBS shares for $29.44 each under the employee stock option, so he made a profit of about $5.2 million for buying and selling the same amount of shares. On the same day he was given the another employee stock option of purchasing another 150,000 CBS shares at $29.44.
I wonder if he will visit Australia to inspect the new acquisition?
I think you need to move into the 21st Century where Sports rights are no longer a big deal and certainly don’t prop up a network. 7 is already struggling financially because they overpaid on sports rights and where exactly is the evidence that having a sporting code increases other programmes ratings and demos? I’m sure that was true in the nineties but AFL is shunted on 7mate and unless a popular NRL team is playing their ratings are pretty average. Ten having the BBL has done nothing for them.
Aside from add 40million to their bottom line annually. Without it they’d be losing even more money.
7 Likes
I was meaning in the context of actually promoting their ailing lineup. Ten’s only banking a profit because they managed to score the rights at such a cheap price which will certainly not be the case in the future when it comes to renegotiating so this is clearly an exception and not the norm.
That is the biggest load of rubbish. Ten earn more profit while BBL is on than at any other point of the year. Plain and simple.
7 Likes
Sports rights are overpriced, sure, but it’s undeniable that Seven’s dominance in ratings begins with momentum from the Tennis in January and February. Nine uses cricket, NRL and especially State of Origin (hello Ninja Warrior) as a launch pad too.
Sport rights are a bigger deal now than I think they ever have been before.
7 Likes
Just a question. How will supplying CBS content to a CBS run Ten work? Would they be able to choose whatever shows they want (besides shows that are contracted to other networks) or will they be given a set budget to buy shows or set amount in a content deal like they have currently?
And it is something people watch live - so you aren’t trying to compete with streaming services.
Sports, news and reality tv are about the only things that still pull decent ratings - it might be expensive, but there aren’t many other avenues to ratings, especially when Ten already don’t bother running a competitive news service.
7 Likes
After Facebook’s $700m bid for Indian Cricket, I’d say the sports broadcasting sector is about to get even more competitive.
7 Likes
Gordon hoping he doesn’t have a repeat of his legal folly with Nine:
Can anyone work out what office he’s photographed in?
Because the conducting of regular business under Murdoch’s watchful eye (or perhaps boot) was vastly superior…
If Bruce and Lachy loved ten so much why would they let it fall into administration to begin with. It is perplexing to think they forced the boards hand to appoint administrators and now that the administrators and subsequent receivers didn’t do as they wanted they are crying to the court. SMH!
5 Likes
what on earth do they think they can do with the business that fell into financial ruin by their own hands? Shouldn’t that be a hint that perhaps they are not exactly the ones who should take it over.
10 Likes
SBS2 wasn’t exactly strong before that change either.
7 Likes
Completely disagree. 7 has long had an in built audience thanks to years of goodwill that they are slowly loosing. They’ve rested on their laurels for far too long and so their greater than anticipated audience erosion has started
I actually can’t believe you’re suggesting that people stay with an entire network because of a lineup at the start of the year. People pick and choose what they want to watch not because of the sport that starts at the beginning of the year. They certainly don’t stay around because of what a network started with. You do realise this is 2017 and not 1987 don’t you?
9 has only done so well this year because they’ve taken a chance on new formats (Hamish/Andy crap, Ninja Warrior) that people actually want to watch, not because they saw a promo for it during a sporting event that most people fast foward anyway during an ad break or don’t bother to look at those annoying promos that pop up in the bottom corner of a game.
Without a doubt Nine tries to use sport as a launch pad for new shows and existing ones but exactly how successful are they? What increase did House Husbands, Love Child & Last Resort receive from having endless promos during sporting matches?
Thanks to people with more money than sense and an outdated emphasis on the importance on sport and being the once only exclusive way in which to watch.
I do agree more parties will enter the fray and bid on sports rights for the future but that’s also on the misguided assumption that by having that sport it will generate more revenue and traffic to their businesses. There are now many ways to watch any sport.
Less people are watching live and a greater number are choosing it to stream, torrent or download.
Most sports pulls in average to dismal ratings and thanks to being massively overpriced, most are loss leaders for their networks. NRL has seen a significant decline this year on 9
and the Cricket on 9 does the network no favours financially
or boosting programmes.
The Olympic games deal has cost 7 dearly and the AFL is still a loss leader.
News for the time being rates well but once all the dinosaurs die off and shuffle out of the desired demo how long do you think that news will continue to rate? Most millennials get their news from online sites or through social media.
As for reality tv most haven’t exactly set Australia alight this year. Seven Year Switch & Survivor are struggling, MKR is down from last year, Biggest Loser, Last Resort, Hell’s Kitchen have all flopped.
Complete bullshit. If any scripted programme is good enough and resonates with an audience it will generate massive figures. If the networks pumped less into sports and more into creating a strong viable schedule year round they could easily produce a high rating drama like Game of Thrones.
1 Like
(Alright, this is not a joke but) how about a morning newscast with Anna Kooiman among the hosts?
Yes, she is American and all that (and I’m aware of the reservations people will bring up), but that doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative. There’s no iron-clad commandment that Australians will not watch a US host. It’s definitely a point of difference (from Mumsy and Dadsy on the other channels), and she certainly has that “watchable” factor. It’s not “same old same old”, like Tarsh Belling or Kathryn Robinson, which will never work for Ten in the morning.
IN THE MORNING with Anna Kooiman and …? 5-8:30
Having a good launching pad is very important however. People might not watch Channel 7 just because it has the tennis and the football, but because it has those sports which draw in large ratings, more people find out about the programs that are on Seven.
If they like the those programs, will watch them instead of an equally good program at the same time on another channel that they haven’t heard about. Because Seven continues to have programs that draw large audiences, those audiences then find out about the next show that Seven is promoting, and therefore get drawn in a keep watching.
The vast majority of people only know what’s on TV from the ads seen while they watch TV - therefore they don’t get to see ads for new shows on a channel they’re not watching, and therefore won’t watch those shows regardless of how good they are.
Obviously quanity programming is still necessary. As you mentioned, Nine didn’t do so well on it’s programs that they launched off the back of sport. Partly because those shows weren’t really good enough to draw in and hold viewers, but also because during the year, people have already go shows they’re actively watching, and won’t necessarily want to watch a new show that clashes with it. Seven on the other hand have the advantage that after the Tennis, all networks are starting new shows, so they don’t have to compete with shows that people are already in the habit of watching.
4 Likes
Sounds positively awful. 
So two shows with Aussie hosts didn’t wprk but a show with an American, which would be grating for some viewers, will work? You’re dreaming.
2 Likes
Thinking outside the box. Why not, instead of just feeling good about criticising another person, how about suggesting a show which you think will rate better? Oh, you only enjoy mocking people. There were many reasons why Breakfast and Wake Up did not work - principally among them that the shows were more or less carbon copies of the opposition. My suggestion has long been not just for this sort of host, but also a Fox and Friends First (5am edition) style show. This is quite different in tone from the other shows on 7 and 9, and from Breakfast and Wake Up.
Once again, looking forward to hear your programming suggestions.
1 Like