TV License Values Fading, SD Multi-channeling, and Flava Flav is killing it all.

There are three articles that you should read of which perfectly sum up the state of where the broadcast industry is at in regards to its future. A state of the union, if you will.

The first is this article regarding the recent announcement by ACMA that the value of TV licenses are falling. The value of a TV license has reportedly been slashed by $2 billion.

“The devaluation began in 2003-04, with a sharp fall in 2005-06 revenues leaving average licences worth less than a decade ago and approaching the levels of the 1980s.

The average value of a capital city licence in 2005-06 was about $120 million, down from about $230 million in 2003-04.”

The reasons cited for the fall in value are exactly what one would expect to hear, which is that with added competition for eyeballs from the Internet, video games, and pay television, there is less potential for future growth in broadcast TV. ACMA have also suggested that it is possible that the value of TV licenses had in fact been over-valued in the past.

The second article of note regards Ten chief executive Grant Blackley stating that in 2009 when FTA broadcasters in Australia are allowed to multi-channel on standard definition digital channels, they will likely not start broadcasting immediately.

Mr Blackley states: “I wouldn’t put it past that some months thereafter (January 1) I think there’s some valid consideration to launching your primary schedule on your SD, HD and analog platform, and soon thereafter possibly launching your additional channel”.

There are two considerations to make here. The first is that market penetration of digital TV receivers in Australia is getting higher, but is still not completely sufficient in order to re-structure the business of an entire organization around it. The second consideration, however, is that the reason why penetration has been low relates to the fact there has been very minimal additional content driving take-up. Outside of ABC2 and the very limited HD multi-channel offerings, there has been little done in the way of convincing consumers to upgrade.

The question I put forth is this: The value of your TV license is falling along with the number of viewers. Why not view the new SD multi-channel as an opportunity to engage in a soft re-launch of the way that you broadcast instead of simply offering it as an additional service? The new SD channel should serve to compliment the main channel in a similar fashion to the integration between the various BBC stations. It retains branding and viewer familiarity, while serving as an engaging manner by which to watch television.

Channel 10 is likely reticent to make such a bold move as without ratings data, it is difficult to sell multi-channel services to advertisers and media buyers. That said, it’s a shame that Ten can’t be bold and take a small gamble with its resources on this. The industry is in a position where bold moves are needed to maximise viewer retention. With a young audience easily swayed by technology and new distribution means, Channel 10 really need to be less reactionary.

The third article of note worth reading today ties all of this together. Tim Goodman, a US columnist, has provided advice on what networks can do to keep their audiences interested. While the article is very US-centric, messages such as keeping the amount of reality television to a minimum is worth listening to. Especially as Foxtel increase its range of channels (and thusly increasing the amount of reality fare accessible to the average viewer), along with potential new IPTV services over the next couple of years.

None of these articles are telling you anything that you haven’t already found us ranting about at Televised Revolution before, but they’re certainly strong sign posts as to the current status of the industry and the networks reluctance to actually try to curb the viewer drop-off.