The TV rights thread

[Ray Mosters]

Also, how much do ads really matter?

To Free-To-Air broadcasters? 95% of the value. They get SOME value in lead-in ratings, and cross-promotion of other shows, but the revenue comes from selling ads... thats all there is to it im afraid.

Its value to us in shirt and field advertising and stuff, but the broadcasters dont care about that

The EPL can sell its domestic rights for AUD $3.2 billion over 3 years, with no ads during game time. Ads add a bit sure, but ultimately it comes down to the reach of your audience, and how well you sell your product to the networks when it comes down to it.

Well, no, the EPL sell their rights to Pay TV and have no games on FTA, hence the number of ads dont matter.

They make a killing because they sell their games to a broadcaster who is selling subscriptions, not ads.

Reach doesent matter one bit if there is no way to make money off those people. You can either sell ads or subscriptions.

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

With less opportunity for ad space in Rugby League, but with more television viewers in the ratings vs AFL, surely the ads are charged accordingly.

Too simplistic?

And Bartman can stick his tin foil hat up his arse. You sound like that other Fox Network mouth-piece, of the same name. Underachiever and proud of it, wasn't it Bartman. Lame like Gallop, but don't have a cow, Bartman.

You don't have to be the world's shrewdest negotiator to know:

a) Don't talk up your rival.

b) Don't talk up your rival.

c) If you must point out some strengths, try and point out your own.

Christ, Gallop should not be anywhere near these TV rights talks.

Get the fair price for the game and then use the money to strengthen it.

This last TV rights deal before the News Ltd split will be spoken about in time as Rupert's final shot to the balls of Rugby League and it's fans.

It's lucky Rugby League is so phukin awesome and plenty of people think the same, because not many other sports would survive the finger-blasting from within it it's own ranks and survived as Rugby League has.

Viva La League!!

 

[Ray Mosters]

Eyes on the tele means more than this is the real world. The AFL don't use this as a marketing tool they use the reach they have via the 5 main cities and say that with two extra areas their deal should be more. The NRL can advertise in different ways than purely through TV ads, NRL grounds are better suited to having advertisements on them because they are smaller and rectangular, if used properly we could get big deals with sponsors for advertisements for the entire match plus tv advertisements. This is all part of the way it is viewed and this is part of the way the packages are done. The big importance for the next deal for us and highest priority is a broadcaster willing to show games in other states and increase exposure. Money going up is great too but we have to also be thinking of the ratings deal after the next one and continue to grow.

Yes its a package deal...but not for the broadcasters its not. They dont sell the shirt advertising, or the field advertising. That revenue goes to the club and the stadium, respectively.

For a free to air broadcaster its about 1 thing: how many ads can they sell? For a PayTV broadcaster its about 1 thing: how many subscriptions can they sell?

I mean think about it, say by putting all H+A games on FTA this we get another 50 million a year to the code....

to fund juniors,
to advertise, at home and in new markets,
to expand to Perth,
to guarantee the survivability of the clubs,
to raise the cap and keep our stars,
to be able to set our own game schedule...

to me that makes sense to sacrifice the last few games that are on FTA. Then when these things have been done, then in the next round we can send some games back to FTA for less money

 

[Jankuloski]

This thing about ad space is really a silly point. We have the technology now (wwwaaaaaiiiit fooor iiiit) To have the ads over the plays without going from the game.

While Thurston is concentrating and fixing his cap the bundy bear is dancing the samba in the corner. It's even more effective as I will still look at the game and not other stuff I can do while the ads are on.

 

[Ray Mosters]

With less opportunity for ad space in Rugby League, but with more television viewers in the ratings vs AFL, surely the ads are charged accordingly.

Yes of course, but we dont get twice the number of viewers do we? We get 10% or whatever higher ratings. They have twice the number of ads per game than us.

I dont know. In an ideal, anti-siphoned world, we might be able to have all games in QLD and NSW on foxtel and all games on at decent hours in the rest of the country.

That would get our product on TV where its needed to make the most cash and also on TV where its needed to grow the game.

 

[Ray Mosters]

This thing about ad space is really a silly point. We have the technology now (wwwaaaaaiiiit fooor iiiit) To have the ads over the plays without going from the game.

While Thurston is concentrating and fixing his cap the bundy bear is dancing the samba in the corner. It's even more effective as I will still look at the game and not other stuff I can do while the ads are on.

OK, lets say we do that, lets say we really stretch it out and put an ad in the corner of the entire broadcast.

Whats the stop the AFL doing the same thing? And considering their games go longer than ours, once again they are selling more ads time and we are at a competitive disadvantage.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Yes of course, but we dont get twice the number of viewers do we? We get 10% or whatever higher ratings. They have twice the number of ads per game than us.

I dont know. In an ideal, anti-siphoned world, we might be able to have all games in QLD and NSW on foxtel and all games on at decent hours in the rest of the country.

