0/5

“Scandalous”: SBS and ABC face payment demands, threats by TV set manufacturers

Public broadcasters have refused demands to pay or share revenue of up to 30%, in order to retain pre-loaded apps on TV sets.

Public broadcasters have refused to bow to demands by global TV set manufacturers to continue enjoying pre-loading of their BVOD apps, as the debate over Prominence was heard in Canberra today.

“In June 2018, the manufacturer of the best-selling connected TV in Australia wrote to SBS and advised that unless we agreed to a 15% revenue share arrangement and a placement fee, SBS would be removed from the ‘app launcher’ on the TV homepage for that brand, SBS managing director James Taylor told a Senate hearing committee on Prominence today.

“When SBS refused to pay, the manufacturer carried through on their threat making it much harder for audiences to find the SBS On Demand app.

“Then, in August 2020, that manufacturer delivered the same demand, but this time threatening to take SBS On Demand off the platform entirely. It was difficult for me to even find a representative in Australia for us to challenge this with – a reflection of how these corporations are imposing their global commercial rent seeking activities from thousands of kms away with no regard to local audiences or the public interest.

“In August 2023 we received notification from another platform operator that unless SBS agreed to pay them 30% of the revenue we derived from being on their platform, they would exclude us entirely.

“That platform operator has a market capitalisation of over USD$1.7 trillion.

“It is frankly scandalous that these massive global tech firms can unilaterally insert themselves as gatekeepers between Australians and their free Australian content, trusted news and information – services that have been intentionally developed and underpinned by decades of public policy,” he said.

“These are examples of the corrosive impact the unregulated marketplace is having – it’s a free-for-all, where foreign entities essentially control what Australians see on their devices and can kick off a public broadcaster that has a particular remit to serve vulnerable and marginalised communities.

“Let’s be clear, these devices, or smart TVs, are essentially empty black boxes but for the content, be it news, sport or entertainment, paid for and delivered by content makers like SBS. People buy televisions to watch content.

“The set manufacturers do not pay a cent towards the content they are seeking to grab revenue from – the very definition of rent-seeking. They know the power they have over the primary access point to content in the home, and they are squeezing it for all it’s worth.

“Ubiquitous access to free television services that deliver valuable news and Australian stories are the result of purposeful public policy interventions over many decades. And Australians rely on these services – especially those who can’t afford to pay for streaming.”

ABC managing director David Anderson also confirmed the broadcaster had faced similar demands.

“Similar to SBS in 2021, we lost pre-loading of our app on a major manufacturer and we were asked for payment to actually restore it. And that’s not the first time that that’s happened to us and on principle we haven’t paid,” he said.

4 Responses

  1. SBS faced the demands 5 years ago and refused. You’ll note they wouldn’t even to try selling a TV without the ABC, or 7, 9 or 10. It did they sell a smart TV that can’t receive FTA channels that would be misleading and deceptive and the ACCC would get involved. The 2nd one was for a proprietary puck attached to a US streamer, that the networks were already paying to be on. Then last year they jacked up the percentage to 30%. That too was made public and they refused to pay the money. That puck, for a US streamer, only had 3% penetration in our market, so they need the FTA channels more than the FTA channels need to be on that puck. Large Media companies are perfectly capable of negotiating carriage agreement that suit them.

  2. The demands seem to justify the need for the Prominence legislation. The manufacturers are overplaying their hand. It has got to be an even playing field.

    Viewers want and expect freedom, though there’s no freedom with stifling either.

      1. Then again Netflix is in 6.1m households in this country and is streamed more than 7,9 and 10. They are second on Hubbl. Even AGL power and gas contracts come with basic Netflix accounts. Prominence is about being available, it about being first.

Leave a Reply