Berani Berbeda

Alasan hidup sebuah media adalah jika ada konsumen yang bukan sekedar mengkonsumsi isi/content dari sang media tapi juga menikmatinya. Jika sebuah media, apapun bentuknya, tak memiliki konsumen maka tak ada alasan apapun untuk mempertahankan kehidupannya. Si media tak akan menghambur-hamburkan sumberdaya secara percuma.

Cara termudah untuk menarik konsumen adalah dengan membuat dan atau menyajikan content yang bagus, menarik serta relevan dengan konsumen. Pemilik Trans TV Pak Chairul Tanjung satu kali pernah menyatakan bahwa program TV yang bagus adalah yang ditonton orang dengan kata lain adalah program yang rating-nya tinggi, kalau kita memakai ukuran rating sebagai standar mengukur jumlah penonton. Kita bisa berdebat panjang soal rating, tapi ada elemen kebenaran yang saya sepakat dengan beliau, yakni kata penonton.

Buat saya kata “penonton” itu adalah sebuah kata sakti yang harus diperjuangkan sedemikian rupa agar mereka “mendekat” ke media kita. Saya percaya tanpa penonton, maka kita bukan apa-apa. Nah pertanyaan berikutnya penonton itu maunya apa? Kalau lebih kongkret lagi mau program macam apa?

Saya yakin sebagian besar kita sebenarnya berada dalam situasi antara tahu dan tidak tahu dalam menebak kemauan penonton. Kemarin senang tahyul sekarang kriminal dan mungkin besok percintaan remaja. Lantas apakah kita mau ikut arus besar jenis program yang populer? Jawabannya sih terserah anda. Tapi kalau pilihannya adalah ikut arus maka besar peluang kita akan kalah dan kalau pun berhasil tak akan lebih dari pencapaian yang luar biasa.

Bagaimana kalau kita mau keluar dari jeratan arus besar genre program yang sedang populer? Jawabannya mudah tapi pelaksanaannya susah, “be creative”. Ini jawaban klise yang sayangnya terbukti benar.

Kalau saya pribadi punya prinsip better is not enough, you have to be different. Kata different itu kalau diejawantahkan adalah menjadi kreatif. Ada dua tantangan besar kalau kita bicara soal “kreatif”, Pertama adalah bagaimana menjadi kreatif dan kedua berapa sebenarnya biaya untuk membuat sesuatu yang kreatif.

Menjadi kreatif bukan sekedar karena terpaksa lantas kita bisa membuat sesuatu yang berbeda dengan sumberdaya yang terbatas, tapi lebih bagaimana membangun sikap mental kreatif. Keberanian untuk berbeda adalah salah satu prasyarat bersikap kreatif. Ketika kita terjebak pada sikap mental me too atau ikut-ikutan maka jangan harap akan tumbuh sikap mental yang kreatif.

Di sini kita akan mulai dihadapkan pada tantangan apakah sang konsumen/penonton mau berpaling kepada kita saat kita menjadi berbeda dengan yang lain.Contoh-contoh sukses teman-teman JTV dan Bali TV bisa kita jadikan pelajaran bagaimana berbeda akhirnya menuai sukses.

Selain soal “berbeda” maka kualitas juga jadi prasyarat. Kualitas bisa dari sisi teknis produksi dan pasca produksi atau juga saat presentasi di layar. Dengan kualitas yang baik maka setengah persoalan sudah terjawab karena konsumen akan sepenuhnya menilai program kita semata-mata karena mereka suka atau tidak suka dari sisi content.

Lantas berapa biaya untuk “berbeda” tadi. Rentang jawabannya bisa sangat ekstrem, dari ratusan ribu rupiah sampai miliaran rupiah. Saya mau berbagi dengan program talkshow “Berbincang Jalan”, praktis biayanya hanya sejuta rupiah, yakni honor membayar narasumber. Program ini tahun lalu masuk nominasi The Best Talkshow pada Asian Television Award tahun lalu.

Namun ada juga program kami yang biayanya per episode sama dengan membuat sinetron setengah jam. Program ini berjudul Komando 6 yang berjenis reality show sekaligus dokumenter. Kami memilih 30 orang biasa yang kemudian dididik di Pusat Pendidikan Kopassus di Batujajar sampai ke Nusakambangan. Kami akan menayangkan program ini Oktober nanti.

Dua contoh ekstrem di atas sebenarnya hanya untuk memperlihatkan bahwa membuat program kreatif tak tergantung biaya, mahal monggo murah pun silakan. Semuanya kembali kepada sikap mental kita yang tak ingin sekedar menjadi pengekor tapi lebih memilih untuk menjadi pelopor.

Mereka Telah Menghina Kita

Sekarang ini sulit bagi mata kita untuk tak bersua dengan bendera partai. Di mana pun kita berada beragam warna bendera partai mengepung kita. Lambaiannya seolah membujuk kita untuk memilih partai pemilik bendera nanti saat hari pencoblosan tiba.

Tapi betulkah kita akan terbujuk. Benarkah cara berkampanye saat ini dengan hanya memasang bendera? Benarkah bahwa dengan hanya memasang bendera lantas partai-partai itu merasa sudah berkampanye?

Saya suka bertanya-tanya dalam hati apa yang ada di otak para petinggi partai ketika memutuskan untuk berkampanye dengan hanya memasang bendera? Apakah mereka berfikiran dengan memasang bendera lantas dari para pemilih akan muncul kesadaran politik dan kemudian memilih partai yang berkampanye dengan bendera partai?

