Aust FTA Ad markets: Have a look at this....

[dallymessenger]

Whats to say that those advertising figures aren't so due to:
CSI, Numbers, Medium etc shows
OR
Dancing With the Stars etc
OR
Cricket
OR
Backyard Blitz type shows

You know ... PRIME time television watching Mon-Fri. How do those shows ratings/overall viewing compare against the twice weekly serving of football.

The point is that those $$$ stats you're creaming about have NO direct correlation to sports shows, crime shows or even Dr Phil/Opra without some evidence. This thread is proof positive that you can make statistics say whatever you want.

I'll give you a starting point -
Show the advertising revenues for Friday nights/Sunday arvos on Ch 9 for the football months only as a % of the overall revenue - we'll wait while you clean them off after extracting them from you rear end.

ignore the other shows, and look at sporting content.

when you look at TV ratings in each area, RL is well ahead of AFL in the major markets.

therefore AFL doesnt generate double the commercial revenues in ads to justify double the money they get.

 

[dallymessenger]

again for the dummies :

AFL gets around double the money from TV then we do.
does AFL generate double the ads to justify it?

of course they dont.

 

[The Colonel]

thanks the last paragraph is exactly what im getting at.

as the exact figures arent available, anyone thats reasonably educated can see that RL is getting a s**t deal based on the figures in this thread.

AFL gets roughly double what RL gets from TV. does AFL get roughly double in advertising during its games over RL. hell no.

therefore we are being rorted.

No, without the exact figures you can only guess we are being rorted. Can you prove that they don't get double in advertising? The figures would suggest that there may be a chance given that the majority of revenue is generated in Qld and NSW however without a break up of figures in regard to what each code generates you can only assume.

If you want to make it fact, back it up - don't guess.

 

[dallymessenger]

No, without the exact figures you can only guess we are being rorted. Can you prove that they don't get double in advertising? The figures would suggest that there may be a chance given that the majority of revenue is generated in Qld and NSW however without a break up of figures in regard to what each code generates you can only assume.

If you want to make it fact, back it up - don't guess.

as ive said before since the figures arent available, using your brains wont hurt.

there is no way AFL will get double NRL ads based on the figures above.

AFL doesnt rate in brisbane or sydney, no one will pay good money for something that doesnt rate. AFL finishes often last against its competitors when shown in sydney, so the advertising for it will be very poor.

advertisers pay based on audience numbers in the same market. in Sydney RL gets around 90% of the total viewers of AFL and NRL. so AFL ads in sydney and brisbane would be SFA.

 

[dallymessenger]

Whats to say that those advertising figures aren't so due to:
CSI, Numbers, Medium etc shows
OR
Dancing With the Stars etc
OR
Cricket
OR
Backyard Blitz type shows

You know ... PRIME time television watching Mon-Fri. How do those shows ratings/overall viewing compare against the twice weekly serving of football.

The point is that those $$$ stats you're creaming about have NO direct correlation to sports shows, crime shows or even Dr Phil/Opra without some evidence. This thread is proof positive that you can make statistics say whatever you want.

I'll give you a starting point -
Show the advertising revenues for Friday nights/Sunday arvos on Ch 9 for the football months only as a % of the overall revenue - we'll wait while you clean them off after extracting them from you rear end.

and those shows arent shown in AFL areas either are they?
lordy me.

you know that they show more than just AFL in melbourne arent you?
:lol:

 

[Ziggy the God]

Whats to say that those advertising figures aren't so due to:
CSI, Numbers, Medium etc shows
OR
Dancing With the Stars etc
OR
Cricket
OR
Backyard Blitz type shows

You know ... PRIME time television watching Mon-Fri. How do those shows ratings/overall viewing compare against the twice weekly serving of football.

The point is that those $$$ stats you're creaming about have NO direct correlation to sports shows, crime shows or even Dr Phil/Opra without some evidence. This thread is proof positive that you can make statistics say whatever you want.

I'll give you a starting point -
Show the advertising revenues for Friday nights/Sunday arvos on Ch 9 for the football months only as a % of the overall revenue - we'll wait while you clean them off after extracting them from you rear end.

Thanks scoop, who would have thought that there would be other shows apart from sport that rate well?

Why don't you argue against my points on post #43.

Tell me why/how there could be a justification for the gap in contracts?

 

[dannyboy]

dally

you are still speculating just as much as me saying that of Sydneys $501m I reckon that $5m belongs to league and $7m belongs to AFL because while more people watch the league (based on the ratings) - there are less adds during prime time than AFL. Ergo AFL has a better chance of reaching viewers en masse. Logic just as valid, just as flawed

 

[Digga Hole]

Dally,

Listen to The Colonel FFS. Those figures prove nothing.

Channel 7 have a 39.1% share of advertising revenue against 31.8% for Nine. Which one shows AFL and which one shows NRL?

One could assume that since their audience share is similar (much closer than the advertising share) then possibly advertisiers pay a lot more for AFL.

