What's new
The Front Row Forums

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!

The TV rights thread part II

Providing the price is right which is your preferred FTA broadcast option?

  • All games on Seven

    Votes: 11 4.2%
  • All games on Nine

    Votes: 17 6.5%
  • All games on Ten

    Votes: 59 22.6%
  • Seven/Nine split

    Votes: 10 3.8%
  • Seven/Ten split

    Votes: 109 41.8%
  • Nine/Ten split

    Votes: 55 21.1%

  • Total voters
    261
Status
Not open for further replies.

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
So we have to bribe the big south african to get more cash?? He's done well for himself it seems

Does anyone know who the NRL have got as consultants?
 

Stormarekings

Juniors
Messages
90
I have done a little bit of study on the TV rights deal (I became a bit obsessed) and I have compared it to the AFL deal and worked out IMO what I think are leagues strong and weak points for this deal. This is the way I see it panning out. Let me give a little bit of an introduction:

Pro’s League points

1. 10% more TV audience per match
2. Adjustable fixture = better Friday night games
3. All NRL games don’t overlap (the AFL have about 5 matches with 2 games going at once)
4. High Sydney and Brisbane audience (Sydney and Brisbane have higher TV advertising per person by about 15% compared with other Metro regions)
5. Will have more games then AFL with 18 teams introduced into the comp (24 rounds per team compared to AFL 22 rounds)
6. Network 7, 9 and 10 all competing for FTA (7 are stuck with 4 AFL games and 10 are poor but any competition is good)
7. Two delayed FTA games reduce the TV audience (more TV numbers with live games)
8. Close to 70% of the top 100 programs for Foxtel (got to be worth at least what the AFL got from Fox)

Pro’s AFL points

1. All FTA games delayed by 20 minutes to 1 hour. Longer for Sydney and Brisbane (room for improvement with mostly live games across Australia during the next 5 year contract)
2. Able to hold audience market into later time slots (FTA) (game rating from 9.30pm until 11.30 pm worth more then a similar rating game played from 7.30pm to 9.30 pm)
3. Slightly more games then NRL with 18 teams in the competition
4. Seen as a good way to add subscribers to Foxtel’s Southern market
5. Higher Metro audience = more money (average metro audience member = double regional advertising money per person. I did some maths)
6. Had competition from all FFA networks and got in before the NRL (less money for NRL?)
7. More then double the adds 80 compared to 34 for NRL for FTA


With all of the above points I see all of them breaking even except for point 7. (AFL). Even with about a 20% increase in adds this only gives league about half the adds that AFL have. This will mean that for FTA TV league will get about half what the AFL will get for the FTA component.
If league got a similar deal done to AFL with 4 FTA games live and all 8 games shown live on Foxtel. This is how I see our deal panning out. Lets firstly look at the AFL deal and its break up (I think this is fairly accurate not 100% sure on the Testra deal I seam to recall it being 125 million some where)

AFL 1250 million Australian rights in total
100 millionTelstra
450 millionFTA TV
135 million contra
568 million Foxtel

This is what I see league getting for our deal.

NRL (IMO Australian rights in total without NZ )

225 million FTA TV (34 adds atm maybe they would increase them to 40 adds about 20% increase compared with 80 for AFL. Half the adds for a similar rating show at the same time slot worth half the money)
70 million Contra (Contra came from the FTA if I remember correctly same reasons as above so you roughly get half the contra)
50 million from Telstra/Optus (again adds will cost us)
568 million from Foxtel (have to give league at least the same as the AFL they probably payed overs to the AFL to drive up subcription)
* 50 million for floating Friday fixture and no live TV into AFL states.

Total of 963 million or 913 million with out * pretty much 1 billion with NZ deal. With fewer players to pay and less costs I see a 1 billion dollar deal as a good deal for league. Of course more would be better.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
68,271
You missed SOO and Internationals off the NRL + list and Capital City presence off the AFL + list.