Selain bendera sekarang juga banyak foto para caleg bertebaran. Jalanan yang sudah riuh rendah dengan bendera kini makin riuh dengan tebaran foto caleg dalam ukuran raksasa, Dan hampir semuanya tersenyum! Seolah ingin memberi kesan mereka adalah orang yang ramah dan berbudi baik.

Tentu saja sebagian besar kita bukan orang yang bisa menebak budi pekerti dan keramah-tamahan orang hanya dengan melihat foto. Siapa tahu di balik segala senyum ramah di foto itu sebenarnya tersenyembunyi sosok yang korup, yang suka mencuri hak orang lain dan tak peduli akan konstituen yang diwakilinya?

Bagaimana kita bisa yakin bahwa dari melihat foto plus pajangan gelar mereka itu adalah sosok yang tepat untuk mewakili kita, para pemilih?

Kalau kita lihat wajah-wajah para anggota DPR yang terhormat sekarang ini, tak satu pun yang berwajah penjahat, tak satu pun berwajah preman yang sekarang ini sedang banyak ditangkapi Polisi. Begitu juga wajah para anggota DPR yang sekarang yang ditangkap KPK karena tersangkut perkara korupsi, tak satu pun memenuhi kriteria “wajah penjahat.”

Lantas bagaimana kita bisa memastikan bahwa para caleg yang fotonya penuh senyum dan berwajah ramah nantinya tidak akan berurusan dengan KPK atau Gedung Bundar Kejaksaan Agung?. Atau tak akan pernah disidang oleh Badan Kehormatan DPR karena melanggar aturan DPR karena bertindak asusila?

Pertanyaan di atas tak akan ada jawaban yang pasti jika mereka hanya berkampanye dengan menjual foto diri. Foto ukuran raksasa itu hanya sekedar memberi tahu bahwa Si Polan sekarang jadi caleg, tak lebih dari itu.

Kita tak akan pernah tahu komitmen politik si caleg, bagaimana rencana dia jika terpilih nanti akan mewakili daerah pemilihannya, bagaimana dia bersikap terhadap suap dan segala uang tak halal yang berseliweran di DPR.

Lantas bagaimana sikap kita menghadapi model kampanye yang masih “udik“ dan tak berpendidikan seperti itu.

Jawabannnya sederhana, jangan pilih mereka. Kita harus tuntut partai dan caleg untuk berbuat lebih dari sekedar pasang bendera dan memasang foto penuh senyum itu. Minta mereka jangan menghina kecerdasan kita bahwa kita cukup puas dengan hanya melhat kibaran bendera partai dan tebaran foto caleg. Kita, para pemilih, harus tuntut mereka menyebarkan manifesto politik dan kontrak politik jika nanti terpilih.

Tentu saja manifesto politik dan segala janji tak cukup, tapi itu semua masih lebih baik daripada sekedar kibaran bendera partai dan tebaran senyum para caleg di jalan-jalan.

Riza Primadi : In Search Of Excellence

Dikutip dari Vibiznews.com |

Riza Primadi : In Search Of Excellence
Rabu, 02 April 2008 23.45 WIB
Oleh: Dyah M Nugrahani



Mengenal Riza Primadi, Editor In Chief stasiun televisi berlangganan Astro Awani, memberikan satu inspirasi akan tiada hentinya pencarian akan kesempurnaan. Jauh dari kesan sombong dan berambisius, Riza berkesan kokoh memegang konsep dan prinsip hidupnya.

Pria berusia 47 tahun yang nampak lebih muda dari usianya ini adalah salah satu senior sekaligus wartawan terkemuka dalam dunia pemberitaan stasiun tevisi Indonesia.

Perjalanan karirnya menekuni dunia jurnalistik telah dirintisnya sejak usia yang masih amat muda, yaitu masih berusia 21 tahun dan masih menjadi mahasiswa FMIPA UI.

“ Saya jadi wartawan sejak tahun 1983… jadi sudah 28 tahun. Mulai dari majalah, kemudian koran, waktu itu koran Pelita dan Jawa Pos, kemudian di radio BBC di London… Pulang-pulang saya mendirikan Liputan 6. Setelah 5 tahun di SCTV, kemudian pindah ke Trans TV, ikut mendirikan Trans TV bersama Pak Ishadi dan Pak Alex, setelah 5 tahun di Trans TV kemudian ikut mendirikan Astro Awani sampai sekarang ini,” tuturnya.

In Search Of Excellence

Ketika ditanya mengenai prinsip hidupnya maka salah satunya adalah rasa kompetetif, “Kalau saya pada dasarnya orang yang sangat kompetetif, dalam arti saya selalu ingin menjadi yang terbaik dalam bidang saya. Dari kecil saya selalu begitu, saya selalu ingin menang, menang dalam pengertian yang positif, selalu ingin mengalahkan yang lain dalam pengertian yang positif, karena jadi puas aja, walaupun kadang-kadang nggak ada hadiahnya lho menang itu. Jadi juara kelas kan gak ada hadiahnya, cuma dibilang juara kelas saja, dari kecil juara kelas terus … Karena itu competitiveness, rasa bersaing, rasa berkompetisi itu tinggi dan itu membuat saya tidak mau setengah-setengah kalau bekerja, karena ingin menjadi yang terbaik dalam pekerjaan saya.”

