The new regional Nine bulletins, though, are still a compromise. They aren’t fully customised for each region. So for some areas when the main story of the day is a local story, viewers will still have to watch the state/international stories that open the bulletin and wait for the first window of local news. Obviously, a financial decision, but the ideal would have been to be able to customise a much greater proportion of the composite bulletin.
Yes very true. A compromise. But I’d rather a live bulletin and wait 8 minutes to get my local news.
Then am antire taped pieced together bulletin
1 Like
Let’s face it, we lost “true local” bulletins when everything became centralised.
I think the best thing for win to do is a 1 hour bulletin at 5pm and insert a 30 minute window at maybe 5:30, as 5pm may be to early for some viewers. Rebrand to WIN Eyewitness News, dual hosts, ten inspired graphics, and an on location weather presenter.
4 Likes
Perhaps it will vary from day to day. There might be days with a big local story or stories when it is worth tuning in at 6pm to WIN and even again at 6.08 on SC9.
1 Like
Regarding Nine News’ new bulletins; If Canberra has a big news story, they could lead the statewide bulletin with it. Same with all the other regional variants if the story is big enough. It doesn’t have to be national/Sydney centric in the first block.
6 Likes
Composite bulletins are better, you’re right, but in the era of aggregation as it stands today, you must understand the nature of displacement costs to all regional networks -
I ask you the question . . what would you rather, mass retrenchments and no local news as it costs the regional networks upwards of 30k - 40k per hour to displace a metro news before any costs are incurred in producing their own local news.
Or on the other hand maintain a local bulletin outside the metro bulletin hour (which is significantly less in displacement costs) and importantly at the same time provide employment for young camera ops, editors, producers and journalists etc. in their local region receiving broadcast training which they would not find in a metro environment?
Again I come back to the argument, stop comparing like for like - the metro bulletins by their very right must be better in all aspects with the budgets and staffing applied, and local bulletins are a fertile training ground for the industry - you choose . . . training, employment of cut all regional news costs and no localism.
Can you explain in detail
What displacement costs are and why they differ replacing news instead of say family fued
When a regional network produces its own local program to replace an existing fed program from its parent affiliate e.g. Nine, Ten or Seven, then it still has to pay the revenue percentage to that network supplier regardless of broadcasting the program or not.
The difference between the value of Family Feud and a national news bulletin is the revenue generated. News advertising attracts a higher premium rate than Family Feud therefore if that is displaced the costs a significantly reduced and less of an impost to the regional networks. In turn this is an acceptable cost added towards the production of a local news bulletin.
2 Likes
That makes sense.
But it’s not really a “displacement” cost - there is no extra cost burden for WIN.
WINs agreement is to pay Ten 35% of all
Revenue booked. So that includes 6-6.30pm.
Whether WIN shows FF or WIN news - they still
Have to pay that 50%
If WIN were a tougher / smarter negotiator - they should have had the deal structured so they only pay 35% of revenue on Ten network programming. So they run FF - they have to hand over 35% of revenue. They run WIN News - and they get to keep 100% of revenue.
Then there is actually an incentive to schedule
Local news for WIN.
That’s how the US system works. And that’s why there is so much local news - as much as 13 hours a day on some
Stations. - they get to keep 100% or revenue. If they run network
Or syndicated programming they only keep a smaller %
5 Likes
Why would the metro network agree to that?
Any agreements between two parties are about give and take until both parties are happy. It encourages a fair balance between network and local programming. And if local programming at 6 rates better than FF, Aa stronger WIN overall is better financially for Ten.
I’m sorry . . . there is an extra burden to all regional networks who decide to produce another program to displace an existing program be it News or something else.
Yes you’re right revenue is paid on all programming, however they don’t get to keep all revenue at any time.
This isn’t a negotiated scenario as you suggest they should be better at . . . If a regional station enters into an affiliate program deal with a metro network, the regional stations do not get to keep 100% of their revenue. WIN, Prime and SCA negotiate accordingly, from 35% to 50% which goes to the supplier Nine TEN or Seven.