No way we should only be worth half what Telstra and FTA are willing to pay AFL!

Only way we top a billion imo is if Ch10 and9 get into a bidding war AND Foxtel get live rights to every game
 

dragons__

Juniors
Messages
243
How about for a way to increase the amount of ads in any game, we use picture-in-picture technology.

Maybe when a try is scored, ball is kicked out, line drop out, routine before a goal is kicked for 2pts, injury, etc, we have the game zoom out towards the top left (or right) hand corner of the screen with the ad (and it's sound) playing in the rest of the majority of the screen.

We all worry that increased ads, while would be necessary to get a better tv deal, may interfere with the play/flow of the game. Ie. the ad going on just a little too long and it comes back into the game maybe 1 or 2 tackles down.

With this pip mode, you have the full benefit of the ad taking up most of your attention and the screen real estate ie. the whole point of ads so to get us more money in the deal, but with just a glance you don't have to miss that potential key few seconds of play.

Ads could also become interactive to an extent: for example when the ad is just about to finish, the actors could maybe point to the footy insert and say maybe a whitty line that relates their product and the foot or even just simply say: now back to the game, and point to it.

Win win situation for everyone
 
Last edited:

Cletus

First Grade
Messages
7,171
Just stop the clock for 20 seconds for goal line restart, conversion kick etc.

I don't think I've seen one that doesn't go for less than 40 seconds. I don't know why it isn't being used for an ad break now.

I hope this Frykberg guy wasn't on the board when Fox sports was negotiating their contract. The level of conflicts with News in the game is mindboggling.
 

rednblack

Juniors
Messages
275
How about for a way to increase the amount of ads in any game, we use picture-in-picture technology.

Maybe when a try is scored, ball is kicked out, line drop out, routine before a goal is kicked for 2pts, injury, etc, we have the game zoom out towards the top left (or right) hand corner of the screen with the ad (and it's sound) playing in the rest of the majority of the screen.

We all worry that increased ads, while would be necessary to get a better tv deal, may interfere with the play/flow of the game. Ie. the ad going on just a little too long and it comes back into the game maybe 1 or 2 tackles down.

With this pip mode, you have the full benefit of the ad taking up most of your attention and the screen real estate ie. the whole point of ads so to get us more money in the deal, but with just a glance you don't have to miss that potential key few seconds of play.

Ads could also become interactive to an extent: for example when the ad is just about to finish, the actors could maybe point to the footy insert and say maybe a whitty line that relates their product and the foot or even just simply say: now back to the game, and point to it.

Win win situation for everyone

Already happens (including the interctivity/reference to the PIP) in the V8's.
Good idea, and no reason we can't adopt the same approach IMO.
 
Messages
15,653
All the above has already been identified(by the NRL itself)as a way of increasing ad time without interupting the flow of the game.
 

whall15

Coach
Messages
15,871
Forgot to post a link

Best coverage of a live sports event
Nine Network, Australia - 2010 State of Origin - NSW v QLD Game 1
Russian Travel Guide TV, Russia - Khanty-Mansiysk World Chess Olympiad
BBC Birmingham, UK - Stoke City in the FA Cup Final
Eurosport, France - IRC SimulCam Coverage
NDTV, India - The World Cup of Joy
Sony Professional & Others, UK - Wimbledon in 3D

http://www.aib.org.uk/newsContent.asp?node_id=8,95&content_id=2411

Nine somehow nominated for an award.
 

rednblack

Juniors
Messages
275
for 2010. they showed that in 3D remember

Exactly. Credit where credit is due, and congratulations to nine for their part in the production.

TBF though, sports production in this country is now largely outsourced by the networks. Nine had a hand in the production, but it was largely down to the very professional and dedicated people who actually do the work on the ground that this particular broadcast was noticed and selected for this nomination. Nine essentially just bought a product and put it to air.

