Te Kaha, I dont know the first thing about NZ ratings, but I can tell you that basing somethings ratings on what channel is shown is flawed - case in point the NRL in Australia.
Up until 2 years ago the NRL was shown on fox sports 1, but then in 2007 was moved to a new channel which was not available to all subscribers (fox sports 3) despite having 19 of the top 20 rating shows from 2006. Why do you think they did this? To increase subscriptions - they moved their star player to a new channel in an effort to increase the amount of people who would upgrade their subscription service. If they moved any other sport or show they knew that they wouldn't get as many people upgrading.
This is true, the difference being that the NRL has always been a big ratings winner in Aus, not so in NZ. Also moving from a channel available on UHF relatively cheaply to one that is only available on digital with a large start up cost, even more so when the audience is mainly working class on lower incomes, is not a good marketing tool.
Another point against your argument is politics. A case in point for this example is the Melbourne Storm. When televised live in Melbourne the Storm out-rated 2nd string movies/old sitcoms, but due to the AFL having such a strong influence on the media in Melbourne the sport is only ever televised at a reasonable hour when it's the finals, despite the success it's had when given an opportunity, yet the people of Melbourne are continually subjected to the 2nd rate movies/old sitcoms because someone high up is obviously abusing their power for personal preferences.
Doubtful that is the case in NZ. Its possible but the hold that Rugby has is not that great.
ive pmed someone to give me the link
when i get it, ill show you the difference between arguments based on fact and blind guesses
Sure you will... more make believe.
Where are you getting your figures from out of interest?
Last years SKY annual report. The household figures would have gone up a little i would think.
The NRL has always been on SS2 whilst the super14 is on hasn't it? This is very simply down to the fact that there is more NZ involvement in the S14 and so it takes preference.
While the Super 12/14 was on yes. In previous years tho, if there was no Rugby it was on Sky Sport one. not so this year.
It is a similar scenario with the netball as well I reckon. They put that on ss1 because it is a true trans-tasman competition, so there is more NZ interest. This is a pretty stupid reason though, because I remember reading in the paper that the ratings for the opening round of the netball averaged 29,000...
Sky put a lot of money into it, they must be hoping for some sort or return.
There is some pretty disgraceful programming that goes on though. I think super14 even gets put on ss1 over the international cricket. This will probably change if the super14 continues to get poor ratings...
Depends on your definition of bad ratings... if it still rates higher than what they would replace it with then why pull it?
the numbers i read for the NRL in NZ were around the 160,000 - 180,000 mark on Sky, and that they beat some S14 games at the same time
Well yay...lets see the link
Of course not. It's a collective term, not a personal jibe.
right...
