The industry is not interested in government (other people’s) money - they want to consolidate to be able to sustainably provide the local news they still provide with a sustainable business despite the fact they do not have to - particularly WIN they could have cut their bulletins 20 years ago - that is ALOT of money foregone. They do it because they still believe in the commitment as a broadcaster to their audience - however every year it becomes harder to keep as revenue dwindles. Hence the cuts last year. When revenue drops to a point, cuts need to be made.
The voices test is stupid because of the influence that Google/Facebook/Daily Mail et al has these days as news sources. Even Seven, Nine and Ten broadcast online to the regional audiences yet expect higher payments from Prime, WIN and SC for the privilege - nothing but a hypocritical money grab.
Yes and no. There’s plenty of voices for National and international news, but for anything local there’s only a couple. The online news providers also only service a part of the community that is willing to expand their horizons by using the internet (which is a big scary thing for many older people who have lived their whole lives in small towns) and are already likely to think critically and search for differing views.
They aren’t? Well, let’s reinstate the licence fees and see how much they squirm.
Legislation hasn’t kept up with the times, there’s no doubt about that - but I dont think its unreasonable to have limits on how much one person or entity can control.
Claiming Google and Facebook as news sources is fanciful, neither produce their own content - rather they aggregate and disseminate content, how they do that last one deserves more oversight. Daily Mail take the no fucks given approach and refactor existing stories into clickbait.
All networks are only required to make points. They can do noodle updates in all markets and meet the standard. Don’t make the mistake believing bulletins are guaranteed under whatever circumstances.
So let’s say the likes of WIN and Prime say local news has to go.
What’s to stop local bulletins being supplied by a local University or another news provider? For example, WIN News Rockhampton being produced by Central Queensland University or WIN News Townsville produced by Townsville Bulletin/Sky News.
I think half the issue is WIN and Prime7 are mostly still producing the bulletins like its 1988. There’s a lack of modern thinking and originality how the bulletins are produced. In areas where WIN come 2nd or even 3rd jazz it up and try something different to get new audiences and grow. At least Prime7 don’t need to do much because their bulletins are still mostly market leaders.
WIN have this cookie cutter effect where it doesn’t matter if you’re watching in Cairns or Shepparton the news seems the same. At least Prime7 seem to have evolved slightly with their “Live” at the scene crosses.
Why should they get a free kick on a cost of doing business that’s not extended to any other licence holder of the spectrum?
A big thing will be whether these alternate providers exist - universities might work in some locations, but they may only have a presence in one or two towns/cities in a broadcast area
Why do they so badly need to consolidate? All 3 regional networks reach more people than any network in NZ, and even networks in say Denmark, Norway and Switzerland. They are not so small. Broadcasters around the world are suffering the same fate, why are Australian regional networks so unique?
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 …
Business is often the first group demanding a handout. Networks have used job keeper this year and finally got a reduction in license fees.