The America's cup is New Zealand's Cup!

Forums › Sports › The America's cup is New Zealand's Cup!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1236

#1808529 28-Jun-2017 22:17

ockel:

TVNZ didnt want to pay for the rights - didnt want to rely on advertisers to cover the costs so you could watch it in an ad-funded fashion.

TVNZ did want to pay for the rights. Sky offered to pay more for the rights. Sky got it.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1808612 29-Jun-2017 08:17

Journeyman:

ockel:

TVNZ didnt want to pay for the rights - didnt want to rely on advertisers to cover the costs so you could watch it in an ad-funded fashion.

TVNZ did want to pay for the rights. Sky offered to pay more for the rights. Sky got it.

TVNZ didnt want to pay the same price as for the previous Americas Cup but get substantially less content. NZ missed out on the 1st 3 rounds of the LVACWS with broadcaster dithering. TVNZ chose not to pay the market price for the rights and someone else bought them. Kinda like when Sky didnt want to pay the market price for EPL and then PLP bought them, and then when PLP didnt want to pay the market price for EPL and then BeIN bought them. If you cant make the economics stack up then its folly to pay for asking rate, isnt it?

And then you get the NZH saying that Sky got the rights at a cut-price rate. If they were so cut-price then what happened TVNZ? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11868502

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1808892 29-Jun-2017 12:57

ockel:

So if it hadnt been on Sky the public would have been left with what? Listening to it on the radio (which you could do live) or written commentary on news websites? Oh wait, that happened too, right? So cant have been a monopoly event if you could access the live event elsewhere.

Now would TVNZ have jumped in to pay for it at the finals stage? Maybe. Now TVNZ wants a piece of it for the next regatta - cos everyone loves a winner. LVACWS? Dont think TVNZ was interested in that either - luckily it was on Sky. So real fans, not johnny-come-lately fans, could enjoy the yachting.

If it hadn't been on Sky, then presumably the same situation would have applied in NZ as in other countries - ie, direct access to the content via an individual subscription. As I said in my earlier post.

I meant - as I assume you understand - that there was a monopoly (or at least, an attempted one) on live video of the event, from a NZ consumer's perspective. That's what I would like to see prevented for the next event

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1808893 29-Jun-2017 13:05

shk292:

ockel:

So if it hadnt been on Sky the public would have been left with what? Listening to it on the radio (which you could do live) or written commentary on news websites? Oh wait, that happened too, right? So cant have been a monopoly event if you could access the live event elsewhere.

Now would TVNZ have jumped in to pay for it at the finals stage? Maybe. Now TVNZ wants a piece of it for the next regatta - cos everyone loves a winner. LVACWS? Dont think TVNZ was interested in that either - luckily it was on Sky. So real fans, not johnny-come-lately fans, could enjoy the yachting.

If it hadn't been on Sky, then presumably the same situation would have applied in NZ as in other countries - ie, direct access to the content via an individual subscription. As I said in my earlier post.

I meant - as I assume you understand - that there was a monopoly (or at least, an attempted one) on live video of the event, from a NZ consumer's perspective. That's what I would like to see prevented for the next event

Unless you expect something similar to the RWC2011 with multiple simultaneous broadcasters I expect that there will only be one exclusive broadcaster for the Americas Cup. There has only been one exclusive broadcaster for the last 34 years. Your preference is for an advertising funded broadcaster (who, from memory, inserted adverts during the race including at crucial times) over a subscription based broadcaster.

You'll be happy to perpetuate your myth of a monopoly with this years Commonwealth Games then? One exclusive provider = monopoly?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1808967 29-Jun-2017 14:18

ockel:

Unless you expect something similar to the RWC2011 with multiple simultaneous broadcasters I expect that there will only be one exclusive broadcaster for the Americas Cup. There has only been one exclusive broadcaster for the last 34 years. Your preference is for an advertising funded broadcaster (who, from memory, inserted adverts during the race including at crucial times) over a subscription based broadcaster.

You'll be happy to perpetuate your myth of a monopoly with this years Commonwealth Games then? One exclusive provider = monopoly?

Well, what else do you call a situation where there is one exclusive (perhaps you ought to look that word up in a dictionary sometime) provider? Half a duopoly?

In the case of the AC, consumers where there was no broadcaster enjoyed better VFM video coverage than those with a provider such as Sky. So, I'd rather have no regional provider than a monopoly provider.

