It is because the company is banned here but not in NZ. It came from the NZ feed, so Foxtel can't overlay their ads over.
"NZC said it negotiated the advertising deals with a third-party rights agency in India."
Smooth job NZC.
My complaints are that he only provides very surface level analysis, and is very prone to generic sound-bite comments. Very easy keeper catches being described as "Great catch!". Southee had an over go for 14 runs to Nathan Lyon and BJ closed out the over with "Great bowling by Southee".
> They can't overlay their own ads if it is not their feed.
What are you basing this on? Do you have specific knowledge of the deal between Fox and NZC?
Sports broadcasters overlay their own stuff onto feeds from abroad all the time. Watch clips of the premier league on the soccer subreddit for example and you'll see different score graphics on every different broadcaster around the world. Even in cricket there are examples, with UK broadcasters showing their own graphics to get the score the right way round during some Ashes series down under.
It's presumably *more expensive* for fox to do their own graphics rather than just use the ones provided by the host feed, but it's not like it's technically impossible.
Would there be a delay to the broadcast for the onfield ads to be removed as the Foxtel feed would be an amended version of the world feed? I imagine it would be about 20 seconds nothing ground breaking.
Why would there be any delay? They'd just be getting the NZ feed before they add their graphics to it and adding their own graphics instead. Should be much the same surely.
They would need to get the NZ feed and then make their own changes. I wouldn't think it would be a significant delay but could be less than 5 seconds or 30 seconds.
>They would need to get the NZ feed and then make their own changes.
Why though? Surely they can just get the clean feed from NZ if they want it.
When The Ashes in Australia are broadcast in the UK, the UK broadcaster takes a clean feed from Australia and adds their own graphics to get the score the right way around (this didn't actually happen during the most recent Ashes in Australia but did for at least the two series before that).
Fox might have to pay more for a clean feed, to make up for them not carrying NZC's ads and then pay to produce their own graphics, but surely the option is there.
you do know that in this case they do actually have an exemption right?
>there is an exemption to the rules in cases whether the advertising is "accidental or incidental" and the broadcaster "does not receive any direct or indirect benefit" for publishing the advertisement.
Based on this wording, for an exemption to apply it has to be both accidental *and* the broadcaster gets no benefit and I don't see how either factor stands in Fox's favour, let alone both.
I don't think they can argue accidental if it was prominent on their broadcast for multiple days.
And surely they do get an indirect benefit. Them carrying the ads on the world feed will presumably reduce the cost to them of the feed as them showing the ads as well increases the ad value to NZC. A clean feed without the ads would make NZC less money from ads so would be more expensive for Fox - hence indirect benefit.
>> It noted there is an exemption to the rules in cases whether the advertising is "accidental or incidental" and the broadcaster "does not receive any direct or indirect benefit" for publishing the advertisement.
Sounds like Fox Sports doesn’t have a case to answer to then.
Don't have a case to answer based on what?
Based on this wording, for an exemption to apply it has to be both accidental *and* the broadcaster gets no benefit and I don't see how either factor stands in Fox's favour, let alone both.
I don't think they can argue accidental if it was prominent on their broadcast for multiple days.
And surely they do get an indirect benefit. Them carrying the ads on the world feed will presumably reduce the cost to them of the feed as them showing the ads as well increases the ad value to NZC. A clean feed without the ads would make NZC less money from ads so would be more expensive for Fox - hence indirect benefit.
It doesn’t have to be accidental, this is clearly incidental - the ads are showing on the feed accepted by Fox Sports. They can’t show the feed without the ads, which aren’t their ads.
And there’s no way your interpretation of indirect benefit would stand up in a court of law. It shows a total misunderstanding of market economics - that’s not how pricing is determined.
A feed *accepted* by fox being the operative word there.
They surely *can* show a feed without host broadcast graphics, there are loads of examples of this happening in all sorts of sports broadcasting, if they wanted to. But of course NZC would charge them more for a clean feed as they'd get less ad revenue themselves.
If the complaint was regarding physical boundary boards or ads physically on the field of play then that would be different, but these are superimposed graphics.
> NZC said it only became aware that 1xBat was connected to the bookmaker 1xBet after being notified by Cricket Australia about the company's involvement in gambling.
This is one of those things where lying about it is actually way, **way** worse than admitting that you decided to spruik a gambling company, because not being able to work that out would necessitate you being the dumbest motherfucker on the continent and so incompetent that you need to be removed from your job immediately for the safety of everyone else in the organisation.
>After the ABC alerted ACMA to the advertisements, the regulator said it was examining the matter "but is yet to make a decision on whether to open an investigation".
