The TV rights thread

[AuDragon]

NRL matches are not actually filmed in HD are they?? I know the AFL is but I am pretty sure Nine hasn't made the move as yet.

I'm pretty sure they are. At least I can see a significant difference between SD on Ch.9 or HD on Ch.90. The difference is even bigger between Fox Sports and Fox Sports HD.

 

[hattori hanzo]

I read articles all the time like the one posted by andrew 057 on the last page
(ferking thing won't let me quote the post beacuse it has a link in it :?)
how NRL is so strong in the ratings etc and only here negative replies from people with no real evidence to bak it up. So although I have little faith in the persuasive powers of Gallop I'm thinking we might be suprised by the up coming auction.

 

[andrew057]

I read articles all the time like the one posted by andrew 057 on the last page
(ferking thing won't let me quote the post beacuse it has a link in it :?)
how NRL is so strong in the ratings etc and only here negative replies from people with no real evidence to bak it up. So although I have little faith in the persuasive powers of Gallop I'm thinking we might be suprised by the up coming auction.

Lets hope so mate.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Wheres all your links to back up those stats..

Wheres the mods now correcting this?? Do your jobs you forkin merkins.

Where are my stats? Compiled in my head over many years my friend. As i say i have been paying close attention to this since long before we went to 2 Friday night/3 FTA games, and the truth is we were generally beating the AFL on aggregated averages even then, if you include the regionals (and make an estimate for their non-included regionals).

Now that sort of comparison had alot of flaws and really it could never be much more than a good estimate, and you could make reasonable arguments either way, but what it definitely showed was that the number of people willing to sit down and watch league was comparable or slightly greater than the number willing to sit down and watch AFL.

And they get double what we get, domestically.

Now when you take into consideration all the other things that we have that should put us way out in front in terms of value, broadcaster determined schedule, a longer season, 3 blockbuster origin games, if the numbers were equal then we should be getting more than them.

So the question is, why the massive disparity?

Now in the last few years people have all jumped on the idea that the the conflict of interest is solely to blame, but I just don't agree.

You have to understand the how the media makes its money.

Heres a question, say you have a newspaper...what are you selling and who are your customers?

If you said the product is "the news of the day" and the customers were " the readers" you are dead f**king wrong.

A newspaper's customers are its advertisers. They pay money to get their ads printed, and form the revenue stream of the paper. The newspaper business is the business of selling advertising.

And what is the newspaper selling? Well the readers of course. They sell the their readers to advertisers, and the more readers they have the more they can sell.

Likewise running a TV station is about selling viewers to advertisers. The number of people watching while an ad is on determines how much that ad is worth. The AFL has twice as many of these ads as we do, and with comparable ratings they therefore receive twice what we do.

I dont know how many times I have explained this on here, or for how many years i have been going on about this, but the fact is we WILL NOT achieve parity with the AFL until we extend half time, and break 1 min for an ad break after a score

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Where are my stats? Compiled in my head over many years my friend.
...
You have to understand

Are you LU’s version of Sir Joh?

 

[Edwahu]

There is a huge component of the deal which is Pay TV based, which the AFL should not get near parity with us for. Somehow they get double what we do for it.

If we got a fair deal on Pay we would make up a lot of ground on the FTA disparity.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

We need an hour or half hour highlight show with game of the week packaged for devoping markets. Like the nba Jam show they used to have. Build it and they will come

 

[Schiltzenberger]

We need an hour or half hour highlight show with game of the week packaged for devoping markets. Like the nba Jam show they used to have. Build it and they will come

I think you mean NBA Action, I used to watch it every week, it's still on ESPN.

I have been saying for years that we need a show like that, The Footy Shows and stuff do a lot of talking. An 'NRL Action' type show would be a 30min show packed with the weeks highlights, and the top 10 plays of the week.

 

[applesauce]

Likewise running a TV station is about selling viewers to advertisers. The number of people watching while an ad is on determines how much that ad is worth. The AFL has twice as many of these ads as we do, and with comparable ratings they therefore receive twice what we do.