I can't comment on the Commonwealth Games - fortunately, I'm not interested in the vast majority of sports as a spectator and I have no idea what the broadcast situation is.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1808979 29-Jun-2017 14:50

shk292:

ockel:

Unless you expect something similar to the RWC2011 with multiple simultaneous broadcasters I expect that there will only be one exclusive broadcaster for the Americas Cup. There has only been one exclusive broadcaster for the last 34 years. Your preference is for an advertising funded broadcaster (who, from memory, inserted adverts during the race including at crucial times) over a subscription based broadcaster.

You'll be happy to perpetuate your myth of a monopoly with this years Commonwealth Games then? One exclusive provider = monopoly?

Well, what else do you call a situation where there is one exclusive (perhaps you ought to look that word up in a dictionary sometime) provider? Half a duopoly?

In the case of the AC, consumers where there was no broadcaster enjoyed better VFM video coverage than those with a provider such as Sky. So, I'd rather have no regional provider than a monopoly provider.

I can't comment on the Commonwealth Games - fortunately, I'm not interested in the vast majority of sports as a spectator and I have no idea what the broadcast situation is.

I can give you a clue. The ComGames has an exclusive provider. You can only watch it via that exclusive provider (unless you'd like to broadcast it on your news website of course). Just like the Olympics does. And pretty much every sport under the sun. If you want Cricket in Australia - exclusive provider. BigBashLeague Cricket - a different exclusive provider. If you want EPL - exclusive provider. Worse in Australia - you have to be an Optus customer. By your definition thats a monopoly. And yet competition authorities all over the world have no issue with exclusive provision excepting the UK where if you want all the EPL matches you have to subscribe to two providers both of which have exclusive provision of different groups of games.

Lightbox - exclusive provider. Netflix - exclusive provider. Amazon Prime, Hulu, TVNZ, TV3 - exclusive providers. You'd like to abolish their "monopoly" provision of content? I think you'd better have a look in your dictionary as to what a monopoly is. And how the competition authorities manage monopolistic behavior.

I tried watching the LVACWS first round in Portsmouth. Streaming is a PITA. I didnt bother with the subsequent two rounds. Just wasnt worth the effort for the quality. Having a broadcast provider for 5 out of 8 rounds must have had in increased audience vs streaming. Better any broadcaster than no broadcaster at all, IMHO.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1809061 29-Jun-2017 17:10

ockel:

shk292:

ockel:

Unless you expect something similar to the RWC2011 with multiple simultaneous broadcasters I expect that there will only be one exclusive broadcaster for the Americas Cup. There has only been one exclusive broadcaster for the last 34 years. Your preference is for an advertising funded broadcaster (who, from memory, inserted adverts during the race including at crucial times) over a subscription based broadcaster.

You'll be happy to perpetuate your myth of a monopoly with this years Commonwealth Games then? One exclusive provider = monopoly?

Well, what else do you call a situation where there is one exclusive (perhaps you ought to look that word up in a dictionary sometime) provider? Half a duopoly?

In the case of the AC, consumers where there was no broadcaster enjoyed better VFM video coverage than those with a provider such as Sky. So, I'd rather have no regional provider than a monopoly provider.

I can't comment on the Commonwealth Games - fortunately, I'm not interested in the vast majority of sports as a spectator and I have no idea what the broadcast situation is.

I can give you a clue. The ComGames has an exclusive provider. You can only watch it via that exclusive provider (unless you'd like to broadcast it on your news website of course). Just like the Olympics does. And pretty much every sport under the sun. If you want Cricket in Australia - exclusive provider. BigBashLeague Cricket - a different exclusive provider. If you want EPL - exclusive provider. Worse in Australia - you have to be an Optus customer. By your definition thats a monopoly. And yet competition authorities all over the world have no issue with exclusive provision excepting the UK where if you want all the EPL matches you have to subscribe to two providers both of which have exclusive provision of different groups of games.

Lightbox - exclusive provider. Netflix - exclusive provider. Amazon Prime, Hulu, TVNZ, TV3 - exclusive providers. You'd like to abolish their "monopoly" provision of content? I think you'd better have a look in your dictionary as to what a monopoly is. And how the competition authorities manage monopolistic behavior.

I tried watching the LVACWS first round in Portsmouth. Streaming is a PITA. I didnt bother with the subsequent two rounds. Just wasnt worth the effort for the quality. Having a broadcast provider for 5 out of 8 rounds must have had in increased audience vs streaming. Better any broadcaster than no broadcaster at all, IMHO.

We've had this argumet before, and once again I feel that although superficially we speak the same language, the way in which we understand the words id fundamentally different.

No point in arguing with you I feel

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1809118 29-Jun-2017 19:11

shk292:

We've had this argumet before, and once again I feel that although superficially we speak the same language, the way in which we understand the words id fundamentally different.

