WIN News


Montage of Canberra bulletin from last night for comparison purposes

Nine News Regional

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.


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 %


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


I pretty much agree with KICK-IT’s posts which basically say that WIN News needs to go a composite format if they want to survive in the long run. Otherwise, WIN will probably die in the ratings against stronger competition.

I don’t think anyone on these forums would like to see WIN News being axed, but many of us are certainly frustrated at their inability to adapt and evolve for the TV landscape of 2017.


interesting everything you talk about is firing from the hip at WIN, is this personal ? WIN who have been producing and broadcasting a news bulletin from the onset of affiliation, albeit with a few cut backs and axing;s here and there . . . and still produces and broadcasts news each night to all 23 regions.

Seven Queensland also should be congratulated for doing the same throughout regional Queensland.

Up until this week the TEN affiliates failed to provide news of any substance bar updates through the day and night prior to SCA taking over the Nine affiliation - where is the disdain in this I ask ???

SCA is accepting 8 minute segments inserted into a metro bulletins from Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane and good on them for building this up once again.

Please note that I am and have been talking about the regional perspective as a whole !


It’s not personal at all, not one bit - but I’m thinking It must be for you as you are defensive of WIN. Perhaps you work there.

SCA has been absolutely ridiculed on MS for years for their noodle updates and their completely inability to do anything well. You haven’t seen those 10,000 posts?

But they found a work around - with Nine - and a pretty good one at that.

You’re incorrect - they are not inserting 8 minutes of local news into metro bulletins. These as you well know are brand new regional bulletins. And it’s far more than 8 minutes with sport and weather. At least 15-20. And I would
Wager that is about the same
Amount as purely local Sydney content in TCNs bulletin.
Yes for cairns it’s read from Brisbane. But Wins is read from Maroochydore! And yes ballarat news will be read from Melbourne. But WINs is read from Wollongong in another state! Your argument holds no water there.

Should be praise WIN reading ballarat and bendigo news from another state, so they can employ “regional” Australians? I thinking victorians would
Rather get their news from
Other Victorians.

You seem very stubburn in praising WIN and the current set up and blind and to change and unwilling to be open to the idea that there is perhaps a better way to do things. That is exactly WINs problem. We see them
Hold on to everything’s the way it USED to be done - rather than adapting.

So I’m guessing you work for WIN now. Your mindset seems like theirs.


I work for a metro wrong on both counts


I began my television in a regional community and therefore support all regional stations and don’t like seeing negative comment where they are struggling, I think this is main issue. I see too many you people trying to reach a network for employment who aren’t afforded the opportunity as a case. If you see I talk about all networks, there is no skew and no bias.