I dont know how many times I have explained this on here, or for how many years i have been going on about this, but the fact is we WILL NOT achieve parity with the AFL until we extend half time, and break 1 min for an ad break after a score

Load of crap!

Our delayed games have more ads per hour than an AFL game. The Sundays delayed games have 5-6 ads in a row every 9-10mins (a rate faster than AFL goals).

We have more on field advertising - sideline screens & on-field painting - we have the Harvey Norman Video Ref, Holden halftime, Bundy Friday night footy, Keno Super Saturday, Home hardware Sunday arvo footy, more on field advertising (on grass, sidelines, goal posts, corner posts), advertising on-screen during play, Brut big hits, more advertising on jerseys (including refs). Our camera angles also show much more advertising over the course of a game and the AFL.

The live game (Friday 7:30 EST) is during true Prime Time (unlike the AFL's) with a 1mill+ watching (also unlike the AFL) so the advertising is worth more to the advertisers and the networks.

Our fox games ratings DOUBLE the AFL matches every week, logically, making our advertising worth twice as much.

And before you say well the AFL have longer games so they can command more read this:

AFL considers plan to cut quarters in bid to speed up ballooning match times
By Mark Stevens
July 30, 2010
The length of AFL games could be cut next season amid fears they are stretching too long for fans, players and broadcasters.
Link...

Add to this the NZ ratings consistently between 120k-150k per week (just for Warriors games) that are never added to overall ratings figures or the International exposure for companies that is rarely taken advantage of. The NRL are on par, at least, with the AFL.

 

[docbrown]

Plus I'd add that the 60% of Advertising dollars are actually spent in QLD & NSW, so anything with high ratings in those two states automatically attracts the money.

 

[Ray Mosters]

We have more on field advertising - sideline screens & on-field painting - we have the Harvey Norman Video Ref, Holden halftime, Bundy Friday night footy, Keno Super Saturday, Home hardware Sunday arvo footy, more on field advertising (on grass, sidelines, goal posts, corner posts), advertising on-screen during play, Brut big hits, more advertising on jerseys (including refs). Our camera angles also show much more advertising over the course of a game and the AFL.

Lol, settle down there mate, we do squeeze the telecasts for every cent, but just think about it for a second...not every revenue stream you mention goes to the broadcaster, some go to the NRL, some the ground operator, some to the clubs.

And every source of secondary advertising revenue you mention has an equivalent in AFL. We just arent going to press a meaningful advantage in this regard, and they have other advantages, like they have 5 games a weekend on FTA in 5 capitals...some of their secondary advertising like shirt and ground advertisements are worth alot more because of that.

The live game (Friday 7:30 EST) is during true Prime Time (unlike the AFL's) with a 1mill+ watching (also unlike the AFL) so the advertising is worth more to the advertisers and the networks.

And thats a good thing? Our game is played live whereas the AFL gives channel 7 the luxury of keeping their prime time spot for something else (BH+G being one of the highest rating shows on TV). For us to get our 750k+ FN average and sell our 30 mins of advertising we use up 2 hours in Friday primetime, and we consign one of our games to be played late at night Friday when ratings are low and kids have gone to bed.

(Incidentally, I think that this is why a open and fair auction of FNF will be a face off between 9 and 10 next time, because 7 will keep AFL, the 3 hour game starting after BH+G just suits them down to a tee)

Our fox games ratings DOUBLE the AFL matches every week, logically, making our advertising worth twice as much.

Actually ads are far less important on pay, and the PayTV formula is alot more difficult... PayTV is about the subscriptions, and not about the number of ads you can deliver, though they do help.

This is one section where I think we have been undersold and we should make up this time.

And before you say well the AFL have longer games so they can command more read this:

As I said, its not about how long games run, its about the number of advertisements that can be delivered in that time...do you think if the AFL cut the running time of their games they are going to cut the number of advertisements delivered in the game? I seriously doubt that.

