tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/pay-tv-5124/articlesPay TV – The Conversation2019-07-14T20:26:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1203022019-07-14T20:26:53Z2019-07-14T20:26:53ZEngland win Men’s Cricket World Cup in a last-ball thriller – now will the country see more matches on free TV?<p>To say, “cricket was the winner” doesn’t really cover it. England’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/14/england-new-zealand-cricket-world-cup-final-match-report-super-over">astonishing World Cup victory</a> came off the last ball of a “super over” – a tie-breaker that was only needed because the game itself had ended in a tie. </p>
<p>On the final ball of a tournament that has lasted since the beginning of June it came down to this: New Zealand needed two runs to win, England needed to restrict them to one. If wicketkeeper Jos Buttler had fumbled Jason Roy’s throw as the Kiwi batsmen ran for their lives, the street parties would have been happening in Dunedin and Auckland. </p>
<p>No World Cup final could have been more exciting or demonstrated so clearly the passion, excitement and camaraderie that sport has to offer. The greatest game of one day cricket of all time? Given what was at stake, without a doubt.</p>
<p>British broadcasters, understandably, were celebrating as hard as anyone. Earlier in the day, BBC Test Match Special began its radio coverage of England’s victorious World Cup final with the words of <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/24598.html">England skipper Eoin Morgan</a>. The trophy was there to be won he suggested, but there was also an opportunity to promote the game on a “huge platform”.</p>
<p>His words bear some scrutiny. First of course, after losing finals in 1979, 1987 and 1992, Sunday’s victory at last confirmed England’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48958223">recent dominance in one day cricket</a>. Secondly, it is significant that England’s captain is an Irishman. </p>
<p>England have never been concerned about <a href="https://internationalcricket.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_England_cricket_captains">their captain</a>’s birthplace or ethnicity. The role has been held, among others, by two other Irishmen, two Welshmen, a Scot, two sons of diplomats born in Trinidad, another in what was formerly known as Bombay, and another in what was previously Madras. </p>
<p>Diversity indeed, has defined English cricket since ultimate batting stylist Prince Ranjitsinhji <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/19331.html">made his England debut in 1896</a>. In the 2019 semi-final against Australia, it was <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/669855.html">Jofra Archer</a> — from Barbados with an English father — who drew first blood for England. He played a crucial role in the final – delivering the vital, nerve wracking “super over”, on which the whole championship depended.</p>
<p>Earlier, in the semi-final, the bowler responsible for the crucial removal of two Australian batsman in a single over was <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/244497.html">Adil Rashid</a>, a Muslim from Bradford. For those celebrating Britain’s cultural mix, the ovation he received as he returned to his fielding position was a special highlight in a day full of them. </p>
<h2>Every game’s a home game</h2>
<p>The tournament contained other such uplifting moments. India versus Pakistan for example, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2019/jun/16/india-v-pakistan-cricket-world-cup-2019-live">played with a bonhomie</a> unimaginable given that when they last met in a World Cup match at Manchester in 1999, the two nations were <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistan-india-nuclear-bomb-kargil-war-former-cia-officer-sandy-berger-bruce-riedel-a6758501.html">technically at war</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mens-cricket-world-cup-the-story-of-the-afghanistan-team-and-why-its-such-a-crowd-pleaser-118302">Men's Cricket World Cup: the story of the Afghanistan team and why it's such a crowd pleaser</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And the balance of cricketing power undoubtedly now lies in the subcontinent. The MCC recently announced its first non-British president in the form of former Sri Lankan captain, Kumar Sangakkara.</p>
<p>Women’s cricket, meanwhile, is thriving in England, its exponents increasingly recognised for their skill first and their gender second. Indeed, former Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist recently judged England’s Sarah Taylor to be the <a href="https://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/id/23871418/sarah-taylor-best-wicketkeeper-world">best in that position in the world</a>, “male or female”. Seemingly cricket is a model of diversity and inclusivity.</p>
<h2>Is anybody out there?</h2>
<p>Which brings us to Morgan’s assertion that the game could be promoted on a “huge platform”. Of course, it’s potentially the case – but reality warns us otherwise. Until the final this World Cup, unlike its football and rugby equivalents, was largely hidden from view in the UK behind a Sky paywall. </p>
<p>The public appetite has been healthy enough, with BBC’s head of radio and digital, Ben Gallop, tweeting that even before the final, England’s semi-final was “our biggest live page of the year for any sport”. The audience on Sky though, peaked at around a million. When England’s women footballers played their World Cup semi-final against USA nine days earlier, the free-to-air audience on BBC was almost 12m. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1149775594277736448"}"></div></p>
<p>Consequently, suggests former England bowler <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/jul/06/england-cricket-world-cup-tv-infuriate-sky">Vic Marks in The Guardian</a>, England’s cricketers might well feel a little bemused that “such a huge chunk of the country has no idea who they are and how they play” . </p>
<p>When, during the memorable summer of 2005, England cricket <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/14/the-spin-england-cricket-kevin-pietersen">last became a national preoccupation</a>, Channel 4’s coverage meant that enquiries about who was “in” and “out” were much more likely to refer to England’s batsmen than the contestants of Big Brother or Love Island. </p>
<p>But with these new enthusiasts on the hook, English cricket promptly threw them back, as, <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sport/2019/07/english-cricket-only-has-itself-blame-forgotten-world-cup">according to David Skelton in the New Statesman</a>, it decided that “revenue was more important than growing the audience for the sport” .</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup-final-england-vs-new-zealand-live-free-to-air-channel-4-sky-sports-a9001226.html">late deal brokered</a> between SKY and Channel 4 to show Sunday’s final on UK terrestrial TV might be too little, too late. True, it might catch a wave of residual interest, but even so, only cricket could schedule its ultimate showpiece to coincide with the British Grand Prix and the men’s final at Wimbledon. Cricket in England now worryingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/womens-football-to-grow-the-game-dont-banish-it-to-pay-tv-119838">slides back behind its paywall</a>. </p>
<p>Change, in the form of a new cities-based competition called “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/the-hundred-format-start-date-schedule-teams-what-we-know-jonathan-liew-a8835086.html">The Hundred</a>” is coming next year. For purists, it is <a href="https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/domestic/who_on_earth_is_the_hundred_for_we_try_to_identify_the_ecb's_mysterious_'new_audience'.html">not really cricket at all</a> and, by wooing an audience that it probably already had in 2005, the game is playing fast and loose with a loyal following it already has. </p>
<p>The World Cup might have been won by England, but if if young players in the country don’t get to watch their heroes, it risks wasting something special.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120302/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It was the greatest advertisement for cricket, but now the game needs to be promoted to everyone, not hidden on pay-TV.Richard Thomas, Lecturer, Media & Communication, Swansea UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1198382019-07-05T09:22:50Z2019-07-05T09:22:50ZWomen’s football: to grow the game, don’t banish it to pay-TV<p>English national football teams going out in the semi-final of a major competition is nothing new. In fact, it has happened in successive women’s world cups in 2015 and 2019 and with the men in 2018. But this time the mood feels different – England’s women, the “Lionesses”, have taken their nation on an incredible ride. </p>
<p>An overwhelmingly positive reaction following the team’s semi-final defeat to the USA swept the country – there is a sense that the potential to grow the women’s game is now more achievable than ever before.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1146526785544347648"}"></div></p>
<p>The semi-final attracted a record-breaking peak TV audience of 11.7m in the UK and the game is currently the country’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48851455">most-watched television programme</a> of 2019. The question now turns to how best to capitalise on this? Where does women’s football go next? </p>
<p>The answer is relatively simple – particularly in relation to television exposure: do not be tempted to sell out to the highest bidder; do not kill your audience before it has even had chance to grow. While there will be pressure to raise finance to pay the players, there is a risk that you harm the long-term future of the game by selling out. </p>
<p>Instead, the strategy should be careful and deliberate with the focus on attracting bigger sponsors and ensuring mass market exposure. In short, retain a significant presence on free-to-air broadcasting.</p>
<p>There are already proposed developments to capitalise on the performance of the Lionesses at the World Cup. It has been reported that the Premier League is moving closer to a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48850853">takeover of the Women’s Super League</a>. The league has also recently been boosted by a £10m sponsorship deal with Barclays.</p>
<p>But, with average match-day crowds falling <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47871431">below 1000 people</a>, the pressure is on clubs to secure more lucrative sponsorship and broadcasting deals to fund their players’ salaries. But caution should be applied when it comes to growing revenue through TV broadcasters and we have plenty of examples, in other team sports, where chasing the money has not paid off in the long run.</p>
<h2>Just not cricket</h2>
<p>Away from the world of football, England and Wales have been hosting another world cup: the ICC Cricket World Cup. But beyond the grounds in which the matches are taking place there is very little awareness of it – partly because it is not being broadcast live on terrestrial television.</p>
<p>The tournament is taking place behind a television paywall – and the sport in the UK will no doubt suffer as a result. English cricket only has itself to blame that this is a <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sport/2019/07/english-cricket-only-has-itself-blame-forgotten-world-cup">forgotten World Cup</a>.</p>
<p>A domestic World Cup was a glorious chance for cricket to reintroduce itself to old fans and engage new ones. <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/7/1/11">Recent research</a> has found that, despite a series of structural changes in cricket over the past 20 years, the domestic game continues to struggle with poor finances, low attendances and falling participation rates. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1146198195577458688"}"></div></p>
<p>Cricket sold its soul to Sky Sports after the <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/648937.html">glorious summer in 2005</a> when England was gripped by live coverage on Channel 4 as the home side won a pulsating Ashes series on home soil. The decision to place the sport behind a paywall following that series has seen the popularity of cricket in the UK go backwards despite revenues rising. </p>
<p>Interestingly, cricket will now return (in part) <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/free-to-air-international-england-cricket-returns-bbc-2020-sky-sports-bt-ecb-a7816221.html">to free-to-air broadcasting</a> in its most recent TV deal (from 2020-2024) in an attempt to bring the sport back to the eyes of the masses.</p>
<p>Rugby league is another sport in the UK that has suffered a similar fate since signing an exclusive broadcasting agreement with BSkyB in 1995. This deal meant that live rugby league was no longer shown on the BBC’s Grandstand program on a Saturday afternoon. As a result, viewing figures fell sharply from around 1.3m to around 250,000 and since the introduction of the Super League clubs have <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23750472.2016.1141367">struggled with financial problems</a> and the sport itself has seen declining attendances and participation.</p>
<h2>Wealth warning</h2>
<p>Large broadcasting deals are beneficial. They fund player salaries, transfer fees and infrastructure improvements. But they also come with wealth warnings, particularly in sports where public exposure is so critical to sustaining the professional game.</p>
<p>Inevitably, we see this reflected in wider participation figures too. Recent <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48850853">figures from Sport England</a>show that 0.9% or 200,500 women aged 16 or over play football regularly (twice a month) compared to 8.4% or 1.8 million men. The next generation and continued engagement of the masses should be the focus now for women’s football. </p>
<p>There will be a temptation to sell out to the highest bidder at the earliest opportunity but that may not be the wisest decision for the long-term future and success of the sport. Capitalising on the success of the Lionesses needs to be considered. This current generation of players need to place the future of the sport first, resisting the temptation to line their pockets. </p>
<p>Short-term gain for individuals will spell long-term stagnation for those girls who were gripped to the TV screen. The next major international tournament (the European Championships) are also being <a href="https://www.uefa.com/womenseuro/news/newsid=2583001.html">hosted in England in 2021</a>. It is vital that the game is not hidden behind a paywall in the lead up to this and beyond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119838/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The lesson from other sports is clear: women’s football must be broadcast on free-to-air if it isn’t to disappear.Dan Plumley, Senior Lecturer in Sport Business Management, Sheffield Hallam UniversityRob Wilson, Head of Subject; Sport Business Management, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786662017-06-05T04:00:05Z2017-06-05T04:00:05ZAnti-siphoning changes a blow to sports fans who want to watch on free-to-air TV<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171958/original/file-20170602-25689-cdski1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Controversies over sport, gambling and TV have tended to overshadow changes to the anti-siphoning scheme.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sport features heavily in the federal government’s long-anticipated <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/television/broadcast-and-content-reform-package">Broadcast and Content Reform Package</a>.</p>
