2024 TV and Streaming Ratings Discussion

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

It does not such thing.

Think you misconstrued that sentence. By "notes", I meant "makes mention of" i.e. your Twitter page acknowledges AFL's self-serving preference for Reach over Average.

Ive insisted that it sucks on Bigfooty as well, and copped considerable grief there for it.

It's nice to know BigFooty contributors are unhappy. Not sure it tells us anything significant.

I dont like the use of reach, neither do i believe that averages address the difference in match length. Hence the "try and address part".

Afaik, data on Reach was previously published as an incidental point of interest.

The quoted tweet suggests that sportsindustry will henceforth use a mix of Reach and Average in end-of-year totals. How will these compare with past figures?

Can you really justify including someone who watches one minute? As proof of viewership, this is right at the end of the spectrum, the other extreme being someone watching the whole programme. The only reliable measure falls somewhere between. Namely, Average.

Fair to wonder whether a forum full of league fans is going to think that someone who has never denied being an AFL fan is going to be susceptible to bias

Merely noting the occasional difference in tone between L.U. and the Twitter page.

Him paleface fumbler speak with forked tongue.

 

[The_Wookie]

Think you misconstrued that sentence. By "notes", I meant "makes mention of" i.e. your Twitter page acknowledges AFL's self-serving preference for Reach over Average.

it did seem like you were saying I had a preference. Indeed other posters took it as such.

It's nice to know BigFooty contributors are unhappy. Not sure it tells us anything significant.

It tells me at least that both LU and Bigfooty havent the faintest idea what Im about half the time

Afaik, data on Reach was previously published as an incidental point of interest.

That may have been the case in the past. Reach is published now because its data that is now an Oztam standard.

The quoted tweet suggests that sportsindustry will henceforth use a mix of Reach and Average in end-of-year totals.

Ive always published whatever data is available. That has included "time watched" in the past. Average Reach IS likely to be published because we will actually have that data on FTA and FoxBVOD, alongside the average viewing data.

How will these compare with past figures?

Cant. Even Oztam says previous data isnt really compatable. Reach isnt something previously available for most matches - although it was for some events like Origin and grand finals.

Can you really justify including someone who watches one minute? As proof of viewership, this is right at the end of the spectrum, the other extreme being someone watching the whole programme. The only reliable measure falls somewhere between. Namely, Average.

Sure - Id still prefer a peak based on the quarter hour figures. The flip side of that is can you really claim to be the most watched if you exclude 75% of the people who do watch for some period of time. Im trying to see all sides of the coin here.

Merely noting the occasional difference in tone between L.U. and the Twitter page.

fair enough.

 

[Canard]

It doesn't really matter what the AFL and NRL's preference for ratings measurement is though right?

Doesn't it really matter what advertisers value and give credit too?

 

[Perth Red]

It doesn't really matter what the AFL and NRL's preference for ratings measurement is though right?

Doesn't it really matter what advertisers value and give credit too?

you'd expect so given end of the day its all just about $'s.

 

[DIOGENES]

It doesn't really matter what the AFL and NRL's preference for ratings measurement is though right?

Doesn't it really matter what advertisers value and give credit too?

Yes, as someone said before this forum and big footy are just pissing contests that keep some of us amused

 

[Wb1234]

Yes, as someone said before this forum and big footy are just pissing contests that keep some of us amused

Pvl and abdo know whose number one

abdo was even quoting ratings data to show the true picture

fumblers can grasp at whatever straws they want too

who cares what cultists think ?

their sorry is based on lies you can’t believe much of anything they say now

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

it did seem like you were saying I had a preference. Indeed other posters took it as such.

The sentence referred to the AFL's affection for Reach. Which is hardly surprising when, for instance, it enables their CEO to claim top spot in the ratings three nights in a row.

Your personal stance appears ambiguous. Hard to reconcile the clarity of "Reach sucks" with fuzzy sentiments along the lines of "Reach helps us address..."

Self-deprecating disclaimers notwithstanding, you clearly know and understand more than most of us. Some people say the NRL has all the in-depth data. That's not much use to the hoi polloi. Your Twitter page is seen as a good source for ordinary fans. Sportsindustry tweets are often posted on the main UK RL forum. Greater scrutiny is a natural consequence.

Sure - Id still prefer a peak based on the quarter hour figures. The flip side of that is can you really claim to be the most watched if you exclude 75% of the people who do watch for some period of time. Im trying to see all sides of the coin here.

