What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2024 TV and Streaming Ratings Discussion

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
Fox AFL coverage doesn't have ads in between goals....... so this talk of increased tv deals due to the prospect of Fox making more revenue because of ads between goals is a load of shit. I see this standard Victorian response all over socials when the convo is about AFL v RL Tv deals and it's bollocks.

That is FTA v FTA comparison. Qtr breaks they do have ads
 

The_Wookie

Bench
Messages
2,833
Fox AFL coverage doesn't have ads in between goals....... so this talk of increased tv deals due to the prospect of Fox making more revenue because of ads between goals is a load of shit. I see this standard Victorian response all over socials when the convo is about AFL v RL Tv deals and it's bollocks.

Its not just ad breaks either. poster before me mentioned the half time and qtr time breaks where there are definiely ads. Its also the broadcast partners that are included in the packages, these are associated with various segments, scoreboards, replays, etc. The AFL does get more of these numerically than the NRL - both FTA and Fox. Although what they pay is anyones guess.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
Its not just ad breaks either. poster before me mentioned the half time and qtr time breaks where there are definiely ads. Its also the broadcast partners that are included in the packages, these are associated with various segments, scoreboards, replays, etc. The AFL does get more of these numerically than the NRL - both FTA and Fox. Although what they pay is anyones guess.

As I said. What does AFL rate 75% of an NRL game?

So even the rating difference doesn't even out the extra breaks
 
Messages
283
NRL broadcasts are usually 1 hour 50 minutes afl is 2 hour 50 minute except on Sunday nrl is a 3 hour broadcast with the lead in going on last years numbers of 180 million average audience not including nz to afl 130 million average audience the minutes would be almost the same. Wookie was calculating minutes at almost 2 to 1 in favour of afl and I pulled him up on it a few years ago, in reality it was a 30% difference in broadcast time slot
I remember that and remember complimenting you on such an astute observation, I also remember Wookie conceding that you were right.
 
Messages
283
And the people who do watch multiple games know a dud game in the NRL might be only 1 hour away from the next better one. But in AFL it might be 2 hours.
There were comments at fumbleball magic round rip-off that people were waiting until half-time to see whether the game was close or not before heading down to the grounds.
 

Frank Burge

Juniors
Messages
249
If you count NRL into

Pre game
Half time
Post game

AFL is:

Pre game
Qtr time
Half time
3Qtr time
Post game

What is going to have more ads?
And the cricket has more ads again and goes for 8 hours but no one is saying they should get twice as much as the afl. We got screwed last tv deal and the next one should be par with the afl or it’s a fail
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
And the cricket has more ads again and goes for 8 hours but no one is saying they should get twice as much as the afl. We got screwed last tv deal and the next one should be par with the afl or it’s a fail

Yes and cricket gets a great deal for the lack of content it provides.

Ch7 pays $170m for AFL why would NRL get the same from FTA with 20% of the commercials?

Why would a business that wants to make money pay NRL more than it brings in?
 
Last edited:

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,814
I think you are right that people tune out of bludger games.

If someone watches 3/4's of both sports, What will they see more ads in?
I'm not arguing against there being more ads in AFL. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I'm arguing that game length affects viewer commitment and that people are becoming more reluctant to watch longer broadcasts of ANYTHING, not just sport.

After a quarter in a dud AFL game, there's about 120 to 130 minutes left to the end of the coverage.

In a dud NRL after a quarter of game time, there's about 70 to 80 minutes left.

So NRL viewers are more likely to stick through the coverage. It's less of a commitment. Whereas AFL fans could literally watch an entire movie and still flick back in time to watch the final score.

Because of the NRL's game length, you wait less time for the next game to start than you do in the AFL. So it's easier to sit through a game that you might not have a whole lot of interest it to wait for the next one. Whereas in the AFL, watching 2 games is a 6 hour commitment compared to the NRL's 4 hours. So people are less likely to watching back to back AFL games when compared to NRL viewers.

On top of that, the NRL is broadcasting multiple games back to back in the post 6pm time slots. Whereas the AFL is usually only showing 1 or has games competing against each other in those timeslots, either targeting markets or forcing viewers to choose/flick between both.

There were comments at fumbleball magic round rip-off that people were waiting until half-time to see whether the game was close or not before heading down to the grounds.
I can't say if it's true or not but that's a perfect example of people's time/money commitments.

And the cricket has more ads again and goes for 8 hours but no one is saying they should get twice as much as the afl. We got screwed last tv deal and the next one should be par with the afl or it’s a fail

Cricket has reinvented itself several times - One Day Internationals and Big Bash - to appeal to TV viewers who are less likely to commit to longer broadcast lengths. Hours of coverage and minutes watched are only one factor in broadcast deals.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
I'm not arguing against there being more ads in AFL. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I'm arguing that game length affects viewer commitment and that people are becoming more reluctant to watch longer broadcasts of ANYTHING, not just sport.

After a quarter in a dud AFL game, there's about 120 to 130 minutes left to the end of the coverage.

In a dud NRL after a quarter of game time, there's about 70 to 80 minutes left.