<p>The package demonstrates the deep connection between sport and TV, as well as the prominent place of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295687970_%27Great_markers_of_culture_The_Australian_sport_field">sport in Australian culture</a>.</p>
<p>It proposes to ban gambling advertising during live sports programs to placate those who oppose the increasing presence of gambling in sport, via TV. But the major sports and TV networks <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-odds-ban-debate-exposes-sport-and-gamblings-uncomfortable-mutual-dependency-76514">are soothed</a> by lifting this restriction after the key 8.30pm watershed.</p>
<p>The government also wants to provide A$30 million over four years to assist pay TV to give greater coverage to sports that are rarely or never shown on TV. It is not clear why free-to-air TV is excluded from this arrangement, as low-income households would struggle to afford to watch this new sport TV content. </p>
<p>Controversy over sport, TV and gambling, as well as broader issues like easing the reach and concentration rules, have tended to overshadow <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">significant changes</a> to the anti-siphoning scheme. This scheme was introduced prior to the introduction of pay TV in 1995 to ensure that “<a href="http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9780203758397">events of national importance and cultural significance</a>” – all of them of a sporting nature – should not be captured exclusively by pay TV.</p>
<p>A list of sport events that had to be offered first to free-to-air TV was produced based on this criterion. </p>
<p>Ever since, commercial networks have battled with pay TV over the size of the list, and even its existence. For obvious reasons, the free-to-air networks prefer a long list, even if they don’t want to show all the sports available to them.</p>
<p>The communications minister has the power to list any event judged to have widespread public appeal. It must be made freely available as a right of <a href="https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/737219/International_Review_for_the_Sociology_of_Sport-2016-Rowe-CulturalCitizenship..pdf">cultural citizenship</a>.</p>
<p>The government proposes to reduce the size of the anti-siphoning list to improve the competitive position of pay TV. What are the implications of the proposed changes for TV and the wider national culture?</p>
<p>In an acknowledgement of the complete digitisation of Australian TV, the package allows free-to-air broadcasters to show listed events on their digital channels without asking the minister’s permission to move it from their main channel.</p>
<p>It has also widened the window for taking an event off the list from 12 to 26 weeks to assist pay TV in bidding for events that the networks may be not be interested in broadcasting. </p>
<p>The current list covers Australian rules football, rugby league, association football (soccer), rugby union, cricket, tennis, golf, Olympic Games, horse racing, netball, and motorsports.</p>
<p>No sport event has been added. Most of the sports on the list are male-dominated. And this remains the case despite the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/some-womens-sports-reaching-new-heights-while-others-languish/8307666">rising position of women’s sport</a> in Australia. </p>
<p>There are only limited changes to domestic sport. The AFL and NRL are untouched (the A-League, Netball Championship and Super Rugby aren’t listed), as are the Melbourne Cup, State of Origin, the Grand Prix and Bathurst 1000, although other V8 Supercars Championship races have been delisted.</p>
<p>Golf has disappeared altogether, meaning the Australian Masters and Open are no longer part of the national cultural estate. But so has the US Masters, reflecting a trend of delisting some major events and overseas tournaments.</p>
<p>Consequently, the English FA Cup final has gone, but so have tennis’ Wimbledon and the US Open. </p>
<p>It is in the international sphere that the biggest changes have occurred. While the Olympic Games is untouched, there is a substantial reduction of listed coverage of international events involving Australian teams playing overseas in rugby league, football, rugby union, cricket, and netball. There is also a general reduction of listed coverage of major events like the football, rugby and cricket World Cups.</p>
<p>The inevitable philosophical – as opposed to commercial – implication of the government’s revision is that events involving Australian sport teams and individuals in several overseas locations are no longer regarded as being of national importance and cultural significance.</p>
<p>As a result, what people could once see for free, punctuated by advertisements, they will now have to pay for – while still being exposed to advertisements.</p>
<p>The proposed anti-siphoning changes shift the economic balance from free-to-air towards pay-TV, as well as from government intervention in the sport TV market to more open market play. </p>
<p>Ardent free-marketeer and Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/opinion/why-the-governments-antisiphoning-sports-list-must-go/news-story/878490f7592f49ab76ca28751bcca882">writing in The Australian</a> (the publisher of which co-owns key pay-TV sport provider Foxtel), recently argued that abolishing the anti-siphoning list would mean Foxtel would acquire more exclusive broadcast sports rights and more subscribers. As a result, Foxtel could charge less for subscriptions and promote greater audience reliance on Sky News at the expense of the leftist ABC.</p>
<p>So, although the ABC carries very little premium sport, according to Leyonhjelm, ditching TV sport anti-siphoning would damage public service broadcasting. Notably, he does not mention the effect on the main beneficiaries of the list – the commercial networks Nine and Seven.</p>
<p>The effect on the ABC of reducing or abolishing anti-siphoning may be dubious. But it will certainly make it difficult or impossible for many Australians to watch their national teams in some significant sport contests. </p>
<p>For this reason, changes in televising sport arrangements in Australia have a wider political and cultural resonance. The issue of fair play is no less relevant in front of the screen than on the sport field itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council to support research relating to this article: Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777); 'A Nation of "Good Sports"? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia' (DP130104502), and 'Australian Cultural Fields: National and Transnational Dynamics' (with Tony Bennett et al, DP140101970).</span></em></p>The proposed anti-siphoning changes certainly shift the economic balance from free-to-air to pay-TV, as well as from government intervention in the sport TV market to more open market play.David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/765142017-05-08T00:17:35Z2017-05-08T00:17:35ZLive odds ban debate exposes sport and gambling’s uncomfortable mutual dependency<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167112/original/file-20170428-11206-rr96fh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Logos of betting companies and the odds on sporting outcomes are now impossible to avoid, at the ground or on TV.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Watching sport on TV may not exactly be a healthy activity, but it should at least do more good than harm. Yet viewers are exposed to all manner of advertising and promotional messages extolling the dubious-but-seductive virtues of alcohol, fatty foods and sugary drinks.</p>
<p>But it is gambling, especially online and mobile, that has come into focus as sport’s most potentially damaging byproduct. In 2013, the Gillard government <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-sports-odds-ban-does-the-governments-plan-go-far-enough-14661">banned the live spruiking of odds</a> thanks to the barefaced over-reach of Tom Waterhouse and Channel Nine. </p>
<p>Federal, state and territory governments have <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-and-state-ministers-agree-on-online-gambling-reform/news-story/fd3ea0c6e084e81c1f24a70e38072b3d">just signed up to</a> a new National Consumer Protection Framework to help online problem gamblers.</p>
<p>Now the Turnbull government, while charging the networks about A$90 million less for spectrum access, <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/g/files/net301/f/factsheet_gambling_advertising.pdf">has banned</a> gambling advertising and promotion on TV for the duration of sports contests until an 8.30pm watershed. </p>
<p>This move <a href="http://www.bandt.com.au/advertising/government-introduce-siren-siren-ban-sports-betting-ads">stimulated vigorous resistance</a> from sports, media corporations and betting companies. In doing so, they have exposed the ethically questionable foundations of their multiple mutual dependencies.</p>
<h2>How sport and TV became ‘addicts’</h2>
<p>Genuine sports lovers, and those who simply wish to protect the vulnerable from harmfully manipulative messages, may wonder how sport and TV became so dependent on gambling.</p>
<p>There has been betting and wagering on sport as long as someone kept the score. Variously, the practice has been banned, regulated, and taxed. It can be respectable, as in the case of a Melbourne Cup flutter; dodgy, when it involves unlicensed SP betting; and downright criminal, especially when syndicates manipulate results during betting plunges.</p>
<p>But what is unprecedented about gambling on sport today is its <a href="https://theconversation.com/sport-tom-waterhouse-and-the-gamblification-of-everyday-life-13170">astonishing visibility</a>. Where once the logos of betting companies and the odds on sporting outcomes could be largely confined to those interested in such things, they are now impossible to avoid.</p>
<p>Naming rights of stadiums and the surfaces within them, from corner-post flags to players’ bodies, carry gambling company logos. TV screens in and outside those stadiums promote gambling, as do streetscapes and other media.</p>
<p>A specific set of developments placed gambling at the heart of contemporary sport and media. </p>
<p>As sport became industrial and commercial in the 20th century, it had a clear interest in doing more than play the role of host to the gambling parasite. By progressively integrating sponsorship by and of gambling into its business model, professional sport made itself more attractive to its main paymaster – the media, especially TV.</p>
<p>Just as sport had become deeply dependent on the media by selling its broadcast rights for an ever more escalating cost, TV needed sport to attract advertising, sponsorship and subscription revenue. </p>
<p>Pay-TV wrested a good deal of premium sport from commercial free-to-air TV (which had previously seized it from public-service TV). It was prevented from monopolising it only by government intervention in the market through the <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/policy/policy-listing/anti-siphoning">anti-siphoning laws</a>.</p>
<p>But as the proliferation of channels and digital platforms like Netflix fragmented free-to-air audiences and undermined broadcast pay-TV subscriber bases, sport became even more important as media content. </p>
<h2>A good first step</h2>
<p>Sport’s ever more prominent place in the media enhanced its allure for bookmakers to advertise their wares as an increasingly legitimised arm of the sports industry. This has intensified sport and media reliance on gambling revenue – and so on.</p>
<p>There is no end to this logic of accumulation from the viewpoint of those who benefit from it. The sport-media-gambling triumvirate will push it to its limits.</p>
<p>Mandatory mantras to <a href="https://vimeo.com/201433881">“please gamble responsibly”</a>, squeezed in at the end of cleverly targeted messages, are ritual box-ticking gestures at their ineffective worst. Industry bodies like the recently founded <a href="http://responsiblewagering.com.au/">Responsible Wagering Australia</a>, led by former federal Labor minister Stephen Conroy, offer limited concessions while trying to consolidate their prime position. </p>
<p>I heard a <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1012690216641147">clear sense of public disquiet</a> about sport-related gambling when researching the place of sport in the lives of residents of greater western Sydney. Several people I interviewed raised it unprompted as a topic of concern.</p>
<p>It is ironic that at a time when the federal government is trying to restrict the advertising of gambling during sport on TV, it is simultaneously trying to assert its vision of <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-lengthen-permanent-residency-period-for-aspiring-citizens-76424">Australian values and culture</a>.</p>
<p>The advertisers who urge sport’s ready use as a vehicle for gambling artfully harness traditional Australian characteristics to home in on their most promising targets. They appreciate that many young men like to see themselves as larrikins who laugh off attempts by social engineers to control them. So, they infuse their advertisements and promotional videos with the intoxicating flavour of youthful resistance.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q3D4vnkHG84?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A Sportsbet ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The children who are repetitively exposed to those same messages will not have missed the invitation, when their time comes, to join this expensive club for irreverent smart alecs. </p>
<p>Knowing that association with sport clubs is widely celebrated in Australia, in a perverse distortion of sport club identification online sport betting agencies present signing on with them as membership.</p>
<p>In a rearguard action against tightening controls on gambling during sport broadcasts, sports with billion-dollar turnovers <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-and-state-ministers-agree-on-online-gambling-reform/news-story/fd3ea0c6e084e81c1f24a70e38072b3d">offer up community sport</a> as the sacrificial Australia Day lamb if their earnings are curtailed. But there is little appreciation of the damage done to those same communities when wages, rent and food are charred on the problem gambling BBQ.</p>
<p>TV networks <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=91722c25-3146-45d4-a7b5-66628bfd695f&subId=408957">protest</a> that restricting the bird’s-eye view they afford to gambling products sold mainly by overseas betting corporations will impair their capacity to tell local stories. They do not seem concerned that their actions will help produce more narratives of the human troubles and tragedies of too many gamblers.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/tv/sports-gambling-ad-ban-would-cost-broadcasters-millions-in-advertising-revenue-20170420-gvogjt">TV companies complain</a>, with some justification, that they are sitting ducks for national regulation when compared with the global online and social media free-for-all. But they, too, have a major presence there through their own websites, Facebook pages and Twitter handles.</p>
