If the argument of losing money in one region had been applied across Australia, this market along with the old MVQ region in QLD and MTN in NSW would have remained solus markets.
I have been reading a very interesting paper on aggregation in QLD and the hurdles the operators had in establishing the newly aggregated area - it had challenges such as a recession and instability caused by the Sunshine being effectively in receivership under the Skase/Qintex ownership.
Trying not to get off topic too much, QLD could have potentially been back to 2 operators if had formally appointed a receiver under the âshow cause â clause.
In understanding what is happening in Mildura and the fact that the two operators are major players, anyone who comes in and attempts to set up operations as a Ten affiliate will be significantly disadvantaged and the only way it could work is to launch an aggressive advertising campaign to target national advertisers initially and actually get out there and actively target local businesses.
As one forum member stated, they have been waiting for an advertising package and they arenât a small business. I believe the advertising dollar is potentially there if you want it
Iâm going to post the link for the paper I mentioned above in Television History for anyone interested in the QLD case study on aggregation in far north QLD
Quite likely. There was no incentive for Prime/7 or WIN to try hard to get sales. It was much better for them to focus their efforts on their main licences where they would receive 100% of the revenue rather than having to split it 50% with their competitor. A motivated solo operator would likely be able to increase sales - but could they increase enough to make it viable? Who knows.
The biggest problem for 10 with this isnât he loss of 60K people from their broadcast footprint (which realistically translates to maybe a few thousand nightly viewers). Thatâs less than 1% of their total audience, so isnât going to impact revenue too much. But itâs the domino effect this could start. If they start losing other markets, that reduces their audience more significantly - even if they drop 10% of their reach to 90% of the population, it becomes much harder to sell nationally, which includes in program sponsorship, and also bidding for sporting rights. Iâd say Mildura is more important to 10 than simply the revenue theyâll lose from that area alone.
If Network 10 can survive longer in solus markets in neighbouring regions ( Riverlands SA & MIA) than the JV station in Mildura, it really makes you think about the modeling of JV stations versus markets with a single operator for all 3 networks.
You would think if this happened even 5 years ago there would of been a bit more of a fightback but everyone can see the writing on the wall for traditional FTA delivery and see 10play as a suitable replacement for the area.
I guess one thing Mildura still has over these other solus markets is at least 7 has started to air local news and weather updates.
If it is more efficient for a solus operator to run all 3 networks than 1 each with a JV arrangement for the 3rd network, then a solution might be for 7 and WIN to do a swap⌠ie. WIN becomes the solus operator for all 3 networks in Mildura and 7 becomes the solus operator for all Griffith stations.
Or WIN buys the 7 Mildura operation (and 7âs share of the 10 licence) and that might be profitable / cost efficient enough to keep all 3 services on air there?
TEN effectively canât get national sporting rights now with recent snubs by CA, NRL and AFL.
What if TEN were to operate the 10Mildura operation as their first stand-alone regional split providing sales and playout, but the Fed Govt makes Seven/WIN pay for the on-going transmitter costs, power and maintenance, as a get out of jail penalty?
This would trigger local content requirements at the least for 10Mildura.
Iâd be watching Darwin and Tasmania very closely - if those markets fall over then the ramifications for Ten/the third network become much more stark.
They are probably the âfreeâ / âbonusâ spots that buyers get for buying X number of slots on 7 or WINâs main channels (as someone else posted further above).
I think that WIN (and maybe to a lesser extent) Seven are wanting government subsidies (or other forms of compensation) using the withdrawal of Ten network programming from this area. This could be the response to the failed âsave our voicesâ campaign .
I think that itâs a tactic that is aimed at forcing government intervention by withdrawing services. It would have been interesting if it had been done 5 years ago when WIN was the Ten affiliate. I wonder if Nine would have went in directly are broadcast Nine programming from Nine Melbourne or Nine Adelaide or encouraged SCA to go in.
In either scenario, I believe Nine would have pushed hard for the advertising dollar, even if it was from additional paid presentations.
This was the idea behind the Save Our Voices a few years back in a nutshell, on a whole of regional scale, although with news brought back for these smaller areas. There wasnât much interestâŚ
The industry is nothing but annual cost cuts in line with increased affiliation rates and reduced advertising revenue.
While these requirements are good (and should have simply been applied across the board, rather than been linked to trigger events) they act as a real handbrake to allowing market change.
A lot has been said on why 10 got snubbed, but now I think all three bodies were sticking with the outdated model of one FTA broadcaster and one subscription platform. If they follow the US model and split the matches among 3-4 broadcasters (or even more), 10 may get a chance.
It is worth discussion in the relevant sporting rights thread.
True, in some cases between profitable or running at a loss.
Interestingly, would they run the same mandated content, news and weather updates, on both their main and S38A services running different top and tail openers and closers? Thus no added cost for either? A loophole that no doubt the regional operators are aware of?
It would be very interesting to know (especially TDT) if Tasmania and Darwin are actually running profitably.
I can see a day when (at least here in Tasmania) TDT gets included in the WIN mux or SCA7 mux depending on the area. Removing the cost of running an extra transmitter at most locations in Tasmania. Smaller power bills and smaller repair billsâŚ
Another thing to take into account is the TX assets are getting old, and at some point will require a refresh. Canât see WIN, BAI or SCA paying for thatâŚ
Doubtful if Nine or Seven would allow TEN channels on the WIN or SCA mux with their current affiliation contracts. And even if allowed, TEN would be downgraded to SD to squeeze on the already maxed out mux for both.
WIN mostly has the oldest transmitters still in service I believe.