So NRL viewers are more likely to stick through the coverage. It's less of a commitment. Whereas AFL fans could literally watch an entire movie and still flick back in time to watch the final score.

Because of the NRL's game length, you wait less time for the next game to start than you do in the AFL. So it's easier to sit through a game that you might not have a whole lot of interest it to wait for the next one. Whereas in the AFL, watching 2 games is a 6 hour commitment compared to the NRL's 4 hours. So people are less likely to watching back to back AFL games when compared to NRL viewers.

On top of that, the NRL is broadcasting multiple games back to back in the post 6pm time slots. Whereas the AFL is usually only showing 1 or has games competing against each other in those timeslots, either targeting markets or forcing viewers to choose/flick between both.

How would they sell the relevant naming rights for Super Saturday's then?

If I am sales at Fox. No way the shorter length is way is getting sold for the same price.

I presume the actual ad space would be the same as it is sold in advance? So they aren't to know what game is a stinker or not.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,814
How would they sell the relevant naming rights for Super Saturday's then?

If I am sales at Fox. No way the shorter length is way is getting sold for the same price.

I presume the actual ad space would be the same as it is sold in advance? So they aren't to know what game is a stinker or not.
You seem entirely hung up on the whole "game length is the only important factor" argument and don't seem interested in the actual reality that broadcasters are facing regarding declining audiences due to competing interests versus time commitments. So let's just leave there, shall we? Lest we dance in circles.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
You seem entirely hung up on the whole "game length is the only important factor" argument and don't seem interested in the actual reality that broadcasters are facing regarding declining audiences due to competing interests versus time commitments. So let's just leave there, shall we? Lest we dance in circles.

I never said it was the only important factor.

I will repeat again. Both have no ad breaks in play

Lets break down the 2

NRL

Pre game
Half time
Post game

AFL

Pre game
Qtr time
Half time
3Qtr time
Post game

What is going to have more 30 sec ads?
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,814
I never said it was the only important factor.

I will repeat again. Both have no ad breaks in play

Lets break down the 2

NRL

Pre game
Half time
Post game

AFL

Pre game
Qtr time
Half time
3Qtr time
Post game

What is going to have more 30 sec ads?
You're stuck in a loop. I'm not arguing against this.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
You're stuck in a loop. I'm not arguing against this.

Then if you agree that an AFL game should be more revenue for the network.
Then their 9th game is just a bonus

So on a per round basis NRL does very well to get as close as it does
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,814
Then if you agree that an AFL game should be more revenue for the network.
Then their 9th game is just a bonus

So on a per round basis NRL does very well to get as close as it does
If that was the only factor. But it's not and I think you know that. Reality is more nuanced than that.

I mean I just had a glance at their draw for this round. 2 games at the same time on a Saturday afternoon. So a casual fan has to choose which game to watch, immediately cutting down on total average viewership for both games.

And it's at 1:45pm on a Saturday, the timeslot that's so amazing that 9 and 10 show repeats of whether their current reality dreck is, or lame lifestyle shows from their archives that are watched by 12 people. And we have 2 games in that slot! Exciting!

You know who is watching AFL on a Saturday afternoon? Coma and retirement home patients. It's white noise on in the background. It's literally called the dead zone in advertising circles and has been for decades.

Then this Sunday you can watch 3 fumbleball games. Not all of them of course because again they all clash. So again, you have to pick and choose which bits to watch, affecting the averages.

Only 3 of the 9 games this round are in prime time - about 9 hours coverage. The times where ad rates are at a premium and where FTA channels make their most money. Technically there's more if you count the separate post game waffle but a) that's not primetime b) ad rates are cheaper then c) only a small band of losers watch that stuff after 10:30/11:00pm. So say approximately about 500 minute of siren to siren actual game time in the prime time slots.

Whereas this week, a casual rugby league fan can watch every single game jf they wanted to, causing no impediment to overall average viewership.

Four of the eight games are in prime time. 8 hours coverage (technically there's a half hour overlap on the 9/Foxtel Friday coverage with talking heads) (and again - not including the post game). That's about 420 minutes whistle to whistle game time in prime time slots.

I mean you could also add in the twilight Saturday AFL & NRL games but it won't make a difference as they both cut across the 6:00-7:30 margin by a similar amount.

So the best case each week based on current scheduling is a 60 minute game time or 80 minute (if you include talking heads) total advantage in prime time to the AFL each week. What you think is a ratio of about 66% NRL to AFL based on 2 hr & 3hr airtimes is actually 85% when you think about actual prime time slots.

And that's with the NRL having one fewer game each week than the NRL.

When the NRL expands, they'll go to 9 games too. I'd bet my money on either Sunday 6pm+ or Monday nights returning.

Then it's 10 hours NRL a week vs 9 hours AFL in prime time.

And yes the AFL could broadcast Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Monday post 6pm+ if they wanted to. But their maximum game time in prime time would be around 825 minutes approximately. Any extra games would be clashes. Or games would have to run to midnight with massive viewer drop off.

The NRL could do Thursday, double Friday, double Saturday, double Sunday and Monday all post 6pm+ slots if it really wanted to. All standalone slots with no clashes. Essentially 840 minutes of game time.

