Boo hoo to repeats

As someone who used to bust my nuts to get home in time to watch it on SBS I have now given up on it on Nine. (The volume of ads wasn’t helping either.)

Frustrating when they don’t put an “R” in any of the guides.

Is it unusual for a show to switch networks? If so, what’s the etiquette/rule re ‘repeat’ labelling?

Episode 2 of the latest series of Top Gear went out last Sunday in the UK. Has anyone got a reasonable explanation why Channel 9 aren’t showing it hot and fresh on Tuesday nights? It’s as if they actually want fans to download it first…

Wilhaus – EVERY ep that Nine has bought has already been to air in Australia. They’re all repeats. Season 15 only just kicked off in the UK.

Full season listing here:
http://www.finalgear.com/shows/topgear/

Wilhaus, Totally agree with you. I no longer watch Top Gear on Nine but was avid watcher on SBS. Interested to know if anyone else thinks that the ambiance of a TV program seems to change with a change channel….maybe the medium provides more of the message than we think. What say you, John Grono?

Well done Tim for wading through Ms Butler’s astonishingly bad copy. Not sure why you’d do that to yourself, but glad someone is.

Bloody hell Jimpa – putting me on the spot here.

There have been numerous instances of programmes changing channels and being more successful. Seinfeld is one (Nine to Ten), and I seem to recall that Friends may have started somewhere else (maybe on Ten) … but don’t quote me on that.

The issue of ‘loyalty’ or ‘liking’ is a vexed one. For sure there is ‘loyalty’ to channels – this generally shows up in news bulletins and special events and coverages like the bushfires. In general the loyalty to the programme exceeds the loyalty to the channel. This is evidenced by shows like Neighbours that TEN picked up after Seven cancelled it in 1985. There appears to be more issues around a programme that moves from a non-commercial environment to a commercial environment.

In Top Gear’s case it has moved from a govt-funded commercial environment to a fully commercial environment and this has raised the ire of what appears to be a sizeable number of loyal viewers. This is coupled this with the double-whammy of showing a large proportion of repeats (which of course would be ‘new’ episodes to many of the people on the new network).

@ Adam Paull. While I don’t know the contractual situation with Top Gear, it could be possible that there is a “broadcast window” which means that episodes of Top Gear can’t be played in other territories outside of the commissioning territory within a certain period of it’s first broadcast (that is certainly the case in my wife’s current production and one of her previous productions – the UK stumped up the lion’s share of the production budget so they get to run the series first,

And finally, Wilhaus, the “rules” around what is a “repeat” are hazy. To the viewer it generally means has it been on the idiot-box before. To a broadcaster it is whether they have shown it before. When Subscription TV snaffled most of the first-run rights to movies in the mid-90s, and when the FTAs still ran movies on Sunday nights (I’m reminiscing of a road-block but achieving a 60% 1+ reach now) we’d see “Free-To-Air Premiere” promotions even though the movie may have already been shown a dozen times on (say) Showtime. I’ve even seen a “Network Premiere” promo – meaning ‘we just picked this movie up under an output deal and we know the other mob have shown it but we haven’t’. If I had just paid a bucket-load of money for it – I would probably promo it in a similar way.

Don’t forget that at the end of the day it is in the main the networks around the world stumping up the big money that allows these programmes to be produced. The more that “revenue leakage” there is, the less will be invested. A programme like Top Gear would cost several million pounds to produce a single episode – yet way too many people expect to download it for free the instant it has been shown. That business model is a race to the bottom folks – kiss Top Gear et. al. goodbye under that model.

@ John Grono – No doubt there is some sort of broadcasting restriction in place but as television becomes more global, these restrictions have to go. Nine paid a motza for the rights to screen Top Gear, and if BBC Worldwide expect similar deals in the future then they are going to have to loosen the stings. Nine’s decision was a bad one as the ratings for even the “first-run” episodes showed. The core audience had already seen it.

As for “revenue leakage”, the Top Gear producers were smart enough to realise that illegal torrents were their path to riches – indeed the EP would often pop up on the very site that was distributing the torrent files, and they would often joke about it on the show. TG is one of the most popular programs in the world because of it, and what they loose on the roundabout they more than make up on the swings, with books, DVDs, T-Shirts, world tours, etc.

The television landscape is changing practically on a daily basis – networked media playing hardware that plugs into lounge room televisions are a dime a dozen, ISPs and telcos are doing deals with content providers all over the place, as are the likes of Sony and Microsoft, with their game hardware morphing into video distribution platforms.

Customers – that is “us” – want better television and we’re quite willing to pay for it as we currently do through Pay TV and DVD box sets.

If the incumbents here in Australia want to be involved then they better pull their collective fingers out.

