i think he should donate 80mil to the nbl.

I saw an article on this yesterday. Hopefully the author was wrong in his surmisation, because he was quick to point out that the dedicated ONE sports channel was not rating well compared to the other major FTA channels and that Packer might want to re-focus the Ten network to take advantage of the success of Master Chef!

If that's the case, I think I speak for all of us on Hoops SA when I say F off back to gambling Packer!

Gaze was on SEN this morning and he thinks it's a very good thing that Packer would be involved with Ten/One.

Just read in the Advertsier that he wants to return the channel "to a more low cost channel" - which could affect One.

Priceless. Gaze said it.

He's only got a 15% stake at this stage, and no board representation. He'd have to acquire a much larger stake to have a major influence on the direction of the network.

how could you knock Gaze, he's a legend and a great bloke!

I think what they're roughly saying is that he might not be one for reasoned analysis in a situation like this. IMO, he almost always errs on the positive/optimistic side of a situation which is great some times and maybe less than authoritative other times.

Saying my prayers to St Mary of the Keyway tonight. Please leave the NBL on One HD.

Anon was spot on about the 19.9% !
I wonder about the other part of the post then ?

So, I watched CH7 news tonight - as they showed basketballers shooting from the stands into the basketball ring and backboard placed on the footy oval and supervised by seven news, so no gimmicks
like on youtube.
He's bought more this morning, lifting his stake to just under 20%.
News, current affairs type stuff would be cut, to lower costs.

( Dr Chek Ng went to Rome to see about St Mary )
NBL should be left on FTA.

Packer is a business man. If the basketball is rating he will keep it whether he likes it or not. Its now up to us to produce ratings impossible to ignore!!

Hey Packer, ..I. [its a hand suggestion!]

'Like his father' seven news said, 'he knows a bargain when he sees it. Bought at a low price.
They've gone up now, with the buying.'

prisoner of gravity-
his FATHER was a business man.........this clown was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is nothing like his dad/business man.

Whether the concerns are justified only time will tell but remember to avoid making any defamatory comments gang.

There is no doubt the future for FTA TV is in greater variety. I believe ONE is easily the highest rating 'second channel', and as such I doubt anyone would get rid of it. All that would be likely to happen would be another network would pick up the concept.

What might happen if they wanted to cut costs is they would go back to mostly buying in content from overseas and reduce the costly exercise of producing local content.

The other possibility if one person owned both ONE and Fox Sports would be just showing a little of something on ONE to tease fans, with the complete package for true fans of a particular sport on Fox.

Time will tell.

One to be axed??

Yep, basketball is relatively low cost in terms of production, but it is generally cheaper to buy content from overseas that has no production costs.

The problem with overseas content is that it doesnt necessarily attract large viewers, as people like to follow a particular team which ideally they would like to go local. i know alot of people watch sport for the sake of it but alot more like something to follow.

Paul, whilst I would love to believe with you the facts just stack up to what you believe

OzTam Ratings PDF

YTD
7 24.7
9 23.9
10 20.2
ABC 14.7
SBS 5.0
Go 4.9
7-2 3.4
Gem 1.7
ABC2 1.6
One 1.4
SBS2 0.6
ABC3 0.5
ABC News 0.2
7 Mate 0.2

(7 Mate note - 2.9 in the first week of the survey, but that was launch weekend, so not a good indication perhaps)

That looks pretty embarrassing for One I would have thought

The Age: http://linky.com.au/x7syq

From the article:

"By closing the Ten sports channel, Mr Packer would eliminate a big competitor for the sports channels on Foxtel - the pay TV network that he jointly owns with Mr Murdoch's News Ltd and Telstra."


I hope any changes do not impact on the NBL and Network 10's 5 year deal to broadcast it.

Read an article on The Australian site that said that Go and 7-2 were much more profitable than One (which was barely breaking even). Sucks that a small profit just doesn't cut it.

Packer, you vulture!

This is starting to smell like the decision to go with Ansett weeks before they crashed and burned

ashman, I hope you're wrong but I wonder if the NBL office is currently biting their fingernails. Would be just the NBL's luck too.

