Yes and no. It was reported at the time that a key part of the Nine-SCA deal was purely Nine branding.
If that was true, then presumably Nine would still want their brand, at least in a co-branding fashion, to be present.
If an affiliate doesn’t like the deal on offer, they don’t have to sign it.
And for comparison look at some of the branding requirements US television networks impose (e.g. for all network programming the network logo must be shown, with only a brief additional/local logo at the end of each break).
The point being with WIN/Bruce Gordon wanting his own branding & Nine wanting their brand to be a truly national brand, combined with the other previous issues, I just don’t see Nine actually signing with WIN again, even though Nine have been pissed off with SCA for allegedly booking revenue against radio instead of TV.
This all smacks of negotiating tactics; SCA want a reduction to the cut Nine have been taking, while of course Nine want as much as they can get.
If WIN will pay significantly more, then Nine would most likely go with them (money talks), but I doubt WIN can afford to pay more than SCA (remembering WIN News & rebranding costs money).
With any luck, if they do affiliate with Nine again, the deal will be similar to their last one with no coverups in sight at all except news, and the full suite of channels (with SNOW instead of 9Rush)
I believe here in the south east, we very briefly got 9Life before the affiliation change in 2016, now the only way to pick up 9Life (apart from online steaming) is via western victoria.
There is no doubt these talks are meant to scare SCA into giving Nine Entertainment Co. more coin. These reports emerge every time there is an affiliation renewal looming. I’m surprised people still fall for it each time.
Nine Entertainment Co. has invested so much money into the SCA affiliation, I just can’t see them throwing it all away, just yet.
SCA can also bring more assets to the table, than what WIN can.
You are correct, today was the first day that Southern Cross did not have exclusivity in negotiations with Nine. The timing tells you Nine are using it as a tactic by using their assets to get Southern Cross to give up even more.
Given how WIN treated Nine Adelaide/Perth when they owned it previously, it would be become another train wreck.
Only now is Nine finally competitive in Adelaide, and Nine has owned the station for 7+ years already!
Its got that vibe - I’d imagine that with only 3 months left of the deal, they’d be keen to stitch something up soon though (especially if it is an affiliate change)
While I dont particularly care for 9Rush - it would be nice if this move saw SNOW disappear (unlikely as it is)
Just to point out for people who will jump into the crazy multichannely speculation game - multichannels are not 1 in 1 out, it’s about managing the bandwidth. WIN could add channels without removing, they could carry some but not all additional ones, etc.
Quality could get poor in cases - but networks will decide what channels to carry, and then work out how to squeeze them in, so any channel additions or omissions by WIN if they swapped affiliation, or indeed in a renewed Ten affiliation, would be down to a commercial decision on the viability/profitability of the content, or if agreements required it.
WIN absolutely could make it work to get all of Nine’s channels and keep Gold/SNOW.
and if and when WIN gets the Nine affiliation again, would that mean that Sky News on WIN be able to access Nine news reports that are currently used on the Foxtel main Sky News channel?
I think that SMH article is more of a ploy for Nine to extract more money from SCA. But either way, I am looking forward to the meltdown some of you are going to have if it doesn’t go your way.
(except on EPG)
