This is interesting.

[mst]

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.

The content you are referring to is either third party O/S based content they are buying from a broadcaster (like Optus and the EPL) which means its just like buying Super Rugby content from Foxtel or from sports like NFL / NHL / MLB which operate under a completely different model to Aussie sport which and can never be replicated here and is terrestrial broadcaster dependant to facilitate the digital content. (Ever noticed that not one team has a sponsor on their jersey?)

As for Optus, what Aussie content can they buy? They have publicly stated they bought the EPL for on single reason. To force uptake in Optus mobile and internet plans using the EPL a marketing vehicle. They are clearly focused on one sport only as its all they needed.

Here is some insight: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-optus-stole-the-english-premier-league-from-foxtel-2016-5

Telstra are using the AFL and the Supercars for marketing, but again, its limited and broadcaster dependant. Again limited sporting content (2 sports) with significant restrictions.

At the end of the day digital right are either for niche sports or leftovers for marketing purposes; or at a massive premium to the subscriber.

You may also need to consider that we are talking business, and they wont bundle many sports together as they can get more money from you by splitting subscriptions by sport so you pay more. Its whats is happening in the US. So no, it will be single sport focused from the subscriber side. ESPN has borne the brunt of this losing a lot of content in recent times as sports go it standalone.

The Optus EPL shows how bad it can get for consumers if we entertain the live sports digital content too much. How much at their mercy we will be?

 

[TOCC]

All of that is largely subjective and or based on past broadcast negotiations which didn't have to compete with current or future steaming technology..

Optus have already said they are very interested in the A-League and Socceroos broadcast rights and will enter into negotiations for them once the window opens. Like mentioned previously, any online streaming service will be more then just exclusively streaming one competition, OptusSport have clearly targeted the football public to gain a foothold and will use the A-League and Socceroo matches to complement the EPL content.

Love it or hate it, online streaming of sports is coming, and like BraveHeart mentioned, it will probably require the government to revisit the anti-siphoning legislation.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The content you are referring to is either third party O/S based content they are buying from a broadcaster (like Optus and the EPL) which means its just like buying Super Rugby content from Foxtel or from sports like NFL / NHL / MLB which operate under a completely different model to Aussie sport which and can never be replicated here and is terrestrial broadcaster dependant to facilitate the digital content. (Ever noticed that not one team has a sponsor on their jersey?)

As for Optus, what Aussie content can they buy? They have publicly stated they bought the EPL for on single reason. To force uptake in Optus mobile and internet plans using the EPL a marketing vehicle. They are clearly focused on one sport only as its all they needed.

Here is some insight: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-optus-stole-the-english-premier-league-from-foxtel-2016-5

Telstra are using the AFL and the Supercars for marketing, but again, its limited and broadcaster dependant. Again limited sporting content (2 sports) with significant restrictions.

At the end of the day digital right are either for niche sports or leftovers for marketing purposes; or at a massive premium to the subscriber.

You may also need to consider that we are talking business, and they wont bundle many sports together as they can get more money from you by splitting subscriptions by sport so you pay more. Its whats is happening in the US. So no, it will be single sport focused from the subscriber side. ESPN has borne the brunt of this losing a lot of content in recent times as sports go it standalone.

The Optus EPL shows how bad it can get for consumers if we entertain the live sports digital content too much. How much at their mercy we will be?

They are a number of internationally based production companies that are capable of providing the necessary expertise to present an independently produced professional offering. It would more be a matter of contracting them. The NBL is launching something very similar to their on NFL Game Pass using one this upcoming season.

 

[mst]

They are a number of internationally based production companies that are capable of providing the necessary expertise to present an independently produced professional offering. It would more be a matter of contracting them. The NBL is launching something very similar to their on NFL Game Pass using one this upcoming season.

Who is putting up the $$ for it? It sounds a bit like the $300K the ARU chip in for the Shute.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

I don think the problem with rugby in this country revolves around a relativ delay between Twitter and sme streaming service.
When that is the biggest problem w e face we'll be miles from where we are now.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Who is putting up the $$ for it? It sounds a bit like the $300K the ARU chip in for the Shute.

It appears they have contracted the streaming production company. Would still be more cost effective than setting it up themselves. They'll be charging a monthly subscription fee.

 

[mst]

All of that is largely subjective and or based on past broadcast negotiations which didn't have to compete with current or future steaming technology..