Damn Packer! I really hope he doesnt get his way, Ten is giving what the public want, He has enough money he doesnt need more, stick with your casino's. this could go south real quick!

One would hope that Ten would honour it's five year committment to tne NBL even if ONE is axed. I believe that FTA and pay TV are both under pressure from the imminent full roll out of the National Broadband Network, which should provide butt loads of cheap bandwidth to stream HD content into every home in Australia. After five years grace, the NBL may not even need a new FTA or cable contract if we can all stream the games inexpensively to our HTPC's or set top boxes.

That article and info Ashman posted is pretty concerning. I hope Packer isn't able to get control of Ten, because there are so many reasons to think he will not only cut ONE, but spam us with cheap crap so he can make yet more money.

Regardless of how well ONE is rating so far, I think the people running it should be commended for thinking big and creating something really great in the Australian media market.

Compare that to all the other commercial networks, which, presented with the digital tv revolution, have decided to drown us in re-runs. Sad to say, but based on those ratings above, it looks like the Aussie population would rather reward familiarity than encourage new ideas.

Yeah, good stats ashman, bugger. The numbers I read were about top rating shows, so obviously ONE has some shows (AFL, Formula One etc??) that rate very well for a second channel, but a lot of shows that rate very poorly to drag the average down.

Anyway, it will all come down to how strong and well worded the contract between Ten and the NBL is worded, and whether it is worth the $$ to fight in court if it came to that.

Let's hope we dont have to consider any of that.

Someone was just telling me that the One/Ten ratings are a bit more complicated than that. This is third hand, so hopefully I get it right: if a show is on both Ten and One (e.g., AFL?), any audience figures for One count under Ten's umbrella number. This might mean that some of One's best rating shows are actually not counted to them at all and knock them down a rung in ratings lists.

Anyone know more about it?

And this just posted on the Herald-Sun website:

"TEN Network has turned around its fortunes, posting a full year net profit following a rise in revenue."

"The broadcaster today unveiled a net profit for the 12 months to August 31 of $150.007 million, a reversal from a net loss of $89.35 million in the previous corresponding period. Ten said television revenue rose by 12 per cent while group revenue lifted by 10 per cent."

"These results for 2010 demonstrate that Ten Network Holdings is reaping the benefits of steps taken to streamline the business, strengthen our content offering and maximise the effects of the rebound in the television advertising market," executive chairman Nick Falloon said.

"Television revenue grew by 12 per cent on the previous year, with the level of growth demonstrably stronger in the second half at 20 per cent on the (corresponding) period in 2009."

And more importantly this:

"Mr Blackley said Ten's first digital multi-channel, ONE, was Australia's leading sports channel, reaching 12.1 million viewers to date and 3.6 million every week. "ONE continues to make a profitable contribution to the network," he said."

Link: http://linky.com.au/xjbnz

Interesting. I have seen the AFL numbers split into ONE and Ten, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are when the final ratings are tallied up? I don’t know.

One thing I noticed is the percentage of people watching the AFL on ONE rather than Ten has gone up in the figures I saw, indicating more are now in the habit of watching ONE - up to around 20% of Ten’s figures, or approx 80,000. In the finals ONE averaged about 170,000 per game.

He's a part owner of Foxtel and 10, rules on monopolies need to be brought in, i'm not a socialist alliance member or anything but this shouldn't be allowed.

If the NBL were to reveal plans to expand into Asia (by using Asian players as non-imports and other moves) then Packer would see the dollar signs.

curtley, monoploy will probably only become an issue if there is a controlling stake. I doubt being marginally under 20% affects.

I think something isnt adding up with this One HD thing, from what i have heard 10 have been really happy with it. this must be a ploy by packer to kill the competition. someone needs to start a facebook petition page or something, they seem to sometimes work?

Not with Packers they dont!!

All we can do is wait for more info and hope ONE survives or the NBL is incorporated into Ten's programing in some way if it doesnt. There are still a lot of things that have to happen before ONE meets its demise though.

If One is to be axed i cannot see the NBL on Ten, or at least certainly not live. They could honour the contract, and keep the content on ten but it woould likey be relegated to the graveyard in terms of timing. Welcome back 11pm replays!

I really hope we are all just over reacting. But with people like Packer they always have their own little agenda which is all about themselves regardless of what people want. Here's to hoping we are over reacting

Yes HO, it would be a grimly ironic form of history repeating. The profit posted by Ten is good news though, because Packer will need allies if he wants to execute a radical agenda.

"I think the people running it should be commended for thinking big and creating something really great in the Australian media market."

Agreed Beantown.

I really dislike this "buy cheap content, axe lower performing elements" mentality. It just seems to me to lack and real creativity or business-savvy.

I'm not an expert on this but I'm starting to wonder whether there's even enough advertising revenue to go around, now that the 3 FTA stations each have extra digital offerings. There's only so many viewers, which means media buyers are only ever going to spend so much...and at this time, it looks like the lions share of the market still goes to the main networks since they source the ratings grabbing material.

What I'd like to see is a more creative push to make One a success, rather than can it. I think rather than view it as something to be in favour of profit; it should be viewed as a foundation on which to build.

"it would be a grimly ironic form of history repeating".

I am sure there is a tautology in there somewhere Paul, just can't find the bugger.

In Britain the addition of new channels has created extra advertising revenue because there is more on tv that people want to watch, so more people watching. Networks just have to work it so they arent competing against themselves with the shows they have on their different channels.

First and foremost Packer wants to make money.

So with Channel 10 posting a solid result and putting money in the bank one would think that a major about face in the way they do business would be out of the question in the short term. This move would surely be one of 2 things either an opportunistic grab for what he percieves in an undervalued stock or a strategic move to place himself in the best position in the future. (or most probably a combination of the 2)

Any drastic changes are pure speculation at the moment and we need to concentrate now on making sure the game rates on FTA!

Other ten owners are keen to bid for Cricket AFL Rugby and believe he is the right man to lead the bidding and the timing to bid is right, also.

Out of interest, Ten are reported to spend way less than Nine and Seven on programming, something like between 30-50% of the other two channels. So there is scope for them to significantly up there spending on sports rights.

Of course, whether they can generate a return on that through advertising is the key. AFL broadcasts certainly dont bring a return that match the cost of rights, unless something dramatic has changed in the past two years.

Not sure myself, paul.
I heard Ten owner speaking - along the lines of sport is the most watched of programes and Cricket rights and the like are up for the bidding process and the late Kerry would've loved to be in on this, also.

IMHO packer is into Gordon Gecko world.OneHD profits are up,NBN is rolling out,Isp's are marketing TBoxes,maybe there is some legislation for free to air rights.Stay off 7+9 TV and Murdoch Press and there is actually some credible news floating around.
Who's up for the Facebook petition?I dont want to be the front if it goes national?

Also who has a Neilson Tv meter?Ive only met 1 person with one since I learnt about them.He has had it for more than 5years.Same person ,same likes and dislikes,dont get it?

Someone (HO?) said recently that only about 2,000 houses had meters. Surely with the price of electronics, reporting-by-broadband, etc these things could be in far more houses and capturing more intricate data (from those willing to participate).

Yes - You would think it's time for a bit of an update on meters.

ACCC will have a look at Packer Fox/Ten situation.
Not that they will do anything, but are looking at it.
Shareholders have asked about the costs of having another hour of news 7-8pm nightly.
Cost of covering Commonwealth Games ($25M)
Cost of multi channels.
(Although they got about 10cents per dollar on their investment, this year and One made a little bit of a profit,now.)

The claim is always cost, saying that it would require putting several thousand more meters in to get a more statistically significant result. At 2000 households I think it equates to 1 in every 4000 Australians or something like that.

Yesterday I also put that ONE was easily the highest rating second channel, to which I was completely wrong! So I went back to the article and it was a case of rushed reading on my behalf. It was easily the highest rating during the first week (and presumably the second) of the Comm Games.