Hal ini ditambahkan dengan kegigihannya untuk selalu berusaha mengejar kesempurnaan, “Kalau menurut saya, saya adalah orang yang selalu “in search of excellence”, mencari kesempurnaan. Mencari kesempurnaan itu bisa 'gak? 'Gak bisa, karena hanya Tuhan yang sempurna. Karena itu kita harus mencari. Karena mencari terus… akibatnya tidak pernah puas dengan apa yang ada tapi mencari-cari terus…Karena itulah membuat saya mengerjakan sesuatu itu ‘gak pernah tanggung, itulah yang penting buat saya dan harus sempurna. Perfect, walaupun tidak ada kesempurnaan di dunia ini. Hanya Tuhan yang sempurna. Karena itu harus kita cari kesempurnaan itu. Kalau kita memiliki attitude seperti itu, kerja akan lebih baik dari yang kemarin. Karena merasa ini kok belum bagus... “

Pecinta Tantangan

Tipe Riza adalah tipe pemberani yang justru menghendaki tantangan dalam hidup. Baginya hidup adalah seni menghadapi tantangan, “Saya suka tantangan. Kalau saya dikasih sesuatu maka saya ada gelisah gitu lho.. SCTV sudah lima tahun, pindah ke Trans TV, bikin Trans TV. Sudah 5 tahun, pindah lagi, bikin yang sekarang ini. Ini berkaitan dengan energi. Energi kita ada batasnya. Ya dulu masih ada energi. Capek juga memulai – memulai terus. Karena bagaimana coba? Setiap kali memulai saya harus bisa membuat sesuatu yang belum pernah ada sebelumnya. Lama-lama kan habis, tapi itu challengenya. Bagaimana membuat sesuatu yang berbeda. Bagaimana mengemas sesuatu itu beda. Karena kalau enggak tidak ada gunanya…. kata kuncinya: perbedaan. Membedakan dengan yang lain. Setiap kali pindah... Ketika pertama kali saya pindah dari SCTV ke Trans TV, SCTV sama sekali beda dengan Trans TV. Saya bedakan. Sekarang pindah ke Astro, Astro berbeda dengan Trans TV, berbeda dengan SCTV.”

Kesukaannya menghadapi tantangan ini juga tercermin dalam hobby yang sekarang ditekuninya, yaitu menjadi pelatih anjing penjaga, satu keahlian yang untuk itu ia sendiri bersedia belajar dari para tentara Kopasus dan melakukan berbagai cara lainnya, seperti mengikuti milis internasional. Memiliki keahlian yang sama sekali berbeda dengan back ground pengetahuannya, dan membuat anjing bisa mentaati perintah tuannya, hal ini adalah satu tantangan yang amat menarik buat Riza.

Tipe Kepemimpinan Riza: Ngemong dan Mendorong

Bagaimana ia menerapkan tipe kepemimpinan yang ia lakukan sehari-hari? Berikut jelasnya, “Kalau saya lebih ngemong dan terutama belakangan ini setelah saya mengajar (Riza mengajar di FISIP UI sejak tahun 1997 –Red), saya lebih ngemong tetapi juga pushy, dalam artian mendorong, saya memaksa orang untuk bekerja pada tingkatan yang dia tidak terbayangkan sebelumnya, karena jika tidak begitu akhirnya jadi biasa-biasa saja, tidak akan berkembang, orang di-push sedemikian rupa sampai ia melihat bahwa ternyata ia bisa. Saya dikenal keras, disiplin, tapi tidak marah-marah, ngeledek aja …Saya membangun kultur untuk mengakui kesalahan. Di tempat kami ada kebiasaan mengevaluasi program tiap hari dan biasa untuk mengakui kesalahan pada saat itu. “

Riza juga menyadari bahwa seorang pemimpin memang dituntut untuk menjadi teladan, dan hal ini adalah satu keharusan, seperti yang diucapkannya, “Itu selalu… itu tugas pemimpin. Kalau tidak bisa memberi tauladan ya jangan memimpin. Keteladanan itu berat, pasti. Kalau minta anak buah datang tepat waktu, ya saya datang tepat waktu dong. Kalau saya minta mereka kerja keras, saya kerja lebih keras dari mereka semua…”

Kebanggaan Riza

Riza mengaku telah merasakan banyak asam dan garam di dunia jurnalistik, “I have been here and there…” demikian ia menggambarkannya, itu sebabnya ia tidak mengejar hal-hal yang terlalu menjulang tinggi.

Prioritas hidup yang utama adalah melihat ketiga buah hatinya (Rama Abrar Zati, Rani Salsabila dan Ryan Abhzar Ilmi) bertumbuh menjadi pribadi-pribadi yang baik. Selain itu ia merasakan satu kepuasan tersendiri melihat para anak didiknya mencapai keberhasilan, “Apa sih yang membanggakan saya? Hampir semua petinggi pemberitaan di TV di negeri ini adalah anak buah saya, misalnya Arie Suditomo, Rossy di Metro, di Trans 7, di TV One… semua anak buah saya. Apa sih yang membuat saya senang? Ya itu… semua petinggi pemberitaan di negeri ini anak buah saya..hal itu membanggakan. Itu…temen-temen saya sekarang melebihi saya semua. Even seandainya mereka ‘gak ingat saya, juga ‘ga papa kok. Buat saya hal itu membanggakan. Saya bangga dengan mereka, bukan bangga dengan diri saya lho… . hal itu membanggakan, menyenangkan… Sama saja dengan mengajar, banyak sekali murid-murid saya sekarang sudah sukses…”

Perjuangannya Sekarang

Suami dari Risa Kolopaking ini telah tertempa dengan perjalanan hidupnya dan sekarang menjalani perjuangan yang berbeda di perusahaan yang baru dikembangkannya, Astro Awani. Menjadi televisi berlangganan yang dapat dijadikan acuan dan referensi, sama seperti CNN atau stasiun televisi terkemuka lainnya, adalah perjuangan yang sekarang dilakukannya. Membangun brand awareness, menjadikan semua orang tahu dan ingat akan Astro Awani adalah tugas besar yang sekarang dijalaninya.