Optus have already said they are very interested in the A-League and Socceroos broadcast rights and will enter into negotiations for them once the window opens. Like mentioned previously, any online streaming service will be more then just exclusively streaming one competition, OptusSport have clearly targeted the football public to gain a foothold and will use the A-League and Socceroo matches to complement the EPL content.

Love it or hate it, online streaming of sports is coming, and like BraveHeart mentioned, it will probably require the government to revisit the anti-siphoning legislation.

Um, what the future steaming technology? Apart from the NBN we are here.

As for Optus, like Telstra are open about the fact they have no interest in being sports broadcasters, they just want the product to drive their core business; mobile based or as an ISP. You may notice that the domestic digital rights to all these sports are not for sale.

I am happy to be wrong, but most sports don't want digital as heir primary means of telecasts. I believe the A league is staying away from it, like cricket, AFL, NRL and the list goes on. If it was worth it the bigger players like the NRL would already be there cutting out the like of Foxtel etc. Same goes for the EPL, NHL, MLB, NFL, Top 14, AVIVA, UFC, F1, Moto GP etc etc.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Um, what the future steaming technology? Apart from the NBN we are here.

As for Optus, like Telstra are open about the fact they have no interest in being sports broadcasters, they just want the product to drive their core business; mobile based or as an ISP. You may notice that the domestic digital rights to all these sports are not for sale.

I am happy to be wrong, but most sports don't want digital as heir primary means of telecasts. I believe the A league is staying away from it, like cricket, AFL, NRL and the list goes on. If it was worth it the bigger players like the NRL would already be there cutting out the like of Foxtel etc. Same goes for the EPL, NHL, MLB, NFL, Top 14, AVIVA, UFC, F1, Moto GP etc etc.

The NFL, NBA, MLB and UFC all currently do it. All are seeing year on year growth. These are your early adopters. They have all been looking to diversify their offerings to match market demand. They have stuck with traditional platforms purely because broadcasters are paying overs for rights in the US as a means of shoring up viewership in the face of movements toward streaming services. They've even created their own service with the multi-network Hulu platform.

The Aviva are actually on a streaming platform in BT Sports that's provided via BT broadband.

 

[TOCC]

Um, what the future steaming technology? Apart from the NBN we are here.

we haven't reached peak technology if that's what you are asking..

Firstly content delivery networks are always improving through an increased number of data centres in closer proximity to the consumer, and secondly NBN FTTH provides first rate infrastructure (FTTN not so much), but it's far from operating at maximum efficiency, there are already new technologies and modes of data transfer emerging which see speeds vastly improving on previous speeds... Think back to your 56kb dial-up modem and then the change to ADSL. Infrastructure remains the same but mode of transmission has changed.

 

[TOCC]

. You may notice that the domestic digital rights to all these sports are not for sale.
.

That's incorrect, Tesltra own the digital rights to handheld devices for the AFL, and Telstra also holds the NRL digital rights for handheld devices and Telstra TV. And according to those in the know, the digital rights for both those competitions easily eclipses the value of the EPL right which sold for $65million over 3 years.

And I never said the NRL, AFL etc want an online service as their primary means of broadcast, I've repeatedly said the technology and economies of scale in Australia isn't there yet.. But it will be in the future.. As for the medium to short term, as I've said previously, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the likes of Optus partner a FTA network and chase the A-League rights.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That's incorrect, Tesltra own the digital rights to handheld devices for the AFL, and Telstra also holds the NRL digital rights for handheld devices and Telstra TV. And according to those in the know, the digital rights for both those competitions easily eclipses the value of the EPL right which sold for $65million over 3 years.

And I never said the NRL, AFL etc want an online service as their primary means of broadcast, I've repeatedly said the technology and economies of scale in Australia isn't there yet.. But it will be in the future.. As for the medium to short term, as I've said previously, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the likes of Optus partner a FTA network and chase the A-League rights.

We also have to take into account that if SANZAAR elected to explore streaming as a broadcast option that unlike the NRL, AFL and even A-League it won't just be geared toward domestic comsumption. While our market may be smaller here Super Rugby being regarded as a premium product within the Rugby community internationally also has a much larger potential subscriber base.

 

[mst]

TOCC - this article I read awhile ago gives a view from both sides of the argument by stakeholders (heavyweights). I found it really interesting that both sides are heavily invested but both are unsure what will prevail.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/digital-streaming-is-a-game-changer-for-sports.html

 

[Joe King]

All of that is largely subjective and or based on past broadcast negotiations which didn't have to compete with current or future steaming technology..

