Dinosaur comes to mind. He’s clearly jealous of 10 coming out of the streaming woods with P+.
If only Seven had Presto…oh wait.
6 Likes
He is partially right, Ten has repeats galore while Ten stacks its new CBS content on Paramount+. Although we are getting new eps of NCIS: Los Angeles, CSI: Vegas, Bull and Graham Norton on Ten at the moment, so it isn’t all one way traffic.
But for those of us who refuse to pay for television, we’ll just have to sit it out. If I had any inclination to pay, I’d have gotten Foxtel many years ago.
1 Like
The reality is that linear TV is declining, and fast.
Investing into a streaming service and putting content onto it is the right way into the future IMO.
11 Likes
You do pay for linear tv in the price of the products you buy. Part of the cost of all products goes towards the advertising budget. The term FTA is a misnomer.
And via our taxes when it comes to programs on the ABC/SBS…and anything that gets funding from the various state/territory & federal government film/screen bodies - some of which is content shown on commercial TV, some of which gets run on the public broadcasters.
But I think most people around here know all that. And understand that “free to air” is largely used as a descriptive term for television services we don’t (directly) pay a monthly subscription fee for.
2 Likes
I do not buy everything I see on FTA, if I did I’d be back on the street. The “cost” of FTA is in the advertising time during programming, but again that is what makes it free to view.
There’s really no such thing as truly free (that is the price of living in a capitalist society), unless you are a child, infirm or a grifter.
Plus the implication I would be making the products I buy cheaper by paying for subscription tv, without advertising, is, I think, misinformed.
1 Like
Yes but there should be a balance IMO. Some new content (also known as not Bull triple) on FTA and some more on streaming. Unless if 10 wants to deliberately be part of the process to accelerate FTA decline then their current pathway needs to be slightly adjusted.
Having said that, the other two aren’t much better. Seven in particular likes to air UK and US rubbish that doesn’t even rate. They (like 10 and to a lesser extent Nine) only care about 7.30 which is only helping FTA becoming irrelevant quicker.
1 Like
I think it’s OTT to suggest 10 (ViacomCBS) won’t be viable. Even though linear ratings for the network aren’t good the Total TV ratings and demos seem to still work in 10’s favour, and that’s got to be keeping 10 in the game.
3 Likes
Ten is still passable in Metro, but regional I am not so sure of. I still think having two commercial operators would have been the better plan for Save Our Voices, with one of them being able to re-transmit Ten in dirty form to maintain that desirability of “choice” a basic level of competition rather than none.
I didn’t go down the demo path because that opens a whole other can of worms, but it needs to be noted 10 is third in their preferred demo of Under 50s.
I have always pushed back against people saying we can’t sustain 3 commercial networks but I am now genuinely concerned. My position has not changed lightly. If Paramount+ doesn’t work then what do they do?
Advertising revenue is shrinking, the audience is fragmenting and the trend is worrying.
It’s a sad state of affairs tbh – not just for 10 but the entire industry
2 Likes
They do make some good points in the article and
Podcast, and 10 should always strive to do & commission better but anytime they (TV Blackbox) criticize the network I can’t help but think it just comes off as a disgruntled ex employee and business which had rightly or wrongly been effectively cut off by the network.
It does make me wonder however whether ViacomCBS have thought about changing up management of their ANZ operations or if they’re comfortable with where the network is now. They’ve stabilized without any debt, invested in where they need to be (sport), created efficiencies with centralized news operations and now launched their SVOD through 10 which looks to the future of what the company will be.
Looking abroad and they seem quite comfortable with Channel 5 in the UK and where it sits in the order of how the networks perform there and that network has notoriously underperformed lacking any real news presence and all but no sports.
5 Likes
Look I understand where you’re coming from and I agree with your points about the two basketcases in 10 News First and Studio 10 but I think there’s something that I’m sure that you’re aware of that should be emphasised a bit more. All shows (with the exception of The Voice maybe) are down on last year so it’s not a 10 problem exclusively. 10’s shows still keep them afloat most of the times and it’s only when they air fillers (and flops like Making It) that they crash. 10 aren’t really looking into being the No.1 network like Seven and Nine are so for what their target is (which is to have a large proportion of their audience being under 50) they’re doing alright.