Dengan seluruh prinsip-prinsip hidup yang terus dijalaninya, yang jelas Riza bukan seorang yang pantang menyerah, namun ia adalah sosok penerobos yang akan mampu meraih seperti apa yang diimpikannya dengan kerja keras dan dengan berusaha untuk mencapai kesempurnaan dalam segala hal.

Selamat berjuang Mas Riza, terima kasih telah menjadi inspirasi bagi kami...


Foto: Vibizlife/Dyah M Nugrahani

21st Century Sport

---

Screen grab

Not so long ago, sports feared overexposure on television. Now they would go bust without TV deals and they want more, more, more from worldwide internet and mobile-phone rights. It's great news for the armchair viewer, but not for the paying spectator. James Robinson reports.

James Robinson
Sunday November 4, 2007

Observer

Twenty years ago, Silvio Berlusconi, the flamboyant new owner of Milan, declared that Italian football clubs should scrap expensive tickets, open their turnstiles and allow fans in free of charge. As a billionaire media mogul and proprietor of one of the world's biggest teams, the future prime minister of Italy was uniquely qualified to suggest radical changes to a game that was about to be transformed by the television age. Italian sides had just had their coffers swollen by a huge cash payment from TV companies, money they would use to buy the world's best players and finance what was then the most successful league in Europe. Berlusconi, like other broadcasters, realised that rows of empty seats look dreadful on TV and that teams roared on by passionate fans in packed stadiums make a more compelling spectacle for television viewers who, a generation ago, were slowly becoming as important as those who paid at the turnstile.

The gates of San Siro may never have been flung open, but it is easy to see the logic behind Berlusconi's comments. He was among those with the foresight to see where sport in general, and football in particular, were heading. He could see that there was about to be a dramatic shift in power away from paying fans and towards armchair viewers. The 'real' fans had the passion; the consumers had the money. The amount of money coming into the game from TV was unprecedented 15-20 years ago. It started with the development of satellite television, and coincided with Berlusconi himself building, or rather buying, the original 'dream team' of modern European football, the Milan side - the last to win the European Cup two years running - that featured Ruud Gullit, Frank Rijkaard and Marco van Basten. Although grounds are better, as is the standard of football in many cases, ticket prices have gone up along with the cost of watching games on TV, pricing plenty of supporters out of the market and infuriating many disgruntled fans.

The Italian clubs would now go bust without TV money and English clubs playing in the Premier League, which quickly overtook Serie A as the richest in Europe, are rapidly becoming more dependent on it, too. They will reach a major milestone next year, according to accountancy firm Deloitte, when TV money will generate half of their total income for the first time. As recently as 2005, cash from broadcasters provided just a quarter of turnover and, in the 1991-92 season, the one before the Premier League was formed, when Leeds were crowned champions, Ian Wright was top scorer and gate receipts still generated half of the revenue of clubs in the top flight, TV money provided a mere nine per cent of turnover. Peter Robinson, the former Liverpool chief executive, remembers the start of the 1985-86 season, when football was not televised at all. 'There was no deal in place. It only came back on at New Year and the value of the contract when it was signed was about £600,000, which covered all four divisions.' He remembers that negotiators on both sides of the table had reservations about the value of live televised football. 'The broadcasters would play down the value,' he says. 'They'd say things like, "It's a long time for people to be sitting down," claiming that most TV programmes were no more than 45 minutes.

The idea of selling something lasting an hour and three quarters was diffi cult. They genuinely didn't know how popular it was going to be.' Years earlier, Robinson recalls being asked over to his counterpart at Everton, who wanted to hatch a plan restricting the club's appearances on Match of the Day. 'They wanted to make a deal whereby no club was shown more than once a month because they thought they were being overexposed and they were worried other clubs would see what their tactics were.'

It seems incredible now that anyone could voice such concerns and fear that live televised football would kill off the game. Twenty years on, the latest three-year rights deal with Sky Sports and Setanta is worth £1.7billion and Sky, whose sporting empire now encompasses rugby, cricket and even darts, showed more than 36,000 hours of live sport last year. Other venerable sporting institutions have accepted Sky's cash, with wildly different results. In less than a generation, sport's finances, especially football's, have been turned on their head, with startling implications for supporters.

'How do you define a "fan" these days?' asks Dan Jones, the Deloitte partner who produces the company's annual football finance report. 'Is it one of the 40,000 people who buy a season ticket or is it one of the four million who tune in on TV?' Many supporters, who have been rudely awakened to make a midday kick-off or arrived home after midnight on a Saturday because their team were playing at 5.15pm at the other end of the country, would claim they already know the answer to that question and bemoan the arrival of the fair-weather fan. Recent research carried out by ticket agency Getmein.com claimed that the British are now a nation of armchair or 'fake' fans, who claim they love high-profile teams but have never seen them play, a finding that will resonate with those who attend games.

Figures extrapolated from a survey of 3,000 people show that an estimated 30 million men and women boast about being 'big fans' of certain clubs, with Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool the most popular. But less than half (46 per cent) of those who claim to have a life-long passion have ever seen their teams play in the flesh and another one in 10 will do so only once in a lifetime. Armchair fans are also fickle, the survey found, with just over a quarter maintaining an interest in their team for three years. Furthermore, 2.6m armchair fans will change allegiance five times during their lives.

