Yes. The way CA was conducting itself during and after the sandpaper scandal probably meant that 10 would not benefit from covering a sport that is frowned upon nowadays in Australia.
I’m now starting to think that with the sandpaper scandal, maybe CBS didn’t want 10 to go for the cricket because they feared that they would be associating themselves with a sport that has its reputation in tatters?
Nine claim they’re losing less money on the tennis than they were with the cricket - something like $20 million I think. I think the tennis is very worth it, given the consistent and intense ratings boost it provides for 14 consecutive nights and days every year. The exclusivity in the deal raises the significance of the iconic Wide World of Sports brand and reinforces a quality/superiorness over lesser known brands like 7 Cricket or 7 Sport.
If we can see growth/stability in Travel Guides and Married at First Sight’s historic audiences, plus strong debuts for Dynasties, New Amsterdam, Bad Mothers and Murder, Lies and Alibis - I believe the investment will have well and truly been worth it.
Would be surprised if there’s much deviation from the trends evident this Summer (ie; the 2nd test against Sri Lanka should do decently while the BBL continues to underperform). However, I suspect that there might be spike for the BBL finals.
Think when it comes to sports broadcasting, network branding isn’t as important as in other areas. As we’ve witnessed this Summer, viewers (and indeed presenters & commentators) will go to whoever has the rights or which network they think has the better coverage.
Aside from a few people here, doubt there are many people who choose to watch or not watch [insert event] based on what network is showing said event and the so-called status of their sports division…
The bulletin was shown in a later timeslot. Nine coded it as “late” because the audience numbers are usually very low and they don’t want them to impact the yearly average for the 6pm bulletin numbers.