<p>TV may be easier to regulate than some other media, but it is still the <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X15616515">dominant sport medium</a>. It is the most important place to start when controlling the advertising of gambling through sport, but it is not the end game.</p>
<p>A more comprehensive system of gambling advertising control across media is imperative to prevent current and future generations seeing sport as a medium for gambling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council to support research relating to this article: Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777); 'A Nation of "Good Sports"? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia' (DP130104502), and 'Australian Cultural Fields: National and Transnational Dynamics' (with Tony Bennett et al, DP140101970).</span></em></p>It is gambling, especially online and mobile, that has come into focus as sport’s most potentially damaging byproduct.David Rowe, Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666832016-10-11T05:14:16Z2016-10-11T05:14:16ZBuyouts mean the future of Australian video-on-demand is hard to picture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141174/original/image-20161011-3903-1y6nqdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The hugely popular Game of Thrones could be a crucial drawcard for Foxtel Play's new viewers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Village Roadshow Production</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The dust is showing no sign of settling on Australia’s video-on-demand (VoD) media landscape. The past week has seen two seismic shifts which will have a flow-on effect on almost anyone who watches subscription-based television.</p>
<p>First came the news of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-04/presto-to-disappear-as-seven-sells-stake-to-foxtel/7900778">Foxtel’s takeover of Presto</a>, with the latter’s customers being transferred to Foxtel Play when Presto shuts down next year.</p>
<p>Then the ailing VoD service <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/">Quickflix</a> gained a surprise stay of execution, being <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/quickflix-snapped-up-for-13m-by-us-entrepreneur-20161004-gruqoq.html">saved by a US buyer</a> after going into <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-shake-up-in-australias-busy-tv-industry-as-quickflix-calls-in-the-administrators-58487">voluntary receivership</a> earlier this year.</p>
<p>The shakeup has left viewers wondering where their subscription fees are going to end up, and what content they will be able to access once the merry-go-round stops.</p>
<h2>Quickflix’s future?</h2>
<p>Quickflix’s problems began in 2014, when former stakeholder HBO sold its shares to Nine Entertainment. The following year the shares were transferred to Stan, Nine’s new joint VoD venture with Fairfax Media. </p>
<p>When Quickflix went into voluntary receivership, it stated Stan’s unwillingness to bargain with potential buyers as a key reason for its <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-shake-up-in-australias-busy-tv-industry-as-quickflix-calls-in-the-administrators-58487">demise</a>.</p>
<p>Quickflix has now been saved, although it is not clear what it will become or what its focus will be. US media entrepreneur Erik Pence has paid A$1.3 million, and the holding for the purchase, Karma Media, plans to retain 24 employees and pay entitlements to former employees. </p>
<p>There will <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/quickflix-snapped-up-for-13m-by-us-entrepreneur-20161004-gruqoq.html">reportedly</a> be more investment in marketing and a shift towards more niche content. This latter strategy has been a globally successful tactic for other VoD and online platforms such as <a href="http://netflix.com">Netflix</a>, <a href="http://youtube.com">YouTube</a> and <a href="https://www.fullscreen.com">Fullscreen</a>. </p>
<p>But it is unclear whether Quickflix’s new service will support the production of Australian content in any way – or even whether it will primarily offer movies, television series, or both. This makes it difficult to analyse the impact its re-emergence will have on the Australian VoD landscape.</p>
<h2>Hey Presto</h2>
<p>In contrast, the future of Presto has been made very clear indeed. Foxtel has acquired Seven West Media’s interests in the service and confirmed that it will cease on January 31, 2017. </p>
<p>This arguably makes Presto the first real casualty of the battle that has sprung up in Australia’s crowded VoD landscape.</p>
<p>Presto has been constantly reported as struggling for subscribers against competition from Netflix and Stan. A recent Roy Morgan <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6839-netflix-stan-presto-subscription-video-on-demand-may-2016-201606141025">report</a> from this year showed how far Presto was behind its competition. </p>
<p>Presto had 142,000 subscriptions, less than half of the 332,000 signed up to its local competitor Stan. Even combined, these numbers are far short of international giant Netflix, which has <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6839-netflix-stan-presto-subscription-video-on-demand-may-2016-201606141025">1,878,000 Australian subscriptions</a>.</p>
<p>Foxtel plans to move Presto’s subscribers over to its internet-delivered service Foxtel Play by the end of this year. In a <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">media release</a> Foxtel promised that “Presto customers will get access to more premium first run television programs and more recent movies than ever before” – raising the question of whether they were holding back on content before the takeover.</p>
<p>The Foxtel Play service also may not be what current Presto customers are expecting, nor is there a guarantee that it will end up costing the same.</p>
<h2>Does Foxtel really want to compete?</h2>
<p>It is clear that Foxtel is trying to compete with current VoD services, as underlined by its <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">recent announcement</a> that Foxtel Play entry prices will be cut to A$10 from the current A$25. But Foxtel Play’s <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/content/dam/foxtel/foxtelplay/support/pp-change/foxtel-play-pp-changes.pdf">subscription pricing structure</a> is much more complicated than other VoD services. </p>
<p>Unlike <a href="https://www.netflix.com/au/">Netflix</a> or <a href="https://www.stan.com.au">Stan</a>, which charge a flat fee for all content (although Netflix charges extra fees for more screens and HD qaulity), Foxtel Play has different prices for different content packages, much like Foxtel’s pay TV pricing structure. The content on Foxtel Play is not HD, although will <a href="http://decidertv.com/page/2016/10/7/foxtel-play-foxtel-go-will-make-the-switch-to-high-definition-foxtel">reportedly</a> be upgraded in 2017. </p>
<p>Foxtel Play’s <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">packages</a> include a basic offering of Documentary, Lifestyle or Kids programming at A$10 each per month, plus Premium Drama and Premium Entertainment options at A$15 each per month. Customers can also add Sport (A$25 per month) or Movies (A$20 per month) on top of these. So it seems likely that many customers end up paying more than those subscribing to other VoD services.</p>
<p>At first glance, Foxtel shutting down Presto could appear to be a way in which it can gain new Foxtel Play subscribers while dissuading viewers from defecting to Stan or Netflix. But the actual numbers may be small, according to Roy Morgan’s recent <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6990-most-presto-subscribers-already-have-netflix-stan-or-foxtel-too-august-2016-201610050930">research</a>. </p>
<p>Of the 143,000 Australian homes with Presto, 77% already have an alternative VoD or pay TV service, which could include Netflix, Stan and Foxtel. Of Presto households, 55% also use Netflix and 27% have signed up to Stan. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, almost half of Presto subscribers already have Foxtel, mainly through its traditional set-top box service. Foxtel itself has <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/foxtel-admits-subscriber-figures-include-presto-users-but-claims-cable-still-biggest-growth-driver-311968">admitted</a> to using Presto subscription numbers to bump up its own quoted subscriber growth numbers for 2015. </p>
<p>But Foxtel has two key advantages over Netflix and Stan. The first is HBO content, most notably the wildly popular series Game of Thrones. Next year Foxtel will <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2016/foxtel-revamps-its-streaming-video-service.html">significantly increase</a> the amount of HBO content it offers.</p>
<p>The second advantage is sport, which fittingly is where the fiercest competition is set to play out among rival platforms.</p>
<h2>Into the sporting arena</h2>
<p>Sport streaming is poised as the next battleground in Australian video streaming, VoD and video subscriptions. If planned changes to <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning rules</a> are made, the battle will become even more intense.</p>
<p>Foxtel Play’s pricing will allow access to Foxtel’s sports package for A$35 a month, A$15 cheaper than its pay TV sports package. But is it cheap enough?</p>
<p>Telcos themselves have now become sports broadcasters, with both <a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/tv-movies-music/sport">Telstra</a> and <a href="http://www.optus.com.au/shop/entertainment/sport">Optus</a> heavily invested in sports streaming – the latter after <a href="https://theconversation.com/optus-the-new-player-in-australias-sports-media-rights-battle-50069">sensationally pinching</a> the rights to the Premier League from Foxtel. </p>
<p>Seven’s recent broadcast of the Rio 2016 Olympics also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rio-olympics-are-a-test-case-for-the-future-of-sports-broadcasting-63589">raised many questions</a> about future sports broadcasting and media rights. With Seven no longer involved with Presto, it could set its sights on sport and furthering its partnership with Telstra.</p>
<p>If Telstra were to <a href="https://theconversation.com/bed-fellows-no-more-its-foxtel-versus-telstra-in-battle-for-online-subscribers-56672">sell its stake</a> in Foxtel, it may decide to invest more money in becoming a direct competitor to Foxtel Play.</p>
<p>This will open opportunities for streaming not only for major international competitions, but leagues that currently enjoy less funding and publicity. The Women’s AFL could be a perfect place to start – offering a homegrown product to homegrown viewers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66683/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>With Quickflix saved but Presto on the way out, it’s hard to predict who will emerge as the winners as battle for video-on-demand viewers intensifies.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605632016-06-09T06:26:08Z2016-06-09T06:26:08ZSeven’s Olympic coverage could change the way we watch sport on our screens<p>The Seven Network has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/rio-olympics-seven-to-launch-paid-subscription-service/news-story/5f93d949500601d70dee4c95c765a9fc">announced</a> it will offer a paid subscription service via an app as part of its <a href="https://www.rio2016.com/en">Rio Olympics</a> coverage this year.</p>
<p>This will make Seven the first free-to-air broadcaster in Australia to charge for broadcasting sport.</p>
<p>This is a new approach to the station’s coverage of the Rio Olympics. Last year, it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/2016-rio-oympics-seven-to-launch-app-with-900-hours-of-coverage/news-story/5854bc5f459d6791c421df2334ef8d54">said</a> the coverage would include all three digital channels (7, 7two and 7mate), in association with a 24-hour digital news channel, online catch-up, and a free app with 36 live streams.</p>
<p>At the same time, Seven <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-now-next-future.pdf?sfvrsn=2">said</a> their approach to the games would be “the most technologically advanced coverage of any event to all Australians with its all-encompassing coverage”.</p>
<p>This week’s announcement that it will add a subscription service will have massive implications, not just for the future of sports broadcasting in Australia, but also free-to-air television more broadly.</p>
<h2>Free-to-air v subscription</h2>
<p>Seven is expected to broadcast about a 1,000 hours of free content over the course of the Olympics. Coverage available through the subscription service should triple that figure. </p>
<p>The subscription service will allow those interested in sports not commonly seen on Australian television, such as <a href="https://www.rio2016.com/en/handball">handball</a>, to watch every game during the Olympics from start to finish.</p>
<p>Seven’s subscription service is expected to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/rio-olympics-seven-to-launch-paid-subscription-service/news-story/5f93d949500601d70dee4c95c765a9fc">supplement</a> the expected A$100 million in advertising revenue from the event.</p>
<p>Part of the broadcaster’s strategy could be to prevent any losses as occurred to Nine, which reportedly <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/seven-grabs-cutprice-olympics/news-story/9ee3514d4168777c0cfcf5a852e7ff7f">lost up to A$25 million</a> on the 2012 London Olympic Games. This was a deal that had Nine <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/olympic-broadcast-rights-in-crisis/story-fna045gd-1226614389333">split</a> the A$120 million cost with Foxtel.</p>
<p>Seven is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-network-nets-olympic-games-hattrick-with-broadcast-rights-to-2020-20140805-100fyo.html">reported</a> to have paid between A$150 million and A$170 million for the Olympic rights, far less than the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL rights</a> (A$2.508 billion over six years). And only a small sum when compared with <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/10022290/NBC-signs-whopping-Olympics-TV-rights-deal">NBC’s US$7.75 billion</a> Olympic media rights contract for the games through to 2032.</p>
<p>Seven <a href="https://www.inside7.com.au/advertise/rio-2016-olympics">says it has the rights</a> for a number of Olympic events including the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games and Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.</p>
<h2>Going it alone</h2>
<p>The other interesting element of Seven’s Olympic coverage is to go it alone. This differs from the approach of past major sporting event broadcasts which generally incorporated various stakeholders (free-to-air, pay TV and digital). </p>
