2024 TV and Streaming Ratings Discussion

[BlueandGold]

If they want to give us a bigger number, they can always give us the largest number in the quarter hour data. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than this minute crap.

Also even FOX doubts Oztams collection methods believing they understate Fox streaming by 40%.

So the NRL ratings lead is set to grow once the new ratings system for Fox is up and running.

Music to my ears.

 

[The_Wookie]

So the NRL ratings lead is set to grow once the new ratings system for Fox is up and running.

Music to my ears.

Thats IF Kantar data is made available. We may never know

 

[Wb1234]

Are you available to negotiate the next TV deal?

Vlandys isn’t relying upon a media release from an afl friendly website as the basis of the new tv deal Lmao

they know the actual figures directly. With Stan bidding against foxsports it will be a very good deal

 

[Starkers]

That’s a good article that gets to the heart of the issue. Free to air networks view ratings as propaganda and they will do everything they can – even manipulating the data – to maintain the perception of relevancy because their advertising revenues depend upon it. Everyone knows that Seven orchestrated the push for the new system because they knew they’d come off looking the best under it. But Nine & Ten went along with it because they’re desperate to still seem significant.

It also shows you how their propaganda changes. Remember from 7 network heads 15 years ago, the line was always ‘regionals don’t matter, only the 5 metros matter’ even though back then places like regional Northern NSW were still basically like an extra metro in terms of ad spends. But then they buy Prime and the line now is ‘national viewership is the only thing that matters’ because now we’re making advertising dollars from those regional markets. Those regional people didn’t suddenly pop out of nowhere. They always existed. It’s just that 7 didn’t care before. And sycophants not inside the industry with their own agendas just repeat whatever propaganda they choose to boost their own causes.

Regional viewers mattered. They always mattered. There’s a million people in the Hunter & Illawarra regions alone who are watching. It’s just whether or not they matter to a specific network executive.

As for Reach, the article is correct that media agencies think it’s a joke and are treating it with a lot of skepticism. They’ll continue to run their campaigns based on averages because a one minute sample base does not tell us about repeated spot viewership, and I’ll tell you now that is a hell of a lot more important than measuring channel changers. At a minimum you need the 15 minute or 30 minute panels to see that an ad has been watched multiple times.

There’s also a lot of doubt about the VOZ online numbers. Whereas the Youtube algorithm will discount viewers who reclick repeatedly to boost their view count, there’s a lack of clarification about whether the VOZ is accurately doing that in theirs. For example, say you’re watching MAFS (god knows why) and you drop out or leave because you go out somewhere and reconnect even just one minute later, well you’re now counted in the reach twice as two separate viewers. Even though you are the same person, just watching the same content but at a different point in the stream.

Unfortunately it has a feel to it that the NRL will be screwed out of TV revenue again. Assume 9 will bid for AFL on the basis of reach to cover bases, leading the NRL to negotiate with itself again...sigh.

 

[The_Wookie]

Vlandys isn’t relying upon a media release from an afl friendly website as the basis of the new tv deal Lmao

they know the actual figures directly. With Stan bidding against foxsports it will be a very good deal

Vlandys wont be relying upon any websites for information, afl friendly or not.

But Vlandys can always take one for the team like he did last time.

 

[Wb1234]

Unfortunately it has a feel to it that the NRL will be screwed out of TV revenue again. Assume 9 will bid for AFL on the basis of reach to cover bases, leading the NRL to negotiate with itself again...sigh.

Fta provides 20 percent and less of total tv revenue

subscription tv provides the bulk

and nrl annhilates afl on foxsports:

 

[The_Wookie]

Fta provides 20 percent and less of total tv revenue

subscription tv provides the bulk

and nrl annhilates afl on foxsports:

Foxsports isnt about ratings, but about subscribers. That info has never been released.

Also note that Fox AFL coverage attracts more broadcast partners than the NRL coverage (on both FTA and Fox)

 

[colly]

Unfortunately it has a feel to it that the NRL will be screwed out of TV revenue again. Assume 9 will bid for AFL on the basis of reach to cover bases, leading the NRL to negotiate with itself again...sigh.

Nine can't bid for the AFL, because it's tied up with 7, Seven until something like 2031. But seven could go bankrupt, I see something like 377m buys you TV network 7 nowadays.

Seven hit by tough ad market in Warburton’s last dance with investors

Kerry Stokes’ media conglomerate has posted a sharp drop in profits and flagged further cost-cutting measures if the advertising market doesn’t rebound.

www.smh.com.au

"with its market capitalisation down to $377 million, about half the same time last year."

 

[Wb1234]

Nine can't bid for the AFL, because it's tied up with 7, Seven until something like 2031. But seven could go bankrupt, I see something like 377m buys you TV network 7 nowadays.