The biggest sports are becoming global brands, and new technologies are making it easier for them to reach audiences, and new customers, abroad. Television has transformed sports that already boast a truly international audience rather than a domestic one. Early this morning Joe Calzaghe fought Denmark's Mikkel Kessler in Cardiff for the unifi ed supermiddleweight world title. Two Europeans fighting in a European city - but the fight started well after 1am, so the American audience could watch on Saturday evening primetime and the US pay-TV network that put up a huge chunk of the prize money could recoup its investment. The arrangement is not reciprocal. When fights are staged in America, as Ricky Hatton's next contest will be, British fans have to stay awake until the early hours to watch. The American market rules. The organisers of next year's Beijing Olympics have agreed to hold swimming heats and finals early in the morning, delighting NBC, one of America's big four networks, but alarming some athletes, who have complained loudly about the change. Since NBC had paid $2.2bn (£1.1bn) for the 2008 and 2012 Games - providing at least half the International Olympic Committee's television money - the competitors' appeals will fall on deaf ears.

In a year's time, drivers at the Singapore Grand Prix, the latest addition to Formula One's global circus, will race on a floodlit track for the first night-time race, timed to suit the western TV companies that pay millions to screen it. Next year's MotoGP in Qatar, which will be broadcast by the BBC, will also be held at night so it can reach an early evening audience in Europe. American and European audiences are accustomed to TV schedules being built around their own lifestyles and habits, but that could change, along with the sporting calendar.

The famous 2005 Champions League final between Berlusconi's Milan and Liverpool started at 9.45pm and finished well beyond midnight, thanks to the time difference in Turkey. There were complaints from fans in France about 9pm kick-offs at the recent Rugby World Cup, but that was the time the TV companies wanted and that is what they got. In the future, matches may kick off at lunchtime to suit a larger audience in, say, the Far East, for fans who will never visit Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge, and who will be watching over the internet or on their mobile phones. If match-by-match income from Asia ever exceeds that from Europe - and it could happen - the 'consumer' money will do all the talking and the paying fans will have to accept it.

Yesterday's game between Arsenal and Manchester United at the Emirates Stadium kicked off at 12.45. Both clubs requested a Saturday match because they have midweek Champions League fixtures and early starts are now commonplace. A long-standing agreement between the football authorities and the broadcasters prevents the live televising of matches between 2.45pm and 5.15pm on Saturdays, so as not to affect attendances at games with 3pm kick-offs. But lunchtime kick-offs also guarantee a big audience in Asia, where the Premier League is hugely popular and a time difference of five to nine hours means they are screened on prime-time Saturday evening television. In the last three-year TV deal, the Premier League netted £625million for foreign rights and 55 per cent of that came from the Asian market.

Few people know more about the value of live rights than Phil Carling, the influential head of football at sports marketing agency Octagon. Carling, who ran the FA's commercial department from 1996 to 2000, says the emergence of a global sports market could prompt a radical rethink by clubs. 'If Manchester United played in front of 70 million people [on TV or internet] on a global level, and each of them paid £1, that's £70m a game. It transforms the business.' Domestic and Premier League rights are packaged up separately, but both are sold collectively, with the money shared between all 20 clubs. In the next deal, which will run from 2010 to 2013, Carling believes the bigger clubs may try to end this centralised arrangement for rights outside the UK. 'They will seek to do unilateral deals and it will change the model completely. The money will be astronomic.'

The prospect of the bigger clubs keeping their own broadband money, for example, is a frightening one for all the other clubs. Senior sources in the Premier League and throughout the game in England insist collective bargaining is here to stay, but there have been discussions about the value of rights sold overseas before, and Andy Melvin, deputy managing director of Sky Sports, concedes, 'Some clubs believe the international rights are undervalued because the Premier League is so sexy at the moment.'

There is no doubting the potential worldwide audience for games is enormous. When Everton and Manchester City both fielded Chinese players (City's Sun Jihai and Everton's Li Tie) in a game in January 2003, it was shown live on state television in China, billed as 'a Chinese Derby', and watched by an estimated audience of 350 million, despite a late-night finish. The average audience for a Premier League game screened on Sky Sports in Britain is 1.1m (excluding pub audiences), although subscribers pay about £40 a month to watch. Games are screened in more than 200 countries worldwide. China's 1.1billion population earns an average annual wage of £500, but in 10 years' time that figure could be 10 times higher. India already has an affluent middle class of 200 million and it is expected to grow to 500 million by 2015. These are markets no sport can afford to ignore. Uefa already 'simulcasts' Champions League games over the internet in more than 200 countries, including China, and claims football is the number-one sport in the country, which is expected to overtake Germany as the world's third-largest economy within weeks. By 2009 China will be the biggest online market in the world.

New technology is becoming more important in a TV industry that is going through a period of tumultuous change, with an explosion of channels in the UK and abroad. Twenty years ago there were four channels in Britain; now there are several hundred. Four out of every five British households have multichannel TV and the big channels are seeing their viewing figures tumble as competition increases. In 1995 more than 200 TV shows had audiences of over 15 million. Today there are barely any. All of which makes big sporting events that can guarantee huge audiences all the more appealing to broadcasters - one reason ITV paid a huge sum to screen last month's Rugby World Cup.

