Friday footy set to remain on delay with Channel 7 screening Better Homes and Gardens

[eldorado]

I am not sure of the estimates, but if football was to be live on Friday (the premier prime time slot), it would mean only one ad could be shown between goals.

In a low scoring quarter, you might see four goals. That's four ads.

The delay means they can show as many ads as they to make a profit; in a low scoring game, they might show four ads after each goal.

I'm not sure some people understand what ratings, ads and tv rights have to do with each other.

If the stations fork out $1 billion over 5 years, (Channel 7's share being XXX)and are then restricted by the vagaries of the game to showing a small amount of ads, they lose money. Big time.

If they can't promise an advertiser that the ad will show "Aaah, maybe, we'll see if there enough goals", they will not be able to sell air time at all.

I don't think it impossible that the difference in revenue between live or delayed Friday games on Channel 7 could easily amount to hundreds of millions over 5 years.

If the AFL accepted $600 million over 5 years, Channel 7 could show live football.

But if they want an extra $400 million, the stations have to recoup that through much longer ad-breaks, during a longer telecast.

The AFL want to have their cake ($1 billion) and eat it too (Live Friday football)...but when it all boils down, hot air aside for the benefit of the public aside, they want the billion much much more.

That is the simple equation. TV stations are not charities.

 

[ghost65]

Can't they show bhag on seven two and just show twenty minutes worth of adds before the bounce. We do not need the previews.

 

[eldorado]

can't they... just show twenty minutes worth of adds before the bounce.

Yes, they could.

I expect advertisers would be willing to pay absolute top dollar rate to screen an ad that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WILL WATCH.

That was sarcasm, btw...the lowest form of wit, to be sure, but anyway...

 

[Sammo360]

Why doesn't the AFL just start the game at 8:30?

Therefore
1. Seven's coverage starts at 8:30 = live
2. BH&G remains at 7:30 = win
3. Live coverage means greater potential for advertising revenue(live betting updates etc)
4. Convert all of Australia into AEST so all of Australia receives live football. For those in WA, Does it really matter if the winter time sun sets at 8pm?

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Then people wouldn't get home from the game till midnight or later. Not really family friendly.

 

[beez]

Interesting that next week's Friday night game is on Channel 10, and at this stage it is being broadcast from 8:30pm in Melbourne. Same shit, different channel.

 

[Mitchemx]

It's just such an archaic idea. If i wanna watch my team on tv on a friday night (i go most of the time but i don't go to etihad), i have to pretend it's love. No football websites, no radio, no texts from friends, it's a joke.

One day last year i was picking up some snacks at a servo just before a hawthorn friday game, and i heard the bloody scores on the radio the dude was listening to.

There are so many solutions,

1) Start the game at 8:10, show better homes and gardens at 7.
2) Make use of the digital channels (although i'm not up to speed on the anti syphoning laws.
3) How about if you're gonna take on the responsibility of broadcasting out biggest game, you bite the bullet and do what the fans want for a change. Be prepared to move better homes and gardens to a different time slot. What's wrong with thursday night?

Hell i wouldn't even mind so much if they didn't drag the telecast out so long. It's on delay, there's no need for the preview or the half an hour long half time. Game ends at 10:30, everyone is happy.

I'm also sure their would sore if they showed live footy. They have lost my viewership over the last fews years, as i hate there delayed friday nights and the sunday afternoon games with extended add breaks between goals. I only watch their telecast if the hawks are playing and i'm not at the game for whatever reason.