Cricket Australia profits plummet; Net result is down almost $100 million

[Junaids]

You are right. Judging from your post, Americans and American culture is way different that European and Australian culture.

I guess BBC has a huge budget because of access to tax payer money as opposed to Sky which has to come up with their own money?

To back up my earlier comments, "Game of Thrones" broke UK pay-TV record with 2.2 million viewers for the season debut this year on Sky Atlantic.

That just doesn't attract much advertising, and it's a paltry number of subscribers, whose subscriptions are split between umpteen channels.

 

[USofA]

Yes, but they would do so anyway.

The BBC is basically viewed by most of us as our national treasure.

Have you any idea how programmes like "Strictly" or "Bake off" rate?

Fifteen million people watched the Bake Off finale on BBC One this week. That's more than the top-rated show in the USA - which has SIX TIMES the population.

Saying "we have to pay for it" is like saying we have to pay for our National Health Service through our taxes.

If we were offered an opt-out, but it meant losing access, virtually nobody whatsoever would opt out.

I would still like to have a choice on whether I want to pay for TV or not. Therein lies the difference in American and other cultures. Not sure about the shows you are talking about as I have never watched them as Americans also tend to watch our own shows as opposed to other countries. Their ratings tend to be high partly because of the show and partly when people do not have other choices.

Here in the United States we have several avenues/choices - Cable, Satellite, Streaming through devices/smart tv. And within those avenues we have hundreds of options. And not to mention the Internet (youtube etc.) and smartphone distractions. So the viewing gets diluted.

 

[Junaids]

I would still like to have a choice on whether I want to pay for TV or not. Therein lies the difference in American and other cultures. Not sure about the shows you are talking about as I have never watched them as Americans also tend to watch our own shows as opposed to other countries. Their ratings tend to be high partly because of the show and partly when people do not have other choices.

Here in the United States we have several avenues/choices - Cable, Satellite, Streaming through devices/smart tv. And within those avenues we have hundreds of options. And not to mention the Internet (youtube etc.) and smartphone distractions. So the viewing gets diluted.

You're right, it's a cultural thing and it's almost identical to the health insurance issue.

Americans seem to cherish "freedom" with health insurance. In doing so they give away all the economic advantages of a single purchaser model and end up spending twice as much per capita on health care and obtain outcomes which are inferior by every single health indicator.

Having the BBC, ITV and Channel Four so dominant is the reason why British TV is of so much higher quality. Shows like Channel Four's recent "National Treasure" about a celebrity paedophile just couldn't get made in the USA - they would scare advertisers away.

But what is interesting is that the terrestrial networks in France and Scandinavia which also enjoy similar market dominance also produce much higher quality original material than the free-to-air networks in the USA too.

Going back to where this started, Australian cricket lovers should all be grateful to Kerry Packer and to the government's anti-siphoning laws which prevent subscription channels from buying the rights to show Australia's home international matches.

This ensures that in summer everyone can watch the cricket. It's fantastic!

 

[jeetu]

Cricket's television ratings plunge as Australia struggle against South Africa

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...gle-against-south-africa-20161110-gsmlfe.html

The Australian team is underperforming and fans are switching off at an alarming level, with the prime-time television audience for the first Test against South Africa evaporating by one-quarter from the corresponding clash in Perth last year against New Zealand.

In a concerning development for Cricket Australia as it prepares to begin formal negotiations with networks over the rights to broadcast cricket from 2018 to 2023, OzTAM ratings show viewer numbers have dropped off a cliff since last summer.

South Africa overcame some stubborn resistance from Usman Khawaja and Peter Nevill to complete a demoralising 177-run victory in Perth.

According to the figures, Channel Nine's five-city metro audience fell an average of 23 per cent in the third session of the first Test across the five days in Perth – which is played in all-important prime time on the east coast – from 975,000 in the corresponding Test at the WACA Ground last year to 749,000.

In the second session the decline – from an average of 785,000 to 556,000 – was 29 per cent down on the Australia-New Zealand match. And in the first session the audience over the course of the first Test was an average of 32 per cent lower than in 2015, dropping from 611,000 to 417,000.
Related Content
Australia's match in Perth last year was the second of the Test series against New Zealand, played between November 13 and 17.

And while the ratings from this summer's first Test, won by 177 runs by South Africa, are not what CA or Nine would have hoped for, the outlook for the second match of the series in Hobart is no better, for different reasons.

