Aussie Rules, survival chance?

[meltiger]

Building audiences is the responsibility of the sport itself.

This is not neccesarily true... You may have been talking in the context of commercial networks but one extremely large media organisation does have a large stake in the game,

The development of the sport needs to be a shared responsibility between the Rugby League people and News Ltd... News Ltd through their essential dominance of the newspaper market should take a much greater lead in promoting the game.

You/they could argue the market is not there, but as in investor with a 50% stake... Shouldn't you be doing your best to promote the game into new markets if you have the ability too? Packer I believe has a stake in Fox Sports? (i could be wrong there i am happy to concede) ... If that is true... Then his commercial network should also be taking a greater lead in promoting what is essentially fox sports biggest investment.

 

[Dean Moriarty]

Building audiences is the responsibility of the sport itself.

This is not neccesarily true... You may have been talking in the context of commercial networks but one extremely large media organisation does have a large stake in the game,

The development of the sport needs to be a shared responsibility between the Rugby League people and News Ltd... News Ltd through their essential dominance of the newspaper market should take a much greater lead in promoting the game.

You/they could argue the market is not there, but as in investor with a 50% stake... Shouldn't you be doing your best to promote the game into new markets if you have the ability too? Packer I believe has a stake in Fox Sports? (i could be wrong there i am happy to concede) ... If that is true... Then his commercial network should also be taking a greater lead in promoting what is essentially fox sports biggest investment.

Good points. But remember that Fox is a sports broadcaster, not just a league broadcaster, with fingers in the pies of a lot of sports. It has a dedicated AFL channel, so you can't expect the Telegraph to not promote Aussie Rules as well as league. As a populist tabloid newspaper, it will inevitably jump on any bandwagon going, because that's what sells papers.

I am not sure I follow your point about Packer, though. He has an investment in Foxtel, along with News Ltd and Telstra. As I say, Fox Sports wants to build the audience for sports in general. Packer would have no interest beyond that in News Ltd's investments. As far as Nine goes, it has rights to both NRL and AFL. In an ideal world, they would take a long-term audience view and work to promote the sports. In practice, no channel (except maybe SBS) takes that long-term view with sports, and hence they will do whatever they can get away with for short-term ratings. The AFL was smart enough to include certain commitments from broadcasters in its contracts; the NRL was not.

 

[meltiger]

Building audiences is the responsibility of the sport itself.

This is not neccesarily true... You may have been talking in the context of commercial networks but one extremely large media organisation does have a large stake in the game,

The development of the sport needs to be a shared responsibility between the Rugby League people and News Ltd... News Ltd through their essential dominance of the newspaper market should take a much greater lead in promoting the game.

You/they could argue the market is not there, but as in investor with a 50% stake... Shouldn't you be doing your best to promote the game into new markets if you have the ability too? Packer I believe has a stake in Fox Sports? (i could be wrong there i am happy to concede) ... If that is true... Then his commercial network should also be taking a greater lead in promoting what is essentially fox sports biggest investment.

Good points. But remember that Fox is a sports broadcaster, not just a league broadcaster, with fingers in the pies of a lot of sports. It has a dedicated AFL channel, so you can't expect the Telegraph to not promote Aussie Rules as well as league. As a populist tabloid newspaper, it will inevitably jump on any bandwagon going, because that's what sells papers.

I am not sure I follow your point about Packer, though. He has an investment in Foxtel, along with News Ltd and Telstra. As I say, Fox Sports wants to build the audience for sports in general. Packer would have no interest beyond that in News Ltd's investments. As far as Nine goes, it has rights to both NRL and AFL. In an ideal world, they would take a long-term audience view and work to promote the sports. In practice, no channel (except maybe SBS) takes that long-term view with sports, and hence they will do whatever they can get away with for short-term ratings. The AFL was smart enough to include certain commitments from broadcasters in its contracts; the NRL was not.

Ok, Packer is a Foxtel investor? I thought it was purely Fox Sports but as I said, wasn't 100% sure on that so will take your word for it.


