NZ2 - Which city/cities/region?

[Perth Red]

Define “actively support”. If you mean purely attending games then sure majority of their week to week crowds would be from Townsville. The club definitely do get a reasonable amount of travelling supporters for games though, no secret the club requests as many Saturday games as possible for this very reason. Broaden that to merch and memberships and there is definitely a decent market there.

active fan: member, attending games, buying merch.
Passive supporter: doing none of them but watches on Tv
fake supporter: someone that does neither but when asked on the street which club they support names one

 

[Gobsmacked]

active fan: member, attending games, buying merch.
Passive supporter: doing none of them but watches on Tv
fake supporter: someone that does neither but when asked on the street which club they support names one

Interestingly what you define as a "passive supporter " is where most of the games revenue comes from- watching on TV...$'$$$ and the entire case for expansion ( another TV slot)

 

[Perth Red]

Interestingly what you define as a "passive supporter " is where most of the games revenue comes from- watching on TV...$'$$$ and the entire case for expansion ( another TV slot)

indeed, though I often wonder what the % of neutral fans to actual clubs taking part fans split is in tv audiences. NRL has a very AND/OR attitude to it, where as AFL gets the big TV deals and maintains the big active fanbase.

 

[Gobsmacked]

indeed, though I often wonder what the % of neutral fans to actual clubs taking part fans split is in tv audiences. NRL has a very AND/OR attitude to it, where as AFL gets the big TV deals and maintains the big active fanbase.

The "passive fan" is 20 × the "active fan " as is the revenue...
Don't forget that a new team isn't just about engaging the fans of that team but also in some cases more so it's rivals. The Dolphins will create as passive opposition supporters as it will it's own. Another NZ team will be that on steroids. It will engage the nation on an unprecedented level.

 

[Perth Red]

The "passive fan" is 20 × the "active fan " as is the revenue...
Don't forget that a new team isn't just about engaging the fans of that team but also in some cases more so it's rivals. The Dolphins will create as passive opposition supporters as it will it's own. Another NZ team will be that on steroids. It will engage the nation on an unprecedented level.

that's only true if you dont have many active fans! Clubs like Broncos, WC Eagles, Carlton earn 2-3 times as much money from their active fanbase than their TV grants.

Will anyone really care about a christchurch RL team? thats yet to be tested. In Australia the Warriors are the lowest watched club in the comp by those passive fans. Would Christchurch fair any better?

 

[Gobsmacked]

that's only true if you dont have many active fans! Clubs like Broncos, WC Eagles, Carlton earn 2-3 times as much money from their active fanbase than their TV grants.

Will anyone really care about a christchurch RL team? thats yet to be tested. In Australia the Warriors are the lowest watched club in the comp by those passive fans. Would Christchurch fair any better?

Naturally there passive and active fans are in NZ .... and that engagement would increase exponentially with a rival- TV revenue in NZ would increase. Also expats who see the Warriors as Auckland and don't like them because of that ( Kiwis outside of Auckland hate the place) would be engaged.

 

[Matua]

Naturally there passive and active fans are in NZ .... and that engagement would increase exponentially with a rival- TV revenue in NZ would increase. Also expats who see the Warriors as Auckland and don't like them because of that ( Kiwis outside of Auckland hate the place) would be engaged.

I don't think many expats feel this way at all, Auckland isn't as hated as you make out in the brackets. The Warriors are lacking fans currently because they're a clusterfudge of a club filled with Aussie journeymen (there's 4 NZers in the starting lineup this week). None of the Warriors fans I (used to) watch the Warriors with over here in Oz are Aucklanders.

Its not semantics, its models.
Your NQ analogy would be the same as a Christchurch team calling themselves the South Island somethings but playing all games in Christchurch and hoping any RL fans from across the South Island actively supported them in some way. But that's not the model being proposed on here in the only NZ bid interest so far put forward.

Whats being proposed is a split venue model across multiple cities. The examples I have given are the only models that have any similarity to that. And when you look at crowds, memberships and merch sales it doesn't seem to have worked, and in Tigers case there's argument its hindering. The fact there are no other sports clubs in the world that use this model should be telling us something. It's only being suggested as the dawning realisation that there arent enough fans and corporates in Christchurch or Wellington to financially sustain an NRL club on its own sets in.

As I said above I'm not supporting a Wellington bid, but I think you're undervaluing the financial/fan support that Wellington could get (if run properly). When the Canes weren't a shit show, they and the Phoenix (soccer) had very good followings.

 

[Colk]

I don't think many expats feel this way at all, Auckland isn't as hated as you make out in the brackets. The Warriors are lacking fans currently because they're a clusterfudge of a club filled with Aussie journeymen (there's 4 NZers in the starting lineup this week). None of the Warriors fans I (used to) watch the Warriors with over here in Oz are Aucklanders.


