Would you pay Netflix or Amazon $59.95 for the AFL? Because that's the sort of price they'd charge too...
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFL announces 4.5billion, 7 year media deal (2025-2031 inclusive)
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's part of the delusional aspect of streaming services. Everything will be super cheap compared to now. Not realising that a big chunk of Foxtel charges are due to the sporting rights. It's actually the people who only want the non sport stuff that are subsidising sport not the other way around.
The way Netflix are going they might not even be around in 5 years.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Paramount Global announced their 1st Quarter of 2022 results last week and forgot to post this Variety article on Paramount and streaming in general.
As per the PBS Newshour story I posted on the previous page, Netflix (but other streaming services) are being affected by password sharing and competition and they are adjusting their plans, including raising pricing and the addition of more advertising and content will be affected.
Competition has hurt by Netflix and their stock price has been dragged down with the tremendous hit to their stock price took and the anxiety about Wall Street has pivoted.
Netflix share price peaked at around $690USD last November and was about $180 USD on Friday's close.
Wall Street is marking down all streaming services as a result, at the moment. But that will turn for those who have plenty of growth potential and more importantly have 100% control of content and start showing profits. Story is dated 3rd May 2022.
variety.com
At this point in the first-quarter earnings season, it’s safe to say, investors have been tougher than ever on media stocks. It was no different for Paramount Global following its earnings announcement, and shares of the media giant sank as much as 7% Tuesday morning even as the broader markets rose higher.
The first quarter marked exactly one year since the launch of the company’s streaming service Paramount+. The headline growth for the company’s streaming service wasn’t bad last quarter, and continued growth appeared to be on track.
Paramount+ added 6.8 million subscribers during Q1, which brought the service’s total global subscriber figure to 39.6 million.
Paramount had 62.4 million global subscribers across all its direct-to-consumer offerings.
It’s still important to remember Paramount began a big promotion with telecom giant T-Mobile in early November, which gave T-Mobile and Sprint’s eligible customers 12 months of Paramount+ Essential for free. It is unclear how many of the 6.8 million sub additions in Q1 were from the running promo.
Bakish, much like other media CEOs this earnings season, took a small moment to throw shade at rival Netflix. He boasted that Paramount had a differentiated playbook with free ad-supported and subscription services resulting in dual revenue streams.
While that’s certainly true, unfortunately, investors seem to only care about profit.
Paramount stock’s price action following Q1 results underscores the shifting sentiment around streaming services. Subscriber growth alone does little to build trust between the streaming companies and their investors. But perhaps the more harrowing fact is that not even the real promise of future growth does either.
CEO Bob Bakish announced that Paramount+ would begin its international expansion beginning with the U.K., Ireland, and South Korea in June followed by Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria in the back half of the year. The service will launch in India in 2023. In the past, international expansion was a real reason to celebrate because it all but guaranteed steady subscriber growth.
However, international markets are typically less profitable than the U.S. With Netflix as a key example, price points are far lower in regions like India, and thus margins are tighter. This is problematic for a few reasons. The streaming business is a money-losing business that takes a lot of investment, time and patience to reach profitability.
For all the future investments in DTC growth, Paramount’s other businesses are crucial to its sustainability. The issue was that its other businesses didn’t quite anchor the quarter as much as analysts and investors expected. Though Paramount’s TV media business was facing tougher than usual comparisons, adjusted OIBDA tumbled 13% compared to the year-ago period. Adjusted OIBDA for its filmed entertainment segment also fell $216 million year-over-year.
Bakish is right about one thing: Paramount isn’t Netflix. It has sports, TV, films and advertising in addition to its growing streaming business. However, reporting wider and wider losses in the streaming business is only palatable if the company is able to balance those losses with strong profits in its other businesses. Unfortunately, it’s not something we saw play out in Paramount’s Q1.
Trust is fragile in the media industry right now. Going above and beyond expectations is the only way to gain trust from investors, and investors’ reaction to Paramount’s Q1 tells us that the company will have to do even more to gain investor confidence on its long-term investment thesis.
As per the PBS Newshour story I posted on the previous page, Netflix (but other streaming services) are being affected by password sharing and competition and they are adjusting their plans, including raising pricing and the addition of more advertising and content will be affected.
Competition has hurt by Netflix and their stock price has been dragged down with the tremendous hit to their stock price took and the anxiety about Wall Street has pivoted.