That would get our product on TV where its needed to make the most cash and also on TV where its needed to grow the game.

Geez...........here is a question...
If you were a business (paying big advertising $$$$$)would you be happy with your ad shown 100+ times during a fumbleball game ....if in 2 of the three biggest markets in OZ....only a handful of people are watching...

 

[bobmar28]

As has been pointed out a hundred times, we CANT get as much as AFL because we just dont have as many ads in our game. They have twice as many, and each of their broadcasts can generate twice the ad revenue. We have two extra rounds, Origin and more, but it still doesent ad up to the ads they are selling

So there are two choices

1. Increase the number of ads in NRL games that are going to FTA
2. Move more games to where ad revenue doesent matter...PayTV

I wonder whether we should move to a model the EPL uses, have all H+A games on Foxtel, and have just Origin and finals on TV.

Honestly thats the only way i could see us getting the 900 million that AFL is going to get.

I vote for more ads in the games. If that gives us more TV money and games on FTA then I'm all for it. I would rather put up with the ads than have to buy a Foxtel subscription.

 

[bobmar28]

To Free-To-Air broadcasters? 95% of the value. They get SOME value in lead-in ratings, and cross-promotion of other shows, but the revenue comes from selling ads... thats all there is to it im afraid.

Its value to us in shirt and field advertising and stuff, but the broadcasters dont care about that

Well, no, the EPL sell their rights to Pay TV and have no games on FTA, hence the number of ads dont matter.

They make a killing because they sell their games to a broadcaster who is selling subscriptions, not ads.

Reach doesent matter one bit if there is no way to make money off those people. You can either sell ads or subscriptions.

I don't see what jersey sponsorship has to do with TV rights negotiations.

 

[kbw]

Population of Australia = 21 million

Population of those 5 smog filled sh*t locations called capital cities = 11 million

Population of the lucky rural and regional areas = 10 million.

AFL is only in the 5 sh*t locations.

League is in both.

So tell me, how is AFL national and League isn't???????

Lets look at country VIC, TAS, SA and WA as a start, AFL is very strong in these areas and RL is almost non existant.

If you are talking who has a team, then its irrelevent because its about the support and who watches. Face it even though its the better game RL is a 2 state game.

If RL ratings match or surpass AFL then thats a testament to the fans and how good the game is, but it certainly isn't a national game compared to AFL.

 

[Doug2234]

I vote for more ads in the games. If that gives us more TV money and games on FTA then I'm all for it. I would rather put up with the ads than have to buy a Foxtel subscription.

f**k that - there are already too many ads.

More ads means games can no longer been shown live. Look how many ads are in the second Fri night game on Ch9 compared to the first.... close to double ... hence why 9 delay the games....

FTA it useless with sport..

You are getting into the game, your team has had 5 tackles in the opposition 20.. a short grubber into the in goal is knocked dead... your thinking of what your side can do from the drop out and all of a sudden they cut to an ad about chicken or toilet paper.

What a great f**king way to keep you intrigued in the game...

This is the main reason why i pause all the games on my Foxtel IQ2 when the coverage starts. Come back in 20 minutes and hit play. Allows me to fast forward through all the bullsh*t ads on FTA. Sooner or later companies are going to realise this and pull all ad play altogether...

 

[Dragonwest]

Lets look at country VIC, TAS, SA and WA as a start, AFL is very strong in these areas and RL is almost non existant.

If you are talking who has a team, then its irrelevent because its about the support and who watches. Face it even though its the better game RL is a 2 state game.

If RL ratings match or surpass AFL then thats a testament to the fans and how good the game is, but it certainly isn't a national game compared to AFL.

The number of states is irrelevant, it's the number of people living in those states that is .... there is our advantage!

 

[Ziggy the God]

You don't have to be the world's shrewdest negotiator to know:

a) Don't talk up your rival.

b) Don't talk up your rival.

c) If you must point out some strengths, try and point out your own.

Christ, Gallop should not be anywhere near these TV rights talks.

Yes, this simple concept is lost on many.

 

[Ziggy the God]

Lets look at country VIC, TAS, SA and WA as a start, AFL is very strong in these areas and RL is almost non existant.

If you are talking who has a team, then its irrelevent because its about the support and who watches. Face it even though its the better game RL is a 2 state game.

If RL ratings match or surpass AFL then thats a testament to the fans and how good the game is, but it certainly isn't a national game compared to AFL.

Why don't you tell us how many live there. f**k all.

 

[Cletus]

Yes, this simple concept is lost on many.

It only seems to be lost on one guy and he seems to go by the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you". The sh*tty thing is that even with the IC we'll be putting up with this TV deal for another five years.

 

[Bluebags1908]

There is an interesting article in the February/March 2010 edition of GQ magazine (a media-related magazine). I can't find the article on their website http://www.gq.com.au/, however on page 39 there is a full-page article with 6 questions posed to the big wigs of all the networks - 10 (David Mott), 7 (Tim Worner), SBS (Matt Campbell), ABC (Kim Dalton), 9 (Michael Healy), Foxtel (Brian Walsh).

