Right, and that comes back to FTA visibility, which right now is arguably worse than it was last year.
Mhm I think you're working on an anecdotal basis of yourself - 10Peach has twice the ratings - not that it makes up much anyway.
I'd be curious as to what the NBA and NBL ratings figures were. As much as having NBA was a great idea, placing foreign news in-between is a guaranteed way to have the worst lead-in possible for the NBL.
I would say "arguably slightly better overall" for capturing casual audience; "definitely worse" in terms of SD/HD; but disappointed it's not on a major channel.
I do struggle to see how Peach is a step up from VICELAND but I can CERTAINLY see how a 20 million per year (reportedly)
2.5% audience share > 1.2% if that makes it easier for you.
Not $20mil; closer to $15mil (reportedly) Cash+Contra.
spend the amount you'd spend on a cup of coffee PER WEEK on the Kayo app. If that still doesn't do it for you, then watch The Bachelor or something
You were guaranteed to come to this thread and say something like that.
I'm not a fan of the "entitled" argument - it's very clear you have this as a fundamental basis of your political viewpoint and you have infused it into this argument. Often the people who bitch about entitlement are the ones that really have received the most entitlement and the irony never really hits home.
What I would say to you, is that entitlement is irrelevant in this - certainly not relevant to the NBL. So you can ditch political diatribe.
#1 We all know NBL needs revenue to grow, thrive, be sustainable
#2 We all know that sports often survive on the basis of TV revenue - NBL has gone damn close recently of getting there without it, but we all know it fully needs a good TV revenue deal like this to genuinely have a shot at being sustainable
#3 We all know that most broadcast money these days comes from PayTV. Even AFL get most of it via Fox. NBL will never get much or any $$$ from FTA TV.
With that in mind, they've signed a good paying deal with ESPN.
So here's the thing: when you're ESPN and you're paying ~$15m p/y, you're going to expect and demand a damn decent return in value. So the NBL needs to deliver some good ratings and they need to deliver subscriptions.
You only get that if 1) you have sufficient (casual) market reach and 2) the value proposition is there for the (casual) market to put their money into it.
The question is - does one or two games on FTA engage and convert a reasonable amount of the casual market? Does the gameday NBL do the same thing in terms of entertainment value vs cost of tickets; or are cost of tickets prohibitive?
At the end of the day - if the NBL can't translate ~$45m into reasonable ratings and subscription take-up, those future deals and that money they really need down the track to operate simply might not be there.
While it's easy to chastise people with a simpleton view on entitlement, the very real business aspect on this is what is the value proposition of the NBL to a critical number of people in order for the NBL to make good on the money their sponsors and broadcasters are paying them.
"You're not willing to pay $x per month for the NBL? Go watch the Bachelor" would be a one-way street approach to business failure. No traction = no future - if the NBL fails the value-add test, that's what the NBL needs to work hard to change.
It's all well and good to rely on those who want to watch the NBL and have all the streaming services like me; or someone who will ditch their daily coffee like you. But that's not enough - NBL knows that. They need traction with the casual market that will very fairly argue "why do you deserve my money?".