No point in arguing with you I feel

Thats because your argument fails to hold water. Let me summarise your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, :

The exclusive content that you want to watch, but arent willing to pay market price for, should be provided on a non-exclusive basis (or paid for by someone else) and for all other exclusive content you DGAF.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1809122 29-Jun-2017 19:21

shk292:

ockel:

shk292:

ockel:

Unless you expect something similar to the RWC2011 with multiple simultaneous broadcasters I expect that there will only be one exclusive broadcaster for the Americas Cup. There has only been one exclusive broadcaster for the last 34 years. Your preference is for an advertising funded broadcaster (who, from memory, inserted adverts during the race including at crucial times) over a subscription based broadcaster.

You'll be happy to perpetuate your myth of a monopoly with this years Commonwealth Games then? One exclusive provider = monopoly?

Well, what else do you call a situation where there is one exclusive (perhaps you ought to look that word up in a dictionary sometime) provider? Half a duopoly?

In the case of the AC, consumers where there was no broadcaster enjoyed better VFM video coverage than those with a provider such as Sky. So, I'd rather have no regional provider than a monopoly provider.

I can't comment on the Commonwealth Games - fortunately, I'm not interested in the vast majority of sports as a spectator and I have no idea what the broadcast situation is.

I can give you a clue. The ComGames has an exclusive provider. You can only watch it via that exclusive provider (unless you'd like to broadcast it on your news website of course). Just like the Olympics does. And pretty much every sport under the sun. If you want Cricket in Australia - exclusive provider. BigBashLeague Cricket - a different exclusive provider. If you want EPL - exclusive provider. Worse in Australia - you have to be an Optus customer. By your definition thats a monopoly. And yet competition authorities all over the world have no issue with exclusive provision excepting the UK where if you want all the EPL matches you have to subscribe to two providers both of which have exclusive provision of different groups of games.

Lightbox - exclusive provider. Netflix - exclusive provider. Amazon Prime, Hulu, TVNZ, TV3 - exclusive providers. You'd like to abolish their "monopoly" provision of content? I think you'd better have a look in your dictionary as to what a monopoly is. And how the competition authorities manage monopolistic behavior.

I tried watching the LVACWS first round in Portsmouth. Streaming is a PITA. I didnt bother with the subsequent two rounds. Just wasnt worth the effort for the quality. Having a broadcast provider for 5 out of 8 rounds must have had in increased audience vs streaming. Better any broadcaster than no broadcaster at all, IMHO.

We've had this argumet before, and once again I feel that although superficially we speak the same language, the way in which we understand the words id fundamentally different.

No point in arguing with you I feel

To be fair, what you want is not a monopoly. So all content, whether that be sports or news, or TV or movies is available on every channel, every service, basically everywhere. IMHO thats not practical.

1. Content has value. If its the AC final races, Super Rugby, its about NOW. Thats the value. People will pay, and more so, and MORE SO the content owners (AC, IVESCO, and so on, want the money. Its NOT a Sky issue. They just provide what the content OWNERS want, money wise.

Once the AC, Super Rugby, Lions game is over, there is very low value, its been done. To pay for the value, there is a high cost. Subs, ads, etc. It would be nice if TVNZ bought everything. Free to me, O for Orsome (TM David Tua). But who pays? Govt? Taxpayers? Or maybe Govt buys everything, sells it as subs and ads. Then we are back to a pay provider.

Talk to the content owners, or pay. Or watch for free, delayed, as Sky often does on Prime. Its about the money, but while its trendy to bag Sky, they just play it,

Now, if Sky said, we cant justify the cost of the AC, the world will end, as it did with cricket a year or more ago. One day Sky is the enemy for having a monopoly, next they are the enemy for not playing the so called monopoly content.

This isn't a dig. Its the reality, its all about money, but Sky isn't the enemy

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1809126 29-Jun-2017 19:28

Journeyman:

ockel:

TVNZ didnt want to pay for the rights - didnt want to rely on advertisers to cover the costs so you could watch it in an ad-funded fashion.

TVNZ did want to pay for the rights. Sky offered to pay more for the rights. Sky got it.

]

Yeah, well, um. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11883691

"Sky TV chief executive John Fellet said the event had been made available on its free-to-air channel Prime, with a 90-minute delay.

He said the owners of the broadcast rights had approached Sky after they didn't receive an acceptable bid from TVNZ or Mediaworks.

"Originally they [spoke to us] and we passed," Fellet said.

"And then they came back and said look we're just not going to get the money we need out of New Zealand, would you be willing to re-engage, which we did."