The extra cost burden to the regional stations is to find the money to pay for the news staff et al AFTER paying the percentage to the metros. The regional networks don’t negotiate per program it is one in all in.
Some history for you . . .
It would be good to pick and choose the programs they want and pay accordingly, however once aggregation was approved through the Federal Government legislation back in the late 80’s tabled by Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, the metro networks immediately offered their content as a one in all in scenario - hence you may have see all the historical articles supporting the demise of local production in all regional communities, encompassing the local children’s television programs, women’s magazine programs, local sport programs etc. etc. all because they had already paid for the content which would be displacing these programs.
1 Like
I’d rather WIN News stay on the air in some form, absolutely. It’s good for local areas it’s good for viewers it’s good for employment it’s good for Australian TV.
But times are changing, if WIN wants to stay on the air they do need to evolve. If you don’t adapt and change you die. Composite bulletins are a better experience for viewers and more cost effective. The way we consume news has / is changing.
WIN needs to start preparing for the future. Their newsrooms need to start producing content that goes to all
Platforms. Digital online social streaming on air. They can’t just keep working 12 hour days to put 30 minutes to air at 6. They need to adapt to the digital age, and have journalists file not just for on air - but digital too. It’s more cost effective and future proofs them.
I’d rather see WIN move to composite bulletins and re-direct the funds into transitioning to this kind of operation. If they don’t adapt to the changing media landscape they will die. No one wants that. And tied to Ten - they are gonna struggle
More than SCA and Prime7
4 Likes
I agree with you in your first para, and I’m sure WIN would be looking to work within all future platforms, but you’re missing the main issue . . . but and it is a huge ‘but’ - to produce their own composite bulletin and displace a metro bulletin becomes cost prohibitive in a regional location. Running television stations for shareholders and/or a solus owner is purely a business with a projected return of investment. Re-directing funds and transitioning to a composite operation is not feasible in the current metro environment.
Wait and see what happens to the industry once media laws are resolved (if that ever happens), we will see major changes then, and I’m sure along your lines, but in the meantime everyone want local news, done by local people and supporting their local communities - this costs $$$$ and a helluva lot more than people realize.
2 Likes
I agree with what you are saying.
I’m not taking about displacing Ten News at 5. Im suggesting keeping that and doing WINs own composite bulletins at 6.
1 Like
In regards to cost, I read an article about a year ago that quoted Paul
Lancaster who runs WIN. He said the company spends about $20 million a year on local news.
For 15 bulletins - that is about 1.3m per bulletin / market.
For local news 5 days a week 52 weeks a year that’s quite remarkable. Considering one episode of Australian Survivor or X factor can cost that.
WIN still clearly sees economic benefit in keeping these on the air, or they wouldn’t be around. There is a halo that comes with local news and a connection to the community. Think of it almost as a marketing cost.
1 Like
I see your point, however it would be seen in the industry as doubling up, ‘already seen it’ 30 minutes prior . . . that would be what everyone, especially all the critics would saying and I would bet 100% they wouldn’t see past the positive aspect.
Sorry to be negative about this, but I rarely see very much support for the regional television industry on this site, so damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Thoroughly enjoyed the robust discussion with you.
That presumes people sit down and watch 90 minutes of news non stop.
And we know they don’t.
That’s why seven and nine have news at 4 and again at 6
That’s why us stations have news at 4 then 5 then 6 - all largely the same
Stories over and over
No one sits down and watches it all.
The current set up requires you be home and watch WIN from 5pm, -and get through all
Of Melbournes factory fires, freeway accidents, local weather, more factory fires, shopping mall
Openings - irrelevant news - sit through all this at 5. Then sit through to 630pm. To get your local and national news or the day. And If you get home at 6. Your fucked. As WIN news doesn’t cover the big news or the day.
That’s why they need to go to composite.
3 Likes
Everyone wants regional tv to thrive and be successful. People want WIN to be successful. What we are frustrated at is WINs inability to evolve and adapt. We all see WIN axing WIN news In a year if they don’t remain competitive at 6. None of us want that.
4 Likes