The footage, which also shows one of the Marokopa man`s missing children, is linked to a reported break-in at a business this week. Read...

The footage, which also shows one of the Marokopa father`s missing children, is linked to a reported break-in at a business this week. Read...

It seems barely a week goes by where there isn`t a high-profile hospitality business closing with an almost 20 percent increase over the last year. Read...

Small business owners say they`re yet to see any positive flow on effects from as pessimism about the economy rises. Read...

Organised retail crime has exploded into a multibillion-dollar crisis that’s leaving business owners traumatised, out of pocket and “helpless”. Read...

The best way to watch Monday Night Football without paying for a full TV package or ESPN subscription could be short-lived if Disney gets its way. Disney is suing Sling TV over its Day Passes, which provide access to Sling’s Orange bundle (including Disney-owned ESPN and more than 30 other channels) for $5, with weekend and weeklong passes also available for $10 and $15 respectively. By comparison, a full month of Sling Orange costs $46, and ESPN’s new streaming service costs $30 per month on its own. With Day Passes, Sling is solving a real problem with sports streaming: Even if you’re only interested in a single game, you must pay for an entire month of service. Programmers like Disney should be embracing this approach to reach audiences who otherwise might not pay anything, but they’re too short-sighted to realize it. Why Sling is right While we all want more flexible options, new standalone offerings from the likes of Fox and Disney’s ESPN are insufficient. Both companies have intentionally set prices high—$30 per month for ESPN, $20 per month for Fox One—hoping to prolong the pay TV model that’s collapsing under them. The appeal will likely be limited. We’ve already seen this play out with regional sports networks, most of which now offer their own standalone services in the $20 to $30 per month range. Despite offering more local team games than ESPN and Fox combined, these offerings aren’t gaining much traction because they’re just too expensive. The networks themselves have admitted it. Meanwhile, younger viewers are tuning out. According to Front Office Sports, the average primetime NFL viewer is 62.5 years old, and ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro acknowledged that executives at the company worry about resonating with young audiences. A recent survey of sports executives found that 65 percent are concerned about maintaining live sports’ relevance. So here’s a wild idea: Maybe make it easier for people to get in the door. Let them buy access to a game, or a weekend, or a week, and maybe they’ll come back for more. If not, at least they’ll have paid something instead of turning back to piracy. The old TV business model is falling apart regardless, so now is the time to try new things. Disney: Sling didn’t ask us As we’re learning now, Disney isn’t the one willing to experiment. While Sling previously indicated that it briefed its programming partners on the Day Passes, it never explicitly said that they were on board. Disney, meanwhile, says it didn’t even get the memo. “Sling TV’s new offerings, which they made available without our knowledge or consent, violate the terms of our existing license agreement,” the company said in a statement to media outlets. It wants the court to make Sling remove Disney’s channels from the Day Passes. Keep in mind that in the pay TV world, distributors like Sling typically pay a per-month, per-subscriber “carriage fee” to programmers like Disney in exchange for their channels. The per-subscriber fee for ESPN alone was reportedly around $10 per month a couple of years ago, and that cost gets passed onto customers. The fact that Sling launched its day passes without Disney’s blessing raises some knotty questions, like: How much does Sling pay Disney when someone only signs up for a day? Is it counting per-subscriber carriage fees in a different way, or eating the month’s fee in hopes that day pass holders become regular subscribers? Were any other programmers on board with the idea, or was this all just a gambit to bring them to the bargaining table? Sling’s PR department didn’t answer those questions, but said it plans to fight the lawsuit, which it called meritless. “We will vigorously defend our right to bring customers a viewing experience that fits their lives, on their schedule and on their terms,” the company said. A long history of short-sightedness Unfortunately, this kind of hardball hasn’t ended well for TV distributors in the past. Back in 2015, Verizon tried to offer a flexible TV package for Fios customers, with a base channel lineup and a selection of “Channel Packs” for things like sports and news. Disney sued over it, and while Verizon initially claimed it was within its rights, it eventually watered down the offering and settled the lawsuit. Then, in 2020, T-Mobile tried to launch a new TV service with two distinct packages—one with broadcast, news, and sports channels, and one focused on entertainment. Programmers flipped out, claiming that T-Mobile tricked them into splitting up their channels, and T-Mobile wound up exiting the TV business entirely. With the bottom dropping out on the pay TV business, programmers have only now started embracing a modicum of flexibility, with companies like DirecTV offering “Genre Packs” for less than a typical pay TV package. But even that only happened because DirecTV was wiling to wage a PR war against Disney and subject its customers to extended blackouts. These kinds of changes shouldn’t have taken a decade, and deep down, programmers know it. They’ve quietly bemoaned the destruction of the pay TV bundle, yet they did nothing to avert it. With day passes, programmers like Disney have another chance to innovate on a tired business model and reach folks who might not otherwise even pay for their services. While it’s no surprise that they’re against it, hopefully Sling can force the issue. Sign up for Jared’s Cord Cutter Weekly newsletter to get more streaming TV insights every Friday. Read...

