“Now the government wants to control your TV,” full-page newspaper advertisements have warned in recent days. But what’s really going on, and how does it affect TV viewers?
What are the ads referring to?
Essentially, the federal government is proposing legislation to ensure local, free-to-air TV services are easy for Australian audiences to find on smart TVs.
In official parlance, it’s called a prominence framework for connected TV devices. The Albanese government launched public consultation for the legislation in December.
What does it mean for the average TV viewer?
If you’re a smart TV user, it means you’ll likely be offered free-to-air apps such as 10play, 7plus, 9now, ABC iView and SBS on Demand, ahead of apps from streaming services such as Netflix and Stan. It might also affect searches for content.
Who wants this legislation?
Among others, the government, public service broadcasters and Free TV Australia, which welcomes the changes for the commercial broadcasters it represents.
And who opposes it?
Among others, Astra. Astra is the subscription media industry’s lobby group, advocating on behalf of the likes of Foxtel, Disney, Australian Christian Television and Viacom. The group is responsible for the full-page ads.
Foxtel Group’s chief executive officer, Patrick Delany, told the Australian the change was akin to the government having control over how apps are displayed on smartphones – something that he said would “shock” Australians.
… and the Australian public agrees. Or does it?
When given the choice, 94% of Australians said they don’t want the government controlling the order and layout of the apps on their TV. That research, it should be noted, was commissioned by Astra.
Why is it important?
By cutting through the barrage of local and international streaming services, the proposals are intended to address the more outdated ways of delivering on the 1992 Broadcast Services Act’s policy objectives, including the provision of Australian content. This ensures the dissemination of local news and emergency information as well as supporting the local creative and communications industries.
“Given the amount of policy effort and public dollars that go into subsidising Australian content, there is a policy interest here in ensuring that people are informed about local content,” says Dr Marion McCutcheon of the Queensland University of Technology’s Digital Media Research Centre.
Is it really necessary?
Public interest media has always needed policy support. Associate Prof Ramon Lobato from RMIT’s school of media and communication says that prominence is an existential challenge for Australian public service broadcasters, which do not have the resources to pay market rates for visibility in smart TV interfaces.
“The smart TV testing we’ve done at RMIT suggests that local broadcaster apps are substantially less visible, less frequently preinstalled, and less discoverable through search and recommendations than the major US services – Netflix, YouTube, Prime Video and Disney+,” he says.
Prominence reform is about ensuring that Australia’s existing local content policies are fit for purpose in the age of smart TVs and streaming apps, he says, adding that “a pure laissez-faire model which leaves prominence entirely to the market will not be a good outcome for users or industry in Australia.”
How will it change our daily viewing habits?
Research by McCutcheon and her QUT colleague Prof Amanda Lotz found that about half of audiences turn on their TVs not knowing what they are going to watch. For those people, prominence may mean watching more free-to-air TV.
Convenience is a big factor, says Elaine Jing Zhao, co-director of UNSW’s Media Futures Hub. She says people have developed the habit of having content recommended to them and that elderly users, in particular, will watch what is immediately available.
Who stands to win from the changes?
Australian content creation industries and Australian taxpayers, who will be given more access to the TV services they fund. But winning might be putting it too generously. This is about levelling the distribution playing field – as one academic put it, “it’s not anything particularly new or scary, it’s a technological update.”
And who loses?
No business likes regulatory costs – or to give a leg-up to their competitors.
TVs are no longer simply screens. Their preprogrammed interfaces have become extremely valuable real estate, with providers such as Binge and Disney paying top dollar for high visibility. TV manufacturers’ profits are nowadays generated via the services they offer – and any threat to the value of those services poses a problem.
Foxtel is about to launch its own smart TV called Hubbl and Amazon has attempted to charge local broadcasters for advertising revenue generated via its Fire TV device. It’s a complex and dynamic market, made more so by the whims of consumption behaviour.
“I don’t see it as a zero-sum game,” says Zhao. “[Prominence] doesn’t necessarily eat into other people’s market share; this is only one step along the chain of content discovery.”
Who will be captured by this change?
Older viewers who are less tech-savvy, possibly. They also happen to be the age group that is most likely to have disposable income, and are thus “quite attractive” to the advertising-driven free-to-air networks, suggests McCutcheon.
Will it work?
It’s too early to say, says Zhao. While smart TV users account for the majority of TV viewers, decisions around the legislation’s impact on interfaces and recommendation algorithms have a long way to go.
McCutcheon warns that “having easy access to Channel 10 or Channel Nine isn’t necessarily opening the door to a jewellery box of recent Australian drama.” Furthermore, nothing will stop people from simply shuffling their icons into their preferred order, she says.
Australia is one of several countries going down this legislative pathway. The UK will set an instructive precedent when bringing forward its own prominence legislation for smart TVs in coming months.
What next?
The government committed to passing the legislation before the end of the year, but many in the industry suspect the timeline will be pushed to 2024.
