Nine dumps Wimbledon to chase AFL

[morley101]

THe AFL are a joke with their ratings in the Northern States

Seven’s AFL: Rnd 16: Carlton Vs Sydney Seven 98,000 54,000 *** 44,000 *** ***
Sunday Roast Nine 122,000 54,000 *** 67,000 *** ***

www.tvtonight.com.au/2010/07/week-30-3.html

54,000 to watch a Swans game on free to air in Sydney

54,000 to watch Sunday Roast in Sydney which costs $2000 to produce.

 

[VictoryFC]

Apparently the Wimbledon rights are $2.5 million a year. Nine can't find 2.5 mill? Clearly they aren't dropping Wimbledon to chase the NRL/AFL. Seems like they would've dumped it anyway

 

[Cumberland Throw]

THe AFL are a joke with their ratings in the Northern States

Seven’s AFL: Rnd 16: Carlton Vs Sydney Seven 98,000 54,000 *** 44,000 *** ***
Sunday Roast Nine 122,000 54,000 *** 67,000 *** ***

www.tvtonight.com.au/2010/07/week-30-3.html

54,000 to watch a Swans game on free to air in Sydney

54,000 to watch Sunday Roast in Sydney which costs $2000 to produce.

$2000 is a bit steep, Vossy and Gus are on contract, MG and TK are on PPV, you could get them for $300 a throw i reckon...

The problem we have is the channels seem happy to cop the sh*t ratings from the AFL, if they are Victorian born CEO's they have it ingrained in them that they will never bag the AFL , they dont care... Look how qwik they drop normal shows with bad ratings, the AFL either have them over a massive legal barrel, they are sh*t scared , or they love AFL so much they want it to succeed more than their career

 

[Ray Mosters]

$2000 is a bit steep, Vossy and Gus are on contract, MG and TK are on PPV, you could get them for $300 a throw i reckon...

The problem we have is the channels seem happy to cop the sh*t ratings from the AFL, if they are Victorian born CEO's they have it ingrained in them that they will never bag the AFL , they dont care... Look how qwik they drop normal shows with bad ratings, the AFL either have them over a massive legal barrel, they are sh*t scared , or they love AFL so much they want it to succeed more than their career

Victorian born CEOs being brainwashed? Man there is some really ridiculous bollocks written about AFL around here

The AFL make it a binding part of their broadcast contract, and then enforce said contract.

If our broadcaster was not our owner, we could do the same. Its really that simple.

 

[Lambretta]

Am I the only one that is distressed that I cant watch hot Eastern European girls in skimpy clothes grunting alot on free to air?

The loss of Wimbledon is the real story here.

f**k!

I love tennis.

 

[thorson1987]

Am I the only one that is distressed that I cant watch hot Eastern European girls in skimpy clothes grunting alot on free to air?

The loss of Wimbledon is the real story here.

f**k!

I love tennis.

On the plus side, no more Williams sisters wearing next to nothing.

Also would rather watch Aus Open, Dont need to stay up, and the Euro chics wear even less.

 

[Jamberoo]

What at we are seeing is a consolidation of the AFL as a live attendance sport - crowds up, ratings down, and the NRL as the TV sport.
Or is it just a Sydney - Melbourne thing?

 

[m0nty]

What at we are seeing is a consolidation of the AFL as a live attendance sport - crowds up, ratings down, and the NRL as the TV sport.
Or is it just a Sydney - Melbourne thing?

Realistically, crowds and TV attendances are fairly static from year to year in both sports. Oscillations of a couple of percent don't mean much, despite all the angst over a few thousand here or there in the crowds thread. There are two things that have changed the state of the industry in previous years: expansion into new markets, and changes in the spread of TV coverage from free to cable. More of the former and less of the latter is healthy for both codes.

 

[madunit]

well in all seriousness AFL is a game best experienced at the ground. TV Doesn't and can't capture the entirety of the game.

Rugby League, while still great to be at the game, is practically built for the TV, All the action is 90% of the time located all around one part of the field.

This in a sense partly explains why AFL has higher crowd ratings and why NRL has higher TV audiences.

 

[bobmar28]

The other thing to realize, leaving aside who has better ratings is the demographics of the audience.

18-49 is the most valuable demographic for all advertisers and within that females are more valuable than men. Certainly the fact that the AFL have close to a 50% female viewing audience as well as skewing young, means that TV networks can sell advertising to a larger group of advertisers.

eg. The demographics of NRL means that beer, electronics, car, etc. commericals might all fit but the AFL demographics mean that clothing, travel, jewelery, full range of food, etc. can also be approached. Thus with a wider group of advertisers bidding against each other for slots and the ones targeting women willing to pay more because of their higher purchasing power, greater influence by commericals and more often in charge of the family budget means that the TV networks stand to make more.

Hopefully this makes sense.

That makes no sense at all. If NRL wins the ratings then NRL should get the biggest tv contract. All of that sounds like wishful thinking anyway.

 

[VictoryFC]

well in all seriousness AFL is a game best experienced at the ground. TV Doesn't and can't capture the entirety of the game.

