And there is YOUR problem. You think that Rugby needs to try and "poach" an existing fanbase. A defeatest attitude and lacking in anything remotely resembling imagination. Just like your administrators.
Your target demographic SHOULD be those children, SHOULD be those woman. But you just lack the imagination to do so. If they aren't watching AFL and NRL then get them watching and playing another game. Netball in NZ is dying because of the concerted effort that NZR is putting into Womans Rugby. Getting those people watching the game and their kids, boys AND girls playing it. The womans NRL and AFL are in their infancy, hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
And there is that lack of imagination again, stuck on a single demographic.
And yet you want a third rate national comp that wont even draw a million cumulative. real smart thinking there.
The only thing preventing "access to the full population" is the will to do it. if your thinking is prevalent in RA its no wonder its dying,
No mate, the only thing preventing access to the full population is
reality. If you'd ever spent time analysing marketing data and working in business development, none of this would surprise you. Focussing your energy on trying to get everyone is renowned as a thoroughly self-defeating and ill-advised strategy for any business that doesn't already hold a hegemonic position.
As for where our target demographics "SHOULD" be, well of course we should target women and children, but the reality is the core demographic I outlined is
the core demographic for football codes across the globe. It's just a fact. I wasn't saying that's the only place our energies should go, I was saying that's where the market exists and generally always has.
On women and children there's a couple of points to consider though; women are actively being pursued as a source of potential fans by all codes now and Rugby Australia actually haven't been too bad on that front, but the AFL currently remain the leaders at female engagement. All the same, male fans are still the bread and butter of all football codes.
Children are another story - they're a nice talking point, but when you're talking about children you're really talking about their parents... those are the influencers you're after and they still fall into your core demographic AND the ones getting their kids to play contact footy are still overwhelmingly male.
That is EXACTLY your thinking. pull out of a high standard comp, and play in a much lower one by yourself. Isolation didn't work for SA it wont work in Australia.
You do realise that participation numbers in NZ for soccer are about double that of Rugby. oh you didn't? that explains a lot.
Actually yes, I was aware that soccer participation numbers are much greater than rugby participation numbers in NZ. Why? Because they're bigger EVERYWHERE.
They're bigger than American Football numbers in the US too just FYI. But do you know why? For the same reason that more people jog than play contact sports; because it's safe.
In countries like Australia, NZ, North America etc soccer participation numbers have always been great, but the game is not
elite in any of those places or seen as something aspirational by the majority of the country due to their culture and history.
For 50 years soccer people in Australia have bemoaned the fact that they have had fantastic participation, but that no one would watch the game. This isn't new and you ought to know that there's a significant difference between what people will do to be social as a hobby and what they would rather invest their support and money in.
Because your teams aren't good enough.. They can't compete and nobody bothers to watch a loser.
A single win. and not one by your national team. When was the last time you won a series against the ABs? won the Bledisloe? won a world cup? as apposed to when was the last time your Super Rugby teams lost 40 in a row to NZ teams?
Two points here:
- The Waratahs are arguably the largest rugby brand in Australia after the Wallabies and their ratings are pretty well the only thing keeping anyone watching Super Rugby. A win was a massive result for a side that has promised a lot over 20 years and always come up short and it was treated as such here. On top of that with the Reds 2011 win and Tahs 2014 win we had 2 Aussie wins over the course of a 5 year TV deal that was about to be replaced. Not a bad strike rate for one conference in a 3 conference system, and yet we still got less money. Surely you can understand what that looks like.
- If nobody wants to watch a loser then how do you explain the continued success of State of Origin? NSW have had over a decade of dominance over them until this year and yet the crowds and ratings for Origin have continued to be immense, always hovering around the 3.5-4 million a match mark. Maybe, just maybe, winning alone isn't the issue? I know this an immensely complicated notion for you, but perhaps the stronger public engagement with Rugby League and it's vastly richer structure has something to do with it?
That is EXACTLY your thinking. pull out of a high standard comp, and play in a much lower one by yourself. Isolation didn't work for SA it wont work in Australia.
Ahhh "roots" and "history"... otherwise known as i don't know how to fight it so i will stamp my feet and do nothing.
For someone so mind numbingly ignorant of so many things, you sure have a lot of confidence in your denials of facts.
I'm not proposing isolation; that would imply I don't want the wallabies to play tests. No, I'm proposing pulling out of a competition that all the facts indicate simply is undermining the development of Australian Rugby and is so badly organised that broadcasters won't invest in it even when we're winning