Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Ban all sports channels in India except Espn/Star sports/Star cricket.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Which is actually unfair to those channels who have to dish out millions for coverage rights. But this situation won't last for long. Its untenable for the channels and the general viewer. The relevant act will be amended and treat DD as any other private channel when it comes to live sports broadcasts. I am as annoyed as the next person by the invasive ads and pop ups, but think of it from the point of view of the channel. They have to maintain public interest in their channel and generate revenue. And many a times the two are contradicting courses of action. Yes, it is unfair.But the ad time has nothing to do with this. DD deal has been around forever and every channel that bids for the rights already knows this. The number of ads has risen because the channels bid too much and doesn't have an idea what a sustainable profit model is. If they overbid for the matches, then it is their problem. It's like in IPL, if a team bids 9 million for 1 player and then moans that they can't get another player. If they think that they cannot sell ads for more than what they pay for, then they should have stopped bidding.
IKnowU Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Ban all sports channels in India except Espn/Star sports/Star cricket. Its useless, because the networks you just mentioned use the feed from the other end. And its not the Indian broadcaster bloated with the ads. Someone will have to do it from our end, and it will eventually end up with those ads anyway.
Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Sometime back I had heard that BCCI was planning to start its own Cricket channel :hmmm:
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Ban all sports channels in India except Espn/Star sports/Star cricket. and give monopoly to them? ESPN-star is no angel either. Long ago, there were just 2 sports channels in India. Cricket being the only sport, they tried to top each other to get the TV rights. But soon they realized that they can save a lot of money if they merge and create a monopoly. Thus began ESPN-Star. Their idea was to pay much less than the market value since there was noone else around. Other companies saw this as an opportunity to get in the business as well since they can easily outbid the paltry sum ESPN-Star would bid. Monopoly is bad and any corporate entity will try to maximize their profit. It is upto the govt. and board to keep there entities in check.
punjabi_khota Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 To be fair, I think the Indian public has it too good. Given the craze of cricket, we pay pennies to watch it on tv. Time for the public to pay up if it wants quality.
Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 and give monopoly to them? ESPN-star is no angel either. Long ago, there were just 2 sports channels in India. Cricket being the only sport, they tried to top each other to get the TV rights. But soon they realized that they can save a lot of money if they merge and create a monopoly. Thus began ESPN-Star. Their idea was to pay much less than the market value since there was noone else around. Other companies saw this as an opportunity to get in the business as well since they can easily outbid the paltry sum ESPN-Star would bid. Monopoly is bad and any corporate entity will try to maximize their profit. It is upto the govt. and board to keep there entities in check. but they at least provide quality telecast (unlike the crap coverage of Ten cricket/Neo cricket).
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 but they at least provide quality telecast (unlike the crap coverage of Ten cricket/Neo cricket). But they paid 50 million compared to the 600 million nimbus paid.
Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 But they paid 50 million compared to the 600 million nimbus paid. I think it was something like 220 million. Neo is paying so much money and still the coverage is pathetic. Espn has good coverage but does'nt want to pay huge amounts of money, so whats the solution???
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I think it was something like 220 million. Neo is paying so much money and still the coverage is pathetic. Espn has good coverage but does'nt want to pay huge amounts of money, so whats the solution??? Courts and BCCI define what proper coverage is in detail i.e. seconds that TV channels has to show after umpire called over before cutting for break, no ads on bottom and side during overs etc. This will force TV channels to bid a little lower and only if they could turn a profit. BCCI already has contract obligations regarding this and this show-cause notice is because ten sports violated this agreement. So ban such channels for a few years from broadcasting live cricket. Remember Sony was stripped off its contract after IPL 1 for similar reasons.
Sachinism Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Neo needs to sued for all that and for overusing the purple color in their broadcast. A friend from India was telling me how Doordarshan had better coverage of the Ind-SA series than ten sports. It's ridiculous how much money these idiots make and still can not offer proper live coverage. Neo's graphics are pretty good Ban all sports channels in India except Espn/Star sports/Star cricket. Even star cricket has a that stupid CL coming soon over the screen To be fair' date=' I think the Indian public has it too good. Given the craze of cricket, we pay pennies to watch it on tv. Time for the public to pay up if it wants quality.[/quote'] True. Will the Indian public be willing to pay a premium for better viewing? Or will they be content with what they're getting for a very good price at the moment?
