English Entertainment
‘For strong ROI in India’s TV biz, price controls must go’ : Fox International Channels president & CEO Hernan Lopez
|
Price controls are limiting the revenue growth for broadcasters in India as they earn net income of $700 million from subscription after paying out carriage fees of $400 million. Investments in programming are muted and, as a result, India is not able to export television formats and finished content while software, music and animation is travelling overseas.
In an interview with Indiantelevision.com‘s Ashwin Pinto, Fox International channels president, CEO Hernan Lopex says price controls have to go if the industry is to see strong ROI. He also talks about the company‘s growth plans worldwide. 
Excerpts: |
|
|
Q. Do you see India‘s television broadcasting industry growing at the right pace? |
|
|
Q. What you are suggesting is that pay-revenues should scale up. What is the ideal revenue mix between subscription and advertising revenues?
Relative to the size of the Indian economy as measured by GDP, this is only 0.04 per cent, and this ratio keeps declining. By contrast, in Colombia, a country with 1/25th of the population, broadcasters get over $200 million in subscriber fees. That is equivalent to 0.07 per cent of the GDP in Colombia, and that ratio keeps rising – partially due to the efforts that Colombia is doing to fight content theft and subscriber under-declaration. |
|
|
Q. So India should learn from Colombia and allow its content industry to flourish?
In Colombia a TV episode costs $150,000 compared to India where an episode costs around $20,000. The turnaround there was the emphasis on creating a dual revenue stream. New channels were launched for underserved audiences. Consumers also wanted content in Spanish and Portugese.
That is because Colombia has a strong system of TV production, has great writers, animators, actors and the country also fights strongly against piracy. In India under declaration, along with controls, means that the broadcasters are getting squeezed.
|
|
|
Q. But ARPUs (average revenue per subscriber) are low in India. How do you make consumers pay more for quality content? |
|
|
|
|
Q. So you are not happy with FIC‘s growth in India? |
|
|
Q. As a market how is India different from the rest of Asia in terms of challenges and opportunities? |
|
|
Q. With digitisation set to take off in India, do you see the carriage fee structure being rationalised based on the experience in other markets or will disputes happen with big operators like what happened in the US with Comcast?
There will be teething issues like in any new technology, but market forces will aid the stakeholders in arriving at an understanding. |
|
|
Q. News Corp restructured the Fox Networks Group last year. What was the aim and how did this impact Fox International Channels? |
|
|
Q. Aren‘t you looking at doubling operating profit and reaching $1 billion by 2015?
This is what we call “brands with fans” – and get a fair share of wallet for it. In order to do that, we are investing more in content (both global and local), marketing and our teams. |
|
|
Q. How much revenue does Fox International Channels contribute to News Corp’s TV business and what growth has been experienced year on year? |
|
|
Q. How do you split up the global market into regions and which are your three biggest markets globally? |
|
|
Q. Globally what is the split between subscription and ad sales and which area do you see growing faster? |
|
|
Q. Pay TV you have said is turning from a “nice to have” to “must have” service. How is this changing the dynamics of your business? |
|
|
Q. What challenges is the current economic slowdown posing? |
|
|
Q. Has Fox International Channels done recent research to find out what consumers globally want and how they view your brands? |
|
|
Q. Digitisation globally is allowing FIC to have more specialised offerings in genres like Crime. How has their offtake been? |
|
|
Q. Are there any genres that are currently underserved globally? If so, how do you plan to service them? |
|
|
Q. What role does sports play in your portfolio as it is a challenge to control costs given the intense competition for rights?
We simply must be disciplined in our approach, but we have the benefit of a wide portfolio of channels – includingentertainment channels – that can both contribute to and benefit from having sports in the portfolio. |
|
|
Q. Globally, how has FIC expanded?
We have added Fox Sports to our portfolio in Latin America, and continue to increase ratings at the National Geographic Channels. And yet there is still so much more to be done. |
|
|
Q. How difficult is China due to government regulation? |
|
|
Q. New media is growing globally. Are you launching channels for the mobile and Internet? |
|
|
Q. How is Fox International Channels leveraging high definition? |
UK: The aerial is losing its grip. As broadband becomes the default way Britons watch television, the UK is edging towards a decisive, and divisive, question: should Freeview be switched off by 2034? The issue, highlighted in reporting by The Guardian, has exposed deep fault lines over access, affordability and the future of public service broadcasting.