The 6 questions are -
1. 'What was your best decision in 2009?'
2. 'What was one regret?'
3. 'Which program surprised you the most?'
4. 'Which program from another network would you love to have?'
5. 'Which upcoming show will perform the best?'
6. 'What should Australian TV do more of?'

The answers to question 4 took my attention:

10 - 'Underbelly'.
7 - 'The rugby league - there's a lot Seven could do with it'.
SBS -'I'd like to get Top Gear back off Nine'.
ABC -'Packed To The Rafters. Great writing, great performances..."
9 - 'MasterChef'.
Foxtel -'The Vampire Diaries. It would be a terrific companion piece to..."

On top of Matthew Johns' proposed new Footy Show on 7 starting this year, this is great news. Bring on the bidding war I say!! f**k 9.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Lets look at country VIC, TAS, SA and WA as a start, AFL is very strong in these areas and RL is almost non existant.

If you are talking who has a team, then its irrelevent because its about the support and who watches. Face it even though its the better game RL is a 2 state game.

If RL ratings match or surpass AFL then thats a testament to the fans and how good the game is, but it certainly isn't a national game compared to AFL.

Rugby League can claim 7 of the top 10 largest cities in Australia.

A two state game? Well, when those 2 states equate to more than half the national population, and consider that AFL doesn't rate in those two states, it certainly supports claims that league is at least equal to the AFL.

 

[aarondoyle]

There is an interesting article in the February/March 2010 edition of GQ magazine (a media-related magazine). I can't find the article on their website http://www.gq.com.au/, however on page 39 there is a full-page article with 6 questions posed to the big wigs of all the networks - 10 (David Mott), 7 (Tim Worner), SBS (Matt Campbell), ABC (Kim Dalton), 9 (Michael Healy), Foxtel (Brian Walsh).

The 6 questions are -
1. 'What was your best decision in 2009?'
2. 'What was one regret?'
3. 'Which program surprised you the most?'
4. 'Which program from another network would you love to have?'
5. 'Which upcoming show will perform the best?'
6. 'What should Australian TV do more of?'

The answers to question 4 took my attention:

10 - 'Underbelly'.
7 - 'The rugby league - there's a lot Seven could do with it'.
SBS -'I'd like to get Top Gear back off Nine'.
ABC -'Packed To The Rafters. Great writing, great performances..."
9 - 'MasterChef'.
Foxtel -'The Vampire Diaries. It would be a terrific companion piece to..."

On top of Matthew Johns' proposed new Footy Show on 7 starting this year, this is great news. Bring on the bidding war I say!! f**k 9.

They keep saying this stuff recently. Could they be our knight in shinning armour? Whisk us away to a proper tv rights package.

 

[bartman]

And Bartman can stick his tin foil hat up his arse. You sound like that other Fox Network mouth-piece, of the same name. Underachiever and proud of it, wasn't it Bartman. Lame like Gallop, but don't have a cow, Bartman.

:lol: Does stating an opinion about the barriers our beloved game faces before it can get the same amount of $$$ as AFL offend you that much?

It's all about expectation management - there's no use expecting something massive when it just doesn't add up for the people with the money. For the reasons stated by many (more ads, longer games, perception of more growth areas for subscriptions as league was the sport chosen to launch PayTV subscriptions back in the superleague era), AFL will probably get a bigger TV deal - as it does now, and as it will into the future. We should get an increase, especially if 7 is interested in bidding against 9/Fox, but lets be happy with what we can get, and build on that even more for the deal after (when News are completely out).

Don't crucify Gallop for the current realities that would still constrain whoever else might be in charge of our game. In all honesty, doing that is the simplistic option. The more difficult one is to admit our game was well and truly screwed by News Ltd/Superleague (and all that went along with it), and is still being screwed until News gets out of controlling it. It goes much higher than Gallop, and better men than him wouldn't be able to make a difference at the moment.

 

[Coaster]

I think everyone may be missing the underlining plot behind 7even starting the negotiating for League.

In the last negotiations Packer with his last dying words, threw out a ridicules sum for the rights for AFL, in fact it was so large a sum 7seven and Ten had to combine there bid to beat it.

Packer did not care, remember this guy was the ultimate pr1ck, he wanted them to pay overs for the sport, because if they did not, he would have the Cricket, league, Afl in his pocket.

I think this year we are seeing the results of that little game, Seven are p1ssed that that paid so much for so little (afl), and realize that League is the answer.

1. if they get League, they will gain a sport that has massive viewing audience and great negotiations with Foxtel.

2. If they fail, they skyrocket the price for League to such a proportion that it will nearly bankrupt 9ine.

The great thing for League is that we win no matter what the scenario.