Sid Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Ban all sports channels in India except Espn/Star sports/Star cricket. I second this .
Mariyam Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Yes, it is unfair.But the ad time has nothing to do with this. DD deal has been around forever and every channel that bids for the rights already knows this. The number of ads has risen because the channels bid too much and doesn't have an idea what a sustainable profit model is. If they overbid for the matches, then it is their problem. It's like in IPL, if a team bids 9 million for 1 player and then moans that they can't get another player. If they think that they cannot sell ads for more than what they pay for, then they should have stopped bidding. Warning: Post is only partly on topic What you say is completely correct. That exactly is apt description of present broadcasting reality, including what you say on overbidding. However, in this case, the present is very very highly influenced by the murky past of post liberalization broadcasting reforms. Here's a sneak peek at that murky past :P Before liberalization and before the advent of cable TV, when DD was the be all and end all of television, they had to pay for coverage rights. Of course back then, the amounts weren't as astronomical as they are now, but they still had to make a payment for the right to cover an event.DD, so far used to operate on a non profit motive but still raked in the moolah because they got all the ads When cable TV was introduced, DD's TRPs took a hit as expected. People would obviously watch a saas bahu serial over an agricultural program teaching you how to make gobar cakes. :P These private channels captured the entire ad market, and DD was left licking its wounds. Thats when the government ( read DD) amended the law which made it necessary for brands who avail a tax rebate using inhouse CSR ventures to advertise on DD also. Thats arm twisting if I ever saw it. So , we have a situation where firms are told that you either advertise on DD or pay your taxes entirely. Next, the government comes up with this wonderful rule that says that sports ( especially cricket) are an integral part of India's entertainment and should be accessible to everyone. ( that they didn't tow this line before 1990 was suddenly irrelevant). They now amend the rule saying that any broadcaster who wants to have an event covered in India involving the Indian national cricket team should give free coverage to DD. And the move suddenly makes them competitive with the private sports channels. In face of superior competition, DD have taken the easy way out. They could have improved the standard of their general programming and challenged the private players. But they arm twist, manipulate others in clear violation of MRTP act to level the playing field. I don't have their account books, but they must be having maximum return to investment ratios. The other channels pay through their noses to get coverage rights and clutter the shows with ads. Because of the cluttering, many brands feel that the consumer may not be able to retain the message of the add, and the next thing you know they are with DD. There are dozens of cases against DD-IB combine. Sooner or later, justice will be served. DD will face the music then. What Punjabi_Khota says is right. We pay peanuts for TV. The way things are, this model will not sustain itself for longer. Something has to give way. As a consumer these intrusive ads annoy the hell out of me. You have ads after every delivery. Makes you pull your hair out. I understand the consumers obvious complaint. I sympathize, and I'm also a consumer. But as a citizen, an intrusive ad is still a much better option than an intrusive government, which unfairly harasses the private players. Sorry. Long rant. :((
Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Mariyam' date=' are you the new Morris :woot:[/quote'] :giggle:
hitman1980 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Make no mistake .. Channels earn many folds than wht they bid for .. they r not fools who don't know where they r investing .. The amount they pay to BCCI is still very less than its original value .. I have to doubt even if BCCI ask for double the amount they r getting now, channels will happily pay tht too .. Wht happened with ten sports is tht they don't have many tournament involving India .. this was their only chance to earn so they tried to maximize it with insane amount of ads .. and it backfired ..
Shane Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Mariyam' date=' are you the new Morris :woot:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Texy Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Mariyam' date=' are you the new Morris :woot:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical: Morris stop searching.......found your soul-mate
diegovegaz Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 the same happened a couple of years ago with neo cricket they decreased the number of advertisement time then but by the next series, it was back to normal i say, ban all indian channels, get sky sports, fox sports and channel 9 in india
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now