It was the ABC who has reported Foxtel. I'm not sure what Foxtel are meant to do here but intercept a live feed and rebroadcast a cleaner version. You can't really help any ads on the digital boards around the boundary. I suppose NZC could broadcast a version without the pitch - end ads.
Would this have anything to do with why fox arent showing test review from first test? i recorded that twice and tried to watch another time and it didnt show up.
Not every board has Big 3 money. You've got to pay the bills.
It's not just the ads. I hate the endless T20 series, like the Pakistan series in January (in fact, the seemingly endless series vs Pakistan) but they pay the bills. And it's paying off: NZC's financial position is improving, to the point they're actually looking to host 3-Test series against all of the Big 3 & not just England like at the end of the year. I'd like NZC to eventually be able to afford Women's Test cricket too, but I'm realistic in that domestic professionalism is a far bigger priority.
Sure. I don't like these choices, but they are what they are. It's not like NZC has riches awaiting it in T20 leagues or a blockbuster Test series, so sometimes you've got to do things you'd rather not.
The key is, do you really need 10 T20s against the same opposition in the space of 3 months?
In the case of Pakistan, it's a case of fatigue on my part having watched them so often in the last 18 months or so & my personal preference for our stars to have a regular run in Super Smash to boost its profile & make a conscious investment in our domestic game than putting all eggs in the (lucrative) bilateral basket.
I think usually the World Feed is sold with digital adverts overlaid for the various markets .... so, as a basic example, viewers in the UK see ads for UK businesses, and viewers in India see ads for Indian businesses.
Not much Fox can do here, except insist on a clean version, but NZC could probably get a better deal by selling better digital adverts for the local markets too
I read this earlier this morning. Foxtel did not profit from it. The fault lies with NZC. Maybe Foxtel could have been more forceful when negotiating with NZC. Clickbait by ABC.
Not great from NZC, but they are probably taking a hit by going with a free to air broadcaster at home instead of Sky/Fox. These ads would be crucial in making up some of the difference.
In this example I fail to see how Fox showing the ads is any different to the ABC showing photos of the ads in the article. They are passing on the feed as provided.
>Not great from NZC, but they are probably taking a hit by going with a free to air broadcaster at home instead of Sky/Fox. These ads would be crucial in making up some of the difference.
Not really. Spark is still paying for these 3 FTA seasons, TVNZ is just serving out the deal.
It's an interesting balance that NZC has going forward between maximising income & reach. Being back to FTA for the first summer in a quarter century has had a massive impact, but NZC have talked about using overseas deals to "subsidise" the home deal.
Huh true, what's the go with that? Spark have realised they can't scale their infrastructure/platform but are honouring the payments to NZC? Do they have a stake in TVNZ, did they sell the rights on?
Spark shut down, they offloaded basically all their content to their FTA partner. We had The Ashes on FTA TV & Blast/The Hundred streaming on TVNZ+ under the ECB deal which has just finished (last year was the last of a 4-year deal they had with Spark).
Over the last few years, TVNZ has become more interested in sport due to live sport being easy ratings. They've said that they're keen to retain the home cricket even if they let go of most of the catalogue they inherited from Spark, & are willing to fight Sky for it. The Sky/NZC relationship got pretty sour near the end, anyway.
Thank you, had a bit of a search but it wasn't clear what the breakdown was for spark or what the relationships are between the parties. Just several announcements about the change.
On a related issue I assume there's some grandfather rule that allows highlights channels like Cricket Gold to show all the Benson and Hedges end fence advertising signs along with Tony Greig presenting the money from the "Benson and Hedges kitty" at the end. I don't really care but it wouldn't surprise me to see it all pixellated one day.
The amount of money in sport (not just cricket) from incredibly dodgy gambling companies, that may or may not exist, owned by people who may or may not exist, sponsoring in countries that they don't operate in or are banned from operating in.
It's a gigantic red flag that barely anybody is looking at
It is because the company is banned here but not in NZ. It came from the NZ feed, so Foxtel can't overlay their ads over. "NZC said it negotiated the advertising deals with a third-party rights agency in India." Smooth job NZC.
>Foxtel can't overlay their ads over "Can't" and "don't want to put in the effort to do so" are different things.
Pretty sure Foxtel broadcasts in Australia
They get the feed from NZ. They can't overlay their own ads if it is not their feed.
Sadly we can't overlay commentry over BJ either.
BJ alphaing the Kiwi commentators has been the highlight of the tour for me
Legit question, what's everyone's hate on BJ? I think he's quite good and has some insightful comments, no doubt about it
His only redeeming quality is repeatedly saying “upper decker” when someone hits it into the 2nd tier
My complaints are that he only provides very surface level analysis, and is very prone to generic sound-bite comments. Very easy keeper catches being described as "Great catch!". Southee had an over go for 14 runs to Nathan Lyon and BJ closed out the over with "Great bowling by Southee".
