This decade has started off as a testing one for sport and its broadcasters, and that is unlikely to change in the coming years.
Television deals have been a major revenue stream for many sports. The top sports, in terms of profile and viewers are worth the big investment as their followers tend to be loyal. Whichever broadcaster buys the competition television rights has the potential to attract millions of eyeballs, which in turn is appealing to sponsors.
However, the television landscape has changed dramatically. As one satellite broadcaster explained, having been in the market for over 15 years they are unlikely to attract too many more subscribers. As for advertising revenue, and upping the fees, the market and the national economy dictate what they can charge sponsors.
As Fox Sports found in Australia once they lost the English Premier League they lost subscribers, not only that, their domestic football viewership figures started to decline. Although the two league competitions are poles apart in terms of quality, fans of the English Premier League would often sit through an A-League game; after all it was football. Once the English Premier League had gone there was less incentive to tune in.
A few years ago it was rumoured that News Limited was looking to buy up all of the major football league competitions around the world and have a dedicated 24 hour channel for fans to watch games anywhere in the world. The only snag was that these games would be pay-per-view. Despite having let the TV Rights go in some markets many believe that this is still the long term plan. Seeing viewing figures drop with alternate broadcasters News Limited may well in the end be able to buy back the rights at a far lower price than they were previously paying.
If this is indeed the case it makes sense, as television stations are finding it harder to recoup the money they have invested in buying the rights to many of the sports they broadcast.
Before the Covid Pandemic many were looking at ways to reduce costs. One of the plans was to have the commentary done remotely; which we have witnessed with many sports in the past year. For example Channel Seven’s Olympic coverage was done remotely, they did not send commentators to Tokyo.
Another way of reducing costs is to not spend as much on production for the lesser sports. Find operators who will do the job for a pittance. This is a very shortsighted approach as suddenly you are lowering the bar. It then becomes a double-edged sword, the quality of the broadcast goes down and the viewers walk away.
As someone who has worked in this space and who has commentated remotely I strongly believe that it can work effectively for some sports, but not for others.
As viewers will have witnessed, with some sports, the commentary can be greatly affected, and can at times lag behind the action. Sometimes it can be so bad that it makes the game very hard to watch. It certainly does not enhance the coverage of the sport.
By not having the commentators at the stadium the viewer can often miss out on information that would have been gleaned prior to the match starting such as why a player was left out at the last minute, or any other interesting events that may have taken place.
So are the viewers being sold a dud if they are paying a subscription for that broadcast, only to find out that the commentator is not really there? Has the sport that handed over the rights been short-changed in what they were expecting from the broadcast deal?
While it may be beneficial for the broadcaster, the long term impact on the sport could be extremely damaging, so will those negotiating the contracts for such coverage in the future need to ensure that clauses are inserted to cover such eventualities? One feels that such negotiations are about to become a lot more complicated. Which means that the various sports are going to have to smarten up in terms of their negotiations, and be sure to have people in their organisations who understand and have experience in this space.
Despite being located in a studio often thousands of miles from the venue where the match is being played, or the event is taking place, the commentators will often lead the viewer to believe that they are actually there. Should they have to disclose that they are not actually at the venue? Does the viewer if they are paying a subscription have the right to know that the commentator is actually at the game?
Commentating remotely has been extremely effective with some events and sports. It has been almost catastrophic with others. While broadcasters were convinced pre Covid that this was the way to go, many are realising that they will need to be more discerning about which sports or events they take this approach with.
Television stations cannot afford to have viewership drop any more, so they need to ensure that they deliver a product that keeps their subscribers tuned in. Many subscription stations have created dedicated sports channels, not just one but several. These channels require content. They have frequently bought blocks of sports to fill in that air time. These are often referred to as “Wallpaper sports” and a number of events will be purchased at a low price purely to fill air time between the station’s main event sports being screened.
If the stations become more discerning about which sports they take, this could spell trouble for many sports that pay for their own production and are sold to a station as part of a package of sports. Just as the sports may be putting more pressure on the broadcasters when negotiating a TV deal, the Broadcasters may now be placing stronger stipulations on those sports doing their own production, in relation to the quality of the broadcasts. If this proves to be the case once again the sports are going to need to have people within their organisation who understand or have experience in this space, or alternatively will need to sub contract to people who do.
The worrying thing for the sports themselves, and the clubs in many of those competitions, who all bank on this revenue is that they have probably seen the best of times in terms of the money they have received. The Covid pandemic has hit the television stations hard, and they will be looking at any way possible to trim back costs, and be sure of having a return on investment before signing a new broadcast deal.
Unfortunately with so much competition in the market the broadcasters are finding that just churning out content is not going to be enough. Without a big ticket sport they are going to drift out of the fan’s consciousness. While they may have been able to get away with some content with lesser quality production, now they risk losing that viewer forever, as few will return to watch substandard coverage.
As reported recently Netflix lost nearly one million subscribers between April and July. Incredibly this was less than the two million it had feared. This may have surprised many, but the trouble is the more subscriptions people are being asked to pay to view content, the more discerning they are going to be. One of the reasons we are seeing subscription rates started to fall is that across the globe the cost of living is rising along with interest rates.
