★★★★★ 0/5

How important is it we have 5 viable Free to Air networks?

TV Tonight poses a question to five networks, and finds some surprising unison.

25
Leave a comment

EXCLUSIVE:

As the ratings year gets underway for 2023, and press report on audience fragmenting and fierce competition, TV Tonight poses a simple question to Free to Air networks, and finds some surprising unison.

How important is it we have 5 viable Free to Air networks?

Nine:

Hamish Turner, Program Director (pictured bottom right).

“I think it’s absolutely vital. I’ve said this multiple times before, but I think a strong, healthy, Free to Air offering in the country only strengthens us all, and strengthens our position as a destination for Australian audiences. If you think about how the landscape may change over the next 10 years, as it has over the last 10 years, and you think about FTA as an entity, then I think losing one, or not having them with a clearly defined brand strength and position, would not be a good thing. Ultimately, the audience is the loser.

“It’s not this closed environment where there’s no other choice. There is a plethora of choice and the danger is, people who think that losing one will strengthen their postion… maybe in the short term. In the long term, we all lose. Because ultimately it’s audience out of that Free to Air world.”

Seven:

Brook Hall, Director of Scheduling (pictured top left):

“As soon as you take one of the five out, which are the five biggest producers of Australian content, then that’s not a good thing. Would it make our job easier? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that makes the rest of us stronger. I’m not a believer in that…….

“I look at some of the TV markets out there and I’m shocked at how uncompetitive (they are). Now that can have its advantages, because you don’t put three shows against each other in the same slot. But that would be about it. All of this drives everyone to be better. It’s not just the TV networks, programmers, sales team – it’s how we promote things, how we make things, it’s the production companies, they’re all competing for that every rating point. It makes our shows better.”

10:

Daniel Monaghan, SVP Content and Programming (pictured top right):

“Free-to-air networks are a vital part of our screen, entertainment and media industry. They are an integral part of our culture and society which not only allows Australians free and easy access to a variety of programs across many genres, news programs and live sport, but they also employ thousands of people across Australia injecting significant investment into the economy.

“The broader and contemporary view of our media landscape should be acknowledged. A key strength of our business is the unrivalled ability to adapt and evolve to meet audience needs and trends. You can no longer just think of us as free-to-air. We’re also digital, BVOD, FAST and SVOD.

“The real winner is the viewer of course. They have more choice than ever before.”

ABC:

Jennifer Collins Acting Director, Entertainment and Specialist (pictured bottom left):

“I think it’s incredibly important for us to have a healthy industry with an ecosystem that ensures production companies have enough work. It’s important for all of us that we have these viable outlets.”

SBS:

Natalie Edgar, Channel Manager for SBS and SBS VICELAND (pictured centre):

“I think we all play in such different spaces that there is room in the market to have those different audience offerings. I don’t necessarily see it as a threat. It’s a vibrant market and competitors drive us all to be better.”

25 Responses

  1. Very important we have free to air television: We must have a channel that can broadcast information to all Australians in an Emergency! Not everyone can afford streaming services! It is also often the only entertainment available to patients in hospitals, aged car, and in some regional areas!

  2. We watch the off channels more than the main ones. There are a good mix of whats good about them. They maybe repeats in many cases but the good ole’ shows are often better than the newer ones that come aboard on the main channels. Documentaries, and David Attenborough are an easy watch. Vet shows, country outback shows, truck drivers, fishermen, food, educational, are all relaxing. I am disappointed we don’t get at least one airing of each new season TV show before they put them on paid TV. Shows like Star Trek, Yellowstone, 1923, Halo, new Dr Who?? would have been great. Its more to do with making millions rather than pleasing an audience.

  3. An important and interesting article, thanks for putting this key question to each network David.

    Of course not all the networks are equal. SBS very much do their own thing and don’t have a lot of viewers to show for it. Ten have the problem of lack of major sports and a commitment to shows that have no growth potential (news and the Project mainly.) Across the board I feel there is a lack of variety and distinct program identities. Tonight’s main commercial offerings are three 1.5 hour plus reality shows being the second of three or four such episodes this week. all despite different subject matter using exactly the same editing style and presenting plot points at the slowest possible pace.

  4. Boomer here, I can remember when FTA TV didn’t come on till 4pm and went off at 10pm. We had limited shows and channels to watch. My first was Mickey Mouse Club at 4 and the anticipation of waiting for the BW TV to warm up. Australian FTA has come a long way and is still evolving. It fascinates me how complex it has all become over the decades to what it is today. There were no ratings, no censorship, basic advertising and very little selection of shows to watch. Now there are more fingers in the pie than ever before as it keeps evolving. It’s becoming a complex issues as each FTA tries to outdo the other and the rivalry is endless. The basics of TV in my opinion is a mix of everything done well, variety and most importantly it is “entertaining for the viewer” who wants to watch because that’s what TV is for. As for promoting shows some are over the top and put you off before the show even airs. Don’t get me started on the annoying voices used to promote the shows.

  5. Well! 7Flix tonight has from 5pm 2 x Simpsons, My Name is Earl, 2x Simpsons, 2 x family guy, 4 x Gordon Ramsay. Surely this isn’t an evenings viewing for anybody.
    What is the point of multichannels? All this stuff belongs on 7play for those that want to watch it then they can close the channel down to reduce costs.

    1. Last night (Sunday) 7flix was L&O:SVU S1 E8 (1999). 7:30-11:30. They were still coming to grips with mobile phones, having been upgraded from pagers, and one just discovered eBay “where you can get anything for next to nothing”. Watching on ex-Prime/Regional 7, in south coast NSW, I’m still trying to figure the value to advertisers of Wagga funeral directors, Forbes curtain makers, Orange coffee shops, etc., to us viewers in Wollongong.