Looks like Sky didnt really want the rights but TVNZ wanted to spend more on reality tv. go figure.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1809141 29-Jun-2017 19:52

ockel:

Journeyman:

ockel:

TVNZ didnt want to pay for the rights - didnt want to rely on advertisers to cover the costs so you could watch it in an ad-funded fashion.

TVNZ did want to pay for the rights. Sky offered to pay more for the rights. Sky got it.

]

Yeah, well, um. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11883691

"Sky TV chief executive John Fellet said the event had been made available on its free-to-air channel Prime, with a 90-minute delay.

He said the owners of the broadcast rights had approached Sky after they didn't receive an acceptable bid from TVNZ or Mediaworks.

"Originally they [spoke to us] and we passed," Fellet said.

"And then they came back and said look we're just not going to get the money we need out of New Zealand, would you be willing to re-engage, which we did."

Looks like Sky didnt really want the rights but TVNZ wanted to spend more on reality tv. go figure.

Thats the thing. Sky like all of us, have a budget. Except in Skys case, if they spend, there is no revenue, its part of their package, no extras. Too many forget that

Re AC, its a very niche sport, despite its meaning. So Sky don't bid much, leave it to FTA. FTA don't bother. Sky steps up, even though it will cost them and NO ONE will be a new subscription because of that. For Sky what it cost them is purely a cost, no revenue, Maybe a bit of FP. Sky is not god, but they arent the devil either. Like everyone you buy from every day, they run a business, whether that be Sky or the 7/11

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1809195 29-Jun-2017 20:25

tdgeek:

ockel:

Journeyman:

ockel:

TVNZ didnt want to pay for the rights - didnt want to rely on advertisers to cover the costs so you could watch it in an ad-funded fashion.

TVNZ did want to pay for the rights. Sky offered to pay more for the rights. Sky got it.

]

Yeah, well, um. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11883691

"Sky TV chief executive John Fellet said the event had been made available on its free-to-air channel Prime, with a 90-minute delay.

He said the owners of the broadcast rights had approached Sky after they didn't receive an acceptable bid from TVNZ or Mediaworks.

"Originally they [spoke to us] and we passed," Fellet said.

"And then they came back and said look we're just not going to get the money we need out of New Zealand, would you be willing to re-engage, which we did."

Looks like Sky didnt really want the rights but TVNZ wanted to spend more on reality tv. go figure.

Thats the thing. Sky like all of us, have a budget. Except in Skys case, if they spend, there is no revenue, its part of their package, no extras. Too many forget that

Re AC, its a very niche sport, despite its meaning. So Sky don't bid much, leave it to FTA. FTA don't bother. Sky steps up, even though it will cost them and NO ONE will be a new subscription because of that. For Sky what it cost them is purely a cost, no revenue, Maybe a bit of FP. Sky is not god, but they arent the devil either. Like everyone you buy from every day, they run a business, whether that be Sky or the 7/11

Holy Sheet! I Forgot about FanPass. If you paid the new price of $99 for the month long AC campaign and only the minimum number of races were raced (30+10+7) it meant a PPV price of a whopping $2.10 per race.

Watching sport that you want to watch is SOOOO expensive.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1809201 29-Jun-2017 20:48

ockel:

shk292:

We've had this argumet before, and once again I feel that although superficially we speak the same language, the way in which we understand the words id fundamentally different.

No point in arguing with you I feel

Thats because your argument fails to hold water. Let me summarise your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, :

The exclusive content that you want to watch, but arent willing to pay market price for, should be provided on a non-exclusive basis (or paid for by someone else) and for all other exclusive content you DGAF.

No, as I said above - I don't intend to argue with you. Your evident personality traits, combined with our diametrically opposed views on the meaning of some words, means that such a discussion will yield no value.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1809207 29-Jun-2017 20:58

ockel:

If you want Cricket in Australia - exclusive provider.

Channel 9 FTA

ockel: BigBashLeague Cricket - a different exclusive provider.

Channel 10 FTA

ockel: If you want EPL - exclusive provider. Worse in Australia - you have to be an Optus customer.

Nope, Foxtel. Along with most live VASC (that's not on 10).

Also, didn't realise there was any "NZvAus" in the AC, until I read this thread.

Didn't even know the AC was on until I blocked the # on twitter.

No mention here in the normal media.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1809210 29-Jun-2017 21:00

Maybe we should look at the Pharmac model, which seems to work well for drug buying for the NZ tax payer. This means that kiwi companies out bidding each other up to pay an overseas provider. Then providers could buy certain content (which is not of national significance) from that central provider, and the profit then goes to pay for health , roads and schools etc.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6