Netflix share price peaked at around $690USD last November and was about $180 USD on Friday's close.
Wall Street is marking down all streaming services as a result, at the moment. But that will turn for those who have plenty of growth potential and more importantly have 100% control of content and start showing profits. Story is dated 3rd May 2022.
Paramount Q1 Reaction: Streaming Sub Growth Doesn’t Buoy Investors
New VIP+ Analysis: The company struggles to maintain shareholder confidence, as its other business units do little to support streaming.
variety.com
At this point in the first-quarter earnings season, it’s safe to say, investors have been tougher than ever on media stocks. It was no different for Paramount Global following its earnings announcement, and shares of the media giant sank as much as 7% Tuesday morning even as the broader markets rose higher.
The first quarter marked exactly one year since the launch of the company’s streaming service Paramount+. The headline growth for the company’s streaming service wasn’t bad last quarter, and continued growth appeared to be on track.
Paramount+ added 6.8 million subscribers during Q1, which brought the service’s total global subscriber figure to 39.6 million.
Paramount had 62.4 million global subscribers across all its direct-to-consumer offerings.
It’s still important to remember Paramount began a big promotion with telecom giant T-Mobile in early November, which gave T-Mobile and Sprint’s eligible customers 12 months of Paramount+ Essential for free. It is unclear how many of the 6.8 million sub additions in Q1 were from the running promo.
Bakish, much like other media CEOs this earnings season, took a small moment to throw shade at rival Netflix. He boasted that Paramount had a differentiated playbook with free ad-supported and subscription services resulting in dual revenue streams.
While that’s certainly true, unfortunately, investors seem to only care about profit.
Paramount stock’s price action following Q1 results underscores the shifting sentiment around streaming services. Subscriber growth alone does little to build trust between the streaming companies and their investors. But perhaps the more harrowing fact is that not even the real promise of future growth does either.
CEO Bob Bakish announced that Paramount+ would begin its international expansion beginning with the U.K., Ireland, and South Korea in June followed by Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria in the back half of the year. The service will launch in India in 2023. In the past, international expansion was a real reason to celebrate because it all but guaranteed steady subscriber growth.
However, international markets are typically less profitable than the U.S. With Netflix as a key example, price points are far lower in regions like India, and thus margins are tighter. This is problematic for a few reasons. The streaming business is a money-losing business that takes a lot of investment, time and patience to reach profitability.
For all the future investments in DTC growth, Paramount’s other businesses are crucial to its sustainability. The issue was that its other businesses didn’t quite anchor the quarter as much as analysts and investors expected. Though Paramount’s TV media business was facing tougher than usual comparisons, adjusted OIBDA tumbled 13% compared to the year-ago period. Adjusted OIBDA for its filmed entertainment segment also fell $216 million year-over-year.
Bakish is right about one thing: Paramount isn’t Netflix. It has sports, TV, films and advertising in addition to its growing streaming business. However, reporting wider and wider losses in the streaming business is only palatable if the company is able to balance those losses with strong profits in its other businesses. Unfortunately, it’s not something we saw play out in Paramount’s Q1.
Trust is fragile in the media industry right now. Going above and beyond expectations is the only way to gain trust from investors, and investors’ reaction to Paramount’s Q1 tells us that the company will have to do even more to gain investor confidence on its long-term investment thesis.
I see a lot of promotion for Paramount which leaves me cold. I joined Netflix simply on word-of-mouth.
The analysts say there is problem with the Netflix model whilst viewers like me say they've binged watched all the good stuff
and there simply isn't the replacement quality.
- May 3, 2007
- 39,348
- 22,971
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
As long as you can watch the crows in free to air, it's all good
Ten’s bid for AFL broadcast rights hampered by poor ratings
Ten’s audacious pitch for the broadcast rights to the AFL comes as the network’s existing catalogue of live sports has recorded a dramatic ratings slump over the past few months.Ten’s audacious pitch for the broadcast rights to the AFL – the most lucrative media sports deal in Australia – comes as the network’s existing catalogue of live sports has recorded a dramatic, across-the-board ratings slump over the past few months.
Ten’s bold bid for the AFL rights would see home-and-away and finals matches spread across its free-to-air channel and its streaming partner Paramount+ from the beginning of the 2025 season.