Add to this the NZ ratings consistently between 120k-150k per week (just for Warriors games) that are never added to overall ratings figures or the International exposure for companies that is rarely taken advantage of. The NRL are on par, at least, with the AFL.

The raw numbers may not get mentioned when talking about ratings, but the money they contribute certainly does, we are a minor code in that small market, but the NZ share comprises 10% of our broadcast revenue, and they are the only reason we get over 100m a year at the moment.

I think this component will not increase alot, certainly not double.

No, there is two areas where we can reasonably expect significant growth this time, the PayTV portion, with other PayTV operators sniffing around you will most likely see a premium paid by Fox to keep us.

And SOO. Obviously SOO will get us more if it we manage to split off, but even the threat to do so should reap some sort of dividend.

I dont know....it sure is an exciting time for the code at the moment.

 

[docbrown]

Just start Sunday NRL at 1:30pm and finish it at 6:00pm with 2 games aired. Half hour extra of ads, problem solved (or new problem created...?). They could cut out the 20 odd minutes of bullsh*t talk they have in the Friday night game and replace it with ads.

For my mind the whole 'build up about the game, who the players are etc' is easily done over the footage of them walking onto the field.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

I think you mean NBA Action, I used to watch it every week, it's still on ESPN.

I have been saying for years that we need a show like that, The Footy Shows and stuff do a lot of talking. An 'NRL Action' type show would be a 30min show packed with the weeks highlights, and the top 10 plays of the week

Yep thats the one, would be a graet product to use to develop interest overseas and interstate

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...ribes-scrambling/story-e6frep5o-1225908401313

A HOT topic in sport is television rights. There is a very good chance Channel 7 and Channel 10 – in a share arrangement akin to the AFL – will get the new rugby league rights. It would give the two networks a blanket coverage of top rating football in all states – league (Queensland and NSW) and AFL (the rest). Cricket has also made it very clear it will spruce up its product for television to put it in a stronger position for negotiations next year. But the big loser could be rugby union which already has lost free-to-air coverage of Super 14. I am told the recent Bledisloe Cup direct telecast (at 5.30pm) was a disaster for Seven. It was seen as the reason Seven lost the vital 6pm weekly timeslot for the first time in months. If Seven doesn't want union it would be the death of the sport on free-to-air.

 

[BM-dog]

If Seven doesn't want union it would be the death of the sport on free-to-air.

Not completely true, the ABC shows the Shute Shield in NSW. But in the main he's right, and I wouldn't blame Seven for dumping union tests, they're massively unpopular. This year games against NZ and RSA have been rating around 400-500k, that's much less than a standard NRL club game on a Friday night! They really are in trouble. It'd be a massive embarrassment for the ARU if its showpiece international events, the ones that are meant to convince kids to play union instead of league, got dumped by FTA.

 

[chrisD]

Yep thats the one, would be a graet product to use to develop interest overseas and interstate

EPL, A-League and S14 all do it, hour shows though.

 

[Cletus]

Not completely true, the ABC shows the Shute Shield in NSW. But in the main he's right, and I wouldn't blame Seven for dumping union tests, they're massively unpopular. This year games against NZ and RSA have been rating around 400-500k, that's much less than a standard NRL club game on a Friday night! They really are in trouble. It'd be a massive embarrassment for the ARU if its showpiece international events, the ones that are meant to convince kids to play union instead of league, got dumped by FTA.

I think the ARU will have to accept less for it. A lot of their income comes from the S15, they'd be in more trouble if the Sout Africans pull out of the deal like they've been threatening to for a couple of years.

 

[docbrown]

I think the ARU will have to accept less for it. A lot of their income comes from the S15, they'd be in more trouble if the Sout Africans pull out of the deal like they've been threatening to for a couple of years.

2-3 games a week after Midnight and 2-3 New Zealand games that have 5pm EST starts add little to the TV deal. Add to this the low appeal of South African team games.

Fox basically pays for 2-3 Australian primetime slot Super 15 games, the rest is just part of the background. Super 15 will likely never see free to air here because of that and Fox won't onsell one of those few local matches to FTA.