Extolla and Infios have partnered to enhance supply chain efficiency across APAC, combining software solutions with expert consultancy to boost business operations. Read...

LegitScript has launched automated Global Business Identity Check and U.S. TIN Verification to speed and improve merchant onboarding worldwide. Read...

However, reported activity remains in the doldrums for some sectors, such as retail, construction and manufacturing. Read...

The Ombudsman has forced the Reserve Bank to unveil pertinent information about circumstances around Adrian Orr’s sudden resignation as Governor on March 5.  The bank has revealed Orr temporarily stepped down as Governor on February 27, as tensions between him, the board, Treasury and Finance Minister Nicola Willis over government funding reached boiling point.  Christian Hawkesby became acting Governor on February 27, and Orr agreed to stay out of the office.  On the same day, board chair Neil Quigley wrote to Orr on behalf of the non-executive members of the board, outlining a series of concerns.  Quigley noted the “apparent lack of trust” between Orr, the board, Willis and Treasury.  He voiced his concern about the “tenor of dialogue” at meetings Orr had with Treasury officials on February 20 and Willis on February 24.  And, he questioned whether Orr would be able to do his job with less government funding than he deemed necessary.  Orr responded on March 3, rejecting the assertions in the letter, but agreeing there was a lack of trust between the parties.  He then resigned on March 5 on the condition the board withdrew the letter it sent him on February 27.  His “exit agreement” was approved and entered into on March 6.  When Quigley fronted media on March 5, he refused to detail what happened, other than to say the resignation was a “personal decision” made by Orr.  It wasn’t until June 11 that the Reserve Bank said Orr resigned because he disagreed with the board over the amount of government funding to pitch for.  The Reserve Bank provided details of the letter and exit agreement in the form of a summary timeline.  This is what the Ombudsman instructed it to do, after receiving numerous complaints (including from the Herald) over the Reserve Bank’s handling of information releases related to Orr’s departure.  The Ombudsman didn’t compel the Reserve Bank to release additional documents, including the exit agreement or the letter the board sent Orr on February 27. Indeed, the board and Orr agreed for this to be scrapped.  However, information previously released by the Treasury revealed Orr lost his cool in a meeting with a Treasury staffer on February 20 and then left a meeting he had with Quigley, Willis, Treasury chief executive Iain Rennie and other staff on February 24 early.  Another previously released document shows Quigley wanted details of the February 24 meeting kept under wraps.  He had a go at Treasury for taking detailed minutes of the meeting and releasing them under the Official Information Act (OIA).  Quigley concluded, “Apart from being late with our OIA responses, the approach we took in responding to OIA requests was a reasonable one to the requests and met the overall public interest by balancing transparency with privacy and other legitimate concerns.”  Orr has declined numerous requests for comment.  Willis has repeatedly expressed her disapproval over Quigley’s handling of the matter.  She has also repeatedly declined to shed light on what happened, saying it is a matter between Orr and the board.  This is despite Willis being the person who decides who is appointed Reserve Bank Governor and board chair.  There have been calls for Quigley, whose term ends on June 30, to resign.  The board is in the process of recommending who Willis should appoint Governor for a full term.  Jenée Tibshraeny is the Herald’s Wellington business editor, based in the parliamentary press gallery. She specialises in government and Reserve Bank policymaking, economics and banking.  Read...