However I stand by my point, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't advertise any AFL, they have a massive investment in the game and due to the fact it is a pay channel ... The need to promote it probably outstrips Rugby League on that score, however my arguement with News Ltd is that they are a stakeholder in Rugby League, therefore they have an added responsibility to promote the game due to that fact. & the NRL is the flagship for Fox Sports, you can hardly argue that point, the AFL being on a dedicated channel has nothing to do with FoxSports. With Packer - Obviously, the resonsibility is diminished to him not having ownership in the game, however Rugby League is still the flagship sport in the Northern States and he is a part owner in Foxtel/Fox Sports, so wouldn't it be in your interests to promote the game to ensure healthier ratings?


With the newspaper issue.... Look where I live, I'm, not arguing the News Ltd shouldn't promote the AFL through the Tele, I'm arguing that they should promote the Storm through the Herald Sun more than they do. I'm hardly a Storm supporter but look at the coverage they are given in the print media compared to the Swans in Sydney and you will understand my frustration. News Ltd do themselves no favours with the Storm and I have never been able to udnerstand why. Channel 9, yes they haev no stake in how the Storm goes, with the AFL coverage they have no real need for them when they won't rate against AFL games on Ten, however News Ltd as a stakeholder in every facet of the game that involves the Storm SHOULD be giving them a much stronger push than what they do.

 

[In-goal]

AFL wins the other states comfortably, and has a sound presence in Sydney & Brisbane whereas RL has a painfully minimal one in Adelaide Perth & even Melbourne.

No doubt you'll go to the Sydney viewing figures and tell me that the NRL GF draws more viewers than the AFL GF. I'll save you the time by clueing you in to the fact that according to NATIONAL viewing figures, the AFL GF commonly draws a million more viewers than the AFL GF each year.

Obviously Channels 9 & 10 were concerned about AFL's TV drawing power when they signed-off on the largest deal in domestic television history so they could have the free-to-air AFL rights.

are this is quite incorrect i am not anti Aussie Rules but the true fact of the matter is the RL grand final does enjoy more viewers, another sad fact is the NRL grand final isn't shown until the wee small hours in W.A. and S.A.

both with populations of over a million.

last years NRL grand final had som 4.5m viewers across the Eastern seaboard of Australia and New Zealand.

Aussie rules football will always dominate the attendance market as the game reaches out to the attending spectator unlike RL which was turned into a TV sport.

Hence the Super League war.

 

[CyberKev]

are this is quite incorrect i am not anti Aussie Rules but the true fact of the matter is the RL grand final does enjoy more viewers, another sad fact is the NRL grand final isn't shown until the wee small hours in W.A. and S.A.

both with populations of over a million.

last years NRL grand final had som 4.5m viewers across the Eastern seaboard of Australia and New Zealand.

Do you have a source for the 4.5 million figure, as AC Nielsen National figures put the readings at 3m AFL to 2m NRL for 2002. I also wouldn't be counting NZ figures if we're dealing specifically with Australian audiences for this debate.

The WA & SA scenarios would impact upon NRL figures, but this would be a painfully small impact given the minimal support for the sport in these states. This is the obvious reason behind the decision not to broadcast in primetime. Disappointing nonetheless...

Another factor impacting against the AFL, is the recent switch by the NRL to show the GF of an evening in the prime time slot. This time is more commonly suited to viewing and, one would suspect, is less likely to attract the afternoon GF parties that are commonplace to AFL GF viewing (particularly throughout VIC). The tendency for the AFL GF to be viewed in this manner in considerable numbers, means that quite a number of viewers are dropped-off the AFL count. The Evening timeslot will also grab a lot of extra viewers that would otherwise have to work on Saturday afternoons (again lowering the AFL count).

Still, I'd be happy to see a concrete source for the figures.

CyberKev

 

[In-goal]

i couldn't put a finger on the stats now but i have read them i think it was in the Daily Tele.

Oztam ratings are only taken from major cities i.e.
Sydney
Melbourne
Brisbane
Adelaide
Perth

What about the viewers in Newcastle, Gold Coast, Central Coast the Illawarra and other places like Townsville?

combined they have a population near 2million people is there a reason they can't run ratings tests on these areas?

it is a 2 way street considering only 2 out of the 5 cities are what you would call RL heartlands, another fact more than 500K viewers tuned in from melbourne to last years grand final.

