*Official* India in South Africa

[Cevno]

CEO says its because of the ridiculously low prices of tv coverage in India which is kind of true. Not sure its an excuse though..

Bloody hell I pay $20 a month for 2 cricket channels and in India people pay like $5 a month for satellite tv

That is true,but i do not know then why the Broadcasters agree to pay prices which they cannot justify ?

The problem in India is not the low price ,because the subscriber base is huge compared to other countries.
But the problem is that the subscriber base is way underreported and in most areas the channels don't receive the subscription fee as much as they should or even 30 % of it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

That is true,but i do not know then why the Broadcasters agree to pay prices which they cannot justify ?

The problem in India is not the low price ,because the subscriber base is huge compared to other countries.
But the problem is that the subscriber base is way underreported and in most areas the channels don't receive the subscription fee as much as they should or even 30 % of it.

AWTA. India's population is something like 50 times Australia's IIRC, so the broadcasters should theoretically make money on equal investment even if they charge the Indian viewer 1/50th what they charge an Australian. The bolded part the crux of the matter, IMO. The broadcasters have no excuse.

 

[biased indian]

CEO says its because of the ridiculously low prices of tv coverage in India which is kind of true. Not sure its an excuse though..

Bloody hell I pay $20 a month for 2 cricket channels and in India people pay like $5 a month for satellite tv

i dont know exactly how much money Ten cricket paid cricket SA for the rights but any way that will not be even 10% of what Sony paid for IPL or Neo paid for india rights and ESPNStar paid of ICC rights...but every single channel shows the Ad's the same way ..


And i pay 3.5$ only for a month of Digital satelite TV that include arond 50 pay channels..but then you look at it that way almost every thing will be cheap in india compared to what you get in australia...

 

[Daemon]

i dont know exactly how much money Ten cricket paid cricket SA for the rights but any way that will not be even 10% of what Sony paid for IPL or Neo paid for india rights and ESPNStar paid of ICC rights...but every single channel shows the Ad's the same way ..


And i pay 3.5$ only for a month of Digital satelite TV that include arond 50 pay channels..but then you look at it that way almost every thing will be cheap in india compared to what you get in australia...

Yeah, I was just ranting. Let me rant somemore.

We have two cable service providers out here, Singtel and Starhub. I'm subscribed to Starhub now which costs about $45 a month for 20 channels. I don't get to watch half of all cricket because half of the rights are with Singtel (world cup and other ICC tournaments, ashes, non india games etc). For the WC I have to pay a whopping $80 to get the damn set up box from singtel just so that I can watch the world cup. Add ~$50 for activation charges and $10 a month for the channel... **** /rant

 

[Arjun]

Highlights of TEN Cricket's foul play-

1. BOOM! An explosion in the cricket field that leaves nobody on the field disturbed, but annoys viewers considerably.
2. Ads and ad motion graphics occupy more screen space than in the past, leading to business-channel screen distribution. It could get worse, if the business channel they reference happens to be Aronowitz from Broken News.
3. We've seen the graphics behind each wicket, but now we find them on the sides as well.
4. Four Ball Overs, a characteristic of wannabe, amateur telecasters trying to telecast an India game for the first time.
5. No-ball? Just as Taufel's arm sticks out, an ad appears.
6. "Don't interrupt me when I'm talking! I have something important to say!" "But we still have to let these people say something- they pay us!"
7. Doordarshan, lately reviled as a sportscaster, is now a preferred option for viewers.
8. The IPL looks a lot saner and less commercial.
9. Unlike Sahara, who said they'd look into the matter or shift the blame to Nimbus, TEN Cricket actually justified these atrocities. ESPN/STAR, Sony and Neo pay a lot more for more lucrative deals and don't have to inflict so much damage on viewers.

If you can't keep costs under control, don't bid for something this big! Stick to covering Indian football, or some random cycling event.

Neo Cricket is one channel that actually cuts through advertisements for cricket broadcasts. Maybe other channels can take a leaf out of this.

 

[Dissector]

Even from the narrowest commercial grounds these ads don't make any sense. Ultimately why do companies advertise on TV? It's to promote their brands in a positive way. But does plastering your ad in the most intrusive and annoying way hundreds of times during a cricket game really do that? Of course not; it only alienates viewers. So purely from the pov of advertisers the in-game ads should be reduced in frequency and intrusiveness. Tastefully displaying your logo every now and then will promote your brand with cricket fans a lot better than annoying them every ten seconds through the whole game.

It's gotten to the point where I watch a lot less cricket because these ads are so incredibly annoying. I am sure I am not the only one. Is that what Ten Sports and their sponsors want?

 

[Cruxdude]

Even from the narrowest commercial grounds these ads don't make any sense. Ultimately why do companies advertise on TV? It's to promote their brands in a positive way. But does plastering your ad in the most intrusive and annoying way hundreds of times during a cricket game really do that? Of course not; it only alienates viewers. So purely from the pov of advertisers the in-game ads should be reduced in frequency and intrusiveness. Tastefully displaying your logo every now and then will promote your brand with cricket fans a lot better than annoying them every ten seconds through the whole game.

It's gotten to the point where I watch a lot less cricket because these ads are so incredibly annoying. I am sure I am not the only one. Is that what Ten Sports and their sponsors want?

That has been confusing me for sometime now.

 

[Furball]

From the screen shot above, surely the best place to have your logo displayed would be on the bar at the bottom where the speeds are displayed? That way, your logo is on almost constant view, yet it doesn't intrude on the coverage in any way.

 

[Turbinator]

Even from the narrowest commercial grounds these ads don't make any sense. Ultimately why do companies advertise on TV? It's to promote their brands in a positive way. But does plastering your ad in the most intrusive and annoying way hundreds of times during a cricket game really do that? Of course not; it only alienates viewers. So purely from the pov of advertisers the in-game ads should be reduced in frequency and intrusiveness. Tastefully displaying your logo every now and then will promote your brand with cricket fans a lot better than annoying them every ten seconds through the whole game.

It's gotten to the point where I watch a lot less cricket because these ads are so incredibly annoying. I am sure I am not the only one. Is that what Ten Sports and their sponsors want?

Tbh, I did learn that if you want free condoms, carry around a Lava A10 phone. After all, it does separate the men from the boys.

 

[Cevno]

I don't have a problem with something like the above Screenshot specially if it comes as it does when the bowler is walking up to his mark or field is being changed etc..

Don't really have problem with some logo popping up in when a boundary is hit or a six or labelling a break in play as something ,as long as we get to see the full ********* six balls of each over plus the replays.

Nothing gets more irritating than a ad breaking out when a run out or stumping is referred to a third umpire the last ball or when there is a LBW shout and when the replay comes an AD break takes place.
Sometimes the last ball was missed altogether also ,and god save us when it was a no ball or a wide.

They did not have a team there in South Africa also and relied on the host commentary plus broadcast the whole series unlike ESPNSTAR who always had their own team on the ground of experts and commentators and used to have so many good shows.
They are simply the best Sport broadcasters(not just cricket) in this region in terms of quality. Miss the days when they used to have almost all the foreign tours.
They used to be so much better than the home series.

 

[kingpin]

Tbh, I did learn that if you want free condoms, carry around a Lava A10 phone. After all, it does separate the men from the boys.

 

[Jono]

I'm just happy this has at least gotten media coverage.