As I said above I'm not supporting a Wellington bid, but I think you're undervaluing the financial/fan support that Wellington could get (if run properly). When the Canes weren't a shit show, they and the Phoenix (soccer) had very good followings.

Would a South Island or Christchurch team likely get more supporters than a Wellington team? I guess that’s what it comes down to

 

[jim_57]

active fan: member, attending games, buying merch.
Passive supporter: doing none of them but watches on Tv
fake supporter: someone that does neither but when asked on the street which club they support names one

Well then I think your “not many” remark isn’t accurate. A few years ago I remember the club claiming 10% of crowds are people from outside of the Townsville area. Not sure how the membership breakdown % would look but there is certainly a lot of Cowboys merch in places outside of Townsville.

 

[The Great Dane]

Well then I think your “not many” remark isn’t accurate. A few years ago I remember the club claiming 10% of crowds are people from outside of the Townsville area. Not sure how the membership breakdown % would look but there is certainly a lot of Cowboys merch in places outside of Townsville.

I'd be highly suspect of that 10% number. I'll say it straight up, if they did in fact claim that number then it's either exaggerated or a manipulated statistic.

Like if the Raiders said 10% of their crowds are people from outside of "the Canberra area" but included Queanbeyan, Murrumbateman, Royalla, Yass, etc, in that 10%. It'd probably be technically true, and the statistic sounds impressive, but it's not really that impressive at all when you layout what the stat actually represents in real terms.

Not all memberships are equal either... The majority of memberships are simply glorified merch sales that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

With the exception of memberships that come with season tickets and/or entitle the owner to voting rights at the club, memberships are just tools to manipulate potential sponsors and partners into thinking that the club's support base is larger and significantly more lucrative than it actually is, or to push tickets at a highly reduced rate without it reflecting poorly on the club.

Frankly, if the industry wasn't actively trying to deceive people then non-ticketed, 5/3/1 game, interstate, toddler, free "memberships" given to juniors, etc, wouldn't count to membership numbers, and would be sold as their own thing. Not that that's a realistic chance of ever happening though...

 

[The Great Dane]

active fan: member, attending games, buying merch.
Passive supporter: doing none of them but watches on Tv
fake supporter: someone that does neither but when asked on the street which club they support names one

Call them what they are; poseurs.

Furthermore, people whom go so far as to buy merch or show up to the odd significant game can be a poseurs as well.

We all know those people whom "support" teams as a fashion statement but never watch their games on tv, haven't been to a game in years or even decades, couldn't name a player other than club legends, etc, then suddenly they're all gung-ho about the club when there's glory to be had lol. They're poseurs as well.

 

[Perth Red]

Well then I think your “not many” remark isn’t accurate. A few years ago I remember the club claiming 10% of crowds are people from outside of the Townsville area. Not sure how the membership breakdown % would look but there is certainly a lot of Cowboys merch in places outside of Townsville.

Tbf that’s only about 1500 people.

 

[jim_57]

I'd be highly suspect of that 10% number. I'll say it straight up, if they did in fact claim that number then it's either exaggerated or a manipulated statistic.

Like if the Raiders said 10% of their crowds are people from outside of "the Canberra area" but included Queanbeyan, Murrumbateman, Royalla, Yass, etc, in that 10%. It'd probably be technically true, and the statistic sounds impressive, but it's not really that impressive at all when you layout what the stat actually represents in real terms.

Not all memberships are equal either... The majority of memberships are simply glorified merch sales that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

With the exception of memberships that come with season tickets and/or entitle the owner to voting rights at the club, memberships are just tools to manipulate potential sponsors and partners into thinking that the club's support base is larger and significantly more lucrative than it actually is, or to push tickets at a highly reduced rate without it reflecting poorly on the club.

Frankly, if the industry wasn't actively trying to deceive people then non-ticketed, 5/3/1 game, interstate, toddler, free "memberships" given to juniors, etc, wouldn't count to membership numbers, and would be sold as their own thing. Not that that's a realistic chance of ever happening though...

It was a quote about crowds from memory or could have been both, either way I don’t really see why the club would bother making it up. The club has always wanted Saturday games as well to cater for travelling fans so I’d say they’d have a fair idea of makeup of their crowds and the difference between Saturday games and Thursday/Friday/Sunday.

Outside of the Townsville area there is a whole lot of shit all within 100km and nothing you could really consider more than a “town” until you get to Cairns or Mackay. I’d say it would be a stretch to say that 10% (if true) were all from close by.

I would like to see Memberships split in to Total & Season Ticketed, it would be interesting reading. I think everyone knows now that memberships can come in all shapes and sizes so big numbers doesn’t necessarily equal big crowds.

 

[jim_57]

Tbf that’s only about 1500 people.

Found a source, I’m sure I heard it in an interview but article says 10% “travel outside their home community to catch the home game action”.

1500, 12 times a year on average for crowds, certainly not insignificant if true. It would take the season average from 16500 to 14900.