Seven hit by tough ad market in Warburton’s last dance with investors

Kerry Stokes’ media conglomerate has posted a sharp drop in profits and flagged further cost-cutting measures if the advertising market doesn’t rebound.

www.smh.com.au

"with its market capitalisation down to $377 million, about half the same time last year."

If foxsports loses the nrl their finances are shot

They would be stuck with a hugely expensive afl deal that hasn’t delivered many viewers

 

[Wb1234]

That’s a good article that gets to the heart of the issue. Free to air networks view ratings as propaganda and they will do everything they can – even manipulating the data – to maintain the perception of relevancy because their advertising revenues depend upon it. Everyone knows that Seven orchestrated the push for the new system because they knew they’d come off looking the best under it. But Nine & Ten went along with it because they’re desperate to still seem significant.

It also shows you how their propaganda changes. Remember from 7 network heads 15 years ago, the line was always ‘regionals don’t matter, only the 5 metros matter’ even though back then places like regional Northern NSW were still basically like an extra metro in terms of ad spends. But then they buy Prime and the line now is ‘national viewership is the only thing that matters’ because now we’re making advertising dollars from those regional markets. Those regional people didn’t suddenly pop out of nowhere. They always existed. It’s just that 7 didn’t care before. And sycophants not inside the industry with their own agendas just repeat whatever propaganda they choose to boost their own causes.

Regional viewers mattered. They always mattered. There’s a million people in the Hunter & Illawarra regions alone who are watching. It’s just whether or not they matter to a specific network executive.

As for Reach, the article is correct that media agencies think it’s a joke and are treating it with a lot of skepticism. They’ll continue to run their campaigns based on averages because a one minute sample base does not tell us about repeated spot viewership, and I’ll tell you now that is a hell of a lot more important than measuring channel changers. At a minimum you need the 15 minute or 30 minute panels to see that an ad has been watched multiple times.

There’s also a lot of doubt about the VOZ online numbers. Whereas the Youtube algorithm will discount viewers who reclick repeatedly to boost their view count, there’s a lack of clarification about whether the VOZ is accurately doing that in theirs. For example, say you’re watching MAFS (god knows why) and you drop out or leave because you go out somewhere and reconnect even just one minute later, well you’re now counted in the reach twice as two separate viewers. Even though you are the same person, just watching the same content but at a different point in the stream.

So seven are responsible and it helps their afl content

as you mentioned this comes after a decade of not counting regionals

and of course New Zealand ratings don’t exist even if they add another ten million to our total

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Vlandys isn’t relying upon a media release from an afl friendly website as the basis of the new tv deal Lmao

they know the actual figures directly. With Stan bidding against foxsports it will be a very good deal

Let's hope you're right. And your forecast for the next NRL deal proves more reliable than your forecast for the last AFL deal.

You said in another post that nobody notices if AFL consistently tops the ratings tables. Their CEO noticed. And urged others to notice in an ABC interview. Patently he sees an advantage.

There's a thread in this Media Watch section entitled AFLBC, alleging preferential treatment of Fumble by the national broadcaster. If true, don't you think the bias derives from a media perception of AFL as more popular and important than NRL? Don't you think that FTA TV ratings play a part in generating that perception?

English RL fans are routinely bombarded with RU-themed ads. Even though these are more likely to turn us against the advertised product. It happens because agencies in London 1) think they're sending "Rugby" content to "Rugby" fans, and 2) are stuffed full of Union supporters keen to promote their favourite sport.

Worth clarifying the above point. It was more an allusion to general promotion rather than specifically Google ads. Everything from TV sports bulletins and public health campaigns to tour operators and birthday cards.

Dominant everyday coverage is explicable for Soccer, which is undeniably huge in the UK and world. RU though, manage to promote their game, and subsume League within their marketing, on the back of perceptions of popularity far greater than the truth.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

But Vlandys can always take one for the team like he did last time.

Fox or Nine?

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

AFL might not be responsible for the adoption of the Reach standard but they're not exactly oblivious to the potential benefits for their organisation. And they've long got away with another form of ratings chicanery by sometimes combining figures for different games in the one "Seven's AFL Football" programme.

In England, we used to have regional Soccer shows on the ITV network. Each company covered the games of their local teams. No way would ratings agencies have allowed ITV to aggregate the figures for the purpose of higher ranking. Different games meant different content meant different broadcasts. Rated separately.

 

[Colk]

Fox or Nine?

I’d say more Channel Nine last time.

 

[Wb1234]

Let's hope you're right. And your forecast for the next NRL deal proves more reliable than your forecast for the last AFL deal.

You said in another post that nobody notices if AFL consistently tops the ratings tables. Their CEO noticed. And urged others to notice in an ABC interview. Patently he sees an advantage.

