I hadn’t seen it for a while, so I recorded the Thursday night edition and watched a bit of it this morning.
Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s “totally unwatchable” (I’d still prefer it to some of those infomerical style morning programs), it’s hard to see where the audience is for it. I suspect it’s there in part to meet or boost local content requirements?
It does also give the MS enthusiast the opportunity to see WIN jounos from around the country in action.
Just like home shopping, AAN doesn’t need an audience. It fulfils a requirement by just being on air.
And even as a “repeat,” the older local late versions seemed to be packaged for the time slot. This one for the Illawarra in 2001 aired at 00.15 with Geoff Phillips saying “Good Morning.”
Also god bless @Zampakid
Yeah WIN were re-recording the opening voice-over/intro, but after that it was a repeat of the bulletin earlier in the evening.
Yeah, I’m sure that Opener for WIN News: Late Edition was recorded at about 6.35pm! 
By the late 2000s (but before WIN News: Late Edition became a SNSW/ACT-wide bulletin) I think it was just a pure replay of the 6pm bulletin without even a special Opener.
yes, extra costs of running an additional channel and extra advertising spots on that channel at mega-cheap prices not making a return on investment. SCA would rather keep their precious SBN channel instead, they make more money out of that!
Who wouldn’t take free money if the choice was between having someone renting the space 24/7 compared to paying to source programming content and then having to work to get advertising to try and recoup some of that money. I doubt there’s any business or person who would choose the latter, if there was an endless supply of advertising dollars from people then no dramas they’d be able to make enough from that.
It may be that affiliates are paying to license the content on all their network’s channels even if they don’t broadcast it, but getting paid to broadcast something else is still most likely more profitable.
SCA seem keen for a deal with 10 with recent reports but I’m wondering if long term they sell 50/50 to Prime and WIN and the old SCA licenses becomes JVs in Regional Vic, Southern NSW and Regional QLD.
They can’t do that. Those markets only allow one TV licence per operator.
The JV markets are exceptions to the rule as they were not aggregated and you not had two analogue licences.
Can’t do it now but just watch SCA/Prime/Win fight for that legislative change in the years to come.
… yep in 1985 it was called MultiChannel Services (MCS) and was what regional television operators wanted for regional television equalisation, but Hawke forced aggregation instead … I’ll laugh myself silly if forty years later it ends up switching back to MCS after all the heartache, loss of localism and financial disasters that aggregation has caused … it’s what happens when politicians fiddle with the rules to satisfy their “mates” …
I haven’t heard much of this… well before my time.
Did this basically involve the regional stations running more than one service/affiliation?
I have thought for a while that this would be a great way to fix some of the issues with regional stations. To have the one station running multiple affiliates in a market.
I’ve seen that suggested a a perhaps better alternative to aggregation, but look at the history of cable TV in the USA and you see other problems with giving a for-profit company a monopoly in an area.
It’s always easier to see in hindsight, but I don’t think either option was a clear/perfect choice.
Aggregation provided both the mix of metro channels but also competition, which was good both for advertisers and viewers. Looking at the additional stations missing from regional affiliates now, I imagine it may have been worse expecting a single company to put out all the commercial channels for all three networks. Why would they? There certainly wouldn’t be competitive pressure to do so.
The amount of effort & cost required but for a 3rd of the market area just wouldn’t be sustainable.
Oh right. CLEARLY.
This was the brochure that the regional stations put out in protest of aggregation. They also ran a series of TV ads
Multi-Channel Services ended up being the model adopted in regional SA and in Griffith/MIA, NSW as an alternative to aggregation.
Other than a brief mention in the TVBlackbox article, has it been mentioed anywhere else WIN will take on the 9 branding?
Today’s article in the SMH makes no mention of promoting 9 branded assets.
airtime for promotion of assets such as radio stations 2GB and 3AW, streaming service Stan and its newspapers the Herald and The Age.
Sources close to Mr Gordon have brushed off any intentions to merge with Nine
Would seem a fair conclusion to come to: that there was co-ordination between SCA news folk and 9 News’ network graphics team to elevate the Tasmania updates to “network” look
The network created multiple intros, few regional backgrounds and sourced some network graphic elements for Tassie when Nine News Regional first came on-air years ago.
They are due to be updated though to suit the new package.
Agreed. The dreaded outcomes of ownership consolidation and a reduction in local content (which unfortunately I don’t think the general population cares as much about as they should) probably would’ve eventually happened to regional TV in one way or another, even if the alternative multichannelling option was chosen over aggregation.