For the sake of not detailing the thread further my thinking behind a “South Island” branded team is that like the Cowboys they could include the wider area and other cities that will never get their own standalone team in their “catchment”. Again that may be looking at it through rose-tinted glasses because the areas are obviously different. Whether a brand & model could be found that could entice supporters from Dunedin, Nelson and not affect the potential Christchurch support base is the big question.

 

[Matua]

Would a South Island or Christchurch team likely get more supporters than a Wellington team? I guess that’s what it comes down to

Personally I don't think so, but depends how well they're run/promoted I guess.

Calling them the League Crusaders would probably help.

 

[The Great Dane]

It was a quote about crowds from memory or could have been both, either way I don’t really see why the club would bother making it up. The club has always wanted Saturday games as well to cater for travelling fans so I’d say they’d have a fair idea of makeup of their crowds and the difference between Saturday games and Thursday/Friday/Sunday.

I didn't say they made it up, I said they 'exaggerated' and/or 'manipulated' it. The best lies have a kernel of truth and all that.

Their requesting more Saturday games is irrelevant from the point being made as well. Nobody is saying that they don't get more people on a Saturday because of travellers, they're saying that A. they're dubious about how they define traveller, and B. that those extra traveling people are largely irrelevant in real terms, and potential new clubs shouldn't necessarily hang their hat on a similar marketing strategy when other more targeted strategies could/would be more lucrative for them.

Outside of the Townsville area there is a whole lot of shit all within 100km and nothing you could really consider more than a “town” until you get to Cairns or Mackay. I’d say it would be a stretch to say that 10% (if true) were all from close by.

But we don't know exactly what they mean by 'travel outside their home community'. For all we know they could be going as far as using technicalities to include areas that are traditionally considered part of Townsville to bolster that number.

Furthermore, with the exception of Queanbeyan, none of the places I mentioned around Canberra are more than small towns. Some of them wouldn't even classify as that really.

The point is that people traveling from those regions to Canberra isn't unusual or impressive, in fact a lot of the people living in those places do it daily. However, if you were to frame it as "10% of the Raiders crowd comes from outside of the Canberra region", or the even more nebulous "10% travel outside their home community to attend Raiders games", it would give a false impression that lots of people are traveling far out of their way to attend games when that simply isn't the case.

I have little doubt that the same is true in the Cowboy's case. They want certain people to believe that roughly 1.5k people are traveling from Cairns and Mackay to Cowboys home games, when really the vast majority of those people are from the collection of smaller towns much closer to Townsville.

1500, 12 times a year on average for crowds, certainly not insignificant if true. It would take the season average from 16500 to 14900.

The real question is could the Cowboys be getting more than that extra 1.5k if they targeted their marketing in Townsville exclusively.

I don't really know (or care) in the Cowboys case, but in NZ's case I'd be willing bet that you'd turn more people in Christchurch off the team by calling them "South Island" than you'd gain from the other regions on the South Island, especially in active supporters.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

 

[Colk]

View attachment 64495

A whole bunch of disgruntled Sharks fans are going to come after you now

 

[MrE_Assassin]

 

[Gobsmacked]

I didn't say they made it up, I said they 'exaggerated' and/or 'manipulated' it. The best lies have a kernel of truth and all that.

Their requesting more Saturday games is irrelevant from the point being made as well. Nobody is saying that they don't get more people on a Saturday because of travellers, they're saying that A. they're dubious about how they define traveller, and B. that those extra traveling people are largely irrelevant in real terms, and potential new clubs shouldn't necessarily hang their hat on a similar marketing strategy when other more targeted strategies could/would be more lucrative for them.

But we don't know exactly what they mean by 'travel outside their home community'. For all we know they could be going as far as using technicalities to include areas that are traditionally considered part of Townsville to bolster that number.

Furthermore, with the exception of Queanbeyan, none of the places I mentioned around Canberra are more than small towns. Some of them wouldn't even classify as that really.

The point is that people traveling from those regions to Canberra isn't unusual or impressive, in fact a lot of the people living in those places do it daily. However, if you were to frame it as "10% of the Raiders crowd comes from outside of the Canberra region", or the even more nebulous "10% travel outside their home community to attend Raiders games", it would give a false impression that lots of people are traveling far out of their way to attend games when that simply isn't the case.

I have little doubt that the same is true in the Cowboy's case. They want certain people to believe that roughly 1.5k people are traveling from Cairns and Mackay to Cowboys home games, when really the vast majority of those people are from the collection of smaller towns much closer to Townsville.


The real question is could the Cowboys be getting more than that extra 1.5k if they targeted their marketing in Townsville exclusively.

I don't really know (or care) in the Cowboys case, but in NZ's case I'd be willing bet that you'd turn more people in Christchurch off the team by calling them "South Island" than you'd gain from the other regions on the South Island, especially in active supporters.

You'd turn people off by calling them South Island?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard