This is interesting.

[Inside Shoulder]

I think it was worse than that on the opening weekend. I believe they had a news alerts on the coverage that obviously got added via a different feed so it was providing goal alerts before the goals had been shown on their own stream.

There are also vast numbers of people complaining about the quality of the stream accompanied by pictures that are so blurry you can't really see anything.





I think it's a pretty big deal especially for a sport like EPL that most viewers are likely to watch by themselves because of the time it is on. Twitter etc. or chatting with friends in England are pretty substantial parts of the overall experience for plenty of viewers.

EPL: finding out early that someone scored must be a blessed release from the tedium of a nil all draw.......might even work as a crowd control device, depending on who scored I guess.
I have Sonos hooked up and you can dial in the delay you need.
The ABC could save some of their precious $ by calling the crickey from the TV!

 

[No4918]

Are you sure about that? Look up the likes of the NFL Game Pass. If you do it on the cheap then yes, it's problematic but if done right it could ge well worth it. Additionally, you can ensure its chromecast enabled ($59), Xbox and Playstation compatible.

Can SANZAAR afford to get it on those products? NFL, MLB and NBL are massive sports with multimillion viewers per game. What is the average Super Rugby audience? Streaming is the future but I think it's a long way off, I wouldn't care if it is HD. The illicit streams I have seen are of such bad quality it's not worth the trouble.

In the short term Super Rugby needs to get on FTA tv. See few ways around it. I know plenty of people that would tune in but don't follow it due to the costs. Many would be forced into paying around $750 a year and might get to watch a game or two a week. Hard to justify when you aren't interested in any of the other content and it just isn't going to happen for the majority of would-be fans and viewers.

 

[Ignoto]

EPL: finding out early that someone scored must be a blessed release from the tedium of a nil all draw...might even work as a crowd control device, depending on who scored I guess.

Consumers have demonstrated that a delay in anything is unacceptable in today's age of technology. There's a reason why Australian's are the biggest 'pirates' per capita in the world. The TV/Movie companies believed it was acceptable for Australians to receive movies or tv shows months after it aired. Through a decade of people downloading this attitude has somewhat changed, but they still think they're doing US a favour by selling us tv shows that are 'expressed' from overseas.

Additionally, by simply telling people to get off social media if they want to watch something live is doing your sport a huge disservice. Social media helps drive interest in the game for a large portion of people. We're currently fighting shit up hill attracting more people to our game so you cannot have such a blasé attitude.

With the rise of Netflix (before that iTunes with music) we've seen there's a market willingness to pay for content if it is reasonably priced and not harder than illegally download/finding a stream.

We complain about the ARU being an old boys club and in regards to furthering our game in the technology sphere, it cannot be closer to the truth.

 

[BarneySF]

Let's all pay one person on GAGR to point their webcam towards the screen and then we all become Skype friends and sit back and watch. Prorate the subscription cost across all members. Simples.

 

[mst]

Technology is a fundamental aspect of the economics/buisness model, any technological improvement also impacts on the economics or the product through overheads and cost base.

When it comes to streaming live sport, technology is the key factor influencing the economics. Technology will inevitably improve to the point where your average consumer will have the bandwidth to stream HD, and technology will also improve the reliability of any live streaming service..

It's not a matter of it, it's a matter of when.

You are missing my point and possibly the key point for broadcasters. Technology is a cost of business; if it decreases overheads great, but it can also increase them like switching to HD etc. Just because it there or you can use it does not mean you should especially it it does not serve your business model.

Broadcasters. like all sports live off advertising revenue, its what drives decisions. Steaming reduces product exposure from mass markets to niche streams. Think of all the advertising on Foxtel that would not fit a Rugby only broadcast. So you rob Peter by reducing your adverting revenue to pay Paul by going to streaming to reduce costs and lower prices.

So where then does the $40mil for Super Rugby come from when the revenue is reduced? Where does the advertising revenue from the Wallabies broadcasts come from? Rugby is already struggling to attract series sponsors etc and steaming narrows the field even more.

Do you have a huge audience like in the US or UK here to compensate for the loss of advertising revenue?

The proof is right there for consumer to see. Take a look at Youtube - the advertising in the middle of videos - really annoying but its necessary to cover costs. Just like TV.

So those banging on about watching cheap steaming wish away, but we wont be watching rugby as the game wont have half the money it has now.