A new wave of innovation in broadcasting will make games such as England v Sweden in last year's World Cup, which bagged an average audience of 18.8m for ITV, all the more valuable. Personal video recorders, such as Sky+, allow viewers to record shows, pause or fast forward, skip ads, or simply watch at a later date. TV schedules are becoming a thing of the past, creating a huge problem for advertisers who will no longer reach a captive audience of millions in front of the box. The implications for sport, because viewers want to watch it live, are very significant. Greg Dyke, the former director general of the BBC, says: 'The price broadcasters pay [for sports rights] will continue to go up. In a world where you can download anything, you can't download what's live.' Roger Mosey, the BBC's head of sport, says. 'Drama, comedy or music can be time-shifted, but people want to watch news and sport live, so there's a big premium attached to them.' The same applies to the value of rights on other platforms, including the internet and next-generation mobile phones. Mosey says that these new media are shaping the BBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. 'People will want it on mobile devices and broadband. Many of the events in next year's Olympics will be at 7pm, but in Britain it will be lunchtime. You may be at work or you may be on the beach.'

NBC plans to screen an extra 2,200 hours of Olympic coverage next year on-line and the BBC will show 2,400 hours of extra live sport on its interactive TV service, which allows viewers to choose which event to watch via their remote control, or online via a PC. 'At Beijing, when you wake up in the morning some events will have happened overnight and you'll want highlights before you go to work. So you do both,' says Mosey. 'But by London 2012 the amount of coverage will be exponentially larger. The idea is to make more live coverage available than before - so you can see all the fencing live, for example. BBC1 will become the ultimate premium channel, giving you the gold-medal presentation in the javelin followed by the 100 metres, followed by cycling, but the aspiration is to show every event live.'

The Premier League already receives more than £74m from the sale of mobile and internet clips, and a significant proportion comes from abroad. Malaysia is the largest overseas contributor, paying about £5m. 'People who went to the World Cup in Japan and Korea saw fans travelling between games and using their phones to watch highlights,' says Deloitte's Dan Jones. 'That will happen more and more with better resolution and bigger screens.'

Some newer innovations are mind-boggling. Uefa already use hi-tech gadgets to track every player in a Champions League game so they can produce statistics on how many yards they cover or tackles they make. Now Sony want to use that information to create a 'virtual' version of the live game that will run alongside it, allowing viewers at home to pause matches and use their games consoles to become part of the action. 'If Wayne Rooney misses a shot you will be able to stop the game, take it yourself and see if you can do better,' says Uefa's Daniel Marion.

A survey carried out by Mindshare Performance, part of advertising giant WPP, recently found that, although Britons prefer to watch sport on TV at home or in the pub, most Chinese watch it on their computers and the majority of Indians prefer to use their mobile phones. That helps to explain why Nimbus Communications paid more than £300m for the four-year rights to Indian domestic cricket last year, a deal Daniel Taylor, a partner at OC&C Consultants describes as: 'The first big-money sports rights deal outside Europe or North America. It was a massive increase on the last deal and way more than anyone expected.'

Next year's inaugural Singapore Grand Prix provides further evidence of a shift to new markets. Formula One has always been a trade-off between getting huge track fees in the Far East, where governments will pay up to £15m for the right to stage a grand prix, or racing in the West where fees are not usually paid but TV companies pay many millions to screen races. 'The dynamics are changing,' says Taylor. 'You used to go east for track fees or west for TV money: soon you will be able to go east and get both.' Which could mean more floodlit races in future.

Established Western sports are engaged in a global scramble to tap emerging markets and, not surprisingly, the Americans, who boast four of the six most affluent leagues (American football's NFL, Major League Baseball, ice hockey's NHL, and basketball's NBA) have led the way. Last week's game between the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants at Wembley was the first step towards establishing a global foothold, and the league's commissioner, Roger Goodell, has talked about basing a NFL team on another continent within 10 years, with at least four games a year being played outside the US before then. The NFL and other US leagues have already squeezed as much money as they can from their domestic market, and are being forced overseas to fund future growth, but they will face huge competition from other Western sports.

According to Deloitte's Jones: 'India is cricket's market to lose, Japan loves baseball and Korea seems to have taken football to its heart. But China is much more interesting - it's up for grabs. Football's sort of getting there, basketball's big but only because China has got a few players in the NBA. They haven't found their sport yet in China, and every sport is looking at it.'

The demands of television have already fundamentally changed some sports. Hawkeye technology was introduced to tennis for viewers at home, but giving the players the right to challenge line calls has added drama and tension to the game. Athletics' governing body, the IAAF, are considering changing the way they present the World Championships, perhaps in time for the 2011 event in South Korea. According to Emanuele Perotti Nigra, the IAAF's head of technology: 'Athletics is not easy to follow as a fan. There are so many events going on at the same time, so we need to focus attention on what you should be watching at any one time. We have to work with TV to do that. But it's quite sensitive.'

Despite the influx of TV money, football has remained essentially unchanged, which may help to explain its appeal. But the prospect of game times being changed, or even moving European matches to another continent, as raised in these pages last week, is sure to enrage fans, no matter how remote that prospect currently seems. The fan forums and internet sites in Florida have been awash with angry Dolphins fans complaining about last week's London showdown. 'People with common sense understand that we are consumers who have the right to get what we pay for,' said one post, on a site calling for NFL commissioner Goodell to be removed from his job. 'Taxpayers have paid a premium to build most of these new stadiums and they expect the teams to play all their home games in the communities that support them.'

