It’s not
You will see some generic ads in ad breaks with the WIN logo, usually for sponsorship of local events or a generic WIN sponsor board
Otherwise the only time you’ll see WIN plastering their logo on screen during a program is on the channels they’re affiliated with. Of course now this is the Ten channels, so you won’t see the WIN logo above the Nine or Seven logos in program
Now you’ve done it…
Every time we mention WIN not doing something, or doing something well on here it gets changed!
Praised for small watermark… replaces with massive logo.
Someone said “at least they don’t have their logos on the multichannels like in the old days” and suddenly logos!
Expect to see logos on the other monopoly market channels in a few weeks time…
Someone at WIN is probably reading this and getting “ideas” from us!
Big coloured logos on 7TWO, 7mate, 9GO! and 9Gem in Mildura, Griffith and South East SA and the Riverland … What a good idea, they say! And voila!
Not!!!
You know WIN hasn’t made a cover up for Ten New- ok, I’ll stop.
All jokes aside, WIN hasn’t done it before and I doubt they’d do it now. The most extreme WIN branding was when there was WIN and WIN Ten… 12 years before the current affiliation deal started. I doubt its worth the time, money or resources to slap the logo on another six channels, including on their 7mateHD stream which I don’t think is coming from Adelaide (for WIN SA)
That being said, I shall declare that the new WIN watermark will be Bruce Gordon’s head!
WIN has only ever pasted their logo on channels under their primary affiliation. Seven, and now Nine, are not their primary affiliation in monopoly markets (they’re just straight dirty feeds from the nearest capital city), hence no WIN logo.
Since at least September, the ACMA has the on air ID of Seven in Riverland/Mount Gambier and Griffith MIA as 7HD.
WIN is WINHD and NINE content is listed as 9
The chances of getting 7 in HD over 7MATE are next to nothing, but I find it interesting regardless
ACMA gets a lot of facts wrong, and uses Wikipedia as a source for their investigations.
WIN’s weekly ratings update for the week of 14-20 May:
In Southern NSW/ACT, WIN’s main channel was 2nd (behind Prime7), but still 4th in network shares. It is 3rd in QLD, VIC & TAS both in main channel & network shares, whilst in WA, it’s 3rd in main channel shares & 4th in network shares.
If Bruce Gordon wanted to, could he be allowed to buy Ten Darwin and Ten Central from their joint-venture partners so that he can complete his network and inflict mappy on VAST viewers (outside of WA)?
Ten Darwin and Ten Central (in addition to Nine Mildura, Nine Tasmania and Nine West) operate on supplementary licences as ACMA do not believe that the market size would support three broadcasters, instead allowing the two broadcasters to form a joint venture.
I would presume that such a licence would prevent old Bruce from buying them, but even if he could, they would not be financially viable.
My understanding is that if both owners in the joint venture agree then either or both can sell of their share to the other partner or to a third party.
But as you say it would most likely not be a wise move financially and such a purchase would probably be subject to ACMA approval.
I believe that’s correct. Supplementary licenses for radio have been permitted to be split up over the years, and this would really be no different.
However, given the small revenue in those markets, with the JV partners claiming that the JVs make no money, I doubt Bruce would be interested. I also doubt the JV partners would want to sell and risk losing their own revenue to a new competitor, especially since they would get very little money from such a sale.
There’s no chance of that happening. I believe the current owners of those stations are likely to keep Ten Darwin and ten central for the foreseenable future.
Yeah why give up the revenue from the 3rd service that they get to split amongst themselves to a 3rd party. Doesn’t make sense to sell
Anyone in the Northern NSW market available to record the change from SCA to WIN at midnight tonight?
Prime put their 50% share of the Mildura JV licence up for sale in 2015 and it was listed in their accounts as an asset held for sale. There was zero interest in buying it, probably because Prime lost over $1 million on it combined in 2015 and 2016, and Prime’s share of the licence is only worth $86,000. In the 2016 annual report Prime stated that a sale was unlikely so it was no longer treated as an asset for sale. Presumably WIN’s share of the Mildura JV would be identically worthless.
Prime’s share of the WA JV licences are worth about $800,00 but their share of the losses is over $400,000 each year. WIN’s losses would be the same.
On paper maybe. The real value is obviously much less if it generates such significant losses.
[quote=“littlegezzybear, post:3630, topic:55”]
Presumably WIN’s share of the Mildura JV would be identically worthless.
[/quote]Yes, however they might be worth more if both shares were offered - ignoring the losses, half of a licence that is managed by someone else isn’t all that exciting, but an whole licence that would give a potential purchaser the freedom to do whatever they want might be more appealing.
However, losses for these JV companies should be taken with a grain of salt - it’s all just creative accounting to make this appear different. The reality is that the JV licences aren’t there just as a community service - their owners are suffering massive losses just to give viewers the choice of more programming - if a JV made a loss they would be turned off to save money.
Here’s a very simplistic overview of what they do.
Advertising is rarely allocated to the JV account fully - most of the advertising will be sold as add-ons to sales made by the main networks - using Mildura as an example, say Prime sell a package of 20 ads for $2000, with 12 going on their channels and 8 going on the JV channel - however the JV won’t se the $800 that their ads generated. They might get $400, maybe less, maybe nothing. This is also why the major networks don’t care about the JV licences much when it comes to affiliate agreements - with the JV’s posting very small revenue, affiliate payments are also minimal.
Costs of transmission are split between all networks. Fair enough, the 2 networks and the JV each have their own transmitter. In most places, maintenance on transmission sites is contracted out, so the same tech will work on all transmitters. As a result, the cost of the tech going to the site, as well as site costs is split 3 ways. Apart from power usage, this will cost a similar amount if 2 or 3 transmitters are running. So say the cost to maintain a site is $90,000 across all the commercials. If it was just Prime and WIN, each would pay $45,000 (plus any variation for work done for just one company). With the JV included, this reduces down to $30,000 each. Including their JV share, Prime are still paying $45,000, but now $15,000 of this can be allocated to the JV account.
It does make sense financially for the seller because they are removing an asset that loses money each year.
However, in terms of how interested they’d be in their direct competition owning it 100%, that is a different story…
We’ll go #ChangeIsComing to Northern NSW (sort of).