TEN was a leader in pushing for a revenue over ratings strategy (probably mid-90's) which they achieved with successful re-runs of the Simpsons and Seinfeld, going to an earlier News whereby they provided an advertising alternative to the evening news on 7 and 9.

Other channels have since come to this way of thinking as well so now we are faced with a dearth of original programming because a proven winner is Two and a Half Men is run to death over the risk of something new which flops.

Yet somehow Pay-TV (with lower revenues and one would assume less to spend on programming) becomes the breeding ground for new content (think HBO in the US, Fox-8/Arena here). Channel 10 have also managed to maintain some level of innovation throughout - including the launch of OneHD - compare that business model (cost-heavy as it is) to 9's Go (which is really 'go around again').

I read an article yesterday suggesting there are other forces at play including Telstra's move into digital TV programming as well as the whole Packer/Murdoch/Foxtel issue.

Does OneHD become another Pay Channel as a result of this move - if so, where does that leave basketball - late night coverage on Ten but Live coverage back on Foxtel under another brand?

Then again, if, as reported, TEN are serious about bidding for the big sports then OneHD makes sense to hang on to as you get a pay-once, use infinitely (the Pay-TV mantra) benefit where the live stuff draws the ratings and the re-runs provide cheap, watchable programming.

I can't see a scenario where no network has a use for the OneHD model.

Or is Carfino becoming to TV programming what Goorjian has been to NBL clubs?

Look, simple logic tells me if the NBL rates and can demonstrate that it can maintain that long term viability on a HD channel, 7 or 9 will bang down the NBL door and air it on their HD channel. If the sport is not helping that organizations long term bottom line, James Packer or not, it will not have a future on any free to air HD station.

If ONE HD end the contract with the NBL, why wouldn't they take the ratings figures to channel 7 (Mate) or 9 (Go) and sell that product to them, so they can broadcast basketball to their intended demographic. If it doesn’t rate long term, any smart business person (James Packer or not) wouldn’t keep it on long anyway. TV stations are all about making money for their shareholders, not giving sports free kicks or acting as a charitable organization. It’s about ratings and profits - if it rates it will stay or be picked up by rival network, if not, it won’t. It’s as simple as that.

Complain about James Packer all you like but Kerry Stokes and PBL media would make the same decision.

(Joe M, good to have you back.)

no one man should have all that power

Joe M. I don't think the simple logic works that simply mate. Channel 9 & 7's digital channels are intended to be low cost content-high margin vehicles - that is their strategic direction. The whole freeview thing is based about providing alternates to the big foxtel channels like 101, Fox8 etc which deliver very similar content but which always form part of "base" foxtel package. One HD to their credit livened up the freeview mix with their all sport digital channel, and the jury is still out on whether they can be profitable, albeit they may be marginally proiftable now.

The NBL MIGHT rate (unlikely given history) but even then it is rating at a much higher content cost than reruns of Two and 1/2 men and Hogan's heroes. As such it would hurt margins for channels like Go!, who are not about sport at all and have very clearly differentiated themselves.

That is a different scenario to One HD, who need to provide specific content for their strategy (sport) and in their particular segment "live" is King. Reruns of NBL do not cut it except as filler. One HD bought NBL not because they saw significant benefit in it specifically or massive ratings, but because it fills the 'live" commitment they need to make to be seen as a legitimate sports broadcaster - particularly in summer where they have no rights to tennis or cricket, and cannot get a crack at soccer for at least a couple of years.

TV is heading towards specialised channels. Pay TV brought it and FTA Digital is now reinforcing it. They will not put NBL on Go!, rating or not, or any other general entertainment digital channel.

You are right that if it does rate (and it would have to be spectacular), then maybe you can convince 7 or 9 to go to their traditional "mixed business" channel with it. But there are a lot of "if's" there.

If NBL makes the ratings work, then it will be on Ten at some point, not on OneHD - that would be a rewal feather in their cap.

The one difference Joe M is that ONE's target audience is sports fans. GO's isnt.