The networks in this country do not own the OB trucks or the equipment to produce an event like this one. Once upon a time, back in the day, they all had their own gear, trucks, staff and production departments to facilitate coverage of everything, from the likes of the NRL, AFL, A-League, Olympics, cricket, RWC, you name it. Even things like Home and Away, Masterchef, the renovators and the like would've been fully produced in-house. This is not the case these days. The big OB truck you see at the footy for nine one day will be covering AFL for seven the next, and a boxing fight for main event that day after that. Network studios are being culled, and just about everything is outsourced - including the crew, such as cameramen, EVS operators, TDs, Audio Directors, vision switchers, and perhaps crucially in this case, the 3D operators. Without these professionals and their collective experience, nine's coverage of the 2010 SOO would have been just another broadcast of just another game of footy.

This is less prevalent in some other countries/markets, where the networks/broadcasters still produce most of their own content.

Kudos to nine for their investment in the 3D technology, and its implementation in this instance (even though Sony played a large part in that as well). My congratulations also to the many crew who made the broadcast a (award winning?) success. They all deserve to take the credit for this nomination, but if experience tells me anything, then sadly most of them will probably not even hear about it (regardless of who the broadcaster actually was).
 

smithie

Juniors
Messages
527
YouTube hitches future to internet TV

GOOGLE is making a $US100 million ($96.5 million) bid to win a bigger share of the fast-growing internet TV market, with more than 100 new channels to be rolled out via its subsidiary YouTube, starting this month.

The new channels will include some created by entertainment figures including Madonna and Ashton Kutcher, and will cover film, music, news, comedy, drama and sport.

It represents a shift away from its user-generated roots towards professional, longer forms of television programming more often seen on broadcast and pay TV, albeit without directly challenging those sectors and with more emphasis on social engagement.

In a blog posting, five years after Google paid $US1.65 billion for YouTube, the global head of content partnerships at YouTube, Robert Kyncl, said the channels would be a new chance for advertisers to ''engage and reach their global consumers''.

Mr Kyncl said the channels would be available on any internet-connected device, anywhere in the world, with the interactivity and social features of YouTube built in.

He said the goal with the new channels was to bring a broader range of entertainment to the site, giving people more reasons to keep coming back to YouTube ''again and again''.

''These channels will have something for everyone, whether you're a mom, a comedy fan, a sports nut, a music lover or a pop culture maven,'' he said.

Mr Kyncl said in the same way pay television had transformed TV in the past, expanding the viewing possibilities from a handful of channels to hundreds, the internet was now redefining entertainment.

''Many of the defining channels of the next generation are being born, and watched, on YouTube,'' he said.

YouTube said the channels would be supported by advertising. They will be introduced over the next year, starting this month.

Google does not split out revenue and expenses for YouTube in its accounts but a Citibank analysis earlier this year estimated it had received $US825 million in revenue last year, would receive $US1.3 billion this year and $US1.7 billion next year.

A report released yesterday by the US telecommunication research firm Infonetics said internet protocol TV services would take about 15 per cent of the pay TV market by 2015. It expected existing pay TV companies to defend their turf with improved services like better digital recorders and programming.

A recent study of the online video market in Australia predicted that advertising on internet TV would be worth $311 million by 2016, up from the current $54 million. Australians already watch about 10 hours of online video each month.

The YouTube move is expected to help lift the internet TV sector further. Optus became the largest retailer of the internet pay TV provider Fetch last month, competing directly with Telstra's T-Box system.

Both deliver high-quality television reception by using broadband connections rather than cable TV lines or satellite dishes.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...internet-tv-20111103-1mxo2.html#ixzz1ciOHYlQU

Tick-tock, Foxtel. Your days are numbered.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
68,271
Nah, Foxtel will switch their services to internet based and ditch the satellite medium within a few years.
 

Lego_Man

First Grade
Messages
5,071
What has actually changed between now and last time?

I recall seeing the exact same arguments in favour of us getting a bonanza TV deal, but it never materialised. Excuse me if i'm less than optimistic...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top