Sure they could do better but then every network can do better and I feel like if you’re criticising 10 you should probably also criticise Seven and Nine as well (or commercial FTA in general) because both of them don’t have much depth whatsoever in their schedule and are even more reliant on a few tentpole shows to keep them afloat whereas 10 at least has some variety even if not everything worked out well.
3 Likes
This is a strange article Rob. It has no context.
For context we really must look at 5 city ratings And % drop. But for real context to see how 10 is performing we need to see how Seven, Nine and ABC shows have dropped % wise over the same period. Then we need to look at how each network has dropped and broadcast TV has dropped as a whole.
Saying The Project has dropped 30 % over 10 years is a bit meaningless. What has Home and Away, ACÁ and ABC News dropped over the same period. What has broadcast TV dropped as a whole over the same period. What have the multi channels added over the same period? Has shake, peach and bold added some of the viewers over 10 years that the Project has lost?
And 30-70% over 10 years - seems decent to me. In the US shows are dropping 15% year on year or more. You’re looking at substantially bigger drops than Australia.
Australia FTA still relative way outperforms US free to air - with audience sizes significantly bigger than the US relative to population
Yes the Project is dropping. FTA is dropping even faster. And fTA In countries other than Australia is dropping even faster.
This is not a 10 story or a Project story.
This is a linear V steaming story
Unless there is data points that show 10s early evening, primetime and overall ratings / shares are dropping measurably faster than 7 or 9 or FTA as a whole - I fail to see how this is a 10 story.
It’s not even an Australian story
This linear live V ON DEMAND / steaming story is being played out in every market around the world.
If anything Australian viewing of linear TV stands up better than say the US, Canadá and Spain. That is for sure
10 Viacom CBS has revenue from Cable channels and paramount + to somewhat offeset FTA decline. At least 10 9 And Foxtel are in the steaming game
I think the story here is not 10s ratings drops (unless
There are measurably bigger than 9 and 7) but streaming V linear And how 10 and 9 are in that game - and 7 is not
And just who is asking questions about the viability of 3 networks in Australia?
I’ve not read this commentary from any media analysists, recently… or ever really.
Can we get the same deep dive into Home and away, ACÁ, 7/9 News, 7.30, 60 Minutes, 5-6pm and the three networks as a whole over 10 years?
And really considering the demos is what pays the bills and makes shows and costs viable, we really need to look at that too and cost bases. There is no doubt 10 is third in Under 50s. No doubt at all. But they are a very competitive tight stack third, and I suspect they do it with a lowe cost base than 7 or 9, without sports
The podcast gave a fairer more honest account - as long as 10 gets 200k at 6, while nine and seven get 800k- 1 million, 10 will always be third. Always and forever.
And it seems the choice was made long ago the significant resources and money be rime and patience it would take to be competitive 6-7 - well, 10 has not the resources, money, patience, dedication or interest it seems.
They’re putting their money where the future is: streaming. Taking on 7 and 9 at 6 is probably a $50 million investment /20 year timeframe for ViacomCBS CBS.
15 Likes
They need to air more Bull.
3 Likes
Just endless Ten bashing from a disgruntled ex-employee. How embarrassing.
13 Likes
Yes those broadcast audiences are evaporating but are they watching The Project, Studio 10 or Ten News on 10Play and/or social media instead? More context is needed.
The article states the project is down 30% 2011-2021 over 10 years
I’d be willing to bet that is a smaller drop 10, Nine, Seven and broadcast TV overall over 10 years!
Therefore The Project has actually held up better than the entire industry trend
This article is really off base and has zero context.
And again, not that it’s a particularly relevant comparison - but US Network tv has fallen around 130% over 10
Years. They’d kill for some project like stability
4 Likes
We also need to see 7 day and 28 consolidated numbers for Metro and then total tv lifts to get a bigger picture.
I have to agree, you cannot compare todays numbers (2021) for The Project (10 years ago) / 10 News First (20 years ago) . This isn’t a fair and balanced comparison.
A better comparison, would be to compare the numbers from 2021 - 2019 from a similar television/streaming landscape. Like you said, all programs (on all networks) are down on audiance numbers from 2001/2011.
1 Like