Content survival in the age of discontent for TV channels

This year marks a very historic moment in the Thai media scene, as the terrestrial-based television system makes a laborious and painful transition from the analog to digital platform. It took France almost seven years to complete the digital switchover – or analog switch-off. Thailand is expected to take the same length of time. However, to say that the initial phase of this transition has had a few hiccups is a grotesque understatement.

Problems range from the ever-delaying distribution of the subsidised coupons to buy digital receivers to the much-publicised bickering between the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission and Channel 3.

Some of you may know that analog Channel 3, which operates under a different company name from its three affiliated digital channels, may soon be excluded from satellite and cable platforms. The NTBC has stipulated that any existing terrestrial channel with the same name on the digital platform must undergo simulcasting, or broadcasting of the same content, which apparently is not the case with Channel 3 and any of its digital relatives.

This was a case of one entity not exercising careful due diligence and the other being too smart for its own good, allegedly having exploited some loopholes in the rules of the game. This inevitably led to a mass inquiry by other operators over the legitimacy of Channel 3’s current conduct.

I will not touch upon the technicalities that brought about this dilemma. Nor am I here to point a finger at who was right or wrong. I’m merely implying that no entity will come out of this debacle a winner. There will only be losers. 

There are five major components that make up the media landscape – the regulator, TV stations, content providers/producers, agencies/advertisers, and viewers. Any significant disruption of any one of these components will bring about a major degradation of the media ecosystem. 

Channel 3 is one of only two channels that can lay solid claim to controlling more than 70 per cent of the country’s eyeballs, with 23 million households glued to its frequency. This will be reduced to only those 7 million households with analog antennas because a blackout of the other 16 million that subscribe to either satellite or cable television will soon ensue. 

We will be witnessing a domino effect on the whole industry. Negative ramifications will include lost ad revenues, lower agency fees and lost jobs for content providers to name a few, as a direct result of lost viewership. 

It will be very difficult to predict how TV ratings will turn out because no one knows where Channel 3 fans will migrate to.

If I were a betting man, one bold prediction I would make is that a compromise will eventually be achieved. There’s just too much at stake for the darling of Thai television to disappear completely from the airwaves.

But this is another case of Thailand getting things wrong, simply because we are not good at setting standards and regulating them. Eventually when we have an attempt at it, there is always someone smart enough to skirt the rules and people always end up paying for the consequences.

To forge ahead in this industry, we will need to innovate our people first, not technology. Make ethical innovations a priority and have the players of the game abide by them by imposing severe penalties should the rules be broken. 

We will continue to observe closely as the final chapter of this saga unfolds and hope that this mistake will never be repeated again.

 

Pradon Sirakovit is head of strategy and innovation at IPG Mediabrands Thailand.