The TV rights thread part II

[bobmar28]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/tv-ratings-windfall-for-2011-nrl-grand-final/story-e6frexnr-1226157562636

THE NRL has scored a rare grand final television ratings win over the AFL - with a bumper audience in New Zealand delivering ratings gold.

While the AFL decider between Collingwood and Geelong attracted a higher average audience across the five major capital cities, the NRL's strong figures in regional areas and a whopping 692,000 viewers in New Zealand saw the NRL topple the AFL in the head-to-head ratings.

In recent years the NRL has consistently finished a close runner-up to the AFL but the 2,720,000 league fans across Australia's five major capitals and New Zealand who tuned in to see Manly beat the Warriors 24-10 at ANZ Stadium on Sunday night was slightly higher than the 2,595,000 viewers watching the AFL decider across Australia's five biggest cities on Saturday afternoon.

According to the OzTAM ratings reports, 2,028,000 watched the NRL grand final on Channel 9 across the five capital cities - with the NRL claiming that another 1,150,000 watched in regional markets.

And in New Zealand, 515,000 viewers watched on subscription television live through Sky Television, while another 177,000 fans watched the delayed free-to-air coverage on Prime.

The NRL's grand-final ranking performance is even stronger when you consider the fact that OzTAM reports show the NRL decider attracted more viewers in Melbourne on Channel 9 than the AFL finale attracted in Sydney on Channel 10 - 347,000 compared to 258,000. The figures are another bargaining chip for NRL boss David Gallop as he continues talks with a number of television networks for the broadcast rights beyond the 2012 season.

"Again the results underline the strength of rugby league's connection with television audiences," Gallop said.

In 2011, the NRL's average ratings on free-to-air TV across the five capital cities rose by 1.3 per cent.

According to the Australian Financial Review the ratings went down 2%. Where do they get their information? Or does the fact that they are a Victorian publication mean they are biased and fudging figures.

 

[Goddo]

Some very hollow arguments for a low NRL deal in that Fin Review article...

Media executives, not surprisingly, take a different view. They argue the NRL will struggle to match the AFL's $1.25B haul, considering rugby league draws big TV audiences in only two states and does not have a pre-season competition that attracts big TV ratings.

Only two states? They are the biggest in the country you mongs.55% of the population, the 1st and 3rd largest. Sure, we don't have a pre-season cup, but we have ANZAC Test, City v Country, 4 Nations, a World Cup, State of Origin, All Stars. FFS.

They also argue the NRL has only one significant "off-ground event", the Dally M medal, compared with the myriad AFL events, while it has not spawned as many "ancillary" TV programs as the AFL.

How is 9 having fewer RL shows at all a concideration? The NRL doesn't control that, and the AFL has $150M of their deal as contra advertising and programing, so we may have to settle for a contra component (say $150M of our $1.4B deal). As for "off-ground events", if it were properly promoted by all parties the Dally M's can be bigger than the AFL equivelant. We don't have a stupid draft, nor should we.

AFL games run for three hours on TV, compared with two for NRL games, creating more advertising revenue opportunities

So? The NRL has already stated they will look at increasing in game advertising, particularily after kicks into touch and drop outs.

Finally, they point out that, from next year, the AFL competition will have nine games a week, compared with the NRL's eight

How is that a concern of free to air TV? We are going to expand anyway, probably in Perth and Brisbane, markets that broadcasters have indicated they are willing to pay more for.
Some pathetic arguments there. Gallop should come out firing, shout this garbage down.

 

[juro]

Do they normally count the NZ ratings to see whether NRL or AFL are on top? Also, should they count the NZ replay on FTA? They don't count any ratings for replays on Fox, do they?

 

[bluesbreaker]

The TV networks are just getting their excuses prepared for a sub-standard TV DEAL because they'll negotiate it with themselves once again. Business as usual .

 

[BuffaloRules]

Harold Mitchell in that afr article

The NRL has great appeal in some states, but the successful sports have built Australia wide appeal.

Does anyone know what sports he is talking about?

 

[juro]

The only sport with Australia wide appeal would have to be cricket...

 

[Perth Red]

The only sport with Australia wide appeal would have to be cricket...

using the cricket criteria you would have to say soccer is the other. Neither draw big crowds domestically but do internationally and at a participation level both games are played in big numbers across the country.