In my view, someone watching one minute should not be included in "most watched" calculations or for the purpose of ranking in ratings lists.

The table you posted on the previous page of Fox BVOD Live Ratings is tenable. Ranked primarily by Audience, which I'm taking to mean some form of average, with supplementary columns for Minutes, Reach, Length.

The figures for Minutes and Length only confirm that AFL games last longer than NRL games. Not that more individuals were watching. More a measure of stamina than popularity.

 

[Harry O]

Cannot wait till there's 18 or 20 Team's in the comp. And when we do include PNG- another NZ team and Perth to our ratings will sextuple. And the other shit code won't know what will hit them. No wonder who ever came up with this reach bullshit must be an afl fan lol.... f**king sookssssss..

 

[Iamback]

You really are an idiot, It is in our interest to know the truth of these things, it`s the only way to plan for the future, do you think the NRL headquarters want to be fed bullshit. You might be happy to live in a child`s dream world, I want the facts.
BTW you cannot be more than 100% accurate.

That is why this new system is shit.

You can argue all you want about the TV deal being unders but when you throw in production costs. You are looking at close to $500m the networks put in each year.

They need to get advertising cash in, Actual figures will help both sides get a fair deal

 

[Wb1234]

 

[Perth Red]

Storm continue to dominate on TV. Bring on more expansion!

 

[Wb1234]

Storm continue to dominate on TV. Bring on more expansion!

On tv in qld and nsw

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

Hardly surprising, if the quality of the skills we witnessed last night is the future of the way the game is played then the only way is up. That game had something for everyone.

 

[Canard]

Pvl and abdo know whose number one

abdo was even quoting ratings data to show the true picture

fumblers can grasp at whatever straws they want too

who cares what cultists think ?

their sorry is based on lies you can’t believe much of anything they say now

That is why this new system is shit.

You can argue all you want about the TV deal being unders but when you throw in production costs. You are looking at close to $500m the networks put in each year.

They need to get advertising cash in, Actual figures will help both sides get a fair deal

The sentence referred to the AFL's affection for Reach. Which is hardly surprising when, for instance, it enables their CEO to claim top spot in the ratings three nights in a row.

Your personal stance appears ambiguous. Hard to reconcile the clarity of "Reach sucks" with fuzzy sentiments along the lines of "Reach helps us address..."

Self-deprecating disclaimers notwithstanding, you clearly know and understand more than most of us. Some people say the NRL has all the in-depth data. That's not much use to the hoi polloi. Your Twitter page is seen as a good source for ordinary fans. Sportsindustry tweets are often posted on the main UK RL forum. Greater scrutiny is a natural consequence.



In my view, someone watching one minute should not be included in "most watched" calculations or for the purpose of ranking in ratings lists.

The table you posted on the previous page of Fox BVOD Live Ratings is tenable. Ranked primarily by Audience, which I'm taking to mean some form of average, with supplementary columns for Minutes, Reach, Length.

The figures for Minutes and Length only confirm that AFL games last longer than NRL games. Not that more individuals were watching. More a measure of stamina than popularity.

It doesn't matter what anyone view on it is, whether that's Abdo, V'landys, some AFL guy or a random on LU.

It's all about what advertisers will pay for.

 

[Perth Red]

It doesn't matter what anyone view on it is, whether that's Abdo, V'landys, some AFL guy or a random on LU.

It's all about what advertisers will pay for.

which is reflected in the value of tv rights deals. For all our ratings dominance Ch9 only pay $115mill a year for 3 games a round, Origin and radio rights.

 

[The_Wookie]

According to Mediaspy

Sydney NRL 201,000 AFL 14,000
Melbourne AFL 226,000 NRL 29,000
Brisbane NRL 204,000 AFL 13,000
Adelaide AFL 199,000
Perth AFL 30,000

Adl/Per was 12,000 for the NRL

 

[Wb1234]

which is reflected in the value of tv rights deals. For all our ratings dominance Ch9 only pay $115mill a year for 3 games a round, Origin and radio rights

foxtel

 

[Vlad59]

which is reflected in the value of tv rights deals. For all our ratings dominance Ch9 only pay $115mill a year for 3 games a round, Origin and radio rights.

Oh stfu!

 

[Vlad59]

foxtel

Wasting your time. He’s a broken depressing bitter record