<p>It could be that Seven had planned to undertake this coverage unaccompanied from when it first was awarded the rights. Seven CEO Tim Worner’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-network-nets-olympic-games-hattrick-with-broadcast-rights-to-2020-20140805-100fyo.html">comments</a> to Fairfax Media in 2014 could have given a hint of this thinking: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] “screen real estate” during the lifetime of the Olympic deal meant they may not need a co-broadcasting partner, but that “around 150 hours of content on any given day [means] there will be many more opportunities than ever before”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Seven has also been engaged in the streaming major Australian sport events, since being awarded the Olympic media rights. These streams may have been part of a long trial, building up to the Olympics with numerous channel streams and thousands of hours of content.</p>
<h2>Was tennis a testing ground?</h2>
<p>Seven has been successful in new approaches to sport media coverage in recent years. For the 2015 Australian Open, the broadcaster <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-launches-expanded-coverage-of-the-australian-open-series.pdf?sfvrsn=2">said</a> more than 1.2 million Australians chose to stream content during the Australian Open Series. </p>
<p>Seven then increased its streaming of sporting events in the <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/melbourne-cup-viewing-down-on-last-year-but-seven-claims-300000-people-watched-on-live-stream-328612">same year</a>, including for the Melbourne Cup.</p>
<p>In 2016, Seven expanded its streaming capabilities of the Australian Open, launching a dedicated <a href="http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/default-source/business-unit-news/seven-launches-expanded-coverage-of-the-australian-open-series.pdf?sfvrsn=2">7tennis app</a>. </p>
<p>The app allowed for more than 2,000 hours of live, exclusive and free tennis, catch-up and on-demand highlights and available via <a href="http://decidertv.com/page/2016/1/17/7-tennis-app-now-available-on-the-big-screen-with-appletv-7tennis-appletv">multiple devices</a>, including Apple TV and Telstra TV.</p>
<p>Seven’s chief revenue officer, Kurt Burnette has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/2016-rio-oympics-seven-to-launch-app-with-900-hours-of-coverage/news-story/5854bc5f459d6791c421df2334ef8d54">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We had some great learnings from that in terms of how people were willing to watch on mobile […] It pointed to the fact that convenience was a huge factor in how people consume media.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How does the change in approach by Seven – following the change in the way Australians “consume media” – impact the future of Australian television?</p>
<h2>Impact upon other broadcasters</h2>
<p>The fact that Seven, a free-to-air broadcaster, has created a subscription service as part of its portfolio raises many questions.</p>
<p>Andrew Maiden, chief executive of the subscription television industry body ASTRA, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/digital/sevens-olympics-app-proves-absurdity-of-antisiphoning-rule/news-story/a23c4a79a69383b2e08da14d16e38ad3">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This development proves the absurdity of a rule that bans subscription TV from buying the Olympics but allows so-called free-to-air networks to charge Australians to watch.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Adding that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Seven has proven for the world to see that the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">anti-siphoning scheme</a> cannot continue to exist in an online world. The exploitation of this loophole is only possible because the mechanism was drafted 20 years ago, before the internet was a twinkle in the regulator’s eye.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Channel Nine could potentially have undertaken a similar approach to sport broadcasting, when it first received the NRL rights as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/foxtel-boxed-into-a-corner-as-sport-streaming-takes-hold-46074">sole stakeholder</a>. Although this later changed to include the same multifaceted approach that had occurred previously both for the NRL and <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-afl-gets-richer-who-gets-richer-with-it-46321">AFL</a>.</p>
<p>Optus’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/optus-the-new-player-in-australias-sports-media-rights-battle-50069">recent</a> acquisition of the European Premier League media rights further adds to the change in sports media rights and its broadcasting in Australia. </p>
<h2>The future of Australian FTA</h2>
<p>For live sport broadcast to have major success it needs to be at a time when people can watch it live. Therefore the Rio Olympics may not be the case study to determine whether this approach has been successful, due to the timezone differences.</p>
<p>But this is a development far greater than just sports broadcasting in Australia and online streaming. This creates tensions between free-to-air and pay TV, and it brings the debate about media policy and regulation to the foreground. </p>
<p>Further, it raises questions about the definition of broadcast and streaming: are they the same? The <a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-tv-fights-back-as-more-programmes-are-broadcast-online-54540">battle over live streaming</a> between Nine and WIN, showed that this is still clearly a grey area.</p>
<p>It also raises questions about the current <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/sport-anti-siphoning-tv-content-regulation-acma">sport anti-siphoning laws</a>, which prevent pay TV from being the major rights holder of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383">particular sports</a> allowing it to “be <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383">available free</a> to the general public”. </p>
<p>Seven’s approach to the Olympics questions the future of sports broadcasting and whether sport will continue to be free on Australian television.</p>
<p>The channel’s approach could become a precedent for commercial broadcasters in Australia to offer their current free service in parallel with a subscription service. </p>
<p>It could include the current “free” service, along with a premium fee-based service. The premium service could have additional content, original content, no ads or allow subscribers earlier access to programs. This is an approach that YouTube is currently exploring in Australia with its service <a href="https://theconversation.com/youtube-red-is-here-and-it-breaks-the-video-on-demand-mould-59656">YouTube Red</a>. </p>
<p>In a time when free-to-air broadcasters are losing audiences and reporting financial losses, their current business model needs a serious review. But is adding subscription the right approach for free-to-air television, which has been free to Australians since 1956?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The Seven Network’s decision to offer an additional subscription service for its coverage of the Rio Olympics makes it the first free-to-air broadcaster in Australia to charge for broadcasting sport.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602272016-06-08T00:54:07Z2016-06-08T00:54:07ZGoogle wants to tap the second golden age of television<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125447/original/image-20160606-13061-16glgpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pay TV is growing globally, and programming data is now up for grabs.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Traditional pay-television providers, already under pressure from consumers opting for streaming internet video, are facing a new threat.</p>
<p>Google is getting into TV advertising, and a decision made earlier this year by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has everyone from traditional set top box providers to <a href="http://www.insidesources.com/wheeler-refuses-lawmakers-request-to-pause-set-top-box-unlock/">diversity champions</a> worried.</p>
<p>The FCC says it wants to “<a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-337795A1.pdf">unlock the box</a>”, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fcc-tv-regulations-idUSKCN0VR0GU">approving</a> a proposal in February to force traditional cable providers to share programming, device and content delivery data with “creators of competitive devices or apps”.</p>
<p>The FCC has denied that it will mandate “a government-specific standard”, believing to do so would impede innovation. Rather, the FCC proposed that the specifications be set by “an independent, open standards body”.</p>
<h2>Early backlash from the industry</h2>
<p>But not everyone agrees this new ruling would encourage innovation. Dish Network Corp’s Stanton Dodge argues the proposal “would actually <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fcc-tv-regulations-idUSKCN0VR0GU">hinder</a>” innovation in the area.</p>
<p>Bob Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of federal regulatory agrees, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fcc-tv-regulations-idUSKCN0VR0GU">stating</a> “the FCC has chosen to go down a path that threatens the very competition and innovation that has led to this vibrant marketplace”.</p>
<p><a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001404687">Major TV producers</a> including Disney, Time Warner, Fox, Comcast-NBC and the <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001405695">National Cable & Telecommunications Association</a> have both submitted responses to the FCC. Their common <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001404687">argument</a> is that “creators need to maintain control over product placement and commercial content”.</p>
<p>The Motion Picture Association of America along with the Screen Actors Guild is <a href="http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MPAA-SAG-AFTRA-Reply-Comments-to-FCC-5.24.16.pdf">asking</a> the FCC:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“that in seeking to ensure set-top box competition, the FCC not give third parties our content without our permission and without compensation, not put our content at risk of theft, and not threaten the economics underpinning the creation of programming that is fostering a Second Golden Age of Television.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Pay-TV set to grow</h2>
<p>The backlash from US pay-TV services likely stems from already declining pay-TV revenue in North America. It is <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/press-releases?id=161">expected</a> to fall by US$13.5 billion over the next five years. Removing set-top box rental revenue to pave the way for competitors like Google, Apple and Tivo, will only add to this decline.</p>
<p>Despite the decline in North America, pay-TV will continue to <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/press-releases?id=161">grow globally</a>. The largest revenue growth regions between 2015-2021 include the <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/ugc/press/161.pdf">Asia Pacific</a> with 25% growth ($8 billion). Revenue in India is forecast to <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/ugc/press/161.pdf">more than double</a> from $3.5 billion to $7.8 billion. China is also expected to see a massive increase from $1.9 billion to $11.7 billion.</p>
<p>The Middle East and North Africa will also see revenue increase by 26% and the Sub-Saharan Africa region is expecting massive growth of 63%.</p>
<p>This comes after a call by Fox CEO James Murdoch for pay-TV services to <a href="http://www.nscreenmedia.com/skinny-bundles-pay-tv-compete/">decrease</a> the number of channels offered, to remain competitive in the new subscription media landscape. A Nielsen <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/changing-channels-americans-view-just-17-channels-despite-record-number-to-choose-from.html">report</a> shows that despite the number of available channels increasing from 129 in 2008 to 189 in 2013, consumers continue to tune in to an average of just 17 channels. </p>
<h2>Who will benefit the most: consumers, pay-TV or digital disrupters?</h2>
<p>The FCC <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0127/DOC-337449A1.pdf">argues</a> consumers will ultimately get more choice, greater flexibility, increased innovation, more competition and better prices.</p>
<p>The FCC’s proposal will open options to cable subscribers in the United States, who currently pay on average US$231 per year to lease a set-top box from their cable provider. These businesses last year <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/technology/fcc-proposes-changes-in-set-top-box-market.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click">generated</a> an estimated US$20 billion dollars in revenue.</p>
<p>The FCC noted that set-top box prices have <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0127/DOC-337449A1.pdf">risen</a> by 185% since 1994, three times that of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).</p>
<p>Much of the discussion of the FCC decision is focused on the benefits for consumers. But an open set-top box market will also open up opportunities for other companies involved in media distribution, particularly those that have already disrupted traditional media, like Google, Amazon and Apple.</p>
<p>These companies are not only established within the United States, all have interests within a number of other countries. This raises questions as to what the flow-on effect of the FCC’s decision could be in other countries, particularly those regions expected to see growth in the pay-TV sector.</p>
<h2>Is the box needed?</h2>
<p>The FCC proposal is based around “the box”, but we have seen a massive shift in the way consumers view content. Consumers now watch video across a number of devices including, smartphones, tablets, computers (laptops and desktops) and gaming consoles. Viewing video content is no longer platform or device dependent, rather requiring a platform-agnostic approach.</p>
<p>In addition, the rate of internet connected televisions is projected to be 26.8% <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/ugc/connected%20TV%20TOC%20pdf_toc_83.pdf">globally</a> in 2018. In the <a href="http://www.smartclip.com/sites/default/files/content/case-studies/case-study-pdf/smartclip_Smart%20TV%20Insights%202015_UK.pdf">UK</a> 29% of televisions are smart televisions, with more than 78% of these being purchased in the past two years. In Australia, <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Multi%20Screen%20Report%20Q4%202015%20FINAL.pdf">32% of homes</a> have a connected TV. This only adds to the ease of access to online video content to the TV screen.</p>
<p>In an unlocked set-top box environment, subscription television services could offer content from a number of different companies, raising issues around data and ratings.</p>
<h2>Is it about content or data?</h2>
<p>Ratings are crucial for the sale of advertising by commercial broadcasters. Having an open approach to content could allow multiple organisations to have access to this rating information. </p>
<p>The open approach could benefit companies like Google, known for its data collection. If Google was to develop applications and other peripheral technology that would allow access to pay-TV services, this would also allow it to gain access and gather the data associated with consumer viewing habits and behaviours. </p>