It was interesting to read, but not surprising, that those under 24 are the ones giving up the most subscriptions, but more importantly that they are are turning to Youtube for their content. As one person was quoted as saying on the BBC ‘”because it’s shorter and it’s like a long-form TikTok” with “really interesting short documentaries”, which are free.’ (Feel free to Check out Standing at The Touchlines on YouTube)
Which means that those sports that are trying to monetise local sport are facing a very rude awakening. Many have had the decision-makers conned by companies telling them that they need to live stream every game, when in the non-professional market less is more. People want quality over quantity.
One of the maddest ideas is to try and monetise games that do not have commentary. Ordinarily the only people that are likely to stick with such a contest are the family members of those playing, or close friends. To the average viewer no commentary means that the game has absolutely no context.
How is asking people to pay to watch local sport going to grow participation numbers? By all means charge a small fee for some events but charging for underage tournaments and having these competitions behind a paywall is foolish.
With so many operators trying to get in this space it is vital that sports use the easiest platform for their fans to find, platforms that were created for this purpose, the likes of Vimeo or YouTube.
Then, the key to success is to use your social media platforms to promote and inform. In other words direct viewers to that channel. This does not mean simply putting up one post! It needs to be strategically planned and executed, that is why we now have people who specialise in digital marketing. How many of the second tier sports employ people who genuinely have experience and knowledge of this space? Once again the wrong people are being employed and as a result make ill informed decisions, which ultimately harm the sport.
Even if you do all of these things there still has to be a level of quality that is expected and needs to be delivered to those who tune in. You have less than five minutes to keep them. If the quality of the camerawork is poor, the commentary is dull, and they do not understand the sport or know the teams, those potential viewers will leave and rarely will they return. The same applies to a platform where the stream is constantly buffering or you cannot log in. In the past week after five attempts to log in to one service, and still not being able to see what was being shown I gave up.
At every tier that these sports, or the league competitions and events are contested there needs to be a format and a uniform standard by which each live game must be produced. That consistency of product is obvious in the top football competitions, and that is partly why they attract the viewers, and in turn the television rights money.
Seeing the market fracture as more operators come into the broadcast arena has resulted in sports being split over a wide range of broadcasters, all expecting the average fan to buy a subscription. That just isn’t going to happen. The viewers are going to become far more selective and will opt for one or two options rather than signing up for each one in their market.
That fracturing of the broadcast stations and rights means that the value is going to be pushed down. It may in fact see many fans of competitions outside the top tier having to accept that things may have to go back to the days of old when not every game was available to be watched live on television. That may not be a bad thing, as it may encourage more to actually go and attend matches; but the key will then be the pricing of tickets to the games and events. As well as the whole game day experience, and that is referring to getting to and from the ground easily, the venue, and ease of getting to your seats.
It is sad that the access to more sport on television has not led to more quality sport on television. In some cases that comes down to the standard of the competition being televised, and sometimes it comes down to the level of investment from the broadcaster.
As we have also witnessed the marketing of the various sports in many cases leaves a great deal to be desired. Fans do not know when games are taking place, where they are being played and if they are being televised, and if so on which channel. There was a comment made by a Hockey coach recently that having hosted a clinic those attending were not even aware that the Women’s Hockey World Cup had just taken place. A conversation with a group of people held in the past 24 hours saw only one in the group aware that the Commonwealth Games were staring this weekend!
Whose job is it to market these games? As touched on in Is History Repeating In the A-League the television station will promote on their own platform but will feel that this is enough, which means the onus falls back onto the sport, the league or the competition to market and communicate with its fans. While some use social media well, others do not have the necessary investment if this is to be their sole avenue for promotion.
Unfortunately rather than making the promotion of sport easier social media has made it harder. Which platform you target depends on the demographic you are trying to attract, and how you use that platform can also impact on the success or failure of a campaign. How many employ experts in this area? This was discussed in Podcast 52 with Brand expert David Mitchell and Marketing expert Sam Goodwin in Podcast 65.
Australia is a difficult market as it is such a vast country with a relatively low population. While in the United Kingdom it has been reported that traditional television viewing still tends to beat streaming in the ratings, that is not as assured down under. In part because, with the exception of the Government funded channels, the ABC and SBS, there is very little quality and hasn’t been for decades on the Commercial channels. As one colleague commented recently “they copy concepts from overseas and dumb them down. Then wonder why no one watches.”
Ultimately, great sport being broadcast into our homes, onto our phones and computers is wonderful but it is not an essential, but we coped without it before and when it comes to a choice between food, fuel, bills or clothing it becomes a ‘nice to have.’
Which means that those with money will benefit the most as they can buy up the sports that attract the best viewing figures and they can invest in the production to ensure that they consistently give those viewers quality.
What many also forget is that the younger generation who have grown up with streaming services are far more critical than the older generations. They expect a certain level of quality. They are also ruthless in terms of leaving a platform if it fails to deliver, and they do not come back.
There is no doubt that the top sports and leagues will continue to attract top dollar due to their pulling power in terms of viewers. There will still be a bidding war between broadcasters as they understand how important having the rights to such a sport can be. For those that fall outside of these top sports or competitions there promises to be some interesting times ahead. For many it would be worth formulating a plan and obtaining expert advice prior to sitting around the negotiating table, as this preparedness could have a huge impact on the money the sport or competition receives from broadcasters in the future and the quality of those broadcasts.
For some this could well be a decade of pain, as they have to readjust to a decrease in revenue from television.Where will they make up that shortfall? Are they prepared to tighten their belts in terms of current costs and expenditure? The future of that sport, league or competition could well depend on it.