AFL would have the wood on us if you were focussing on the 5 capital cities but NRL would have a larger reach to % of popualtion, largely thanks to the large regional cities in NSW.

There is still the strong perception that unless you have a team in the main 5 capital cities you can not be considered to have a national game, hopefully we put one more on our list in 2014 then it will just be Adelaide to conquer.

 

[juro]

Cricket is far more visible in the media than soccer though. It totally dominates the summer sporting market. While the domestic comps don't get the crowds or TV ratings, the internationals always do well, and they occur far more often than the soccer internationals.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

The AFL also has two FTA networks showing games, each with their own pre-post game /midweek panel shows, as well as Nine's shows.

So when you have three FTA networks versus one having these "ancillary" shows of course they're going to have more.

 

[Perth Red]

True (but then there is very little sporting competition in summer also) and as I said if you were to identify the sports that are played in large numbers across the country then it would be soccer and cricket. I would say cricket is as close to the "National game" as you are ever likely to get in Australia.

Different people will always use different criteria I guess but the point still stands that NRL is perceived as not a national competition.

 

[Raiderdave]

sports with nationwide appeal :?

well I think the GF proved that the NRL is doing about as well as the AFL where TV is concerned

for the AFL GF in the 2 capitals of NSW & QLD where its been shown in prime time for decades & has 3 .. soon to be 4 teams playing in it
it attracted just 565K veiwers

for the NRL GF ..in the 3 capitals of VIC , WA & SA .. where it is almost never shown
with only 1 side playing in it from these states
it attracted 500K veiwers

yep
neither has anymore " nationwide " appeal then the other
not an opinion

a fact !!

 

[Brutus]

Harold Mitchell in that afr article



Does anyone know what sports he is talking about?

Honestly how is that Harold Mitchell fella considered a guru in media buying circles.

The successful sports are Australia-wide??

Think about what you just said you stupid old turkey.

 

[whall15]

Well he won the Victorian of the Year.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Abo...HaroldMitchellACnamedMelburnianoftheYear.aspx

He also owns the Melbourne Rebels Union team so there are two reasons he doesn't like league.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Mitchell has never said one positive thing about Rugby League, but he is always asked for a quote in these articles about how much money they are going to get...

The bloke is insinuating that the AFL has "built Australia wide appeal"

Please...

Have a look at the AFL Sydney & Brisbane ratings you gimp....

 

[El Diablo]

Just read it on the website and have a few comments to make.

Gallop sounds a lot more commanding.

TV networks come up with some bizarre excuses like no pre-season cup (show trial games) and not enough tv shows about it by Nine (how is that NRL's fault?)

Channel Nine will have to big bid if it doesn't want to lose first and last bid rights.

we also have the Toyota Cup

the excuse about shows is bullshit

9 have more hours dedicated to AFL related shows than NRL related shows and they don't have the rights to AFL

that 9 prefer promoting AFL is not the NRL's fault

 

[Perth Red]

yep
neither has anymore " nationwide " appeal then the other
not an opinion

a fact !!

Not arguing it but the "perception", and it is a very strong one, is built on the AFL having at least 2 teams in every major capital city whilst NRL has only 3 cities covered and 1 of those with just one team.

We know that it doesn't translate to appeal but that is where the perception comes from like it or not.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Media Watch tonight was good viewing - complaints about Nine and it's exceptions for showing the Union on digital channels. Also a little bit about the pokies stuff.

 

[El Diablo]

Media Watch tonight was good viewing - complaints about Nine and it's exceptions for showing the Union on digital channels. Also a little bit about the pokies stuff.

saw it

9 have done shit like this for years with RL and the ABC didn't care

but we know the ABC hates RL

 

[bobmar28]

saw it

9 have done shit like this for years with RL and the ABC didn't care

but we know the ABC hates RL

Those ABC snobs have had a love affair with AFL for the last 12 years that I can remember.

Some of their presenters insist on describing the NRL as the National rugby league but they never mention the Australian football league, it's always AFL.

Why is that? It's their way of pointing out that fumbleball is national and NRL isn't.

The sooner we get a team into Perth the better.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Out of interest, has Media Watch ever taken up the cause of the NRL not being shown at a reasonable time ( let alone live) in Melbourne, as they did with the Union last night?

I cant believe that they havent had hundreds of emails over the years...