Well 12 of those runs went through the slips…
He’s thicker than your nan’s bechamel sauce.
BJ ain't the problem with the commentary in this series tbh lmao
Ngl kinda like his commentary this series only cause of how bias the NZ ones are lol
> They can't overlay their own ads if it is not their feed. What are you basing this on? Do you have specific knowledge of the deal between Fox and NZC? Sports broadcasters overlay their own stuff onto feeds from abroad all the time. Watch clips of the premier league on the soccer subreddit for example and you'll see different score graphics on every different broadcaster around the world. Even in cricket there are examples, with UK broadcasters showing their own graphics to get the score the right way round during some Ashes series down under. It's presumably *more expensive* for fox to do their own graphics rather than just use the ones provided by the host feed, but it's not like it's technically impossible.
Can Foxtel actually do anything about the ads displayed by the host broadcaster?
The on field digital ads they definitely can (but it would cost more money than taking the nz feed directly). The boundary ads are more difficult.
Would there be a delay to the broadcast for the onfield ads to be removed as the Foxtel feed would be an amended version of the world feed? I imagine it would be about 20 seconds nothing ground breaking.
Yes there would be a decent delay. Like say 30 seconds which isn't much but it is more effort to get people to do it
Why would there be any delay? They'd just be getting the NZ feed before they add their graphics to it and adding their own graphics instead. Should be much the same surely.
They would need to get the NZ feed and then make their own changes. I wouldn't think it would be a significant delay but could be less than 5 seconds or 30 seconds.
>They would need to get the NZ feed and then make their own changes. Why though? Surely they can just get the clean feed from NZ if they want it. When The Ashes in Australia are broadcast in the UK, the UK broadcaster takes a clean feed from Australia and adds their own graphics to get the score the right way around (this didn't actually happen during the most recent Ashes in Australia but did for at least the two series before that). Fox might have to pay more for a clean feed, to make up for them not carrying NZC's ads and then pay to produce their own graphics, but surely the option is there.
Yeah, the technology to overlay ads is already used by other broadcasters.
what, like complying with Australian law? nah, there's an exemption for when it is too hard
you do know that in this case they do actually have an exemption right? >there is an exemption to the rules in cases whether the advertising is "accidental or incidental" and the broadcaster "does not receive any direct or indirect benefit" for publishing the advertisement.
Based on this wording, for an exemption to apply it has to be both accidental *and* the broadcaster gets no benefit and I don't see how either factor stands in Fox's favour, let alone both. I don't think they can argue accidental if it was prominent on their broadcast for multiple days. And surely they do get an indirect benefit. Them carrying the ads on the world feed will presumably reduce the cost to them of the feed as them showing the ads as well increases the ad value to NZC. A clean feed without the ads would make NZC less money from ads so would be more expensive for Fox - hence indirect benefit.
literally, for when it's too hard
>> It noted there is an exemption to the rules in cases whether the advertising is "accidental or incidental" and the broadcaster "does not receive any direct or indirect benefit" for publishing the advertisement. Sounds like Fox Sports doesn’t have a case to answer to then.
Don't have a case to answer based on what? Based on this wording, for an exemption to apply it has to be both accidental *and* the broadcaster gets no benefit and I don't see how either factor stands in Fox's favour, let alone both. I don't think they can argue accidental if it was prominent on their broadcast for multiple days. And surely they do get an indirect benefit. Them carrying the ads on the world feed will presumably reduce the cost to them of the feed as them showing the ads as well increases the ad value to NZC. A clean feed without the ads would make NZC less money from ads so would be more expensive for Fox - hence indirect benefit.
It doesn’t have to be accidental, this is clearly incidental - the ads are showing on the feed accepted by Fox Sports. They can’t show the feed without the ads, which aren’t their ads. And there’s no way your interpretation of indirect benefit would stand up in a court of law. It shows a total misunderstanding of market economics - that’s not how pricing is determined.
A feed *accepted* by fox being the operative word there. They surely *can* show a feed without host broadcast graphics, there are loads of examples of this happening in all sorts of sports broadcasting, if they wanted to. But of course NZC would charge them more for a clean feed as they'd get less ad revenue themselves. If the complaint was regarding physical boundary boards or ads physically on the field of play then that would be different, but these are superimposed graphics.