Compare that to 8 weekly NRL matches spread across ideal non-competing timeslots and you'll see why blanket marketing is vital.

 

[bobmar28]

NRL matches are not actually filmed in HD are they?? I know the AFL is but I am pretty sure Nine hasn't made the move as yet.

Has been for a couple of years. Use your remote to switch between 9 SD and HD, you will see the difference.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tv-deals-to-reward-wealthiest-footy-clubs-20100828-13wtr.html

TV deals to reward wealthiest footy clubs
Daniel Ramus
August 29, 2010

A LIKELY $2 billion from the next AFL and NRL television rights deals is set to deliver an unprecedented boost to the brand value of the top clubs from the two codes, The Sun-Herald has found.

A list of the 10 most valuable football clubs in Australia across Australian rules, rugby league, rugby union and football, compiled by entertainment and trademark lawyer Wayne Covell of worthyofthename.com, highlights the critical role of television exposure in adding value to a club's brand.

For example, Covell's list attributes a value of $263million to Collingwood with $87.9million of that due to television revenue and audience projections.

In the NRL, television revenue and audience figures are also vital. Of the $169million value applied to Brisbane Broncos, $89.2million can be attributed to television weightings. For the Parramatta Eels, television revenue accounted for $86million of the club's value of $141million.

Interestingly, on a table compiled by brand analysis specialist Repucom International, highlighting the cumulative television audience of all football clubs in Australia across the four codes for 2009 on free-to-air television and Fox Sports, the Broncos are No.1, the Eels are No.2, and Collingwood are No.3.

The AFL's television deal, which expires at the end of next year, is worth $780million while the NRL's television deal, expiring at the end of the 2012 season, is worth $500million. Both codes will be looking for $1billion from their next deals.

Covell emphasises the central role television plays in his valuations.

"The size of the television deal has a huge impact on the football team valuations," he says.

"A large slice of the television fees paid are attributable to a team's viewership. Their audience drives sponsorship, advertising and merchandise deals."

With the NRL's potential to double the value of their current television deal, and the AFL set to increase its deal by $220million, it's interesting to compare their numbers to the English Premier League - its television deal is worth about $5billion, confirming its stature as the biggest football league in the world.

NRL chief executive David Gallop says he does not have a target price in mind for his code's next television deal, but feels the game has put forward a strong case to potential broadcasters.

Gallop told The Sun-Herald: "Our expectation is to get an increase in TV revenue that reflects the game's standing. We have not set a dollar value on that but we believe we have compelling content for any broadcasters and our ratings consistently reflect that."

He said the NRL was doing everything in its power to secure the best deal. "It is an enormous opportunity,'' Gallop said. ''It is unquestionably our biggest single revenue source so it plays an important role in growing the financial strength of the game and in helping the game reach as many people as possible. I don't think anyone is underestimating the significance of the next broadcasting deal."

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou says his code isn't in a battle for the same television money as the NRL, despite having signed NRL players Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau.

"We do not believe we are competing for the same television dollar in our next round of TV rights negotiations," Demetriou says.

Covell's list comes after the release last month of Forbes magazine's valuation of the world's top 10 sporting franchises.

Manchester United topped the Forbes list, with a valuation of $2billion.

The total value of Australia's top 10 football brands is $1.8billion, which is about the value of the New York Yankees baseball team, which Forbes ranked as the world's third most valuable sports team.

Calculating the value

1. The top 10 list is based upon six key indicators - television rights, sponsorship, merchandise, hospitality, membership and ticket revenue projections for the next five years.

2. Four football competitions were considered: AFL, NRL, Super Rugby and the A-League.

3. The figures do not take into account revenue from gaming or poker machines, or club operating expenditure.

4. Each valuation is based upon the value of the sports team to the trademark owners (AFL or NRL) and the franchisee (the club).

5. AFL and NRL TV deals will be renegotiated in 2011 and 2012. Each is reported to be worth $1billion or more over five years.

6. The clubs' proportionate share of TV deals is based on Television Audience Comparison figures provided by Repucom International.