Initially when ESPNStar was broadcasting d matches...they used to show a replay of the last ball or when a batsman gets out...they show atleast 3 to 4 replays till d batsman reaches d pavilion and then show his scorecard before telcasting d ads......also...we can see which bowler standing in his run up for after d ad is over
But these Neo and Ten sports will immediately start d ad when after d last ball or when someone gets out....we dnt even knw who got out before we see an ad...also an ad will interrupted by d 1st ball...or at times after d 1st ball has been bowled...Now in IPL...we get ads even between 2 balls in a single over....
Take a standard EPL match for eg...We have an 3 minute ad just after d preview by d pundit and before d start of d match....then after half time...another 5 minute break followed by half time review by hosts...then another 5 minute ad break before d start of d match... Even if d match has a temporary interruption or if any player is injured...they dnt rush to show d ads like our Neo or SET MAX.....
DOES THIS MEAN THAT FOOTBALL IS EARNING LESS THAN CRICKET????NO??? Its just d money minded broadcasters who're trying to milk the indian public....
atleast i get to see full matches instead of commercials here in USA. See, they beat my country again in showing my fav sport. INDIA when will you get out of the mess..........
Agree that cricket telecasts have become outrageous and something needs to be done. However the penta model will not work. Why?
Because paradoxically farming out the telecast to five instead of 1 channel is likely to generate significantly lower fees overall than granting a monopoly to one. Because no channel can be assured of viewership, their ability to monetise (unless they act as a cartel) will be much lower than under the monopoly scenario.
Let's say that there is a total of 5000 minutes of advertising time available under the monopoly scenario. Under the penta scenario this expands to 25000 minutes. The write believes that 25000 min x the new price per min will be equal to or greater than 5000 x the old price per min. Wrong! Since now advertisers can play off channel against channel, it becomes a buyer's market so the price they will pay will no longer incorporate a monopoly - take it or leave it - premium. As a result, the price per thousand eyeball minutes (CPM in technical lingo) of air time is likely to be much lower in the second case than the first.
This is just the advertising part of the equation. There is a also a huge dynamic in terms of channel carriage / subscription fees. In a monopoly scenario, the channel can hike up its prices and cable operators have no option but to pay them or risk a strong customer backlash. In the penta scenario, no channel will be able to increase its subscription fees so that is another big loss.
Agree that cricket telecasts have become outrageous and something needs to be done. However the penta model will not work. Why?
Because paradoxically farming out the telecast to five instead of 1 channel is likely to generate significantly lower fees overall than granting a monopoly to one. Because no channel can be assured of viewership, their ability to monetise (unless they act as a cartel) will be much lower than under the monopoly scenario.
Let's say that there is a total of 5000 minutes of advertising time available under the monopoly scenario. Under the penta scenario this expands to 25000 minutes. The write believes that 25000 min x the new price per min will be equal to or greater than 5000 x the old price per min. Wrong! Since now advertisers can play off channel against channel, it becomes a buyer's market so the price they will pay will no longer incorporate a monopoly - take it or leave it - premium. As a result, the price per thousand eyeball minutes (CPM in technical lingo) of air time is likely to be much lower in the second case than the first.
This is just the advertising part of the equation. There is a also a huge dynamic in terms of channel carriage / subscription fees. In a monopoly scenario, the channel can hike up its prices and cable operators have no option but to pay them or risk a strong customer backlash. In the penta scenario, no channel will be able to increase its subscription fees so that is another big loss.
Parliament, State Assemblies, Municipalities, ZP's etc also. Like fillers in between & at end of write-up's in a publication, these above institutions(!) will witness speeches squeezed in between the main-playing ads that'll be aired continuously on the screen at backside of Assembly Speakers or Convenors.
Speak of novelty & our ever money-hungry leaders will come up with anything to satiate this hunger!!!
Yes, I remember Steve Waugh's comment about the horrendous World Cup telecast in India. The ads have become more intrusive and irritating, with them poppoing up in the middle of the over, mid-screen.. wonder what comes next. The overs are also cut to the bare minimum. Live cricket is shown just as the bowler is delivering the first ball at the crease and ends just as the last ball gets to keeper/fielder. These idiots are taking the audience for granted, so they better wake up before they kill the goose...
Yes There are too many ads. The L-shaped ones and the ads that come on the ground while the match is going on are extremely irritating. Some solution must be implemented to ensure that ads are presented only between overs or during drinks or after the dismissal of a batsman.
While everyone is lamenting the BCCI and the cricketers one thing is missing. I dont see more people standing up saying OK... We are cricket enthusiasts we will pay subscription to the DTH if they have a Ad free premium channel. I think this is the best solution than doing anything else.. They TV company has paid money and he wants the same back with super profits come what may. Most Indians pay under $ 4 per month for ALL channels. I US, UK and AUS that is what they pay for ONE channel. If all subscribers pay Rs. 50 per month for STAR CRICKET they will never run ADS.....
I have been a PASSIONATE cricet fan since early 1970s. We need to stop buying products that are being advertised and inform the companies that advertise about the same. I for one do not buy any HP products because of the L shaped advertisement I had been bombarded with. If I alone does this it will not make any difference to HP(as an example). If most of the people who complain to HP and I am sure they will take action. But the flip side is, since India is a huge market does it make any difference to these corporates? They will say, "who cares a moron like this does not buy my product does not make any difference to my bank balance" So if we do it on a collective manner we can make a difference. So friends choice is ours. We need to tell all our friends and contacts about our world cup resolution.
Re: Stop buying the products that are advertised
by Arun Kumar on Feb 14, 2011 05:14 PM
I FLIP CHANNELS DURING BREAKS & DONT SEE THE ADS BEING PUSHED DOWN OUR THROATS.that way atleast I am saved the agony to go the a HELL every 2-5 mins.