      1. You’ve nailed it, my brother lives in Orange in an assisted living facility and has a rant every Sunday morning when he calls about the regional/prime 7 offered to the viewers. I resorted to buying him a DVD player/recorder so he could at least watch something other than the rubbish they air. I do watch the Prime central west news though on YouTube each day just to know what is going down in the area and the best bit is no ads.

      2. The out-of-market ads on some of the regional multichannels are weird, but make economic sense to the broadcasters. It appears the cost of having unique feeds for each market is greater than the projected increases in ad revenue from doing so. They don’t actually sell ads on those channels directly – they are packaged with the sales of ads on feeds unique to a market. Originally, all the regional commercial multichannels were set up that way, but now only the smaller ones are.

    2. Ah yes – if I don’t watch it, then nobody else watches it.

      Same thing with repeats.

      And if somebody else likes something that I don’t – then they should stop watching it immediately.

      Not sure why your remote control will only allow you to watch one channel per day –

      The multichannels are designed to be an alternative to the main channel – don’t like the next show, maybe there’s something else over there.

      1. So, who was it that decided that the traditional channels were the main channels and the other were for repeats and niche interests. It seems like poor design to have a multitude of channels that no one is expected to watch for more than 30 minutes.
        With a modern TV all channels have equal prominence. I can make channels disappear from the EPG or change the order in which they appear eg I make 9 last when MAFS is on because I’m never going to be watching it.

        1. The traditional channels were the main channels during the digital/analogue simulcast era for the simple reason that fewer people could watch that latter. For a time, regulations the commercial TV industry wrote required multichannels to stick to very specific unpopular genres. Also, most popular sport was required by the government to air on the “traditional” channels.

          For many years, such restrictions have been largely gone. (There are still people that can’t watch MPEG4 encoded channels however.) It’s now more a matter of branding and number placement – the traditional channels are typically at the top of channel lists, and have the shortest and easiest to remember names.

          As time progresses, more and more people prefer particular multichannels to the main ones.

  6. What a lot of disingenuous garbage that is. FTA broadcasting in this country is an incestuous love hate mess. They can’t survive without each other, regularly share back ends but simultaneously stab each other in the back when ever the opportunity presents itself and do what ever they can do to screw each other over.

  7. I want them to succeed and I’m sure the viewers want them all to succeed too, which is why I think it’s more important than ever before to take on the criticisms and give what the viewers are asking for, and not what some in the industry arrogantly think is best.

    You can see the feedback on TV Tonight, other press and social media. Sometimes good or unanimous feedback is seemingly ignored or dismissed.

    1. One example was Big Brother where the feedback was overwhelmingly that viewers wanted the new series to be more like the early seasons with live shows and late editions. But for whatever reason they went with pre-recorded.

    1. Money. The dollars that they various networks can offer is generally less than what Foxtel can. There are of course some exceptions. Nine (and Stan) have the domestic rugby rights and some motor sport, ESPN have Basketball, while Ten (and Paramount Plus) have A League and internal soccer.

      1. Ten spend hardly anything on sport compared to Seven and Nine. Even if they have more money to blow, the fact Ten can offer $1.5m for cricket shows me they can stump up when required. There’s no reason they couldn’t split NRL/AFL with another FTA broadcaster. Cricket even. I accept you couldn’t cut Foxtel out of all of those codes but surely FTA could have one code live and free exclusively without Foxtel.

        1. Ryan. Networks are too scared to go against the Murdoch’s. look what’s happened to channel 10. They offered more money for the rights for the cricket and afl but they chose to stay with 7. Because of the bullying of Murdoch media.

  9. I agree, we need all of them to survive. Online streaming has it limits in my view. The thing l wish to add is the need for all 5 to deliver news services. I feel this is an area that’s duplicated and with so many news delivery platforms l think 10 could easily close its news services and have an hourly 30-60 second update like radio stations offer.

  10. What a load of twaddle!

    If ever a case of words not matching actions – then this is it. Look at what FTA TV and especially the multi-channels actually offer us and it is no where near an offering that is intended to keep eyeballs on these screens.

    It would be an interesting exercise David to break down a typical week schedule by:
    * Repeats v new contents.
    * Where it is new content – what is the % by genre (i.e. news, current affairs, reality, drama).

    On reflection it was probably a bad mistake to allow the main channels to have exclusive license to the new multi-channel spectrum when it opened. At least a few channels should have been preserved for alternatives (e.g. drama colleges, documentaries, public discourse etc).

    One wonders if these same people ever sit down to watch their offerings (Clockwork Orange style) and then to get up and say – yep we have done a great job there and it buggers me why no one is watching us!

      1. It not correct that they make more Australian Content, as they all stopped doing that in the 1990s. They commission it from commercial producers operating here but mostly controlled by major global media giants, and the productions are majority funded by Governments using taxpayer money. The people who make all the money are not Australian performers or writers that’s for sure. The ABC are the only one who acknowledged this as their reason for existing. And it’s no longer 5 networks it’s 20 FTA channels and 5 streamers. The ABC and SBS duplicating services and competing is a waste of taxpayer money. Ten’s revenue is half 7 & 9s and they are too insignificant to get major sporting rights or commission TV independently of Paramount’s UK and NZ businesses. Rating are sinking, BVOD is growing, 3m households have Netflix and or Disney+ subscriptions, FTA is clearly not meeting consumer wants.

    2. I’ve seen in other countries that certain channels must be provided. I agree with the multichannel licensing. Now there are many channels with lack of overall identity or style, and different channels with similar content i.e. home shopping.

Leave a Reply