But the network’s push to wrest the contract away from current rights holders Foxtel (majority-owned by News Corp, publisher of The Australian) and Seven could be compromised by its diminishing audiences for its coverage of the A-League soccer, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, and the Melbourne Cup. Foxtel and Seven have shared the AFL broadcast rights for the past decade, with their current deal due to expire in 2024.
In 2015, Seven, Foxtel and Telstra signed a shared, six-year $2.508bn deal for AFL broadcast rights, which was extended to 2024 with a two-year $946m agreement.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan is looking to finalise the code’s next TV rights deal before he vacates his role at the end of this season. The AFL boss met Ten’s co-chief executives Beverley McGarvey and Jarrod Villani in the US a fortnight ago, where it is understood the future of the AFL rights was discussed.
Ten executives are said to be desperate to add a top-tier sport to their content slate, given the other Australian commercial networks and pay-TV operators share the rights to the so-called big four – AFL, NRL, cricket and tennis. But Ten’s recent returns on its investment in live sports could give the AFL pause for thought.
In the first year of Ten’s five-year, $200m deal with the A-League and W-League, the sport’s ratings have tanked.
Don't miss out on the headlines from Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Follow
Ten’s audacious pitch for the broadcast rights to the AFL – the most lucrative media sports deal in Australia – comes as the network’s existing catalogue of live sports has recorded a dramatic, across-the-board ratings slump over the past few months.
Ten’s bold bid for the AFL rights would see home-and-away and finals matches spread across its free-to-air channel and its streaming partner Paramount+ from the beginning of the 2025 season.
But the network’s push to wrest the contract away from current rights holders Foxtel (majority-owned by News Corp, publisher of The Australian) and Seven could be compromised by its diminishing audiences for its coverage of the A-League soccer, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, and the Melbourne Cup. Foxtel and Seven have shared the AFL broadcast rights for the past decade, with their current deal due to expire in 2024.
In 2015, Seven, Foxtel and Telstra signed a shared, six-year $2.508bn deal for AFL broadcast rights, which was extended to 2024 with a two-year $946m agreement
.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan is looking to finalise the code’s next TV rights deal before he vacates his role at the end of this season. The AFL boss met Ten’s co-chief executives Beverley McGarvey and Jarrod Villani in the US a fortnight ago, where it is understood the future of the AFL rights was discussed.
Ten executives are said to be desperate to add a top-tier sport to their content slate, given the other Australian commercial networks and pay-TV operators share the rights to the so-called big four – AFL, NRL, cricket and tennis. But Ten’s recent returns on its investment in live sports could give the AFL pause for thought.
In the first year of Ten’s five-year, $200m deal with the A-League and W-League, the sport’s ratings have tanked.
Ratings for Ten’s coverage of the Melbourne Cup have fallen steadily since 2018. Picture: Getty Images
The regular season’s matches have averaged just 86,000 viewers nationally, and 65,000 into the lucrative metro markets, according to ratings agency OzTAM.
Such numbers not only put soccer’s television ratings well behind those recorded by the AFL and NRL, but they also lag those of Super Rugby, Super Netball, AFLW and the WBBL.
Ten’s broadcast of the Australian FI Grand Prix last month was also a ratings disappointment for the network, with the national TV audience down 24 per cent against the previous race in 2019, and down 33 per cent in the key 25-54 demographic, according to OzTAM. Ratings for Ten’s coverage of the Melbourne Cup have also fallen steadily since 2018.
A Paramount spokesman defended the network’s ratings for the A-Leagues (men’s and women’s competitions).
“We are really happy with the direction the A-Leagues is headed … numbers for football on Paramount+ have been strong and matches that are livestreamed on 10 Play are performing well. We are committed to the game and are confident that TV audiences will only continue to grow.”
As for the bid by Ten-Paramount for the AFL rights, the spokesman said: “Paramount is in a unique position both domestically and globally with platforms including Network 10’s free-to-air channels and BVOD service 10 Play, and the world’s fastest growing streaming service, Paramount+, and is perfectly poised to bid for broadcast rights for AFL.”
Patrick Delany, chief executive of Foxtel, said the streaming-led company was well-placed to renew its rights deal with the AFL.
“We have been the AFL’s partner through the development of the national competition and the continuing growth of the game’s popularity,” he said. “We bring something unique to the AFL – the scale of our sports platform, with 2.4 million sports subscribers and growing, the power of Kayo Sports and the unrivalled quality of Fox Sports production and shows. It positions us well in the renewal process.”
