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

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

I imagine " Regional NSW " is helped by the fact Central Coast and Newcastle would boost their revenue market by a massive amount because of the big population areas.

Interesting but I don't see ACT in those figures. The statistics wouldn't include the Canberra area in regional NSW would they?

Plus Wollongong.

That's right genius, regional NSW pulls in more television revenue because it has larger regional centres!

The same regional centres that are ignored when people try to justify why AFL should get more tv money, looking purely at the 5 capital cities.

If Channel 9 stay on after 2012, they should be coughing up alot more (after channel 7 get to bid).

 

[Digga Hole]

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.

The same guy hit with 20 different types of ads may be more valuable tho if the game length allows for more variety, but I see your point on repetiveness. Time does matter, but it is not a linear correlation.

 

[Calixte]

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.

Hallelujah brother...

 

[LeagueXIII]

Some people need to stop giving Gallop and News the benefit of the doubt, as though they are going to come good for our game. If they were paying us what we are TRULY worth they would NEVER get their money back from the SL war.

They are running it down so it appears the "poor cousin" as Russell Crowe said, so they can maximise their return for the next deal which will lock another 5 years in.

Don't think otherwise.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Another thing, if league was proactive and being promoted correctly with a positive image as it use to, imagine how huge it would be. It really is a big game, we just don't realise how big because we are bombarded with negativity.

 

[dallymessenger]

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.

hit the nail on the head champ..

pretty simple stuff but some just ignore it for their own agendas

 

[dallymessenger]

Some people need to stop giving Gallop and News the benefit of the doubt, as though they are going to come good for our game. If they were paying us what we are TRULY worth they would NEVER get their money back from the SL war.

They are running it down so it appears the "poor cousin" as Russell Crowe said, so they can maximise their return for the next deal which will lock another 5 years in.

Don't think otherwise.

some of them arent giving gallop the doubt.

they are AFL trolls trying to justify why a sport with less viewers gets more money by clouding the issue

 

[Digga Hole]

some of them arent giving gallop the doubt.

they are AFL trolls trying to justify why a sport with less viewers gets more money by clouding the issue

This thread was turning into something worth reading. Please stay away.

 

[qldseaeagle96]

Ok some clarity here....

Point 1. Regional TV is broadcast by different companies than metro in general i.e

Channel 9 Sydney = WIN / NBN in regional areas depending on the region
Channel 10 Sydney = Southern Cross Ten in Eastern regional Australia
etc...

These regional broadcasters generally pay a fee to the larger broadcaster WIN will agree to pay x% of ad revenue to Channel 9 for e.g. Thing is WIN held out big time this yr at the end of the last contract as 9 rated like a dogs breakfast.

Point 2. Regional markets can be shown as "Regional QLD, NSW etc.." however advertising pricing is based on:

a. Potential Reach i.e how many viewers live in the region
and b. Actual ratings i.e how many viewers watch the program on avge.

Regional NSW TV Markets consist of (from memory):

Gold Coast
Coffs Harbour
Lismore
Forster
Newcastle
Canberra

I believe that SOO should be sold seperately as in QLD (where I primarily focus on) SOO is a huge ratings winner and is far and away the number 1 rating TV program for the whole year in most markets.

 

[dallymessenger]

This thread was turning into something worth reading. Please stay away.

theres one of them now.

 

[LeagueXIII]

What about the new technology that will have a massive affect on sports broadcasting. Surely their is money in this? Can anyone enlighten us on what this will involve?

As Patrick Smith in The Australian wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0

What is undeniable is the pressure on all sports to shore up their heartlands and win new territory because with fresh markets comes new money. It will be in the obvious form of broadcast rights but the big windfall could come from new media. Technology is exploding but it needs product to grow with it.

 

[griff]

Ok some clarity here....

Point 1. Regional TV is broadcast by different companies than metro in general i.e

Channel 9 Sydney = WIN / NBN in regional areas depending on the region
Channel 10 Sydney = Southern Cross Ten in Eastern regional Australia
etc...

These regional broadcasters generally pay a fee to the larger broadcaster WIN will agree to pay x% of ad revenue to Channel 9 for e.g. Thing is WIN held out big time this yr at the end of the last contract as 9 rated like a dogs breakfast.

Point 2. Regional markets can be shown as "Regional QLD, NSW etc.." however advertising pricing is based on:

a. Potential Reach i.e how many viewers live in the region
and b. Actual ratings i.e how many viewers watch the program on avge.

Regional NSW TV Markets consist of (from memory):

Gold Coast
Coffs Harbour
Lismore
Forster
Newcastle
Canberra

I believe that SOO should be sold seperately as in QLD (where I primarily focus on) SOO is a huge ratings winner and is far and away the number 1 rating TV program for the whole year in most markets.

NSW is actually split into Northern NSW and Southern NSW (although Albury etc is actually in the Victorian ratings area). Within each of those there are sub-areas.

The fact that the regional broadcaster is an affiliate shouldn't make any difference to the amount the NRL gets for tv rights.

 

[Digga Hole]

What about the new technology that will have a massive affect on sports broadcasting. Surely their is money in this? Can anyone enlighten us on what this will involve?

As Patrick Smith in The Australian wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0

My understanding is that "new media" includes such things as Internet & mobile phones. Not exactly new, but they are increasing fairly rapidly. Decent internet speeds and better video phones will see the value of these rights increase in the future. I'm not a huge believer in the value of mobile TV but many will disagree with me!

 

[RL1908]

Patrick Smith again today (particularly the 2nd half of the article):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24067604-12270,00.html

 

[Calixte]

Not a bad article.

Particularly like the calling a spade a spade approach when it comes to the inevitable decline of union.

However, it is fundamentally wrong in one respect.

The NRL currently owns the Gold Coast and western Sydney.

The AFL, soccer and union are the ones that are desperately trying to shore up support in those areas. Good luck. They've been rugby league areas for 100 years and will stay that way...

 

[dallymessenger]

from the article :

Of the free-to-air advertising, the AFL carries 16 per cent. If it can drive that up to 20 per cent, then AFL executives believe the new money will inevitably come from other sports.


16% of total of all sports?

what it the nrl?

unless its 8% of less then we are getting ripped off on our tv deal.

 

[dallymessenger]

from the article :

All codes are counting on the expansion clubs drawing new viewers. It is envisaged that, say, in Queensland, a Gold Coast versus Melbourne match will draw twice as many viewers as Melbourne v Collingwood. As will any west Sydney match draw more viewers in NSW than any contest involving solely teams from the other states. If 100 people watch an AFL match that does not involve a team from their state, 200 will tune into one that does.


thats the kind of BS thinking that will see AFL get a massive tv deal at our expense. with gallop refusing a perth team, AFL will just add mickey mouse teams whereever and on the hype of future tv ratings get more money from tv.