<p>Google has been extremely successful in data collection with YouTube. This approach could be integrated into a larger viewing analysis and used for targeted ads across its networks.</p>
<p>Google could present a wealth of program viewing information to media producers. This could not only be specific to local markets, but could give a global analysis of viewing habits by consumers for specific programs. This would see Google become a competitor to other television and media ratings companies across the globe, like Nielsen. </p>
<p>Last year, Nielsen <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2015/nielsen-and-roku-form-industry-first-strategic-agreement-to-advance-ott-measurement.html">announced</a> a strategic agreement with Roku to enable the measurement of online video streaming through Nielsen <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutions/capabilities/digital-ad-ratings.html">Digital Ad Ratings</a>.</p>
<p>Amazon could use this data to recommend products relative to the consumer’s viewing habits. Amazon’s program Transparent won a Golden Globe, which founder Jeff Bezos <a href="http://www.nscreenmedia.com/nscreennoise-the-amazon-video-ethos/">said</a> assisted in the sale of other products on the site.</p>
<p>Netflix has already hinted at releasing a <a href="https://theconversation.com/double-vision-why-netflix-wants-you-to-watch-an-extra-screen-55936">second screen experience</a> element to its mobile app later in the year.</p>
<p>Google, along with Netflix, Apple and Amazon could also use this information to recommend programs, and products across various online networks and devices. </p>
<p>While consumers may see the FCC’s decision as a win, there needs to be consideration and further analysis of what open access of media content really means. Do consumers want all of their online and media viewing habits (data) to be collected? </p>
<p>This would allow services like Google and Amazon to provide products, services and advertisements that would arguably be personalised based on the individual’s online history. </p>
<p>But this could be taking personalised media too far. It has the potential to remove the chance to stumble across a program, the the choice to go outside your regular viewing and to potentially view content based on a friend’s recommendation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60227/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>A move by the US to open up more competition in pay-TV has sparked a debate about TV viewing data.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458342015-08-10T05:51:49Z2015-08-10T05:51:49ZFoxtel’s bundle of pain could come sooner than it thinks<p>Most media businesses offer a bundled set of products. When you buy the newspaper, or watch free-to-air TV, this is obvious. You pay a fee to buy a newspaper, or the offerings of a channel, some of which you want and some you don’t want, but it all comes together in a package. You can pick and choose some content by switching TV channels or subscribing to more than one newspaper, but your choice is quite limited.</p>
<p>Pay TV offers a slightly broader bundle. You subscribe to a package from Foxtel and you get access to more channels, and hence can choose between a wider range of content, but it is still a bundled offering. You pay through a subscription rather than by watching advertisements, which makes the business model slightly different, but you are still offered a bundle.</p>
<p>This whole business model is now under challenge; for newspapers, TV channels and for pay TV. The share prices of media companies are in decline, and in the US <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/05/us-usa-media-idUSKCN0QA2BS20150805">in sharp decline.</a></p>
<p>The challenge so far has been gradual as technology has allowed consumers progressively more control. Technology has worked to undercut the pre bundled business models: videos allowed people alternatives as to how to be entertained in their homes, time-shifting gave them greater control over when they watched programs, and the web gave them news whenever they wanted.</p>
<p>Netflix and similar businesses now have pushed the envelope further. They offer access to a wide range of content cheaply and at the viewers’ preferred time. This is part of a broad movement – web based services are undermining the business models of all the product bundlers, from newspapers onwards.</p>
<p>Increasingly we are able to pick and choose the content we want to watch, the time we want to watch it, and to pay just for what we want. Music has gone the furthest down that path.</p>
<p>Where does it all end? It seems likely that a range of offerings will survive. Some completely bundled products like newspapers will survive at one end, and some smorgasbord offerings like Netflix and Spotify will be at the other. In between they will probably be a range of partly bundled services of the sort Foxtel offers. Just as restaurants exist which offer a diversity of product mixes so entertainment is likely to finish up in the same place.</p>
<p>Businesses will adapt, some will fail. To survive they have to find a mix of price, product offering, and availability which is viable.</p>
<h2>Pay TV to pay the highest price</h2>
<p>Sitting in the middle, pay TV however looks particularly vulnerable. It took market share from free-to-air TV because it offered a wider range of advertising-free content, but it’s not clear how big the market is now that it is challenged by offerings which offer still more choice.</p>
<p>Free-to-air seems most likely to encroach onto the territory of pay TV. A <a href="http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/assets/documents/reforming-freetoair-broadcasting.pdf">recent Monash Business Policy Forum paper</a> argues free-to-air providers need to separate their control of the spectrum from their provision of content, selling space on the spectrum to a wider range of content providers – a little like a department store allowing product manufacturers space on their shop floors. With digitisation the spectrum operators have the ability to offer a much wider range of content than they currently do.</p>
<p>As free-to air expands, pay TV’s only real option seems to be to cut price and expand options available to customers. Some of this is underway and more is likely. It is a costly strategy.</p>
<p>Content providers should be winners. As prices fall and choice widens, there will be a more intense struggle for content which attracts eyeballs. Some will be political and some economic. There will be political pressure to broaden the anti-siphoning rules which require some premium sporting events to be available on free-to-air, allowing them to charge premium advertising rates for major events. </p>
<p>And other content which is attractive will command higher prices; good for providers like the AFL or FFA. It also means that programs will have to stand on their own merits, and command a commensurate price. The whole business of cross-subsidies from one program to another will be minimised. Higher prices for content will squeeze the profitability of media companies even further as their programming costs rise while their revenue is under challenge.</p>
<p>Such unbundling of media is good for the consumer. Rather than being forced to watch the standard (and parallel) programming of the free-to-air channels, we now are more able to watch what we want when we want it.</p>
<p>There will be considerable pressure for media laws to change. The current rules are based around media technologies which are well out of date. We failed to make the necessary changes when we digitised the system but economic forces will now ensure it happens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45834/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Maddock is affiliated with the Economic Society of Australia.</span></em></p>The unbundling of content stands to hurt Pay TV providers the most.Rodney Maddock, Vice Chancellor's Fellow at Victoria University and Adjunct Professor of Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/450872015-07-24T06:03:39Z2015-07-24T06:03:39ZTV shifts from hero to zero, but even Netflix can’t kill pirating<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89605/original/image-20150724-3647-16jf86u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shardayyy</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Analyst firm UBS this week placed a <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/ubs-cuts-valuations-for-seven-nine-as-netflix-steals-eyeballs-20150722-gihrtk">halt on any growth</a> by the Australian television networks in 2016. </p>
<p>Instead of the previous forecast 2% growth, UBS is now predicting zero growth in the TV market. The long-term projection was also adjusted to 0.5%, down from a previous analyses which projected 2% growth. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://theconversation.com/netflix-arrival-will-be-a-tipping-point-for-tv-in-australia-38386">predicted</a>, the arrival of Netflix has been a tipping point for Australian television. When launched in Australia in March, Netflix joined Stan and Presto, and more established players Foxtel and Quickflix, which also provide video on demand services. </p>
<p>It was not clear at the time what impact Netflix would have. Nor was it clear whether Australia had the capacity to have five video on demand services, in addition to the five free-to-air television broadcasters. The Seven Network is a joint partner with Foxtel in Presto and the Nine Network and Fairfax are partners in Stan. </p>
<p>Early indications are there’s been a much faster uptake of the services than some may have planned for. And Netflix looks like the main winner.</p>
<h2>Video on demand surpasses expectations</h2>
<p>Just months after its launch Netflix was <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6342-netflix-makes-further-gains-in-australia-svod-market-june-2015-201507140645">reported</a> to have one million Australian subscribers in 408,000 homes during May. Roy Morgan’s June figures estimated this had increased to 1.42 million Australian subscribers in 559,000 homes.</p>
<p>This equates to an uptake of Netflix by more than 6% of Australian homes, increasing to 8.4% for homes with fixed broadband. </p>
<p>Only 5.2% of Telstra customers have a Netflix subscription, although this equates to 142,000 subscribers, more than the other ISPs. Telstra owns 50% of Foxtel, and also offers its own video on demand service.</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that 9.6% of Australian homes with a NBN service have subscribed to Netflix (37,000 suscribers). </p>
<h2>Pay or pirate?</h2>
<p>Surveys of Australians in the past have found most people who <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">illegally download</a> content <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/electronics-and-technology/internet/internet-privacy-and-safety/articles/choice-content-piracy-survey-091214">would be willing to pay</a> for the content if it was offered to them at a reasonable price.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/malcolm_turnbull/news/australia_and_uk_release_online_copyright_infringement_research#.VbHCDSqqpBf">A more recent survey on piracy</a> conducted by the Australian and UK governments found Australians continued to consume content illegally in the months immediately before the launch of Netflix. They continue to say they would stop infringing if legal content was: cheaper (39%), more available (38%), and had the same release date as other countries (36%). Netflix costs A$8.99 a month for a single device.</p>
<p>The Australian government has used this information to make the case for its <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-better-ways-to-combat-piracy-than-blocking-websites-43701">Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill</a>. There has also been the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-australias-dallas-buyers-club-pirates-have-to-pay-40302">legal case</a> between iiNet and Dallas Buyers Club, resulting in copyright infringers being sent letters demanding they pay up.</p>
<p>But are these tactical moves to combat piracy too little too late? </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/television-is-changing-and-viewer-metrics-need-to-change-with-it-41758">audience metrics</a> to establish a clear comparison of video on demand services, and other online services such as catch-up TV and broadcast TV are yet to be refined. The TV networks are likely to resist enabling this kind of measurement as they continue to rely heavily on audience ratings for advertising revenue. But has the audience started to make the change anyway?</p>
<h2>TV viewing habits continue to shift</h2>
<p>The latest quarterly <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Multi-ScreenReport%20Q1%202015%20FINAL.pdf">Multi-Screen report</a> suggests the biggest shift has been to portable devices. Smartphone uptake grew to 77%, compared with 48% in the same quarter of 2012. The uptake of tablets also continues to grow, 47% in Q1 2015, which is more than three times the figure in Q1 2012 (15%).</p>
<p>The report notes that “11.6% of all video viewing – both broadcast and non- broadcast content – happens on screens other than the TV”, with television still equating for 88.4%. </p>
<p>While this may assist in establishing an argument that TV is not dead, the report also indicates a clear change in viewing habits, particular by younger generations.</p>
<p>Kids video viewing time online had the biggest increase, now at just over 8 hours per month in comparison to 4:49 hours in Q1 2013. Live TV viewing dropped almost 3 hours to 58:20 hours per month in comparison to Q1 2014; although still 40 minutes above the Q1 2013 figure. </p>
<p>Teens viewing time of television continues to decline, from 73:55 hours in Q1 2013, now to just under 66 hours. The biggest growth in this demographic is video viewing on smartphones, now more than 14 hours; an increase of almost 10 hours from 2013 figures.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/ubs-cuts-valuations-for-seven-nine-as-netflix-steals-eyeballs-20150722-gihrtk">Free-to-air audiences</a> are also reportedly down by around 7% year on year in 2015, 13% for those aged between 18 and 49.</p>
<h2>Get ready for more mergers?</h2>
<p>While it is not yet panic time for Australian TV networks, there is evidence a change in approach and business model will soon be required. </p>
<p>Recent moves by Foxtel (half owned by News Corp) indicate the likely path some media organisations will take. Foxtel recently bought a 15% stake of Ten Network and is joint partner of video on demand service Presto, with the Seven Network. This places it across online, traditional television, pay television and ISP services, to name just a few. </p>