The poor performance of the Australian team and the timing of the first Test – beginning in Melbourne Cup week and in television's official ratings season – is being blamed for the startling plunge in year-on-year viewer numbers.

The prime-time figures in particular are a blow for Nine, but there are potential consequences for CA, with fewer eyes on television screens standing to reduce the governing body's bargaining power as it seeks to ramp up the price of broadcast rights in upcoming negotiations.

The last round of domestic rights, including international cricket and the Big Bash League, were sold for a total of $590 million over five years, and it has been speculated that, boosted by the appeal of day-night Tests, CA could seek as much as $200m a year, which would clinch its first billion-dollar domestic cricket deal.

However, while the BBL is tipped to be hotly contested and worth up to three times the $20 million per year Network Ten paid for it in 2013, Nine's chief executive Hugh Marks has ruled out an increase in spending on rights to Tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 internationals.

Nine's investment in cricket rose sharply from $45 million annually under the previous rights deal to nearly $100 million a year in the present contract, and Marks has already said it would be "uneconomical" for the network to pay any more next time around.

One possibility is that Fox Sports, which is keen for more summer content, could simulcast international matches with Nine.

The WACA Ground Test was also the first outing for the revamped Nine commentary team, with the network's director of sport Tom Malone at the helm.

Nine is understood to have conducted focus groups earlier this year about its coverage, and in Perth it introduced a new look that features fewer commentators, with only two callers rather than three at the microphone at one time.

Michael Clarke and Kevin Pietersen have been added as commentators, and Brett Lee and Mike Hussey dropped.

CA and Nine both declined to comment.

 

[MenInG]

So much for CA's optimism!

 

[Gilly]

35000 South Africans in western Australia and 70000 NZedders in Western Australia.

 

[Junaids]

35000 South Africans in western Australia and 70000 NZedders in Western Australia.

This is the key, and a fact that the media seems not to grasp.

There are

1) 200,000 Kiwis in southeast Queensland (Brisbane/Gold Coast/Sunshine Coast)
2) 100,000 Kiwis in Sydney,
3) 70,000 Kiwis in Perth.

That is a very large minority that tends to follow sport closely when it's team is playing.

We have reached a point where - when NZ has a strong team - they are as big a box office draw as England and bigger than any other team. Although of course Indian TV pays more money for rights.

 

[USofA]

I do not know too much about CA's $$ inflow, but is the below order a fair guess of the top three income streams.

1. India Tour
2. Ashes
3. BBL

 

[Gilly]

I do not know too much about CA's $$ inflow, but is the below order a fair guess of the top three income streams.

1. India Tour
2. Ashes
3. BBL

No, CA sell their TV rights over a period of time not by series.

 

[USofA]

No, CA sell their TV rights over a period of time not by series.

Still, I am sure they base it on what tours are happening in that time period and how much they expect to earn from each one of those. At least I hope such analysis is done before bidding $$$.

 

[Gilly]

Still, I am sure they base it on what tours are happening in that time period and how much they expect to earn from each one of those. At least I hope such analysis is done before bidding $$$.

The Ashes is the biggest event in the cricketing calendar for TV rights, gate takings and interest in Australia.

 

[USofA]

The Ashes is the biggest event in the cricketing calendar for TV rights, gate takings and interest in Australia.

No question about that. But $$ wise? Which tour brings in the biggest revenues?

 

[Gilly]

No question about that. But $$ wise? Which tour brings in the biggest revenues?

The Ashes.

 

[USofA]

The Ashes.

Where does BBL stand in all of this?

 

[Gilly]

Where does BBL stand in all of this?

BBL is different because it is every year and probably turns over more money but also incurs more costs. The BBL will also produce more profits the longer it runs because CA is still developing the infrastructure.

 

[Junaids]

Where does BBL stand in all of this?

Not particularly lucrative: more a loss-leader to attract youngsters to cricket.

They have sacrificed on the TV rights revenue to ensure free-to-air coverage, which attracts rating on average 10 times as big as subscription TV.

Crowds are huge, but only because tickets are so cheap: a family of four pays much less for entry than a person pays for a day at the Test.

 

[Zaad]

The biggest lie i have ever read is that Cricket is the no1 sport in Australia, i live in sydney and there is absolutely zero cricket domestically , particular majority finds cricket extremely boring.

 

[Convict]

Test match was two days after the Melbourne Cup which is the biggest 'sporting event' of the year.

 

[anuk]

as i suspected- the game is slowly dying in australia.