Optus have already said they are very interested in the A-League and Socceroos broadcast rights and will enter into negotiations for them once the window opens. Like mentioned previously, any online streaming service will be more then just exclusively streaming one competition, OptusSport have clearly targeted the football public to gain a foothold and will use the A-League and Socceroo matches to complement the EPL content.

Love it or hate it, online streaming of sports is coming, and like BraveHeart mentioned, it will probably require the government to revisit the anti-siphoning legislation.

So what does this mean for the future in relation to rugby compared to other codes in Australia? Is it going to be an advantage or disadvantage in relation to broadcast deals, accessibility/availability to the general public, etc.

 

[TOCC]

So what does this mean for the future in relation to rugby compared to other codes in Australia? Is it going to be an advantage or disadvantage in relation to broadcast deals, accessibility/availability to the general public, etc.

As BraveHeart mentioned it's going to require ghe government to revisit the anti-siphoning laws, so it's a little hard to predict how that will work but until that point, digital rights for the major codes will limited to on selling.

There will also a need for the ACCC to rectify the issue of companies blocking competing services from fearturing on their devices, for streaming to become mainstream it needs to be via greater penetration which means more householders with NBN and cross-platform service.

In the short to medium term it doesn't mean much for rugby IMO, most likely options will be Foxtel offering some sort of season pass via their Foxtel Go.

 

[dru]

So what does this mean for the future in relation to rugby compared to other codes in Australia? Is it going to be an advantage or disadvantage in relation to broadcast deals, accessibility/availability to the general public, etc.

Also generally across the SAANZAR nations. In particular how ready is South Africa?

 

[Ignoto]

I found it really interesting that both sides are heavily invested but both are unsure what will prevail.

That's why they've acknowledge that the market wants to consume their product in different ways and are now having to provide avenues for that. That article you posted states that ESPN are doing exactly what Tocc and myself are saying, that you can have the best of both worlds;

In contrast, ESPN says it does not have plans to launch a stand-alone streaming service anytime soon, but it is making its content available to subscribers on any device.

It doesn't have to be one or the other BUT if you want a better product that more people will be interested in you need to have these offerings.

Foxtel is starting to see the light of this, but it's basically been kicking and screaming the entire time. They only acknowledged the impact Netflix and co have had on their business model about a week ago - https://www.foxtel.com.au/got/whats-on/foxtel-insider/foxtel/ceo-speech-on-pricing-and-delivery.html

The infrastructure for streaming is relatively there for some or most people in Australia. I'm not saying sports online will be for everyone, but there are a lot of Australian's who do have the internet bandwidth to watch these games online and who don't want to pay $70+ a month for crap they don't want. For everyone else, they can still get their HD Satellites footage of Super/NRC.

 

[Joe King]

As BraveHeart mentioned it's going to require ghe government to revisit the anti-siphoning laws, so it's a little hard to predict how that will work but until that point, digital rights for the major codes will limited to on selling.

There will also a need for the ACCC to rectify the issue of companies blocking competing services from fearturing on their devices, for streaming to become mainstream it needs to be via greater penetration which means more householders with NBN and cross-platform service.

In the short to medium term it doesn't mean much for rugby IMO, most likely options will be Foxtel offering some sort of season pass via their Foxtel Go.

Haha. I'm sure that's a very informative answer. My problem is, this isn't my area of expertise. Hope I don't sound annoying, but just to clarify, what is the best case scenario for rugby in Australia in your opinion? If the anti-siphoning laws are revisited could that mean no sport is guaranteed FTA, and could it potentially put all codes on a level playing field, so to speak? Will other codes be just as easy/hard to access as rugby? Sorry for all my questions.

 

[mst]

The problem with the whole concept is that the environments are completely different and incomparable so it’s hard to see how it will work in Australia unless its linked to a marketing "thing" like Optus and Telstra so the end user still ends up paying more.

As for comparisons with Netfilx v sports, like I said earlier, you are comparing a library which exactly what Netflix is (which I could run from home if I had a big server and the rights) to multiple (and at times simultaneous) outside live remote broadcast from constantly changing locations that requires more hardware, manpower and significant more cost.