Adam, I couldn’t agree more that the TV (well video really) landscape is changing incredibly quickly into a ‘device agnostic’ modus operandi. I think the one constant will be that the whopping big screen in the lounge room will remain the preferred contact point. What is changing is the pipe to that screen, and the players that are involved in that pipe – Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Dish, NetFlix, Hulu … the thin edge of a rapidly growing list.

What I see the risk becoming is that the audience may end up “paying the pipe” more than it does “paying the producer”. That is, the share of revenue that the person/company that conceives of and produces the next Top Gear will end up getting reduced funds and hence overall quality is likely to suffer even further. It is also uncertain whether online advertising revenue will make up the gap but I remain optimistic that it will (though more pessimistic people than myself aver this to be more likely than not).

Just one point of clarification regarding the first para – these aren’t broadcasting “restrictions” i.e. government mandated, but are contractual issues. When a producer thinks (or knows) that they are onto a big thing then they hang on to as much of the rights and revenue streams that they can to cover the losses on the programmes that they thought would be a succes and weren’t. Similarly broadcasters are trying to shore up as much of the local rights as they can – which often includes online and download rights, even if they aren’t fully utilised at the moment.

I sense that broadcasters and producers are feeling there way into this ‘new world’ of VOD and that the agreements tend to be narrow (one-to-few) rather than broad (one-to-many), but that it will change over time. Rather than have contracts based around the “number of broadcasts” they may be based around the “number of streams and downloads”, but we’re not at that point yet.

It is interesting that in the US many of the ‘quality’ shows have been generated out of Subscription TV (Mad Men), and there have been some notable successes here in Australia (Secret Life Of Us) which reinforces your “customers want better television and we’re willing to pay for it”, but with only one-in-three people having access to Subscription TV, consumers like us remain in the minority at this stage.

All true, but I think the main reason why Pay TV hasn’t enjoyed the success in Australia as it has in other places has been due to both the cost of entry with the need to pay a lot of money for rubbish channels, and the initial confusion over two competing platforms (Optus and Foxtel) and the subsequent splitting of desirable channels and content.

Mind you, the government decree that popular sport remain on free-to-air networks didn’t help the new industry much either.

But now that the Foxtel cable has essentially been bypassed by ipTV, access to paid content at a (hopefully) reasonable price will see this sector blow wide open, and independent content producers will be able to sell their wares direct to a world-wide audience. There are tens of millions of people out their tho want it and are willing to pay for it – it’s just that there is nobody to pay the money to at the moment. However if the industry drags their heels much longer, the audience will get too used to getting it for nothing – something Mr Murdoch is about to find out with his newspaper empire and paywall experiment.

The good news for Australian producers is that the cable that brings in all that content, also sends it in the opposite direction.

The trick is to make it pay – and whether it’s by subscription or advertising, or a mixture of both – remains to be seen. It will take a lot of hard work, a bit of luck and a lot of balls, but I personally think the future is looking rosy for both producers and the audience.

But for TV networks… not so much – unless they dramatically change the way they operate, and I can’t see that happening before it’s too late.

Am enjoying the John Grono and Adam Paul conversation….don’t you guys sleep? My observation of other value chains (the systems that deliver something of value to end users e.g. the food value chain…from farmer to wholesaler/manufacturer to retailer to consumer) tells me that producers of programming may be in for a torrid time as new pipelines evolve. The ‘normal’ behaviour in value chains is for one party to develop/take control e.g. Woolies/Coles in food and then to push the chain costs down to those not in control. They also tend to specify what is an acceptable product within the chain they control. So John and Paul….how do you see the consumer entertainment value chain playing out?

Hi again Adam – and thanks Jimpa.

I have to disagree with you on the “independent content producers will be able to sell their wares direct to a world-wide audience. There are tens of millions of people out their tho want it and are willing to pay for it – it’s just that there is nobody to pay the money to at the moment.” line of reasoning.

If I may explain why I think that using my wife’s latest TV production (and I’m NOT trying to plug it .. just to explain some of the mechanics).

She qualifies as an independent content producer of TV – which is where this discussion started about ‘quality content’. Her production will employ over 100 people. The production budget is in 8 figures of which around two-thirds will be spent locally to produce 26 x 24′ episodes of ashow aimed at kids (and their family) so it will more than likely NOT be prime-time.

If she was to rely on the “tens of millions of people out there who are willing to pay for it” (and hell I hope you are right on that one!) who is going to stump up that money UP-FRONT. That is, she has to pay to rent the studio, build the sound-stage, rent the lighting and cameras etc, pay for the actors, directors, props, costumes, lighting people, cameramen, soundies, accountants, lawyers etc. That alone is several hundred thousand dollars a week. Is she to ask them to work for free and pay them when the “tens of millions out there pay”? Not bloody likely!