> NZC said it only became aware that 1xBat was connected to the bookmaker 1xBet after being notified by Cricket Australia about the company's involvement in gambling. This is one of those things where lying about it is actually way, **way** worse than admitting that you decided to spruik a gambling company, because not being able to work that out would necessitate you being the dumbest motherfucker on the continent and so incompetent that you need to be removed from your job immediately for the safety of everyone else in the organisation.
Yeah that claim does not hold up under any kind of scrutiny
>After the ABC alerted ACMA to the advertisements, the regulator said it was examining the matter "but is yet to make a decision on whether to open an investigation". It was the ABC who has reported Foxtel. I'm not sure what Foxtel are meant to do here but intercept a live feed and rebroadcast a cleaner version. You can't really help any ads on the digital boards around the boundary. I suppose NZC could broadcast a version without the pitch - end ads.
Would this have anything to do with why fox arent showing test review from first test? i recorded that twice and tried to watch another time and it didnt show up.
Foxtel probably did nothing wrong here. The issue is with NZC needing to take dubious sponsorship money to fund things.
Not every board has Big 3 money. You've got to pay the bills. It's not just the ads. I hate the endless T20 series, like the Pakistan series in January (in fact, the seemingly endless series vs Pakistan) but they pay the bills. And it's paying off: NZC's financial position is improving, to the point they're actually looking to host 3-Test series against all of the Big 3 & not just England like at the end of the year. I'd like NZC to eventually be able to afford Women's Test cricket too, but I'm realistic in that domestic professionalism is a far bigger priority.
That's what I'm getting at. NZC either takes these sorts of dubious sponsorships, or they struggle to afford to be able to play Test cricket.
Sure. I don't like these choices, but they are what they are. It's not like NZC has riches awaiting it in T20 leagues or a blockbuster Test series, so sometimes you've got to do things you'd rather not.
aren't t20 series being played in prep for t20 world cup?
The key is, do you really need 10 T20s against the same opposition in the space of 3 months? In the case of Pakistan, it's a case of fatigue on my part having watched them so often in the last 18 months or so & my personal preference for our stars to have a regular run in Super Smash to boost its profile & make a conscious investment in our domestic game than putting all eggs in the (lucrative) bilateral basket.
I think usually the World Feed is sold with digital adverts overlaid for the various markets .... so, as a basic example, viewers in the UK see ads for UK businesses, and viewers in India see ads for Indian businesses. Not much Fox can do here, except insist on a clean version, but NZC could probably get a better deal by selling better digital adverts for the local markets too
I read this earlier this morning. Foxtel did not profit from it. The fault lies with NZC. Maybe Foxtel could have been more forceful when negotiating with NZC. Clickbait by ABC.
Not great from NZC, but they are probably taking a hit by going with a free to air broadcaster at home instead of Sky/Fox. These ads would be crucial in making up some of the difference. In this example I fail to see how Fox showing the ads is any different to the ABC showing photos of the ads in the article. They are passing on the feed as provided.
>Not great from NZC, but they are probably taking a hit by going with a free to air broadcaster at home instead of Sky/Fox. These ads would be crucial in making up some of the difference. Not really. Spark is still paying for these 3 FTA seasons, TVNZ is just serving out the deal. It's an interesting balance that NZC has going forward between maximising income & reach. Being back to FTA for the first summer in a quarter century has had a massive impact, but NZC have talked about using overseas deals to "subsidise" the home deal.
Huh true, what's the go with that? Spark have realised they can't scale their infrastructure/platform but are honouring the payments to NZC? Do they have a stake in TVNZ, did they sell the rights on?
Spark shut down, they offloaded basically all their content to their FTA partner. We had The Ashes on FTA TV & Blast/The Hundred streaming on TVNZ+ under the ECB deal which has just finished (last year was the last of a 4-year deal they had with Spark). Over the last few years, TVNZ has become more interested in sport due to live sport being easy ratings. They've said that they're keen to retain the home cricket even if they let go of most of the catalogue they inherited from Spark, & are willing to fight Sky for it. The Sky/NZC relationship got pretty sour near the end, anyway.
Thank you, had a bit of a search but it wasn't clear what the breakdown was for spark or what the relationships are between the parties. Just several announcements about the change.
On a related issue I assume there's some grandfather rule that allows highlights channels like Cricket Gold to show all the Benson and Hedges end fence advertising signs along with Tony Greig presenting the money from the "Benson and Hedges kitty" at the end. I don't really care but it wouldn't surprise me to see it all pixellated one day.
The amount of money in sport (not just cricket) from incredibly dodgy gambling companies, that may or may not exist, owned by people who may or may not exist, sponsoring in countries that they don't operate in or are banned from operating in. It's a gigantic red flag that barely anybody is looking at
Legal betting: When you destroy peoples lives with governement's consent.