'The NFL will be looking at the feedback very carefully,' says Deloitte's Jones. 'It's a difficult balance because no sport wants to disenfranchise its fans.'

Just as the influx of TV money a generation ago was seized on by clubs, the opportunity of fresh riches abroad may prove too tempting to resist, according to Octagon's Carling, particularly at a time when many clubs feel their international rights are being sold too cheaply by the Premier League. He claims that if the big clubs retained those rights and sold them individually, 'the media rights would generate over 90 per cent of total income'. Which would mean, he adds, 'They could afford to let fans in free, or reduce ticket prices significantly as it is important to have a full house to create the pictures.' Berlusconi may be proved right for reasons even he would never have predicted.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

From The Jakarta Post: "EPL: Right or privilege?"

Opinion News - Friday, September 14, 2007

The controversy over pay-TV operator PT Astro Direct Vision's exclusive right to broadcast the English Premier League in Indonesia boils down to this question: Is watching English soccer a right or a privilege?

Soccer fans have experienced a range of emotions since learning last month they would have to pay to watch matches from the EPL, the acronym used here (though not in England) to refer to the most-watched soccer league in Indonesia.

If watching the EPL is considered an inalienable right of every citizen, as some people would have it, then Astro does not have the power to prevent those who do not subscribe to its service from watching matches.

Astro would have to share the broadcasting rights for the EPL with free-to-air stations, which reach a much larger audience.

Surprisingly, no one has invoked Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which states: "Branches of (economic) production which are important for the state and which affect the lives of most people shall be controlled by the state."

The EPL could be considered a branch of production that affects the lives of most people, very much like education, healthcare, housing and the supply of clean water.

Going by this claim, then the EPL should be broadcast by TVRI, the public broadcasting company, because it has the widest reach of any station in the country.

If, on the other hand, watching the EPL is a privilege, then Astro has every right to deny those who do not subscribe to its services access to the matches. This has been the case since the Malaysia-based pay-TV company acquired the broadcasting rights for the EPL beginning in August, when the 2007/8 league kicked off.

The EPL is the most popular of all the European domestic soccer leagues. None of its nearest rivals, the Italian Serie A, Spanish La Liga or the German Bundesliga, command as many viewers in here.

The most popular is also the most lucrative. Not surprisingly, since the advent of commercial TV in Indonesia in the 1990s, the English soccer league has changed stations almost every year, but always among the 10 or so free-to-air stations.

Virtually all the EPL matches are broadcast live, not just on the weekend, but also during the week. The six or seven-hour time difference between Indonesia and England suits the schedules of Indonesian TV stations, though not necessary those of fans who have to stay up late (or get up in the morning, as the case may be) to watch their favorite teams play.

With most matches broadcast well into the night, after restrictions on cigarette ads are lifted, the EPL is a hugely successful commercial venture for whichever station holds the right to broadcast it in Indonesia.

Enter the pay-television era, particularly Astro this year.

When the license to broadcast the EPL fell into the hands of this new but aggressive pay-TV operator, it made sure it had the exclusive rights in Indonesia.

Even subscribers of other cable TV services, who had watched the EPL through ESPN and Star Sports, now get baseball or rugby in place of the usual English soccer games.

As popular as the EPL is, it is hard to make a case that it should be made available to more people for free. Precisely, its popularity makes it a very lucrative business proposition for whoever holds the license. There are people who are willing to pay for the privilege.

We all lived for years without watching English soccer. Then in the 1990s the matches began to be broadcast regularly into our living rooms and now many of us are hooked, glued to the box every Saturday and Sunday night during the season.

Now some of us believe it is our inalienable right to watch the EPL as soon as we learned we would have to start paying for the privilege.

Those who refuse to pay can always turn to other European soccer leagues broadcast by free-to-air stations. The Dutch league does not sound all that bad, considering our historical connection with the Netherlands.

Besides, many of the talents who play for English clubs started their career in the Netherlands. But we should be careful not to overdo it; pretty soon, we might have to start paying to watch the Dutch league as well.

From The Jakarta Post: "The right to watch EPL"

Opinion News - Friday, September 14, 2007

Sirikit Syah, Surabaya

Indonesian football fanatics have expressed their anger and frustration at being denied the opportunity to watch the live matches on TV they would die for -- the English Premier League.

To watch the games, football fans have to subscribe to Astro Cable TV, which has won the license to air the league matches here.

There are two issues involved here. First, this is about broadcasting licenses and competition among broadcasters. Second, this is about the public's right to access information, including football matches.

Astro Cable TV has operated in Indonesia for quite some time, but allegations that it violated the 2002 broadcasting law have meant the company has not escaped controversy. Astro was previously a foreign-controlled company until it cut foreign ownership to 20 percent in accordance with the law.

Astro's presence is a challenge to broadcasting and telecommunications regulations, creating tighter competition and paving the way for foreign influence over our mass media.

Astro's sole right to broadcast Premier League matches has put the government in a quandary. After allowing Astro to operate, the government is now trying to interfere with the cable company's content programming. The communications minister and the KPI have mounted pressure on Astro to open up Premier League broadcasts to the public.

In the eyes of broadcasting players, this is a case of deja vu of Soeharto's New Order regime. It seems that you are let loose, but the rope is eventually tightened one way or another. You are given permission to buy and to air the game, but you cannot sell it.

To make matter worse, rumor has it that both the government and the KPI were influenced by lobbying by some of Astro's competitors. The English Premier League was brought here by TV7/Trans 7 for Rp 45 billion in 2003. But for the 2007/2008 season, the price skyrocketed to Rp 500 billion, forcing Trans 7 to give up.