IMHO its again the stupidity of ill informed consumer caught in the fad trap and not understanding and driving the market to where they want it at their own expense.

A perfect example of this is the articles you see in the media by the tech heads about new TVs. After many years they now are advising that TV screen technology LCD / LED iare finally catching up to the quality of plasma. So if that the case why did the better technology cease production. Consumer fed fad- LCD /LED sounded sexy and sold more and with plasma sales dropping you do the logical business, give the consumer what they want.

http://au.pcmag.com/tv-home-theaters/11299/feature/led-vs-plasma-which-hdtv-type-is-best

 

[Ignoto]

Do you have a huge audience like in the US or UK here to compensate for the loss of advertising revenue?

The proof is right there for consumer to see. Take a look at Youtube - the advertising in the middle of videos - really annoying but its necessary to cover costs. Just like TV.

With having an app or stream your potentially audience increases massively. I can't speak to how hard it is to get Super or Wallaby games in the UK/Japan etc but give them an easy opportunity without having to sign up to a year long cable plan and you'd be surprised who signs up.

More importantly, if they adopt the approach of Netflix where you can watch any game at any time rather than having to record it or find another showing and people will flock to the service.

Advertising can be done on these types of services. Foxtel has moved away from showing ads during the broadcast, but during half time you can play whatever ad you want which can be tailored to all kinds of international markets. That is, the Aussies get X set of ads while the Yanks get Y set of ads which have been paid for by American companies.

 

[Highlander35]

A perfect example of this is the articles you see in the media by the tech heads about new TVs. After many years they now are advising that TV screen technology LCD / LED iare finally catching up to the quality of plasma. So if that the case why did the better technology cease production. Consumer fed fad- LCD /LED sounded sexy and sold more and with plasma sales dropping you do the logical business, give the consumer what they want.

http://au.pcmag.com/tv-home-theaters/11299/feature/led-vs-plasma-which-hdtv-type-is-best

Diverging slightly, but I thought that the transition to LCD was also influenced by 1) relative lack of image burn into the LCD as compared to Plasma, 2) cheaper to repair screen faults like discolouration, and dead pixels, 3) relative cost, where you could get an extra 2-4 inches on an LCD for the same priced Plasma.

Course I could just have bought into some sort of post-plasma justification.

 

[Strewthcobber]

In the short term Super Rugby needs to get on FTA tv. See few ways around it. I know plenty of people that would tune in but don't follow it due to the costs. Many would be forced into paying around $750 a year and might get to watch a game or two a week. Hard to justify when you aren't interested in any of the other content and it just isn't going to happen for the majority of would-be fans and viewers.

How do you envision this actually happening - ie which game, shown where, by who etc?

I just see so many obstacles that i just can't see how it is ever going to happen

 

[TOCC]

You are missing my point and possibly the key point for broadcasters. Technology is a cost of business; if it decreases overheads great, but it can also increase them like switching to HD etc. Just because it there or you can use it does not mean you should especially it it does not serve your business model.

Broadcasters. like all sports live off advertising revenue, its what drives decisions. Steaming reduces product exposure from mass markets to niche streams. Think of all the advertising on Foxtel that would not fit a Rugby only broadcast. So you rob Peter by reducing your adverting revenue to pay Paul by going to streaming to reduce costs and lower prices.

So where then does the $40mil for Super Rugby come from when the revenue is reduced? Where does the advertising revenue from the Wallabies broadcasts come from? Rugby is already struggling to attract series sponsors etc and steaming narrows the field even more.

Do you have a huge audience like in the US or UK here to compensate for the loss of advertising revenue?

The proof is right there for consumer to see. Take a look at Youtube - the advertising in the middle of videos - really annoying but its necessary to cover costs. Just like TV.

So those banging on about watching cheap steaming wish away, but we wont be watching rugby as the game wont have half the money it has now.

IMHO its again the stupidity of ill informed consumer caught in the fad trap and not understanding and driving the market to where they want it at their own expense.

A perfect example of this is the articles you see in the media by the tech heads about new TVs. After many years they now are advising that TV screen technology LCD / LED iare finally catching up to the quality of plasma. So if that the case why did the better technology cease production. Consumer fed fad- LCD /LED sounded sexy and sold more and with plasma sales dropping you do the logical business, give the consumer what they want.

http://au.pcmag.com/tv-home-theaters/11299/feature/led-vs-plasma-which-hdtv-type-is-best

Technological improvements reduce overheads, new methods of data compressions or new means to extract greater bandwidth out of exsisting infrastructure. Sure the cost of providing HD increases overheads, but no more then their direct competitiors, i.e. Cable providers and FTA broadcasters

Any additional cost of streaming HD is inevitably offset through additional consumer demand, Netflix, Stan and ITunes are all testament to the economics of streaming online, all offer HD options.