But guess what, assuming the % share win for 7 is delivered by the AFL is just an assumption. It could be wrong, but it is certainly no more wrong than what you are doing!

http://business.theage.com.au/business/tv-advertising-starts-to-feel-the-squeeze-20080722-3jem.html

 

[dallymessenger]

those figures dont include the advertising on FTA in regional areas mate which strongly favour league.

 

[dallymessenger]

dally

you are still speculating just as much as me saying that of Sydneys $501m I reckon that $5m belongs to league and $7m belongs to AFL because while more people watch the league (based on the ratings) - there are less adds during prime time than AFL. Ergo AFL has a better chance of reaching viewers en masse. Logic just as valid, just as flawed

so you think afl generates double the amount of ads to justify it getting double the amount of money?

i dont

 

[The Colonel]

those figures dont include the advertising on FTA in regional areas mate which strongly favour league.

What happened to Sydney?

 

[dallymessenger]

What happened to Sydney?

?

they are reflected in the figures he mentioned.

 

[The Colonel]

?

they are reflected in the figures he mentioned.

No worries dally, keep up the good work...... :lol:

 

[dallymessenger]

No worries dally, keep up the good work...... :lol:

Anyone with a reasonable educated guess can understand that the FTA figures are reasonably lucrative and that rugby league probably do get short changed.

indeed

 

[my2centsworth]

AFL is also shown live and a lot more often through Asia on various networks such as the Australia channel...even though a lot of us are itching to see a live game....probably similar in Nth America and Europe so it looks like they are dropping the ball in these niche markets as well

 

[Perth Red]

Big difference is that AFL is shown at a decent time througout the country whilst NRL isn't. Although there viewing numbers are smallish in Q'land and NSW they are still better than Vic, Tas, WA and SA combines. As a national company I am far more likely to choose to advertise to a national audience than a two state audience, even of those two states do have a lot of people watching. AFL games also feature a stack more ad breaks than NRL games.

Having said that we all know the TV rights are undersold, we hardly need some (at best doubtful) stats on overall Advertising revenue to back it up.

 

[griff]

I really do despair sometimes at the complete lack of reasoning ability of some people. This thread had some really interesting info before it got sidetracked by idiots.

The AFL gets a lot more for its television rights.
The NRL dominates the more lucrative television markets.
On a national basis, the NRL gets more viewers than AFL.
On a 5 state capital basis, the AFL gets more viewers than NRL.

We are constantly told (even by our own CEO, bless his heart) that the AFL gets more revenue because TV rights are sold based on 5 state capital basis, and the regional markets don't generate the revenue. But in actual fact Sydney generates far more advertising revenue than any other market, and Sydney viewers are more valuable than any other viewers. Further, the NRL dominated regional markets are more valuable than Perth and Adelaide.

Given the ratings dominance of NRL over AFL in the more valuable areas, why are the television rights worth less?

To be fair, a little of it is the fact that although it gets smashed in the ratings in Sydney and Brisbane, AFL rates better there than NRL in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. And perhaps the nature of the game has a little to do with it, in that 1 ad after a goal is more valuable per 30 second spot than 1 ad in the middle of a block of 14 ads at half time.

Even accounting for all that we are still getting dudded big time, and I can't believe people can't see it.

 

[dallymessenger]

Big difference is that AFL is shown at a decent time througout the country whilst NRL isn't. Although there viewing numbers are smallish in Q'land and NSW they are still better than Vic, Tas, WA and SA combines. As a national company I am far more likely to choose to advertise to a national audience than a two state audience, even of those two states do have a lot of people watching. AFL games also feature a stack more ad breaks than NRL games.

Having said that we all know the TV rights are undersold, we hardly need some (at best doubtful) stats on overall Advertising revenue to back it up.

yes they dont show AFL at midnight in sydney or brisbane
:lol:

and when its on in sydney in prime time, no ones watching.

with logic like yours, if you were running a national company, it would be broke fairly quick

 

[Digga Hole]

To be fair, a little of it is the fact that although it gets smashed in the ratings in Sydney and Brisbane, AFL rates better there than NRL in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. And perhaps the nature of the game has a little to do with it, in that 1 ad after a goal is more valuable per 30 second spot than 1 ad in the middle of a block of 14 ads at half time.

Even accounting for all that we are still getting dudded big time, and I can't believe people can't see it.

You can add the 3 hour game length to that list (and that the AFL rates better in its heartlands than the NRL does in its own), but the problem is that NO ONE on here has any idea of the real value of these items.

Without that information everyone is only guessing as to a proper assessment of the two deals.

I think its worth debating the differences and the ability of one game to learn from the other, but I think anyone that claims to make an accurate assessment of the two deals is kidding themselves.

 

[griff]

game length is a bit of a furphy. Advertisers pay, in large part, for reach.

One guy sitting in front of the sofa for 3 hours getting hit with 20 Holden ads is still only one guy. So two million people watching a half hour show is better than 500,000 watching a three hour show. Frequency matters, but beyond a certain point it becomes wasted.