Indonesian audiences are crying for "justice", which they call "the right of the people to watch the game". These people demand free access to Premier League matches, saying they cannot afford to subscribe to Astro.

But, on the other hand, Astro has to make a profit out of its Rp 500 billion investment.

What are people's "rights" then? Is there any danger if they miss out on watching the game? Will the country be in chaos if the public is denied free access to Premier League matches? The majority of Indonesians may not understand the meaning of "rights" here.

It is the task of intellectuals, observers and media practitioners themselves to straighten this out. Instead of inflaming the debate (by banning Astro for instance), knowledgeable people should accept the consequences of free competition (including in media). In this context, watching football should not be classified as "a right of the people".

The Premier League issue is strictly a question of content programming. In 2002, national television stations, in their resistance to the Broadcasting Law, argued that: "The spirit of decentralization of broadcasting operation brought by the law will eliminate the opportunities for people -- local people in particular -- to enjoy world-class programming."

I challenged this argument at the time. I argued that any foreign program popular with local people would still be aired on local TV stations in cooperation with national stations, which need the audience numbers to draw advertising. The difference is that national TV would have to share the advertising revenue with local TV.

The fact that people now remain unable to watch world-class programming, as I assumed when defending the Broadcasting Law, is a loss for both the people and the TV stations, both national and local. But is this the victory of Cable TV? Not yet. The debate is ongoing and results may be unexpected.

The problem is that national TV stations that have promised to bring world-class programs to their audiences are reluctant to spend big. They follow the simplest possible programming strategy: buy and air cheap programs only. They let popular world programs go to cable operators, and play it safe with domestic programs dominated by soap operas and comedies.

This complex problem of broadcasting -- terrestrial or cable -- as well as licensing, competition, and programming, are more than enough to give the communications minister a headache. But there is one thing that should be remembered -- leave the content to the audience, guarded by the broadcasting commission. The minister needs only to focus on whether the operation of TV stations of all kinds complies with the existing laws and regulations.

The writer is a journalist. She is formerly a broadcasting commissioner and can be reached at sirikitsyah@yahoo.com.

Sepak Bola, Demo, DPR...Capek Deh

Coba baca berita di bawah ini yang saya kutip dari Harian Sindo (13/09/07) milik MNC:

“Sementara itu, sebanyak 20 orang perwakilan Komunitas Pencinta Bola mengadu ke Fraksi PKB DPR kemarin. Mereka memprotes monopoli hak siar Liga Inggris oleh Astro. Ketua Komunitas Pencinta Bola M Iqbal mengatakan, tindakan Astro tersebut telah membatasi kesempatan masyarakat untuk memperoleh akses informasi, khususnya sepakbola. Menurut dia,kebijakan berlangganan tersebut sangat memberatkan bagi mereka. ”Bagi kami yang kebanyakan dari masyarakat miskin, uang sebesar Rp200.000 sangat memberatkan. Jangankan segitu, untuk makan saja kami susah,”kata Iqbal.

Menanggapi hal itu, Ketua FKB DPR RI Effendy Choirie mengatakan,monopoli hak siar Liga Inggris oleh Astro telah mengecewakan masyarakat pencinta sepak bola di Indonesia. Selain itu, Astro melakukan pelanggaran karena masuk ke Indonesia tanpa izin. ”Astro itu ibaratnya orang asing yang masuk ke Indonesia tanpa paspor,” jelas Effendy Choirie.”

Ada banyak nalar yang keblinger di sini. Pertama, Si Iqbal itu menyebut Astro membatasi akses informasi khususnya sepakbola. Hah? Apakah sepakbola itu begitu pentingnya sehingga perlu dianggap informasi. Kalau hanya sekedar informasi toh bisa melihat hasilnya melalui siaran berita TV atau koran. Dimana dibatasinya? Ini bener-bener gebleg, asal mangap.

Kedua, kalau memang mereka benar-benar tak punya uang, bukannya sebaiknya berfikir bagaimana caranya mencari uang bukan membuang waktu nonton bola? Apakah dengan nonton bola perut jadi kenyang?. Bukannya juga lebih baik bekerja cari duit daripada unjukrasa ke DPR? Atau mereka dapat duit dari unjuk rasa? Lantas siapa yang membayari mereka? Jika melihat hubungan antara unjukrasa, koran yang memuat dan juga anggota DPR yang menerimanya tak sulit untuk menemukan jawabannya.

Jika membaca komentar Anggota Dewan yang Terhormat Effendy Choirie, saya lantas bertanya-tanya apakah sebutan “yang terhormat” masih pantas disandangnya? Kalau komentar yang keluar dari Senayan kualitasnya seperti itu, ya pantas saja kalau banyak kalangan masyarakat tak menaruh hormat terhadap lembaga negara yang seharusnya terhormat itu.

Kalau ada orang asing masuk tanpa paspor ke negeri kita ya gampang saja, tinggal deportasi saja. Tapi secara nalar ya apa ada perusahaan yang sudah menanamkan uang lebih dari seratus juta dollar dan akan terus bertambah mau kehilangan investasinya hanya karena keteledoran “kecil” masuk ke Indonesia tanpa izin? Hanya pengusaha gebleg dan keblinger yang akan melakukan hal itu dan Astro tidak tergolong perusahaan macam itu.

Saya cuma mengurut dada saja lha kok masih ada saja kalangan elit kita kalau memberi komentar itu asal bunyi. Atau memang taraf kita masih segitu kali ya. Capek deh.