The current difference for live sport is the technology restraints, providers are yet to deal with the spike in demand during peak periods. Which is why they can stream in SD, but the technology to provide HD equivalent streaming on mass scale in a market like Austrralia is currently economically unfeasible. For 2 reasons, because the technology is still emerging and secondly because the number of consumers who can stream HD doesn't justify the cost outlay. Both of which will change in the next 5-10years.

Advertising is a different subject altogether, Foxtel revenue is fundamentally built on subscription charges and not advertising, and secondly, the advertising which occurs on Foxtel is targeted. Those companies who target during a Super Rugby game or Wallabies Test do so because the demographic suits their consumer base.. Targeted advertising is standard across all mediums, including FTA and online streaming.

 

[TOCC]

I actually find it quite incredible that we are debating the technological requirements of streaming live sports..

This was the same argument held 10 years ago about streaming movies, board members of Blockbuster were arguing the same points that are been brought up in this thread. Netflix only established online streaming 9 years ago and 5 years ago in Australia we didn't have Netflix, Stan or FoxtelGo. Today, Foxtel has 2.8million subscribers and Netflix has 1.8million.

Currently the issue is that the industry is fragmented, some services like AppleTV or Roku don't offer their competitors service on their devices. Currently in the USA, the ACCC equivalent is investigating whether this should be changed which will force some companies to host competitors services on their streaming device. This will be a game changer and should see greater integration between streaming services in the future.

 

[mst]

With having an app or stream your potentially audience increases massively. I can't speak to how hard it is to get Super or Wallaby games in the UK/Japan etc but give them an easy opportunity without having to sign up to a year long cable plan and you'd be surprised who signs up.

More importantly, if they adopt the approach of Netflix where you can watch any game at any time rather than having to record it or find another showing and people will flock to the service.

Advertising can be done on these types of services. Foxtel has moved away from showing ads during the broadcast, but during half time you can play whatever ad you want which can be tailored to all kinds of international markets. That is, the Aussies get X set of ads while the Yanks get Y set of ads which have been paid for by American companies.

Its a nice concept but the industry does not seem to work that way and I figure its for a reason. Why would Foxtel want to wear the cost of producing separate broadcasts to suit terrestrial and another for steaming? They on sell non-domestic rights and the buyers then control them via geo-blocking. Advertising can be controlled to target specific regions, even here in Australia they advertise differently across regions (Rural v City).

Also you can't use Netflix and the like as an example. They are the equivalent to a library. people (huge demographic so audience size is massive) go in when they want select something off the shelf - and there is a huge range to suit a huge wide-ranging demographic. Low overheads, minimal wages costs etc.

Live sports is set for a specific demographic, so reducing it to a single sport makes the economics completely different. Then you need to assess what advertising suits. Local advertising is one thing but what is the audience like off shore and is the 10 people hooking in to the steaming O/S really worth advertising to?

Live sports broadcasting has a high cost as its a travelling roadshow and requires additional hardware and be live transmission / production capable. Completely different to the Netflix library and it means the the end-user pays what cant be offset by advertising; that is if you can get advertising that is worthwhile to such a small demographic.

After all that, ask yourself a simple question - where does the $40mil that funds the Super Rugby you want to watch come from?

And there lays your problem - No $40mil, no Super Rugby. and I hope you enjoy Netflix as we wont be watching live sport.

 

[TOCC]

MST, you seem to be holding the perspective that any online broadcaster will be a standalone entity focussing on the one sport/competition.. That is likely an economically unfeasible concept as it would lack content and doesn't achieve economies of scale..

What is a more likely outcome, is two or three online streaming services will emerge as major players with broadcast rights across multiple codes, competitions and countries. Even more plausible is a service like Netflix will leverage their additional movies and tv rights to create an all encompassing online streaming service.

Any online service is unlikely to bid for the sole rights of a major code like AFL, NRL or even the Super Rugby in the domestic market. They will be targetting the digital rights with the odd exclusive match, online services will run in competition with Foxtel for the rights to purchase the on-sell broadcast rights. Also rights to other international markets, like the EPL, Top League, NFL, NBA, etc will become prime online content.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the above options that TOCC mentions are more likely than the sport itself not onselling the rights and doing the entirety of the broadcasting themselves and then selling subscriptions.