So yes when I say it's more complex than just AFL is longer, it is.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
If that was the only factor. But it's not and I think you know that. Reality is more nuanced than that.

I mean I just had a glance at their draw for this round. 2 games at the same time on a Saturday afternoon. So a casual fan has to choose which game to watch, immediately cutting down on total average viewership for both games.

And it's at 1:45pm on a Saturday, the timeslot that's so amazing that 9 and 10 show repeats of whether their current reality dreck is, or lame lifestyle shows from their archives that are watched by 12 people. And we have 2 games in that slot! Exciting!

You know who is watching AFL on a Saturday afternoon? Coma and retirement home patients. It's white noise on in the background. It's literally called the dead zone in advertising circles and has been for decades.

Then this Sunday you can watch 3 fumbleball games. Not all of them of course because again they all clash. So again, you have to pick and choose which bits to watch, affecting the averages.

Only 3 of the 9 games this round are in prime time - about 9 hours coverage. The times where ad rates are at a premium and where FTA channels make their most money. Technically there's more if you count the separate post game waffle but a) that's not primetime b) ad rates are cheaper then c) only a small band of losers watch that stuff after 10:30/11:00pm. So say approximately about 500 minute of siren to siren actual game time in the prime time slots.

Whereas this week, a casual rugby league fan can watch every single game jf they wanted to, causing no impediment to overall average viewership.

Four of the eight games are in prime time. 8 hours coverage (technically there's a half hour overlap on the 9/Foxtel Friday coverage with talking heads) (and again - not including the post game). That's about 420 minutes whistle to whistle game time in prime time slots.

I mean you could also add in the twilight Saturday AFL & NRL games but it won't make a difference as they both cut across the 6:00-7:30 margin by a similar amount.

So the best case each week based on current scheduling is a 60 minute game time or 80 minute (if you include talking heads) total advantage in prime time to the AFL each week. What you think is a ratio of about 66% NRL to AFL based on 2 hr & 3hr airtimes is actually 85% when you think about actual prime time slots.

And that's with the NRL having one fewer game each week than the NRL.

When the NRL expands, they'll go to 9 games too. I'd bet my money on either Sunday 6pm+ or Monday nights returning.

Then it's 10 hours NRL a week vs 9 hours AFL in prime time.

And yes the AFL could broadcast Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Monday post 6pm+ if they wanted to. But their maximum game time in prime time would be around 825 minutes approximately. Any extra games would be clashes. Or games would have to run to midnight with massive viewer drop off.

The NRL could do Thursday, double Friday, double Saturday, double Sunday and Monday all post 6pm+ slots if it really wanted to. All standalone slots with no clashes. Essentially 840 minutes of game time.

So yes when I say it's more complex than just AFL is longer, it is.

While I agree the crossover does effect ratings hence why I take them with a grain of salt.

You are looking at it still as a whole, Those crossover games do affect the total numbers BUT ch7 in particular are able to run the game specific to a state.

In return they are able to sell ad space at a premium because they know they will get a higher number from that area.

Like the crossover game you speak of. 4th v 18th is a poo slinger however Adelaide it will rate fairly decent as it has an Adelaide team in it

I'd imagine as an SA business you'd want to get in on a Port Adelaide or Adelaide game during this time of the year?

So while generally yes that is a horrible time. There are more opportunities to make it up due to certain things that can be done. Which can't be in RL and hence RL is always less

In a few hours we can compare the relevant Thurs night game ratings. Then put in how much ad space each game would of had. NRL was a good one for commercials last night with the injuries and a few tries
 

Wb1234

Referee
Messages
26,146
Correct you do.

Sponsors on the other hand, Take the Super Saturday.

Fox can go to Sponsors for the AFL version and say:

We can give you 250k viewers for 8 hours of play.

As opposed to NRL

330k viewers for 8 hours.

What program is getting more $ from the sponsor?

Then you throw in the extra stoppages and that is where NRL needs to find extra content.
Sponsors pay more for nrl as there are more viewers

most of the afl games aren’t exclusive either as advertising is worth less as the game is on fta
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,487
Sponsors pay more for nrl as there are more viewers

most of the afl games aren’t exclusive either as advertising is worth less as the game is on fta

Purely looking at FTA for last night.

One goes for longer has more 30 sec commercal slots. Something like triple and had 2m viewers. Was fairly close

NRL on the other hand. Wasn't an attractive game on paper and the last 20 min was one sided and had 700k less.

Which is more attractive for networks?

Granted that is only one game but AFL has enough wins like that across a season to keep sponsors happy and as a result TV happy
 

Wb1234

Referee
Messages
26,146
Purely looking at FTA for last night.

One goes for longer has more 30 sec commercal slots. Something like triple and had 2m viewers. Was fairly close

NRL on the other hand. Wasn't an attractive game on paper and the last 20 min was one sided and had 700k less.

Which is more attractive for networks?

Granted that is only one game but AFL has enough wins like that to keep sponsors happy and as a result TV happy
We are talking subscription tv

length of game is irrelevant
 

Latest posts

Top