Gf does well in Melbourne but their ratings for regular games are in toilet as well & they have a team!! Gf is a TV event
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Brisbane and Sydney certainly don't have a strong AFL presence. The TV ratings show this. Sure, people will tune in for the GF in bigger numbers but the Swans, Lions and Giants ratings are still pretty low. They have a niche market of ex-Pats and some locals.
Not that I'm claiming to be an expert, but you simply don't understand how commercial broadcasting licenses and advertising works.
I'm oversimplifying it a lot (otherwise I'd have to write a book just to try and explain it all, and I'm definitely not the person to write that book), but free to air broadcasters are licensed by the government to broadcast in designated markets across the country, and there are only so many licenses for each market.
Obviously there are metro markets and regional markets, and the metro markets are pretty self explanatory (in yellow), but the regional markets represent large disparate populations, not just singular regions/cities.
This creates markets within the broadcasting industry that aren't really natural outside of it. For example, as far as broadcasters and their advertisers are concerned the Sunshine Coast and CQ already have NRL content representing "their" market, the Cowboys.
This also means that outside of the potential of underserved markets where it might be worthwhile to add another NRL product for ratings reasons (which is debatable depending on the market and is a separate discussion), that every 'RL heartland' broadcasting market has at least one NRL team representing it (most more than one), except for Griffith and Central and East which aren't big enough to support teams, and the ratings and advertising gains from having their own teams wouldn't be there to make the venture worthwhile to broadcasters and major advertisers anyway.
In other words, aside from potentially underserved markets, the NRL's heartlands are 'shored up' from the broadcaster and major advertisers point of view.
This post is already a lot longer than I'd hoped so I'm going to be somewhat simplistic again; but to blue chip advertisers the most valuable timeslots to advertise on are primetime on the main channels. Obviously that's because, on average, that is when the most people are watching at any one time.
So, the programs that are most valuable to broadcasters to put into those timeslots are the ones that can attract the highest amount of viewers across as many markets, particularly the metro markets for obvious reasons, as possible, because that maximises ratings across as much of the population as possible, and makes their advertising space during those timeslots as valuable as possible to as many advertisers as possible.
In the case of sports products that means that the products that have teams in as many of those markets that can sustain one as possible are going to have a competitive advantage over the others that don't, as even if it's not the highest rating sports product in all of the markets that it's in it's still way more valuable to broadcasters and advertisers than a product that rates really well in half the markets but not at all in the other half.
How many people watch FTA now compared to Kayo & Fox sports? If you’re in to sport you probably have one or the other. When it comes to watching Storm games in Melbourne why would you watch on GEM? (assuming it’s an FTA game). No pre-game and no post-game coverage, it literally cuts straight to a movie after the full time siren.
It directly addresses your point...
The NRL, and RL in general, have a history of bad administration and bad decision making. With the possible exception of Soccer, RL is easily the worst run code historically in Australia.
It's still only a singular data point, and a singular data point is never enough to give you a good picture of a subject.
There're significant differences between the racing industry and pro-football, and his record as ARLC chairman has been spotty at best so far.
Storm rate well because they have been at the top for so long. Brisbane aside, the ratings roughly correlates with the ladder but the differences between top rating and low rating clubs is minimal.
www.crikey.com.au
Yes, but is this part of the charm of RL? The AFL on TV is slick but somewhat soulless. There is more personality in the NRL, even if the coverage is a little loose, it is more entertaining.
TV Ratings: you just can't beat a grand grand final
Last night's 14-12 win by the Panthers over the Rabbitohs on Nine was a classic rugby league grand final for the ages.
This shows why the NRL has work to do. The AFL GF rated more than 20% higher. Does a second club in Brisbane help this? Probably not much. New club in Perth? Probably yes.
But a second club an Brisbane should help more with other metrics like crowds and participation, where the AFL is even further in front.
My point is that the NRL has to change something. I would say the AFL is in front 55/45. If nothing changes, In ten years it will be 60/40 and eventually the AFL will be twice as big as RL. If you don’t think the AFL is in front and growing much faster than RL in this country you are dreaming.
The first step is Brisbane 2. The second is a proper 17/18 team women’s comp (girls sport is where all the funding is to upgrade facilities), then a team in Perth. If can all be done within five years and will ultimately pay for itself.
Here's the thing though... some NRL clubs do manage to get blue chip sponsors. So they are willing to get on board, it's just that some clubs are not organised / well run enough to get them. So that is not a dots on a map footprint thing. The NRL has a very good geographical reach.