For nearly 25 years, Freeview has delivered free-to-air television from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to almost every corner of the country. Even now, it remains the UK’s largest TV platform, used in more than 16m homes and on around 10m main household sets. Yet the same broadcasters that built it are now pressing for its closure within eight years.
Their case rests on a structural shift in viewing. Smart TVs, superfast broadband and the Netflix-led streaming boom have pulled audiences online. Advertising economics have followed. By 2034, the number of homes using Freeview as their main TV set is forecast to fall from a peak of almost 12m in 2012 to fewer than 2m, making digital terrestrial television, or DTT, increasingly costly to sustain.
But critics say the rush to switch off risks abandoning those least able, or least willing, to move online.
“I don’t want to be choosing apps and making new accounts,” says Lynette, 80, from Kent. “It is time-consuming and irritating trying to work out where I want to be, to remember the sequence of clicks, with hieroglyphics instead of words. If I make a mistake I have to start again.”
Lynette is among nearly 100,000 people who have signed a “save Freeview” petition launched by campaign group Silver Voices. She fears the government is about to “take [Freeview] away from me and others who either don’t like, can’t afford, or can’t use online versions”.
Official figures underline the fault lines. A report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimates that by 2035, 1.8m homes will still depend on Freeview. Ofcom’s analysis shows those households are more likely to be disabled, older, living alone, female, and based in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Freeview is owned by the public service broadcasters through Everyone TV, which also operates Freesat and the newer streaming platform Freely. After two years of review, DCMS is expected to set out its position soon, drawing on three options proposed by Ofcom: a costly upgrade of Freeview’s ageing technology; maintaining a bare-bones service with only core PSB channels; or a full switch-off during the 2030s.
The broadcasters have rallied behind the third option. They argue that 2034 is the logical cut-off, when transmission contracts with network operator Arqiva expire. By then, they say, the cost of broadcasting to a dwindling audience will far outweigh the returns from TV advertising.
Ofcom agrees a crunch point is approaching. In July, the regulator warned of a “tipping point” within the next few years, after which it will no longer be commercially viable for broadcasters to carry the costs of DTT.
Others see risks beyond economics. Questions remain over whether internet TV can reliably deliver emergency broadcasts, such as the daily Covid updates, in the way that universally available DTT can. The UK radio industry has also warned that an internet-only future for TV could push up distribution costs and force some radio stations off air if PSBs no longer share Arqiva’s mast network.
“It is a political hot potato,” says Dennis Reed, founder of Silver Voices, who says he has “dissociated” his organisation from the government’s stakeholder forum, which he believes is “heavily biased” towards streaming.
The Future TV Taskforce, representing the PSBs, counters that moving online could “close the digital divide once and for all”. “We want to be able to plan to ensure that no one is left behind,” a spokesperson says, adding that rising DTT costs could otherwise mean cuts to programme budgets.
The numbers show the scale of the challenge. Of the 1.8m Freeview-dependent homes projected for 2035, around 1.1m are expected to have broadband but not use it for TV. The remaining 700,000 are forecast to lack a broadband connection altogether.
Veterans of the analogue switch-off, completed in 2012 after 76 years, recall similar fears of “TV blackout chaos”. Around 6 per cent of households were labelled “digital refuseniks”, yet a targeted help scheme and a national campaign, fronted by a robot called Digit Al voiced by Matt Lucas, delivered a largely smooth transition.
This time, the BBC is less keen to foot the bill. Tim Davie, the outgoing director general, has said the corporation should not fund a comparable support programme for a Freeview switch-off.
Research for Sky by Oliver & Ohlbaum suggests that with early awareness campaigns and digital inclusion measures, only about 330,000 households would ultimately need hands-on help ahead of a 2034 shutdown.
Meanwhile, viewing habits continue to fragment. Audience body Barb says 7 per cent of UK households no longer own a TV set, choosing to watch on other devices. In December, YouTube overtook the BBC’s combined channels in total UK viewing across TVs, smartphones and tablets, albeit measured at a minimum of three minutes.
That shift may accelerate. YouTube has recently blocked Barb and its partner Kantar from accessing viewing session data, limiting transparency just as online platforms consolidate power.
“When the government chose British Satellite Broadcasting as the ‘winner’ in satellite TV it was Rupert Murdoch’s Sky instead that came out on top,” says a senior TV executive quoted by The Guardian. “There already is such an outsider ready to be the winner in the transition to internet TV; it is YouTube.”
Freeview’s future now hangs on a familiar British dilemma: modernise fast and risk exclusion, or protect universality and pay the price. Either way, the aerial’s days as king of the living room look numbered.