So how does such a programme get made? Well there are backers. These include local FTA and STV broadcasters. They include broadcasters and production companies from the UK, US and Europe. Without their money up-front their is no cash-flow to employ these 100 people and make the programme. Oh, and let’s not forget the 6 figures that my wife and her two business partners have chipped in by investing the producer’s rebate (this had better work or we’re all moving in with you Adam!)

Each of these backers therefore protect their rights in order to re-coup their investment. These rights cover different channels (broadcast, subscription, DVD, sales, merchandise etc etc) and are generally defined geographically. The Poms will want all the UK and European rights etc etc.

And IF “the tens of millions out there pay”, that becomes another revenue stream to recoup the investment and hopefully then make some profit … to make the next programme.

The current model is that the majority of backers are broadcasters because, believe it or not, they understand things like scripts, direction, lighting, audio, distribution etc.

Of course as more video migrates to online, other backers will come into play. Will they become dominant backers – I can’t see that happening in my lifetime.

The issue as I see it is less about “making it pay” … but actually about financing quality content up-front. Without that financing (mainly broadcasters and production companies at the moment) then there will be bugger-all quality on-line video content and more cats on keyboards which we all know doesn’t monetise.

And Jimpa, does that give at least one person’s view on the ‘value chain’? At the moment the power still resides with those that have the capital, the expertise and the experience. What I do foresee is that the online video world will unearth creative people who never had access to such backing who will post some unbelievably cool video concept on YouTube and then become the next Spielberg, David E. Lynch, Ridley Scott, Seinfeld etc. … with the right backers. That is, the creative pool will become wider (think Gorillaz) but the money pool is less likely to expand at the same rate if it relies on a system of on-line micro-payments.

And yes … I do sleep … once the Tour de France has finished .. and before the World Cup begins.

Hi John – it’s an interesting discussion…

I think it all comes down to scale. Big budget productions are always going to need backers – it’s interesting that the global television production financing process is becoming more and more like that of the movie industry, and with the two platforms inevitably merging once they hit lounge rooms I guess that makes sense.

Producing a television series, or movie for that matter, is a gamble and it always will be – unless you’re Pixar (or a porn producer…), there are no guarantees your show will find an audience once it leaves the front door. It’s an expensive, high risk business that can pay off big time if you’re a) talented, b) persistent and c) incredibly lucky.

The problem with the current production financing model that you mention is the fact that you have to go cap in hand to a series of international and often competing, backers. Unfortunately the deals you have to make (regional broadcast restrictions, rights ownership, etc) compromise the production when you go online – there are no borders on the internet (well not yet anyway) and these deals will start to overlap and legal shenanigans begin.

Now in Top Gear’s case, the deal BBC Worldwide did with Nine is a handsome one given the size of the Australian market, but it still doesn’t come close to paying for the production in the first place. But when you start selling the show to broadcasters in Europe, and to Canada, and to NZ… all these markets very quickly add up. Remember the BBC don’t make a pound on the shows broadcast in the UK, yet Top Gear is one of their major money-spinners.

The broadcast restrictions you mention are actually costing the BBC money. In Nine’s case, the value of the shiny new series diminishes every day between the original UK air date and the day they are allowed to broadcast it here because fans are downloading the show (yes – illegally) and watching it. It’s in the BBC’s best interests to get these episodes out the door and onto foreign networks as quickly as possible. The “old school” way of thinking is costing them money – broadcasters are not going to pay top dollar for second-hand goods.

Hollywood made the adjustment about a decade ago. Remember the days when blockbusters would take almost a whole year to reach Australian cinemas? If you don’t – well they did! The world was very conveniently sliced up into regions and once the US cinemas had finished with them, the studios would take the battered old prints off to the UK to make some more cash, and then onto real backwater countries like Australia. I remember going to “Australian premieres” (a fancy name for “the first night”) only to see more scratches than celluloid. VHS started to change things as “pirated” movies could be smuggled into the country, and DVDs came along and improved the picture quality. Studios very quickly figured out that this was costing them money and that the only way to combat it was to shorten the release delay. Now, thanks to the internet, we have simultaneous world-wide releases of most films.

Television production companies are slowly making the change, as we are now seeing with “rushed off the satellite” broadcasting, particularly of popular US shows.

Now if the BBC were to cut broadcasters like Nine out of the picture entirely and make the show legally available to fans around the world for a couple of dollars an episode, they would be sitting on a goldmine. They already have their own video distribution platform available in the UK, so they wont need an Apple or Microsoft to get the job done.

Okay, I’ve just spent an hour writing all this and still haven’t really addressed the “where’s the money coming from” question…

In short – I think it comes back to commitment of the original producer or production company. I realise that small-fry like myself aren’t going to be able to go out there and make multi-million dollar productions, but at least the costs of getting smaller projects off the ground are within reach.