I spoke to someone from the NRL who looked at this and their problem is that with whatever model they come up with, they'd need to sell a huge amount of subscriptions from day 1 to make it work.

 

[TOCC]

Yep that's not surprising Braveheart, it will be interesting to see what happens at the next broadcast rights negotiations for the A-League, OptusSport would love to get their hand on some of those game to work with the EPL broadcast rights, if the FFA want to push into the FTA market it's a possibility that OptusSport may form a joint bid with a FTA broadcaster.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Australian market is further complicated by our anti-siphoning legislation.

At some point there will presumably be a reversal of some of that to catch up with technology and reality but at this point it could certainly get in the way of a particular sport changing the way they sell content.

 

[mst]

MST, you seem to be holding the perspective that any online broadcaster will be a standalone entity focussing on the one sport/competition.

Correct. The first post that started the conversation is about standalone social media companies; twitter, amazon etc potentially moving in to sports broadcasting. Optus was used as example over here their EPL coverage and issues as a third party provider then the conversation diverged in to the sport actually becoming the standalone broadcaster and subscribing to a single sport direct from the sporting body like NFL, NRL etc.

So its all about standalone online broadcasters.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the above options that TOCC mentions are more likely than the sport itself not onselling the rights and doing the entirety of the broadcasting themselves and then selling subscriptions.

I spoke to someone from the NRL who looked at this and their problem is that with whatever model they come up with, they'd need to sell a huge amount of subscriptions from day 1 to make it work.

Agreed. The only difference is internationally our market is probably larger that may make it more feasible. But even if it's a platform offering access that would be a move in the right direction.

 

[TOCC]

Correct. The first post that started the conversation is about standalone social media companies; twitter, amazon etc potentially moving in to sports broadcasting. Optus was used as example over here their EPL coverage and issues as a third party provider then the conversation diverged in to the sport actually becoming the standalone broadcaster and subscribing to a single sport direct from the sporting body like NFL, NRL etc.

So its all about standalone online broadcasters.

That's not what I said, the original article was about Amazon using sports to supplement their online TV content, the article specifically uses the digital rights of the MLB and French Rugby as en example of one which could be bright under Amazon. In line with what was said earlier in this thread, Amazon won't be the exclusive broadcast rights holder in the domestic market.not yet anyway...

This isn't a standalone broadcaster exclusively focussing on just one sport or one code, it's about online media companies using multiple sports to create content or supplement existing tv content.

Optus Sport is only 6 months old, so I expect this service to pick up more content in the future in line with their buisness plan to become a mobile media company. However what it does indicate is the value that companies are beginning to place on the digital rights of sports broadcasting(even in a smaller market like Australia), Optus has paid $16million/year for the next 3 years for the EPL rights.

 

[Braveheart81]

One thing that is clear from the Optus Sport situation and knowledge I have of Telstra is that they are very aggressively trying to position themselves as modern media companies rather than just providers of telco services.

With lots of players at the lower cost end of providing telco services Telstra and Optus don't just want to be seen as a premium provider of those services. Whether they can effectively achieve that transition is completely unknown but they are massive companies who certainly have the money to spend on new offerings.

 

[Ignoto]

Its a nice concept but the industry does not seem to work that way and I figure its for a reason. Why would Foxtel want to wear the cost of producing separate broadcasts to suit terrestrial and another for steaming?

Well the industry needs to start to re-asses itself because it's slowly dying. More and more people are moving away from cable/foxtel as sports like the NHL/NFL etc are making their own apps. Just because it's the status quo now doesn't mean it shouldn't and won't change in the future.

After all that, ask yourself a simple question - where does the $40mil that funds the Super Rugby you want to watch come from?

And there lays your problem - No $40mil, no Super Rugby. and I hope you enjoy Netflix as we wont be watching live sport.

As TOCC has eluded to earlier, there won't be one online company that out bids the $40m, what they will do is present say X to SANZAR which will allow them to stream etc and Foxtel can pay a reduced fee. You don't have to have one or the other, they can easily work in conjunction as we've seen in other sports here and overseas.

And if anything, this extra demand will cause the likes of Foxtel to pay more for the rights to air Super Rugby resulting in more cash coming to the ARU's pockets