<p>The lack of urgency so far seen by the Australian TV networks does not align with that of analysts, who clearly remain sceptical on the future of growth for the sector.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>Netflix is winning over Australian audiences en masse, but it’s too early to tell who will win the race for TV viewers.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/417582015-05-21T20:03:47Z2015-05-21T20:03:47ZTelevision is changing, and viewer metrics need to change with it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82364/original/image-20150520-11456-1xnbiy6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Television is not like it used to be, but it's difficult to find accurate data on how it's changing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/flashpro/4156535452/in/photolist-7kikbm-aEU2nT-aGqUC-hcQm7X-khsXZP-aEU2kr-hM8yu2-7xuoqb-23vvEm-4oNCvw-79Hspv-9sVNfe-4oNCvQ-4YrQBr-kFu7R7-76Vesg-5WN2yz-6c2jZM-fuaFVL-5PcLd-5zSGe9-8H5Dn1-7xK44q-rXfRLV-8w5ywj-qTckLG-7HajEU-eYMinb-qnzVjS-khuD4j-ou6Qgg-61yt4a-aEU2sg-48xV76-f9o9TQ-dTWs83-74jJH7-8i3Kwr-4n4pnF-dTWtwj-dTQPCa-DwsjD-7BDVCQ-4rmtRj-5cLQXp-aE7JXa-35cMrJ-aE7JMa-7DZmWT-pS9zRs">flash.pro/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The opening months of this year saw the first rumblings of a seismic shift in the Australian television market, with the introduction of three video-on-demand (VoD) subscription services: <a href="https://www.stan.com.au/">Stan</a>; <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/">Presto</a>; and <a href="http://www.netflix.com/WiHome">Netflix</a>. </p>
<p>This is set to make 2015 a <a href="https://theconversation.com/netflix-arrival-will-be-a-tipping-point-for-tv-in-australia-38386">tipping point for television in Australia</a>. Yet it’s difficult to gauge the impact these services will have on the Australian television market – particularly on the free-to-air (FTA) and pay TV incumbents – if we are unable to compare apples with apples. </p>
<p>There are key differences in delivery, access and business models among the various services. The way viewership statistics are gathered is also different, and the numbers often incommensurable. So how are we to discuss the impact and compare the various services?</p>
<h2>Shifting terrain</h2>
<p>Australia’s free-to-air television broadcasters have battled against each other for almost 60 years for audience share. The three commercial networks – Seven, Nine and Ten – have tended to <a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/archftvratingstrends.aspx">dominate</a> the public broadcasters – ABC and SBS – although in recent years there has been a small shift back towards the public broadcasters.</p>
<p>More recently, the networks have launched online <a href="http://www.freeview.com.au/catch-up/">catch-up television services</a> as a way to allow their audience greater access to their programming. </p>
<p>FTA TV is still a force to be reckoned with. During 2014 <a href="http://www.freeview.com.au/media/37754/Freeview-2014-wrap-media-release-191214.pdf">Freeview</a> reported that each day more than “13.5 million Australians watch commercial free-to-air television”. </p>
<p>Commercial FTA broadcasters also dominated the nightly share of television viewing, accounting for 65.5% of eyeballs. That is significantly more than pay TV (21.9%) and public service broadcasters ABC (5.9%) and SBS (2.7%). In homes with pay TV services, the nightly viewing was also <a href="http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/TV_Ratings_Update_Aug_2014.pdf">dominated by FTA viewing</a>. </p>
<p>While live broadcast television still dominates in terms of viewing hours – with just over <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Q4%2014%20Australian%20Multi-Screen%20Report%20release.pdf">90 hours</a> on average per person each month – there has been an increase in online video viewing. The average time each Australian spent watching videos online during the last quarter of 2013 was 9.5 hours, which increased by more than three hours for the last quarter of 2014. </p>
<p>It is the teens and 18-24 age groups where the figures are significantly different from the average. Teens’ average television viewing is 43 hours per month, with just over 28 hours online. The 18-24 group watch television on average 40 hours each month, with 21 hours online video viewing. </p>
<p>Given this apparent trend towards increased viewing online, particularly among young people, arguably the online services of catch-up and VoD should be incorporated in the audience share data along with FTA television and Pay TV.</p>
<h2>Catch-up TV</h2>
<p>All FTA broadcasters also provide an online <a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/c0fcfcd3-05a2-42c3-bb77-4dc5aa5006a9/Rpt_CatchUpTV_2012.pdf">catch-up television</a> service which includes: <a href="http://iview.abc.net.au/">iView</a>; <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/">SBS On Demand</a>; <a href="https://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/">Plus7</a>; <a href="http://www.9jumpin.com.au/">9Jumpin</a>; and <a href="http://tenplay.com.au/">TENPlay</a>. A recent <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up">report</a> by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) notes that “that almost half of Australia’s internet users (44 per cent) have accessed catch up television”. But these are not new services; ABC was the first to launch a online catch-up services in 2008. </p>
<p>It could be due to this head start that ABC’s iView is the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up">most visited</a> catch-up service, with 71% of catch-up users visiting the site. This is followed by SBS On Demand (32%), TENPlay (22%), Plus7 (17%) and 9Jumpin (9%). </p>
<p>These statistics show a reverse trend of audience popularity in comparison to broadcast television. In addition, a report by <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/d61a7c4b-3abf-444c-9367-aa8dc8b1b8f6/OnlineOnDemand_2014.pdf">Screen Australia</a> noted that “awareness and use of catch-up television services increase with age”. </p>
<p>Despite the positive uptake and usage of catch-up television, it <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up">only accounts</a> for three hours of viewing a week; less than a third of live broadcast television. So if catch-up television was part of audience share data, how much further may it close the gap between commercial FTA and public broadcasters?</p>
<h2>Subscriptions</h2>
<p>The other facet of this issue is subscription television, of which there are now two types in Australia. The first is pay television, provided by Foxtel. While this is a subscription service, it still primarily follows the same linear broadcast model of FTA broadcasters. </p>
<p>Foxtel has been available in Australia for almost 20 years, although it only has a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/foxtel-halves-price-basic-pay-tv-package">30% uptake</a>. This figure is far from the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/we-dont-love-pay-tv-like-the-rest-so-whats-foxtel-really-worth/">1999 prediction</a> of Foxtel CEO Tom Mockridge that three-quarters of Australian homes would subscribe to the service within ten years. </p>
<p>The second, and most recent, addition is the VoD services. These services are also subscription-based, but unlike FTA and pay television, the consumer is able to select what they wish to watch and when.</p>
<p>Of the three VoD services introduced this year, Stan and Presto are joint ventures between existing Australian media companies. The third, Netflix, is a US-based VoD service, <a href="https://pr.netflix.com/WebClient/loginPageSalesNetWorksAction.do?contentGroupId=10477">founded</a> in 1997. </p>
<p>There have already been various statistics reported as to which of the three is winning to sign up Australian consumers. Pocketbook recently <a href="https://getpocketbook.com/blog/netflix-is-the-new-king-of-australian-tv-subscriptions/">claimed</a> that “Netflix is the new king of Australian TV subscriptions for digital natives”. It claimed from its user data that Netflix’s market share was greater than that of Foxtel, after only a few months of operation in Australia.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/netflix-leaves-online-rivals-in-its-wake/story-fna03wxu-1227349526039">The Australian</a> also suggests that Netflix was an overnight success, with stats sourced from <a href="http://www.experian.com.au/hitwise/">Hitwise</a>. The Hitwise report claims that Netflix had 475,000 site visits on its launch day, peaking at 820,000 over the Easter weekend. </p>
<p>The two direct competitors to Netflix, Stan and Presto, both averaged less than 50,000 visits in the same period. This is far less than Netflix, but also far less than the number of visits to the Australian catch-up television services, of which iVeiw topped with 330,000 visits.</p>
<p>But this is only site visit data. And while it might be an indication of popularity of the various services, it doesn’t give the critical information, such as how many people watched the VoD services, and for how long. These services’ business model relies on subscriptions and audience viewing habits, which site visits don’t clearly depict. </p>
<p>So how can audience measurement be analysed across the various services?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82490/original/image-20150521-17333-70ggv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Television viewing has changed a great deal since the 1950s, but the metrics are struggling to catch up.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evert F. Baumgardner/National Archives and Records Administration</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Approaches to audience measurement</h2>
<p>Currently, television audience measurement in Australia is undertaken by <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/">OzTAM</a>. The company uses a metering system called <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/theratingsprocess.aspx">Unitam</a>, which records: who is watching; the time, duration and date; whether each TV is on or off; and the television audio signal. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/AboutOzTAMRatings.aspx">receivers</a> are “in 3,500 panel homes in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and 1,413 homes nationally for subscription television”. </p>
<p>While <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/Default.aspx">OzTAM claims</a> these “are the accepted metric by which Australian television performance is evaluated”, it is clear this method is not an exact science. The SBS managing director, Michael Ebeid, <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/sbs-boss-oztam-ratings-unscientific-underestimate-size-nitv-audience-262848">has declared</a> the ratings system to be “very unscientific” and questions its accuracy.</p>
<p>The accuracy was also questioned recently by Nine Entertainment chief executive David Gyngell in regards to the audience share data during the period in which Netflix launched in Australia. Gyngell <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/subscription-streamings-threat-to-tv-ratings-rejected/story-e6frg996-1227243761856">questioned</a> whether “early adopters may be overrepresented” in panel homes selected by OzTAM, therefore “causing the real audience to be underestimated”.</p>
<p>In recent weeks there has been debate as to whether the three VoD services should be included in OzTAM measurements. The Australian Financial Review <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/tv/freetoair-television-ratings-tumble-as-viewers-get-picky-20150412-1mh7pl">reported</a> that OzTAM “has already started collecting data on the catch-up services”. </p>
<p>But the question is: how do we compare these services that are different in business model, and more importantly, the way in which the audience is viewing the content?</p>
<h2>The metrics that matter</h2>
<p>The current audience share data for television – both FTA and pay TV – analyses the number of Australians viewing a single program at a particular time. For catch-up television services, this approach would not work due to the flexibility in time the audience can watch a program. This being said, much of the content on these services is restricted in the time it is available, so the metrics could track viewers across this period.</p>
<p>When you add VoD to this, it becomes even more problematic. VoD provides content for subscribers to view anytime, with no clear limitation or restricted access time. </p>
<p>Viewing habits online are easier to track and give broader sample groups, but they also have limitations, particularly around sourcing the details of the viewer. This maybe a space to review for sourcing viewing data and behaviours. </p>
<p>Particularly with Australian’s being leaders in the uptake of internet televisions, now over <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Q4%2014%20Australian%20Multi-Screen%20Report%20release.pdf">30%</a>, well in front of the global projection by <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com">Digital TV Research</a> of <a href="https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/products/product?id=108">30% by 2020</a>. But, as noted previously, the data on these services needs to be more than just site visits. It needs to give a clear indication of viewers interactions with the various services and platforms.</p>
<p>With all of these issues and differences to resolve, the question remains whether it’s possible to compare the various services together. Do we really need to compare apples and oranges in this way? Or perhaps the data analysis of these services should continue separately? </p>
<p>While it is clear that a shift in the Australian television landscape has begun, without accurate metrics it’s difficult to predict how it’s going to unfold. The question of audience measurement will continue to be disputed. As the gap between viewing hours across each of these services continues to close, comprehensible comparative data will become even more critical.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>With free-to-air, pay TV, catch-up services and video-on-demand, television is changing in Australia, and the viewership metrics are struggling to keep up.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383862015-03-12T05:15:05Z2015-03-12T05:15:05ZNetflix arrival will be a tipping point for TV in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74573/original/image-20150312-13523-1h5soau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C751%2C2448%2C1198&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The arrival of Netflix is set to shake up television in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cantoni/10715878456/in/photolist-peawCw-hjVFk7-5nb2GM-4WhWmv-hp33TR-6KB5d2-4TiJBS-4TiJCj-cz4hJs-kZ9Fee-4TWGLF-5qnmv6-4WwjLq-4iNFCW-5TV6K8-69aKqD-5RuJCA-bFhLzB-ygTui-dRQY2j">Brian Cantoni/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2015 will be an eventful, and testing, year for television in Australia. </p>
<p>It could be the year that we ask the fundamental question: <a href="https://theconversation.com/noisivision-radiospects-tellser-what-indeed-is-television-31741">what is television</a>? A year where Australia rethinks its “free television” philosophy, that tests Australia’s technological infrastructure for its capability to shift toward a television culture encompassing the internet.</p>
<p>There are a number of factors that will impact television in Australia during 2015. These will include whether the growth in catch-up television <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up">continues on from 2014</a> and the continued roll-out of the <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/">National Broadband Network</a>. </p>
<p>In addition to these, the largest impact will come from the new video-on-demand (VOD) services, including <a href="http://presto.com.au/">Presto</a>, <a href="http://stan.com.au/">Stan.</a> and <a href="https://www.netflix.com/global">Netflix</a>. </p>