Seven is also intending to extend its existing broadcast deal with the AFL. Earlier this month, Seven chief executive James Warburton told The Australian: “We have a great relationship with the AFL. We’ve been talking to them for a while.
“We’ll be sensible. It’s economics, not ego.”
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
**** all chance here in Sydney
Many posters dont understand NOT living at home/the same State as the team you follow.
Not sure it makes sense that because their existing sports are rating poorly that puts them in a worse position to get the AFL rights. If anything it would make them more desperate for them.
I don't think it's anything to complain about. I have grown up knowing that if my team isn't on FTA that week, I will need to watch them on Foxtel and that's fine.
Who is complaining ?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,287
Im putting it out there - 7/10 joint rights - 4 games a week, with paramount going for the streaming.
Bjo187
Premiership Player
- Apr 30, 2020
- 3,861
- 5,482
- AFL Club
- Essendon
That would be perfect, it means two fta stations promoting the product. Only problem is news ltd might stop reporting on the game. In fairness though they run it down in nsw and qld anyway through their newspapers etc.
The_JHF_Clinic
Debutant
- Nov 15, 2021
- 52
- 94
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Since signing up for Kayo, I don’t think that I’ll ever watch FTA again. I forgot how much better it is to watch a game of footy without the ads. Fox’s pre and post game analysis shits all over what 7 dishes up as well.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
The ads are a killer. FTA has to work harder to make the $$ through ads. It affects the product for the viewer.
Im still thinking ten for free to air (3-4 games) foxtel for satelite(all 9) and paramount for streaming rights (all 9).
Foxtel just announced they have 10play app now on their set top box.
Foxtel just announced they have 10play app now on their set top box.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Forgot to answer your post the other day.
Fox Footy = Herald Sun ie News Corp signed the 2017-22 deal with the AFL, not Foxtel.
News Corp were on the verge of owning 65% of Foxtel when that deal was done. The 2002-06 deal and 2007-11 deal were signed by Foxtel, when News Corp owned 25% of Foxtel and then 50% when the 2012-16 deal was signed.
The new Fox Footy started in 2012 and had a lot of crossover with Herald Sun, Whateley and Robbo were columnists at time and then over 5 seasons, the Herald Sun link increased. Come 2017 and the new deal, John Ralph and others from the Herald Sun, are on Fox Footy all the time.
A 10/P+ 100% rights deal with AFL, means the death of Fox Footy and Herald Sun is effected, ergo write a bad story about 10's sports ratings.
It's a fair premise for a story - their A League ratings are so bad it's dragging even their multichannels down. The 10 Bold audience share for the last couple of nights (broadcasting A League finals) was roughly half what it was the same time last week with no sport. They could have run with that without going with the specious conclusion that it makes them less likely for the AFL. It's not like the AFL are going to read the article and think "Oh shit, we may as well call 10 now and tell them not to bother".
Just odd, that's all.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,296
Tens AFL ratings actually used to be pretty good back in the day,
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,297
Theres no way theres an set top box/Streaming split now. It'll all go under the one subscription tv provider.
Paramount would need to look at getting itself into pubs and clubs though.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I remember Ch 10 had about 10-14 Saturday night games with Brisbane playing home and away games for 5 or 6 years, and showing them live in Brizvegas when I lived in SE Qld in 2003-04, as Brisbane were on fire and 10 pushing the promote footy in Qld line with the AFL, so stick with us doing the footy for the next deal, and Brisbane were good to watch and rated well all around Oz.
The strategy was 9 show a bloody lot of Brisbane Bronco games on Friday night, thanks to News Corp's veto power on NRL decisions, but didn't show NRL on Saturday night, and as Brisbane is a dominant side at the moment, let's take advantage of this situation.
I reckon in 2012 when 10 lost the rights to 7, Brisbane's Saturday night games halved.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,299
10s pitch to the AFL back then was guaranteeing Sydney and Brisbane games live in those states on Saturdays.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I lived in Sydney for 8 of the 10 seasons that 10 had the rights and I don't reckon Sydney's Saturday night coverage /schedule was skewed as much as Brisbane's was.
I remember going to a lot of games at the SCG on a Sunday as well as Saturday night games. There were no Friday night games at the SCG in those 10 years.
Maybe Saturday arvo Sydney playing interstate games, was more common than I remember.
Similar threads
