It did until about very early 2010s, but that leverage that they had is well and truly gone now. They are just a rebroadcaster now and 40 year old content won’t cut it has the top layer of a programming schedule. Newer content is 95% locked away with streaming or other networks as well, very limited options are available.
oh we all knew that at the time… we knew Bruce had no chance of filling a 24/7 schedule with Crawfords cop shows and reruns of The Saddle Club... but that was the argument he presented at the time 
2 Likes
Not at all, more efficient for WIN to stick to Nine and Ten as the focus for advertising sales and programming of content (the ad breaks). The only reach for their Seven signal is to Griffith and south-east SA which is much smaller in comparison to their Nine and Ten signals. Seven now operates the rest of the country’s Seven stations so there is no economies of scale for WIN’s team to spend what limited time and resources that remain on selling Seven product in just those limited markets for such a limited return. Who would possibly buy ad time on WIN’s Seven signals except maybe a few thousand dollars here and there for a local advertiser, it is difficult to justify when those same staff also have to sell for their Nine and Ten signals.
Over the past decade, TV in this country has moved to Total TV, it is about national reach and they love the agency advertisers who make the process simpler and more revenue-accretive for the networks.
why can’t he advertise on WIN9 or WIN10?
1 Like
Yeah!!! Stick it to the man!!!
Note the common denominator - WIN - who will certainly be taking a cut no matter what channel the ad is on
2 Likes
I can’t imagine they really would sell individual network buys, they’d just be selling it all - or just one lead channel and throwing the others at a discounted rate to fill. I’d assume no one really is going there just for ads on any given network.
From what I saw of WIN SA, it felt like more of the hyper local ads ended up on Ten, while lots of Nine breaks were infomercials and national ads that would have come from the Nine Affiliate sales not direct.
It would make sense - the Ten affiliation is probably the cheapest revenue share, so if you sell direct there it maximises how much they keep. Sevens’ the worst of both - can’t rely on affiliate sales, and would pay a higher share.
Good points. Justified if WIN had more Seven affiliations in larger markets perhaps. I just thought it wouldn’t be that time or resource intensive to just add Seven back as an option for their Griffith/SA clients.
“Multi-year” tends to end up being 2 years if the stakeholders concerned don’t put a number on it.
They possibly take more in revenue share too
2 Likes
There is no revenue without advertising though as was alluded to earlier. Do we know if WIN’s Seven signal will continue to be dirty feeds from the nearest cap city throughout this agreement?
[Federal Member for Barker, Tony] Pasin said the agreement was for another three years with an option to extend.
2 Likes
Hang on, if WIN aren’t inserting any adverts into the feed, what do they get out of transmitting Seven?
1 Like
This is the nub! WIN only seeking to monopolise this market, the WIN10’s will be next to lose local ad sales and possible eventual switch off. If there are no local ad sales, how could WIN pay for an affiliation? Hence my assumption WIN are not paying to relay the Seven content, except maybe the program link and transmitter costs? This is exactly why these TV1 licence areas are no longer fit for purpose. Issue 7,9 & 10 a national licence so as to get rid of these relic Regional TV gatekeepers out of the way. Regional TV died at the start of Aggregation when all the Regionals basically became metro network clones. Even though these are not Aggregated markets, the affiliation agreements essentially are, but with the one sole gatekeeper, just like the bad old days of Regional TV before Aggregation. A mess is all I can say.
1 Like
Not the point.
If that is the case, WIN should not be blocking Seven to get an economic return in these markets for content that SWM is most likley supplying free to WIN now. Not fair to the advertisers who do want to advertise on Seven on those markets, is like a restraint of trade. The Feds really need to step in here instead of sitting on the sidelines while Rome burns.
3 Likes
Since aggregation regional TV networks have had to pay affiliation fees & a portion of their advertising revenue to the major networks which is highway robbery It was the government that told them to operate outside their original markets.
Good news, pleased WIN and 7WM have come to an agreement.
This paragraph in that ABC article was a good example of how technology is a bit much for some people
"An elderly friend went out yesterday and bought a smart TV not understanding that you needed the internet to stream programs — expenses he couldn’t really afford," the listener said.
2 Likes
The market is already a monopoly, as licenced by the ACMA due to its population. Despite what we think of WIN, there is no sinister scheme in this case.
But it’s definitely time for the makeup of the regional television markets to be reassessed, to prevent future cutting of services.
2 Likes
Not sure how you can do that, i can’t see anyone else wanting to compete in small markets like that. Unless Govts are willing to subsidise.
VASTing is the other (albeit expensive) option.
As in WIN9 only monopoly in those solus markets with no Seven or Ten services. That is what I meant, my bad.