As an example, take a look at this…

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1921845

The fact that a video of that quality can be produced, distributed and (I assume…) make some money via the platform it’s hosted on, I think is incredible – and the Internet is the tool that’s making it possible.

Now back to work…

“Now if the BBC were to cut broadcasters like Nine out of the picture entirely and make the show legally available to fans around the world for a couple of dollars an episode, they would be sitting on a goldmine. ”

Whilst I hate the networks as much as the next man, Adam you are completely underestimating and undervaluing the power of tv publicity and promos – apart from a few expats, who knew about Top Gear in Australia before SBS put the hard yards in?

Certainly not enough to produce your alledged rivers of gold.

Online will definitely change the game, but John is correct about capital – it just seems strange that in this uber free market of the interweb where we can all speak directly to the consumer, the model that’s flourishing and consistently produces the best quality and often most popular content is the license fee supported BBC.

Work? What the hell is that? I’ve been too busy on Mumbrella to get any work done!

Top Gear was a brand well established among its core fan base in Australia long before SBS landed it – indeed, that was the reason why they picked it up. I remember a huge buzz and fuss in the media when the announcement was made.

Publicity isn’t an exclusive domain of television networks.

Unfortunately for the BBC, the license fee imposed on citizens of the UK doesn’t stretch far enough to pay for their desired output, which is why they are looking internationally for other sources of revenue and beginning to pull back their reach at home. There’s also a political angle as to why they’re pulling back that I wont go into here…

The changing model is being forced on broadcasters whether they want it or not. I can already watch BBC and ITV “live” on my lounge room television without too much fuss if you know where to look on line (I don’t because that would be illegal… and at the moment the quality and reliability isn’t great)

They will have to legitimise it sooner or later because the technology and consumer demand will force them to.

Work is that thing that stops the landlord from turfing you out in the street. Now if you’ll excuse me there’s someone knocking on my door…

Or … the broadcasters might crack geo-blocking through mirrored sites.

Clearly Adam your technical skills are in the highest echelon … and the gross majority of the population couldn’t be bothered.

CollegeHumor is a great example of good online creative of quality – probably the best going around.

But if you look at their monthly traffic according to Quantcast it’s been sitting at about 7m people globally with around <1% 'addicts', 29% regulars and 71% passers-by. If we factored-down the 7m for cookie deletion the monthly figure would be something like half of that. If we assumed that only the regulars would pay, we're talking a global pool of around 1m people that are probably willing to pay/subscribe to collegehumor. Even at $10 per month they would have a nice little business going. The question is, would consumers be willing to pay out $10 per month across all the sites that they are interested in.` Of course not every kitchen-table company could expect these sorts of numbers and for every success like CollegeHumor there are thousands that went belly-up.

I think Pay-Per-View micropayments would work and if CH got half of their 1million as subscribers at $10 per month, and just 1c for the other 6.5m per view then I think that is a sustainable model. But how do we get micro-payments to work?

I do like my toys John, but getting media streams onto lounge room televisions is surprisingly easy. As broadband plans become increasingly more “unlimited” for both up and downloads, becoming your own “broadcaster” and supplying a feed of your favourite television channels to friends and family around the world will become commonplace. Devices like Slingboxes will make it simple, geo-blocking wont come into it, and television stations wont be able to stop it.

Ten years ago, sites like College Humor and The Onion weren’t profitable and now they can be. A quick look at the production quality of their content proves they are either making money or someone there is burning cash at an alarming rate! Wonder where they’ll be in another ten years? Even the 35 year old juggernaut Saturday Night Live on NBC in the US is turning to online producers to remain relevant to their audience.

Micro-payments will be a big part of the mix of legitimate ipTV and will probably work similarly to content on mobile phone billing. Another way it could work is if a local company, say for instance a Channel Nine, becomes a relay platform that inserts local advertising into the content regardless of where it comes from.

As a bonus for advertisers, these ads will be able to be targeted like never before – but that’s a discussion for another time…

And as an aside – I just saw a promo for ACA featuring a story on “the cheapest way to watch movies from the comfort of your couch…” – probably a plug for the Telstra ipTV box that’s just been launched.

Television is changing at an alarming rate – how it all shakes down will be fascinating.

Thank you John and Adam for your apposite thoughts on the visual entertainment value chain. To my knowledge not enough thinking is being put into understanding (or even describing) these larger issues. The problem of course is how do you crystalise all this for an industry where most people have the attention span of a gnat (a harsh but fair comment I think!)……….

Sorry I just lost the thread of what I was talking about…….regardless, thank you both,
Hopefully, someone will put Top Gear back where it belongs and soon.