<p>But will subscription services such as these survive in Australia? This is a country that has only a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/foxtel-halves-price-basic-pay-tv-package">30% uptake</a> of pay television, despite it being available for almost 20 years. This is far from the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/we-dont-love-pay-tv-like-the-rest-so-whats-foxtel-really-worth/">1999 prediction</a> of the Foxtel CEO Tom Mockridge, that within 10 years, pay TV would be installed in three-quarters of Australian homes.</p>
<p>Compare this to a <a href="http://informitv.com/2014/06/14/pay-television-to-exceed-170-million-homes-in-europe/">report last year</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Global pay-television penetration is forecast to exceed 57% by the end of 2014 and be above 70% of households in over 30 countries. Five countries will account for nearly two thirds of a forecast total of 886 million homes subscribing to television services.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The challengers</h2>
<p>The biggest change this year will come from the introduction of the new VOD services, each with their own idiosyncrasies. </p>
<p><strong>Presto</strong></p>
<p>Presto was the first of the three VOD services to launch in Australia. It is a joint venture between Channel Seven and Foxtel. It offers three different <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/whatispresto">subscription packages</a>: either movies or television separately for A$9.99 per month; or both for A$14.99 per month. </p>
<p>You can access content across a number of devices, including smart phones and tablets, and also stream to your television via <a href="https://www.google.com.au/chrome/devices/chromecast/">Chromecast</a>. The service allows for four devices to be linked with <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/whatispresto">simultaneously streaming</a> to two. </p>
<p>All of the content available on Presto is streamed at a <a href="https://community.presto.com.au/t5/Technical/Does-Presto-have-HD-content/td-p/1527">standard definition</a> resolution, requiring a minimum internet speed of at least 3Mbps.</p>
<p><strong>Stan.</strong></p>
<p>Like Presto, <a href="https://www.stan.com.au">Stan.</a> is also a joint venture, including Channel Nine and Fairfax. Unlike Presto, Stan. has a single package, which includes all movies and television entertainment for A$10 per month. </p>
<p>Stan. also supports smartphones and tablets, although one <a href="https://help.stan.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/202759750-What-devices-can-I-use-to-watch-Stan-">key difference</a> with Presto is the ability to stream content to your TV. It includes not only Chromecast, but you can also stream to <a href="https://www.apple.com/au/appletv/">AppleTV</a> via AirPlay. </p>
<p>Stan. provides content up to a High Definition (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video">HD</a>) resolution of 1080p, where available. The appropriate format is automatically determined by your internet speed. The <a href="https://help.stan.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/202845004-What-kind-of-Internet-speed-do-I-need-to-run-Stan-">support page</a> lists the minimum internet speed of 1.5Mbps, although for HD content the connection should be above 3.5Mbps for 720p and 6.5mbps for HD 1080p.</p>
<p><strong>Netflix</strong></p>
<p>Netflix, which started in the US, is the only one of the three services to not have an Australian partner. However, there have been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ten-netflix-talk-on-streaming-tie-up/story-fna045gd-1227212350147">reports</a> that Network Ten was in discussions prior to the launch. If this is true, this would provide all three Australian free-to-air commercial broadcasters a link with a VOD service and an additional outlet for content.</p>
<p>Whilst there is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/presto-and-stan-sweeten-their-deals-as-netflix-unleashes-the-dogs-of-war-20150304-13ustg.html">some speculation</a> of the packages that will be available to Australian Netflix customers, it is yet to be officially announced. However, if the US packages are any indication, there could be some key differences between Netflix and the two other services. </p>
<p>Firstly, Netflix allows not only for HD streaming, but also Ultra HD 4K streaming. In the US, prices range from US$7.99 to US$11.99. The additional charges are based upon whether you want SD, HD or Ultra HD (4K), in addition to the number of simultaneous screens you wish to stream to.</p>
<p>Another point of difference with Netflix is its integration with smart TV manufactures, such as Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Philips and Hisense, which will have a Netflix app. The service is also integrated with <a href="http://www.fetchtv.com.au/">Fetch TV</a> and Apple TV, along with a number of gaming consoles.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b_gIAoA0YQE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix Ultra HD (4K) Streaming at CES 2014.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What about the others?</h2>
<p>Whilst it may appear these are new services available to Australians, this is in fact incorrect. One other streaming service, <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/">Quickflix</a> commenced in 2003, although its initial business model was based upon a disc rental service. Since its introduction Quickflix has moved from its disc postage service to a streaming service. By the end of 2014 almost 70% of its customers had access to the streaming service. </p>
<p>Quickflix’s pricing structure has a more complex structure than other services discussed. The <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/About/Streaming/Subscription">streaming only subscription</a> is A$9.99 per month, with the <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/About/DVD">disc postage subscription</a> ranges from A$12.99 to A$29.99 per month, dependant on the number of disc you would like to rent at one time. </p>
<p>In addition to these two subscription options, Quickflix has premium movies and TV programs service, which are not included in the streaming subscription. These cost A$5.99 each for movies and A$2.99 each for TV programs. </p>
<p>Foxtel has strategically approached its attempt to lift subscriptions in two different ways. The first was lowering the entry point for Foxtel subscription to A$25 per month. The other move made by Foxtel has been its joint venture with the Seven Network to establish Presto. </p>
<h2>The games begin…</h2>
<p>With Netflix’s launch imminent, Presto and Stan. have been attempting to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/presto-and-stan-sweeten-their-deals-as-netflix-unleashes-the-dogs-of-war-20150304-13ustg.html">sweeten their deal</a> to gain a foot hold in the Australian market. </p>
<p>Presto has announced a 30-day trial and is bundling the service with Telstra, including an app for the Telstra T-Box. Telstra mobile customers will also gain some benefits with a longer trial of up to three months. There is no coincidence that Foxtel has a share in both Presto and Telstra. </p>
<p>Stan. has also secured a deal with Vodafone, although the details are yet to be confirmed. In addition this could also see subscribers to Fairfax products also be offered exclusive deals for Stan subscriptions.</p>
<p>Netflix, on the other hand, has partnered with Optus and iiNet to offer customers unmetered usage of the VOD service.</p>
<h2>Australians beware!</h2>
<p>While many of us are excited by the prospect of getting content at the same time as the US – or much sooner than we are used to – there are some things to be aware of. Firstly, choice is great, but some of us may find ourselves torn between the subscription services, as we review the catalogue on offer from each provider. If you want everything, you may need to subscribe to multiple services.</p>
<p>The second point is that for each of the three subscription services, it is up to you to supply your own device/s and internet connection. The key devices focused on by these streaming services are smartphones, tablets and PCs, not a traditional television set. If you want to watch them on your TV, you need something to stream them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The back of your telly might soon look like this.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sd/10762387655/in/photolist-hp33TR-6KB5d2-4TiJBS-4TiJCj-cz4hJs-kZ9Fee-4TWGLF-5qnmv6-4WwjLq-4iNFCW-5TV6K8-69aKqD-5RuJCA-bFhLzB-ygTui-dRQY2j-7emjsp-9hu6op-qirmdB-asE2Na-66ZvYc-mN7pv-2VCy2E-52jfVF-9JusA8-8kBU4H-52jfXa-a4h6Nv-do1V99-5p8bij-5FR8ob-bmd7x6-uAMc5-5Bdd5b-cR7YHQ-7kgjtz-ajzxz6-5KaUfD-99Jrna-54V4H-5j5zNo-94jg6R-9rZd3e-eaydvH-7uwLku">Sebastian Delmont/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/au/docs/reports/australian-multi-screen-report-q32014.pdf">Australian Multiscreen Report for 2014</a>, the penetration rate of smart phones is 74% for people aged 16 and above, which has increased almost 30% from 2011. </p>
<p>Tablet ownership is currently at 45%, although this figure is more than double that of 2012. The percentage of Australians with internet access is currently around 80%, which has only increased 4% from 2011.</p>
<p>The other key component to make any of these streaming services is the internet, both in terms of speed and access. Currently Australia is <a href="http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/">ranked 40th</a> in the world for internet speed, with only 14% of the connections above 10Mbps. </p>
<p>When analysing a connection speed of 15Mbps or above – which is required for streaming at 4K – we are ranked 36th; less than 6% of Australian internet connections being of the equivalent or above. This means most Australians won’t be able to watch UltraHD via Netflix, which <a href="https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306">suggests</a> a 25Mbps connection.</p>
<h2>2015 for Australian TV</h2>
<p>This year could see a big change in the way we watch television. However, watching TV will also become more complicated. No longer will it be as easy as purchasing a television set and connecting an antenna. </p>
<p>TV will soon require various communication and media technologies to come together, including internet service providers, broadcasters (both old and new) and technology manufacturers. </p>
<p>In addition, the biggest determinant of success for internet television and VOD services will be the Australian public. After more than 60 years of free television, how many Australians will incorporate a subscription video service into their television viewing? </p>
<p>And if they do, will the overwhelming time spent watching television – currently more than 96 hours per month – begin to fall? Will the average hours we spend watching video online – approximately 12 hours per month – increase? </p>
<p>These questions are likely to begin to be answered in 2015 as we transition from traditional broadcast TV to the new era of streaming and video-on-demand viewing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>With the arrival of Netflix and competition from two other new video-on-demand services, television will never be the same in Australia.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/210312013-12-04T03:43:22Z2013-12-04T03:43:22ZPay TV triple play pits Foxtel in three-legged race with Telstra<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36872/original/fhj9b3fm-1386122737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Foxtel will compete directly with half owner Telstra when it begins offering telephone and broadband internet services in the next twelve months.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Bell</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Monday’s <a href="http://www.foxtel.com.au/about-foxtel/communications/foxtel-to-launch-triple-play-of-television-broadband-and-fix-223504.htm">announcement</a> by Foxtel that it will launch broadband internet and fixed line telephony services bundled with its pay tv services comes as <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/news-eyes-expansion-as-profits-rebound/story-e6frg996-1226758545445">no surprise</a>. </p>
<p>The deal, known as a Triple Play, will see Foxtel selling fixed line broadband and telephony services in competition with its 50% owner Telstra.</p>
<p>But while telephone services have been under discussion for more than a year now, the new offering will not see the light of day for another 12 months and the all important prices and conditions have not yet been announced.</p>
<p>The deal brings Foxtel into line with Optus and the iiNet offering called Fetch which have been offering all of the elements of the triple play plus mobile telephony services.</p>
<p>In announcing the new service, Richard Freudenstein, Foxtel CEO noted that an important motivation was to reduce the currently high rate of subscribers to drop out of the service.</p>
<p>For years, Foxtel has been pushing to break through the barrier of 30% penetration in Australian households. While the number of subscribers was up by 100,000 over the last year, customer churn numbers remains high. One industry source noted Foxtel lost 380,000 customers in the year from its total 2.5 million subscribers. </p>
<p>Bundling broadband and fixed line services to the subscription is intended to lock customers in and reduce the growing number of Australians who are signing up with the US subscription video on demand service Netflix.</p>
<p>Although not officially operating in Australia, Netflix has a rapidly growing local viewer list attracting <a href="http://if.com.au/2013/10/31/article/Netflix-causes-angst-in-Oz/UFCURZLHDF.html">up to 150,000 subscribers</a> paying less than one third of Foxtel’s monthly charges for its subscription video on demand service called <a href="http://www.presto.com.au/">Presto</a>.</p>
<p>The outstanding question posed by the triple play concept is the potential impact on competition within the merging broadband and entertainment markets and uncertainties caused by the new government’s redefinition of the National Broadband Network.</p>
<h2>An owner and a rival</h2>
<p>Foxtel is jointly owned by News Ltd and Telstra and according to the management agreement, Foxtel is required to obtain all of its internet services from Telstra. In a curious commercial arrangement, Telstra is currently an active marketer of Foxtel as well as being a retail competitor.</p>
<p>To date it has been in Telstra’s commercial interest to ensure Foxtel was not in a position to draw away Telstra’s own broadband and telephony customers. Industry consensus is the long delay in implementation of the triple play has been a sign of Telstra’s reluctance to support more direct competition.</p>
<p>The prospect of a more open-access NBN in which Foxtel or other new broadband and telephony providers can bring services to market has been a threat hanging over the heads of all current operators. </p>
<p>In the stand-alone broadband and telephony service markets, like with energy suppliers, the absence of long-term contracts and complex bundled arrangements have led to very high rates of consumer churn which savages the bottom lines of operators. </p>