Rugby League, while still great to be at the game, is practically built for the TV, All the action is 90% of the time located all around one part of the field.

This in a sense partly explains why AFL has higher crowd ratings and why NRL has higher TV audiences.

I disagree. If you like the sport, you'll watch it on TV or at the ground. If you like League, you'll watch it on TV and at the ground. The issue is culture of attendance, and that is something that the NRL is beginning to address.

 

[eelandia]

I disagree. If you like the sport, you'll watch it on TV or at the ground. If you like League, you'll watch it on TV and at the ground. The issue is culture of attendance, and that is something that the NRL is beginning to address.

I tend to agree with you. An AFL fan still, I'm sure, looks forward to their TV Friday night football as much as a League fan. It is a poor excuse to say that AFL get more to the game because it is better being there. It is also better being at a live League game than watching it on TV.

You miss an awful lot watching League on TV. Many of the game's interesting aspects are away from the ball and cameras.

****

 

[Perth Red]

well in all seriousness AFL is a game best experienced at the ground. TV Doesn't and can't capture the entirety of the game.

Rugby League, while still great to be at the game, is practically built for the TV, All the action is 90% of the time located all around one part of the field.

This in a sense partly explains why AFL has higher crowd ratings and why NRL has higher TV audiences.

with all due respect that is a load of nonsense. Atmosphere, facilities, ease of access, game day experience, kick off times, weather, ticketed memberships, cost and importantly hype are why people do or don't attend games live. If it looks good on telly or not has zero bearing on decision making imo.

One reason NRL has high TV ratings in relation to live attendance is due to NSW and Q'land regional populations who can't get to games easily so have little choice but to watch it on TV. Vic, WA, SA all have most of their populations living within 1 hour of a live AFL game.

 

[Lambretta]

I disagree. If you like the sport, you'll watch it on TV or at the ground. If you like League, you'll watch it on TV and at the ground. The issue is culture of attendance, and that is something that the NRL is beginning to address.

He did say it "partly" explained things

and he is right

However, as you alluded, membership drives also help attendance figures.
This is the first time I can remember large bands of travelling supporters sitting in designated sections at interstate games.

The Sea Eagles at the Gold Coast and I think either the Dragons or Souths at Gold Coast or Brisbane. It's great to see two teams being supported rather than one and it also helps atmosphere and numbers at the game.

Positivity.

 

[madunit]

with all due respect that is a load of nonsense.

Its not nonsense.

Atmosphere, facilities, ease of access, game day experience, kick off times, weather, ticketed memberships, cost and importantly hype are why people do or don't attend games live. If it looks good on telly or not has zero bearing on decision making imo.

And nowhere did I mention any of those. I clearly and simply said that Rugby League is more suited to TV than AFL.

One reason NRL has high TV ratings in relation to live attendance is due to NSW and Q'land regional populations who can't get to games easily so have little choice but to watch it on TV. Vic, WA, SA all have most of their populations living within 1 hour of a live AFL game.

and Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland don't have regional areas also that can't get to AFL games.

I'm not here to defend AFL. I don't think much of it as a game at all. But to make a fair and balanced view on the topic, you need to be realistic.

AFL has players over the entire ground. NRL has the majority of it's players standing in 2 lines 10 metres apart. This is a simple fact. This is why I stated that NRL is made for TV as opposed to AFL.

 

[mrpwnd]

Let the ABC have league, or maybe SBS. that way between games we can watch softcore porn afterwards without changing the channel.

x1000000000000000000000000000

 

[Drew-Sta]

This is all a ruse by Channel 9 to push the price of the AFL up so that Channel 7 can't make a play for then NRL. Channel 9 and News are working together to ensure they keep the NRL. Why? Because it's better ratings than the AFL.

Read this: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ll-the-aces-in-new-tv-deal-20100618-ymr0.html

 

[Goddo]

^ interesting. If 9 is trying to be a nuisance and drive up AFL prices for 7 and 10, they need to reciprocate with the NRL's TV deal, likely to go to 9 and Fox.

That would see NRL and AFL payed roughly the same. The NRL needs to split rights and packages open to all bidders to encourage competition.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Actually, if the AFL gets paid overs again, then there is a big chance Channel 9 and Fox will get the rights for below true value; Hence, screwing League over again.

9 knows the power of FNF, Sunday arvo footy and SoO. They won't want to lose it.

What would be the best scenario is if we could have multiple games across multiple channels.

 

[madunit]

Actually, if the AFL gets paid overs again, then there is a big chance Channel 9 and Fox will get the rights for below true value; Hence, screwing League over again.

9 knows the power of FNF, Sunday arvo footy and SoO. They won't want to lose it.

What would be the best scenario is if we could have multiple games across multiple channels.

Bingo.

The biggest problem the NRL has is that the AFL rights appear to come up for renewal before the NRL's.

All the stations will go f**king nuts and spend sh*tloads to get their hands on some of that leaving them with f**k all cash for the NRL.

We should organise this next deal to be a year shorter than the AFL's so that the networks bid on NRL before AFL.