 

[CyberKev]

Oztam ratings are only taken from major cities i.e.
Sydney
Melbourne
Brisbane
Adelaide
Perth

What about the viewers in Newcastle, Gold Coast, Central Coast the Illawarra and other places like Townsville?

combined they have a population near 2million people is there a reason they can't run ratings tests on these areas?

it is a 2 way street considering only 2 out of the 5 cities are what you would call RL heartlands, another fact more than 500K viewers tuned in from melbourne to last years grand final.

I agree about OZTAM, but I took my figures from AC Nielsen...

The last point is fair, but the AFL has a far stronger support in NSW/QLD than RL has in SA/WA.

Even in the late seventies and early eighties, I would be watching the VFL match of the day live every Saturday afternoon in Bundaberg, QLD. The same was happening in NSW regionals. Not so for RL in VIC, WA & SA.

CyberKev

 

[timmy!!!!]

i couldn't put a finger on the stats now but i have read them i think it was in the Daily Tele.

Oztam ratings are only taken from major cities i.e.
Sydney
Melbourne
Brisbane
Adelaide
Perth

What about the viewers in Newcastle, Gold Coast, Central Coast the Illawarra and other places like Townsville?

combined they have a population near 2million people is there a reason they can't run ratings tests on these areas?

it is a 2 way street considering only 2 out of the 5 cities are what you would call RL heartlands, another fact more than 500K viewers tuned in from melbourne to last years grand final.

The Brisbane statistics they use are for Noosa right down to the NSW border so the Gold Coast is included. And the Central Coast is included in Sydney. Townsville is not included but neither is Cairns, Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury/Wodonga, Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, etc.

 

[riccardo]

Aussie Rules ability to adapt and change its style of play will see it survive long into the next century. The game played now is vastly different to the game played 50, 20 even 10 years ago.
If your interested in hard facts, the AFL has expansion leagues in Queensland, and NSW/ACT, and the WAFL, SANFL and, to a lesser extent, VFL competitions draw excellent continued support. in addition, there will be at least 1 regular season game played in every Ausatralian state and territory this coming year. Historically, two Melbourne based AFL clubs are the oldest surviving sporting clubs in the world (Melbourne, 1858, Geelong, 1859), and the VFA (1877) and WAFL (mid-1870's) are among the oldest still operating competitions around.
Our code has burgeoning leagues in many countries, and an international carnival, sponsored by the AFL, has been in operation for some time, as has AFL being played at sporting meets like at the Arafura Games in Darwin.
AFL will continue to flourish long into the future.

 

[Joel05]

A few misconceptions.


In the states that it was live(a fair comparison), the NRL GF rated higher.

I've seen figures that showed that if you included the regional areas, the NRL GF rated higher. And it was only live in QLD,NSW and VIC.

The most watched sport on Pay is RL.

The TV ratings for the Friday night games for the NRL show that it is every bit as high if not higher than the AFL's.

The State of Origin series was attended by 180,000+ and watched on TV by nearly 10 million viewers and it was onlt live in QLD/NSW.


Record crowds and TV ratings this year as well. RL dying? Only according to paranoid AFL fans.

Just to clear some things up.

On Pay TV, Rugby viewers do not have to pay any extra, per year, to watch games. However, AFL viewers, if they wish to watch football on Pay, they must pay extra, for the Fox Footy Channel. Consequently, many people aren't willing to do this.

Just on that, why would Fox give AFL a dedicated channel if it wasn't popular? But Rugcy is relegated to normal Fox Sports?

Stage of Origin: Why compare that? The AFL no longer have a SOO, so that figure is not really relevant. The AFL no longer need SOO, due to the fact that that AFL is a national game, teams from, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, NSW, and QLD. SOO is irrelevant to AFL these days.

Care to compare the crowds between AFL and NRL this year? Even while the MCG is under redevlopment, the AFL has crowds higher (by an absolute mile) than NRL.

Can any NRL teams boast an average of over 50,000 people to games? I think not.

 

[syphon]

What about the viewers in Gold Coast, Central Coast the Illawarra?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

another clown who thinks he knows what he is talking about (or babbling rubbish to sway an argument in his favour)

 

[George Bush Snr]

What about the viewers in Gold Coast, Central Coast the Illawarra?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

another clown who thinks he knows what he is talking about (or babbling rubbish to sway an argument in his favour)

Bush, George Bush