Strong local news lifts an entire stations prime time
7 QLD, NBN Newcastle; 7 Tasmania, GWN7 WA, 9 Darwin - all case in point. That’s all mega revenue.
The regional stations are not stupid. Spend a little money on local news - halo effect in prime time ratings = more revenue.
They do it because there is money in it.
Before any station groups chops local news they should seek to cut costs from affiliate fees. The networks also understand that local news is important to revenue. Seven stated this during the prime merger process and this is why the 9:SCA news agreement exists. It’s in the interest of nothing parties to have a strong 6pm local news
Also. The way 9 and win in particular do local news (state wide and foot and paste news) - not much would be saved by doing noodle updates
To hit points quotas they neee local news vison. And up to 6 minutes or it a day. You’re looking at doing something like 30-40 unique noodle updates and scheduling them. At some point it becomes cheaper to do one 30 minute state wide “local news”
Would geography have anything to do with it? For example; how many transmission sites are required to reach the population of New Zealand, versus how many are required to reach the population of regional Australia? Surely their CODB is far higher here than other places, even European countries.
I’m not sure. What % of expenses for a station group are transmission towers. I’ve never heard the regional networks ever cite this as a reason they can’t fund local news
Yes, but in reality that’s how TV local news really works. News is concentrated on a particular area of a broadcast region. For example - Prime7 News in Tamworth covers everything Tamworth and Armidale, but rarely travels to Glen Innes, Inverell, Narrabri or Moree. There’s other examples in each broadcast region except more city related smaller sub-markets like Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.
When WIN cut full news bulletins from Mt Gambier and Riverland, they cited costs as a reason for its removal, but they never investigated training their Journalists and turning them into Videojournalists on a combined bulletin.
SCA for all of its faults has a successful local news in Spencer Gulf/Broken Hill with all their on air staff working as VJ’s. Yes, SCA are getting blood out a stone because there’s an extra workload, but it’s just a way that networks are trying to cut costs but still put out a semi-professional product.
I’m aware WIN and SCA don’t need to actually put out a local SA regional news due to no local content laws.
I think licence area size and diversity within the licence area are a big factor - there is a massive disparity in the size of some of the sub-markets that operate and lets be honest, the markets, population-wise arent that big (and the potential ad markets will be commensurate with the size)
I dont think anyone has directly drawn the two matters together - but the number of transmission sites is something that has been raised in the past (especially when it came to Digital conversion and recently around the Government’s proposed changes to broadcast licences and the lack of ABC/SBS funding of some sites)
I dont disagree, but I believe in the example you’ve given that both Prime7 and NBN try and get out to those locations at least weekly.
They probably haven’t mentioned this directly because it’s just part and parcel of running a regional Australian network. A land-based transmission network in a large area with X population costs more than in a small area with same population. I don’t think we need Prime to spell it out for it to be obviously true.
… the “limits on how much one person or entity can controls” existed prior to Paul Keating changing the rules to suit the media moguls … I can’t see anyone moving backwards and reinstating them …
If that was the case, they’d be doing it with all stations. Unfortunately it does not appear to be the case going by the last twenty years, at least in this country.
I would suggest the vast majority don’t. But different kinds of local news need different amounts of cash. The centralised version we have with most markets here makes it more viable, although still loss-making with most operations.
Do we know that local news is loss making? Is someone from Prime7, WIN. SCA etc on record as stating that?
I’m not convinced. If you look at ratings 7 Tasmania, NBN, 7 QLD, GWN7, Prime7 etc - you’ll see the number one most Watched show night after night is their local news. That’s bringing in more revenue than any other show.
Granted, with local news there are the production and associated costs that Don’t come with carrying network programming. But local news rates higher than most network shows, more ratings = more revenue
And that’s before the “halo effect” is factored in - lifting the whole channels performance. Ratings and revenue.
Mr Gordon’s company has repeatedly warned federal MPs over the past 12 months that the 3000 hours of local content WIN produces each year is “not a profitable exercise” and increasingly at risk without reform of Australia’s media ownership laws
(Gordon goes on to say that local news is an “obligation”)
I don’t feel Bruce is transparent with his precious WIN
WIN News is an awful product and rates accordingly. When you dish up a sub standard news product the ability for it to recoup the production costs through ratings & revenue is greatly limited
Does revenue earned by local news slots still contribute to the amount to be paid to the metro network for affiliation access? If so, as much as 50% of that revenue is instantly carved off. Must be very hard for any local news to make a profit when so much of its ad revenue is taken away for other programming