<p>Typically new customer acquisition costs all but wipe out the very extensive investment in advertising and customer acquisition. Even a small increase in retention rates can quickly inflate the profit performance.</p>
<p>Overall impacts on competition are difficult to project in the absence of any indication of pricing strategies and details of the likely product bundles offered. However, with the near stranglehold on content, Foxtel and Sky Sports are likely to retain the ability to charge premium prices for customers and to improve retention rates as well.</p>
<h2>Foxtel in the time of Netflix</h2>
<p>Perhaps the greatest threat to Foxtel and a significant driver in its new triple play bundling strategy is the continued roll-out of high-speed broadband throughout Australia. </p>
<p>The threat comes in the form of streaming content providers such as the US giant Netflix which has come to rival the power of the US pay TV operators and even the Hollywood studios through aggressive marketing of almost unlimited content at rock bottom monthly subscription prices. </p>
<p>While <a href="https://theconversation.com/netflix-australia-launch-could-be-imminent-19553">there has been talk</a>, there is no confirmation that Netflix will come to Australia. However it is clear from the company’s most recent annual report that international expansion is very much on the agenda.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000106528013000008/nflx1231201210kdoc.htm">recent US regulatory statement</a>, Netflix noted that “domestically, cable and satellite pay TV subscribers numbers have stagnated, while DVR penetration has continued to climb”. Rapid growth in mobile platforms and heavy investment in technology has given Netflix a clear competitive head start.</p>
<p>As with the rationalisation of pay TV operators in Australia during the 1990s, the ability of governments to preserve vigorous market competition is severely limited. There are currently two decisions within the remit of governments which will influence the pay TV landscape.</p>
<p>The first is the relaxation of the anti-siphoning rules which prevent free-to-air programs transferring to pay only channels. Already the <a href="https://theconversation.com/political-favours-and-the-rights-of-tv-sport-audiences-20701">pressure is on the government to relax these rules</a>.</p>
<p>The second government-related decision is the access price determined by the ACCC for the wholesale supply of NBN carriage services. If the access pricing is reduced from current Telstra wholesale levels, there is the real prospect of a short-term price war among content providers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allan Asher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Monday’s announcement by Foxtel that it will launch broadband internet and fixed line telephony services bundled with its pay tv services comes as no surprise. The deal, known as a Triple Play, will see…Allan Asher, Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127502013-03-27T19:01:21Z2013-03-27T19:01:21ZNetflix: a house of cards or the new HBO?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21674/original/swzvfvv9-1364168992.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Popularity of digital video streaming services such as Netflix suggest that the future of TV may well be online.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In arguably the TV event of 2013 so far, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/">House of Cards</a> – a $100 million, 13-episode TV series starring Kevin Spacey, directed by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000399/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">David Fincher</a>, and commissioned by Netflix, premiered exclusively online available only to Netflix subscribers in North and South America and in Scandinavia.</p>
<p>Metacritic, a site that aggregates critics’ reviews, reported that it received <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/tv/house-of-cards-2013">generally favourable reviews</a>. It was also popular with viewers, and quickly became Netflix’s <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/house-cards-is-netflixs-streamed-421142">most-streamed program</a> ever. </p>
<p>This is good news for Netflix. Over the past 18 months the company had been in dire straits, during which time it received a lot of <a href="http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-technology/netflix-to-expand-service-to-4-nordic-countries-20120815-2496w.html">press</a> for its <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/06/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-expands-20110706">bold international expansion</a> as well as its <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/05/02/is-netflix-about-to-be-a-has-been-suddenly-problems-seem-overwhelming">financial difficulties</a>. Some observers postulate that it could become the next HBO, while others doubt that it will even survive the next five years.</p>
<p>So what is going on? How can a company that could be teetering on the brink spend $100 million commissioning a TV series, let alone push ahead with global expansion? Is Netflix’s business model sustainable? And if it is, what does its entry into original programming mean for the future of television?</p>
<p>Netflix built its brand with a compelling proposition as a virtual video store, where customers had 24/7 access to order DVDs online and rentals were shipped to subscribers via the US postal service with a postage-paid return envelop and no late fees, for a monthly subscription of $7.99. Netflix won customers away from the major video chains at the top end of the mass market; Redbox DVD kiosks focused on attracting cost-conscious customers; bricks-and-mortar behemoths like Blockbuster slid into oblivion.</p>
<p>In order to prepare customers for an eventual transition from physical disc rentals to streaming video rentals, Netflix introduced its “Watch Instantly” streaming service for about 10,000 titles from a much larger library, as a free value-add within the monthly subscription price in 2006. In doing so, it became the first mover of any scale in this emerging space.</p>
<p>The streaming video on demand (VoD) market for movie and TV shows only really took off in 2011, as Netflix was joined by Hulu Plus and Amazon’s streaming service for its Prime customers and annual revenue for SVoD (subscription VoD) in the US market online <a href="http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/ihs-netflix-tops-apple-online-movie-revenue-27414">grew exponentially</a> from only $4.3 million in 2010 to $454 million in 2011 +10,000%.</p>
<p><a href="http://advanced-television.com/index.php/2012/06/04/netflix-tops-apple-in-us-online-movie-business/">Total revenue</a> for the online movie market (including SVoD, rentals and sell-through) tripled from $389 million in 2010 to $963 million in 2011.</p>
<p>Netflix had consistently met its financial targets and its share price rocketed to peak at $291 after it announced plans to expand into 43 Latin American countries following its previously successful international expansion into Canada.</p>
<p>Then it made an almost <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/netflix-ceo-hastings-fears-hbo-go.html">catastrophic mistake</a> when it attempted to drive subscribers towards a faster transition away from physical DVDs to streaming. Netflix announced that it was splitting the two services, rebranding the DVD-only rental business as Qwikster with a monthly sub of $7.99 for DVD rentals only, and hiking the monthly subscription price more than 60% to $15.98 if customers wanted to have both DVD rentals plus streaming. Or, for $7.99, customers could continue to subscribe to the streaming-only Netflix Instant service. </p>
<p>The customer backlash was immediate and severe. DVD subscription churn increased significantly as angry customers departed in droves — one million per quarter. Netflix’s share price nosedived from its record high of $291.23 bottoming out at $52.81 per share in mid-2012.</p>
<p>Netflix quickly backtracked, abandoning the price increase, dumping new DVD rental service Qwikster and apologizing to customers. But the damage was done; a PR disaster ensued. The brand suffered badly and so did earnings.</p>
<p>Let’s dig a little deeper.</p>
<p>In December 2012, Moody’s <a href="http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Netflix-to-a-Ba3-from-a-Ba2-CFR--PR_261971">downgraded Netflix</a> ratings on two out of three scales – the CFR and Probability of Defaulting.</p>
<p>The rationale for Moody’s downgrade was that Netflix faced significantly higher risks transitioning from a high contribution margin DVD business to a lower margin, fixed-cost streaming service that would require a much higher level of subscribers to break even, in a market with low barriers to entry and intensifying competition some who might have differing motivations for entering this market, deeper pockets and might be prepared to undercut Netflix in order to take market share. </p>
<p>It also expressed concern about the damaging loss of many DVD customers following the Qwikster debacle, and speculated that streaming customers are likely to be “less sticky” than Netflix traditional DVD base, so it anticipated greater subscriber churn. This in turn would require Netflix to ensure a superior product offering to competitors and to deepen engagement with customers to attract sufficient volume of new subscribers and reduce churn to maintain market leadership and restore past levels of profitability.</p>
<p>Moody’s did, however, acknowledge that Netflix certainly had potential to increase its subscriber base and co-exist with rivals in a US market comprising 80 million US broadband households. Forbes magazine speculated that there could be <a href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml">up to 120 million broadband households</a> in the US by 2019.</p>
<p>What options does Netflix have?</p>
<h2>Raise prices</h2>
<p>Following the angry customer backlash triggered by a hike in fees, Netflix has little choice currently than to stick to the $7.99 price-point. Management have taken a price hike off the table in the medium term. It is significant too that Hulu initially launched at $9.99, but was forced to reduce to $7.99 after it failed to gain any traction.</p>
<h2>Increase the subscriber base</h2>
<p>Netflix is the leading premium content streaming service in the American markets, way ahead of its domestic rivals. It currently also has the largest global footprint as Amazon operates only in the US and Europe (LoveFilm) and Hulu is only in US and Japan. No other direct competitor has truly global reach yet and a factor preventing truly global reach are territorial licensing restrictions that remain part of legacy contracts for existing release windows, but they impact Netflix, Hulu et al equally.</p>
<p>At the end of 2012, Netflix had 25.5 million in the US market and 33 million subscribers globally. Hulu Plus only had 3 million subscribers. Amazon does not release such data.</p>
<p>Concerns about Netflix being a company in transition are legitimate. DVD offered higher margins because once the cost of acquisition, warehousing, fulfilment, and postage were recouped, each video rental’s net was profit – split on a revenue sharing basis pre-agreed with the studio/network and Netflix, so the more times the unit was rented the more profit was realised leveraging economies of scale. </p>
<p>Streaming is different because it suffers from diseconomies of scale: as more popular rentals cost more to stream, a company will need more servers, and thus pay higher electricity bills. Add to that higher upfront establishment costs when entering new international territories, and profit margins are thinner. This means that to breakeven, Netflix requires many more subscribers in its home market (the US) than it did for DVD in order to achieve the same levels of past profitability - Moody’s estimated 35 million. Netflix has a solid base upon which to expand. It has increased its subscriber base by 4 million annually but that growth is slowing in the US market – hence the need for rapid expansion internationally.</p>
<p>In order to attract new subscribers and to reduce churn, Netflix must either pay premium prices for an exclusive window following theatrical release, as it has done with Disney in a deal that from 2013 provides Netflix with a range of Disney classics. From 2016, in a second stage deal, <a href="http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/ted-sarandos-disney-netflix-streaming-deal-game-changer-29031">Netflix will have an exclusive window</a> before pay TV for Disney, Marvel, Pixar and LucasFilm movies.</p>
<p>Add to this Netflix’s original programming such as Lilyhammer, House of Cards, and Arrested Development. Others will follow at the rate of five new series annually. These programs will premiere exclusively on the Netflix platform, which will allow it to differentiate itself from rivals.</p>
<h2>Add value and package content at tiered price points</h2>
<p>The traditional Pay TV model may become the preferred strategy for Netflix once Disney’s exclusive content deal activates in 2016 and Netflix has established its brand as a premium content provider. The key question is: if the only place highly engaged audiences can see a popular Netflix TV series or a Marvel or LucasFilm or Pixar movie in the first post-theatrical window is on the Netflix platform, will they pay a small monthly subscription? The history of pay TV indicates that they probably will.</p>
<h2>Is Netflix the new HBO?</h2>
<p>Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos recently stated that Netflix’s goal was <a href="http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development?currentPage=1">“to become HBO before it becomes us”</a>. </p>
<p>In the fourth quarter of 2012, Netflix added 2.05 million subscribers in the US market, one year after the Qwikster debacle. With 25.5 million subscribers, <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/1721184/netflix-now-boasts-more-subscribers-showtime-starz-hbo-next">if Netflix were a cable company</a>, it would rank second behind HBO (28-29 million subscribers) and considerably ahead of Showtime (21.3 million) and the rest of the pack. </p>
<p>Netflix’s commissioning of quality original programming, combined with premium content deals, will offer a compelling and differentiated value proposition to online audiences.</p>
<h2>Netflix and the future of TV</h2>
<p>If the programming strategies of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon et al succeed, we may see the emergence of the first serious competitors to challenge industry incumbents. We already know that the future of home video is online, as the DVD and BluRay become obsolete. Online television services with potentially global reach could prove a serious threat to pay TV opereators and major networks in the looming battle for eyeballs and audience engagement online. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12750/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Silver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In arguably the TV event of 2013 so far, House of Cards – a $100 million, 13-episode TV series starring Kevin Spacey, directed by David Fincher, and commissioned by Netflix, premiered exclusively online…Jon Silver, Senior Lecturer in Creative Industries, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.