From my side, the end-user argument is just white noise and will end up the same as what the US is experiencing now in that to watch a range of sport you need multiple subscription packages. Ironically, US sports are already discovering that and are quietly heading back to the Broadcasters as with "uncabled" viewers they can just stop watching rather than pay the subscription which nullified advertising. Advertisers don't like that type of market.

The other end of the wedge that funds the sports is what I am more interested in and concerned about. Without the money for the sport this argument is moot.

The Optus EPL deal is a perfect example with the EPL being a notorious example of being willing to sell its own children if the price is right as it’s so big it can't really be damaged and if does get wounded it has a massive war chest to treat the wound. Other sports can see the risk of an Optus like deal and the long term damage. (quick cash at the expense of the sport).

This is my focus and I believe what sports in Australia are worried about: "Despite bolstering its content offerings, Optus and its parent business, Singtel, are not interested in becoming broadcasters. Their focus is on upping the average revenue per user (ARPU) and locking people into long 24-month contracts. Now they’ve targeted a very passionate and loyal niche to do it".

Then add on the plan from Optus to get other rights. All "soccer" rights. So one sport only. So you will be an Optus core business consumer to watch soccer.

The FFA has been very vocal it want to get on FTA. The Optus cash is the equivalent of the Foxtel deal they want to improve. They believe its restriction audience numbers which they see as the biggest issue.

In the comparison to the US & UK, it is a completely different business model for a completely different market. For example: "MLB Advanced Media took over streaming and app development for the National Hockey League, creating its new lower-cost subscription package. Its other clients include HBO, the WWE, the PGA Tour and it even handled the live streaming of the Super Bowl."

Notice these are all the sports controlling the content or making the investment how to broadcast their product. You will find in an earlier post that the NRL looked at this and found it a better business model to allow it to be outsourced rather than try do it themselves. Why? Totally different market and business environment. Nothing to do with the end-user or technology.

So let get back to the rights for a moment. Let say hypothetically Optus bought the rights to Super Rugby like the EPL. Remember, it’s not just the digital rights they buy, it the full rights. How its delivered is a business decision.

Do we hope they will on sell to a terrestrial broadcaster - say one game a week? No pubs or clubs with coverage, nothing unless you are already an Optus core business consumer. NRC only via subscription, but that's if they see value in the NRC and continue coverage. The next step would be to buy up the rights to the Shute, and all Super Rugby franchise streaming. Then we are locked up and confined to a select audience who will pay steaming subscriptions. So then, with rating at less than 100K (based on the Foxtel subscriptions) try get sponsorship for teams.

The sports in the US we see getting in the streaming already have a huge audience and are looking to expand or retain by offering convenience.

Rugby is at the other end of the spectrum and is already vulnerable with low audiences. Foxtel pulled Super Rugby from the Foxtelplay package (pay by the month) as they needed it to be a better earner contributing to the broadcast rights value. So we either suck it up until it’s a better product or confine it to a smaller audience (away from the casual channel surfing Foxtel sports viewers - AFL / NRL audience) and away from a well established sports broadcaster with network ties worldwide.

As for the tech and consumer arguments, Optus already is streaming live sports and from all reports its pretty poor. This comes from consumers of EPL via Optus that are aware they could buy streaming EPL access before the Optus change and were desperate for Foxtel to keep the rights, which may say a lot.


Streaming Rugby could potentially be very detrimental. We might want to be careful what we wish for.

 

[Lindommer]

If Optus and its fellow telcos "steam" the EPL and other sports I suspect they might get a soggy reception.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Haha. I'm sure that's a very informative answer. My problem is, this isn't my area of expertise. Hope I don't sound annoying, but just to clarify, what is the best case scenario for rugby in Australia in your opinion? If the anti-siphoning laws are revisited could that mean no sport is guaranteed FTA, and could it potentially put all codes on a level playing field, so to speak? Will other codes be just as easy/hard to access as rugby? Sorry for all my questions.

I don't know about TOCC but in terns of best case scenario for Rugby in Australia, I would say being able to offer access to multiple viewing platforms across different media.

Personally unless something fundamentally shifts in our broadcasting landscape in terms of access to FTA then we need to seriously examine means of creating and accessing new revenue streams. One that not only provides substantial content but is accessible in terms of subscription base.

The market for Rugby is growing internationally and Super Rugby is positioned as a premium product in that market. Providing a service that allows access to that market that offers value while bolstering revenue is the key.