From a finance point of view, if
they had sold the rights separately
– letʹs say internet rights for one
broadcaster, pay‐TV rights for
another broadcaster, terrestrial
rights for another broadcaster –
they could have made more money
than we paid. But none of our
competitors had the ability to offer
them full media coverage like we
do. So when I sent them our offer
for the media rights I included the
exposure we could offer with the
financial offer, and they were
impressed.
Pay versus free – what's the trend?
Unlike in many other countries,
such as the US, in Brazil there is a
big gap between free TV and pay‐
TV. Today we have around 17m
subscribers to pay‐TV services out
of 60m households in the country.
Itʹs estimated that in 2020 pay‐TV
will reach about 50‐60% of all
households. So if we actually reach
that level I would say that you
could sometimes get more audience
on a pay‐TV than on a ‐ smaller and
not that relevant ‐ free TV.
Of the 60m households today,
97% have access to free TV. In terms
of sports being on FTA or pay‐TV,
this is a decision that is made
through competing for rights. Some
of the pay‐TVs here in Brazil will
invest a lot of money and talent and
exposure time on certain events,
while the free TVs would not spend
that much either in cash or airtime.
I understand that being on pay‐TV
may reduce audience reach but I
also agree that this qualifies the
audience – in the sense that if
viewers subscribe to that channel it
means they are interested in this
channel and this specific sport. I
can see the point of having some of
these sports exclusively on pay‐TV.
This is what we are actually
doing with Roland Garros. Most of
the content will be aired on pay‐TV.
We will use terrestrial TV and all
the other media platforms to
promote the pay‐TV broadcast.
Airtime on a FTA in Brazil costs a
lot of money so some of the free
TVs donʹt want to take the gamble
of removing a specific show which
earns them good money from their
schedules and replace it with
something thatʹs not proven to be
commercially relevant. They donʹt
know how the audience will react ‐
the fight for audience determines
the interest for some of the sports
events.
What's the approach for Rio?
Honestly, after what did in the 2012
London Olympics we are having a
hard time trying to figure out what
we are going to do differently in
Brazil. In 2012, we won an award
THE CHANNEL
|
IN CONVERSATION
present with your channel at the
place where the event is taking
place you actually show your
audience that you believe in that
product. For the big events, when
we have budget availability to send
a bigger team we usually do. With
regard to some of the smaller
events we mostly send ENG crews
to cover. We believe in making
contact with the audience.
Do the results justify the cost?
Compared to what we had to pay
for the rights, bringing people to
Paris is not the most expensive part
of the deal! We invested a
considerable amount of money for
this production because we
believed we were doing the right
thing. Of course, there is still room
for improvement and an even
better production in 2014. This was
our first time at Roland Garros – we
covered it in what we consider an
honest way, spending the amount
of money that we could spend at
this time. Our audience results
demonstrate that we were right to
invest in the event and to bring our
team to Paris. Our website was
accessed by more than 1.5m unique
visitors during the event.
The better you produce an event,
the more interested people will be
in the event. The better you
promote an event, the more people
will come to the event. Since we are
part of a multimedia group and
have visibility on a number of
platforms, reaching different
people every single day, we can use
the power of the whole group to
add value to the product.
Why did Roland Garros choose you?
Roland Garros were looking for a
stronger partner in the Brazilian
market. You are going to say: who
could be stronger than ESPN, a
brand that is recognised
worldwide? The answer to that is
that when you have a powerful
terrestrial TV in the region you can
be better than ESPN since ESPN is
only pay‐TV. I had been told the
FFT was looking for one partner in
Brazil that could give improved
coverage and higher visibility.
”
Being
on pay-TV
may
reduce
audience
reach but
also
qualifies
the
audience
“
18
|
ISSUE 2 2013
|
THE CHANNEL
