This should be a fairly exciting event. A new channel. New branding. And then there is SBS’s renewed commitment to airing some great foreign films.

Unfortunately, SBS2 seems to have launched with the dullest selection of programing possible. It couldn’t be any more uninspired.

At least the revised watermarks on SBS/SBS Two have a bit of style to them.

For those of you who read Televised Revolution with any regularity, you’d be aware that we’ve gushed over Channel 10′s launch of One HD. While we at Televised Revolution are in no way sports guys, we are impressed that Ch 10 have chosen a subject that will serve the network well into the new digital future. Sports programming is one of the few television subjects that require the viewer to watch the program live. In the day of PVR’s, peer to peer, and direct downloading of content, it seems almost foolish to stake a long-term business plan on the idea viewers will still be watching broadcast television as their primary method to watch Two & A Half Men.

The fact Channel 9 have announced plans for a general entertainment station surprises very few people. For a network that has faced financial problems, diminishing viewers, and generally tries little in the way of innovation, a general entertainment channel is a relatively low-cost proposition that would hold great lure to the organization. Playing it safe, however, may simply cause the network to disappear with irrelevance.

Playing devils advocate for a second, however, is there any other real option for the Nine and Seven networks? Freeview have reportedly entertained notions of launching a Hulu-like content distribution service, which isn’t a bad idea. What could be a problem would be if US distribution companies decide they could maximise profits by simply launching an Australian version of Hulu, cutting out their reliance on third party vendors? For Seven and Nine, at this point, the only way to ensure their long-term viability is to offer content that demands immediacy. For the Nine Network, a 24-hour news channel would make perfect sense. Such a move, however, would require a massive investment of money and resources into a service that would cannibalise the viewership for their Sky News service.

Can a FTA network make the same profits by moving a service delivered on cable platforms to a FTA digital multi-channel? One could easily imagine SBS doing something similar with their World Movies station.

Other than news and sports, is there really any other programing genres that demand the same level of immediacy? Ultimately the Seven Network and the Nine Network need to be innovative in developing the foundations for their digital future. A General Entertainment digital multi-channel is not the answer to their future woes, but perhaps there simply is not another choice.

First of all, I would like to state my bias up front: I’m not a sports guy. Outside of a few AFL games and occasional events at the Winter Olympics, my TV sports watching over my lifetime has been practically nil. It’s safe to say that I am not the desired demographic for ONE.

That said, if anything is to drive mass take-up of digital television in this country, ONE will certainly be a significant factor. It’s been proven many times that sports drives the take-up of new broadcast technologies. This will be no exception. So, kudos on Channel 10 for taking this initiative.

Additionally, a sports channel will appeal to a much wider audience than Ten’s desired demo’s within the 16-39 year-olds. While the sports station won’t dilute the brand with their establishment of an entirely new brand for the service, it seems somewhat interesting that they would abandon their core demo with the launch of ONE.

One would assume that it is the 16-39 year-olds that are the most susceptible to being drawn away by the vast content available online. The launch of ONE says to me, at least, that Ten have recognised that they are the most vulnerable to the audience erosion and have sought to capture a new share of the market. An audience that is more dedicated to the need for TV to be broadcast live.

As a viewer who dislikes sports on television, the launch of ONE feels like a wasted opportunity. Of any of the networks, it felt as though Channel 10 could make the most out of an SD multi-channel that would serve to further strengthen their brand. While Ten HD has been rather lacklustre since its launch, it has really felt as though Ten have been the only station to truly incorporate their multi-channel offerings into their main distribution mode. Ten had offered higher quality alternative viewing than that provided by 7HD and 9HD, developing with it a stronger brand identity.

With the announcement of ONE, Ten have introduced a significant game-changer into the Australian television marketplace. It will be interesting to see whether Channel 7 now goes ahead with their rumored lifestyle multi-channel, or whether they will simply offer alternative general entertainment. And then there is the question of whether Nine will realise they have a digital television service. 2009 will be the biggest year for Australian telly since the move to colour. Lets just hope they give us something worthwhile to tune in to.

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.