There's a thread in this Media Watch section entitled AFLBC, alleging preferential treatment of Fumble by the national broadcaster. If true, don't you think the bias derives from a media perception of AFL as more popular and important than NRL? Don't you think that FTA TV ratings play a part in generating that perception?


Worth clarifying the above point. It was more an allusion to general promotion rather than specifically Google ads. Everything from TV sports bulletins and public health campaigns to tour operators and birthday cards.

Dominant everyday coverage is explicable for Soccer, which is undeniably huge in the UK and world. RU though, manage to promote their game, and subsume League within their marketing, on the back of perceptions of popularity far greater than the truth.

How was my forecast wrong for the afl tv deal ?

like everything afl it’s all a load of bs

the cash value of their tv deal is around 530 million

the nrl is currently around 400 million cash

you know this is the sport that assists it’s players to beat drug tests by faking injury ?

Let's hope you're right. And your forecast for the next NRL deal proves more reliable than your forecast for the last AFL deal.

You said in another post that nobody notices if AFL consistently tops the ratings tables. Their CEO noticed. And urged others to notice in an ABC interview. Patently he sees an advantage.

There's a thread in this Media Watch section entitled AFLBC, alleging preferential treatment of Fumble by the national broadcaster. If true, don't you think the bias derives from a media perception of AFL as more popular and important than NRL? Don't you think that FTA TV ratings play a part in generating that perception?


Worth clarifying the above point. It was more an allusion to general promotion rather than specifically Google ads. Everything from TV sports bulletins and public health campaigns to tour operators and birthday cards.

Dominant everyday coverage is explicable for Soccer, which is undeniably huge in the UK and world. RU though, manage to promote their game, and subsume League within their marketing, on the back of perceptions of popularity far greater than the truth.

Also their last ceo said afl was number one in qld

 

[Wb1234]

AFL might not be responsible for the adoption of the Reach standard but they're not exactly oblivious to the potential benefits for their organisation. And they've long got away with another form of ratings chicanery by sometimes combining figures for different games in the one "Seven's AFL Football" programme.

In England, we used to have regional Soccer shows on the ITV network. Each company covered the games of their local teams. No way would ratings agencies have allowed ITV to aggregate the figures for the purpose of higher ranking. Different games meant different content meant different broadcasts. Rated separately.

They still aggregate figures for different games

other than making Fun of afl fans here these threads are useless

both the afl and nrl have full ratings figures

the fact rugby league has more viewers will only matter if there is another bidder for the pay tv rights

news ltd has never had a rival bidder and the last time the nrl tried to walk away from them it was a disaster and the nrl was forced to come back begging

murodch saying we have always preferred afl

AFL broadcast deal: record $2.5 billion agreement between News Corp, Seven and Telstra

Just a week after being blindsided by the NRL's broadcast agreement with Channel Nine, Rupert Murdoch – the man who started the Super League war to gain control of the code – hit back by telling a press conference to announce News Corp's deal with AFL: "We have always preferred Aussie rules".

amp.smh.com.au

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

How was my forecast wrong for the afl tv deal ?

Not rehashing all that. Would set Perth Red off again. Bringing Vlad Pnuema to the party.

I only hope you're right that PVL has the facts and figures to get the best deal for NRL. His account of the Covid renegotiations did not inspire confidence. Came across as a slightly desperate retrospective rationale for his own gullibility.

 

[Wb1234]

Not rehashing all that. Would set Perth Red off again. Bringing Vlad Pnuema to the party.

I only hope you're right that PVL has the facts and figures to get the best deal for NRL. His account of the Covid renegotiations did not inspire confidence. Came across as a slightly desperate retrospective rationale for his own gullibility.

Even if rugby league is worth more doesn’t mean it will get more

news ltd still thinks it owns rugby league in a way

plus afl have a media which talk their game up all the time whilst the league media is the opposite

the nrl is in expansion mode now whilst the afl isn’t growing anymore so the teams the nrl is adding now will be seen in their value on future tv deals

 

[Canard]

Worth clarifying the above point. It was more an allusion to general promotion rather than specifically Google ads. Everything from TV sports bulletins and public health campaigns to tour operators and birthday cards.

Dominant everyday coverage is explicable for Soccer, which is undeniably huge in the UK and world. RU though, manage to promote their game, and subsume League within their marketing, on the back of perceptions of popularity far greater than the truth.

This is why I arced up about the Vegas coverage by Americans constantly using the word "Rugby" to describe our game.

A lot of people tried to fob this off, but it was only helping promote Union by doing this.

 

[Canard]

the nrl is in expansion mode now whilst the afl isn’t growing anymore so the teams the nrl is adding now will be seen in their value on future tv deals

Thats a weird take.

Given the AFL have announced there next expansion team (rightly or wrongly), and the NRL are talking about playing games at North Sydney Oval and have announced nothing.