The TV rights thread

[El Diablo]

Poor marketing? Nine are the ones that refuse to show Melbourne games. They made 4 GFs in a row and 'won' 2 comps ffs. They have crowds as good as other NRL sides.

TV networks don't give RL decent exposure in some capital cities then give us a dud deal because we don't rate in those cities. Talk about self fulfilling f**king prophecy.

i'd blame that former AFL Lawyer Jeff Browne for that seeing he ran 9 Melbourne

and now he's just been made the CEO of 9

 

[IPAlarms]

and the ABC hates League

I can't complain. I get games every Friday, Saturday and Sunday - plus State of Origin.

I'll be sick if I miss out on it this season.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Don't forget that what isn't included in the NRL TV deal is the extra $$$ negotiated for the NZ TV rights. Not sure how much that is, but you would have to add it on to whatever is negotiated in Australia as the NRL has a NZ-based team.

 

[Raiderdave]

The reason the AFL is worth so much more than us is not "penetration into NSW and Qld", thats bollocks. We more than account for that difference with our regional penetration.

Its the advertising space. An AFL game delivers double the advertising space that an NRL game does. A game is worth twice as much to the broadcaster because it can sell 2 ads to our 1 to the same number of people.

No amount of mitigation, not demographic, not season length, nothing, can overcome a %200 difference in advertising revenue per game.

oh really ?
more then 60% of advertising is written in NSW & QLD
you can trot out the AFL is on for longer .... but if no one is watching ... then this argument is pointless

the NRL dominates prime time TV in states where more then 60% of national advertising is written .... more then matching the AFL's " value " to broadcasters nationally.

its an AFL furphy .... smoke n mirrors :crazy:
TV exces are onto to this myth.;-)

 

[Raiderdave]

Ratings figures are obviously important - very important - when it comes to negotiating these deals, but they are not the 'be all and end all'.

The AFL has sginifcant leverage in being able to outline its strategic plans, how it is continuing to grow into new markets. The NRL doesn't have this strategic plan yet and can't.

The AFL can illustrate the strong growth in participation in the sport in new markets, which the NRL can not. The AFL can show it will continue to experience this growth highlighting the 6 figure sums they have recently spent in places like Cairns, Townsville and Bathurst to name just a few centres (which doesn't even count western sydney and the gold coast). These are rugby league towns and the NRL has spent less money in them and they are losing participation at junior and senior levels.

participation rates :sarcasm:

what snot
if that were the case then soccer would have the biggest TV deal :crazy:

its what people watch
& where they watch it .............

game set n match .. the NRL

 

[Ray Mosters]

its an AFL furphy .... smoke n mirrors :crazy:
TV exces are onto to this myth.;-)

Sure, 60% of advertising revenue is earned in NSW and QLD, but thats hardly surprising considering 55% of the population lives there. It doesent magically make ads for NRL games worth double what they are for AFL games when they rate the same. It will make a small difference, but not double.

But hey, if "TV execs are onto this myth" and you are right and ad space in NRL games are worth double then we will get more than the AFL per year, because our ratings on a per game basis are at least equivalent, and we have a longer season and SOO.

There will be no gipping of the code this time, both we and the AFL will get what we deserve.

And if you are right, and the AFL gets 1B, then for 6 years we will get 1.2B+

 

[Raiderdave]

Sure, 60% of advertising revenue is earned in NSW and QLD, but thats hardly surprising considering 55% of the population lives there. It doesent magically make ads for NRL games worth double what they are for AFL games when they rate the same. It will make a small difference, but not double.

But hey, if "TV execs are onto this myth" and you are right and ad space in NRL games are worth double then we will get more than the AFL per year, because our ratings on a per game basis are at least equivalent, and we have a longer season and SOO.

There will be no gipping of the code this time, both we and the AFL will get what we deserve.

And if you are right, and the AFL gets 1B, then for 6 years we will get 1.2B+

they match the value .. they're not double

the bulk of the season .. the H&A games
88 AFL games on FTA X 3 hours equals 264 hours presented to about 38% of the buyers

as opposed to 78 NRL games X 2 hours equals 156 hours presented to about 62% of the buyers

do the math
its not an argument ....

 

[Ray Mosters]

they match the value .. they're not double

the bulk of the season .. the H&A games
88 AFL games on FTA X 3 hours equals 264 hours presented to about 38% of the buyers

as opposed to 78 NRL games X 2 hours equals 156 hours presented to about 62% of the buyers

do the math
its not an argument ....

In three hours they have 1 hour of advertising, including in-game, after goal advertising which has higher impact and is worth more

In two hours we have space for 30 mins of advertising.

They have DOUBLE the ad spots per game, for the same ratings, making their games worth double what ours are, on FTA TV.

Advertising revenue differences (which are all down to the affluence of Sydney residents specifically), can account for no more than a 20% difference in value in the advertising spaces themselves, and thats if the demographics of both codes were the same, which they are not.

Wanna check your math again?

 

[Billythekid]

National perception. It is very weird but it matters, AFL has a perception of being a National sport, NRL as being NSW and Q'land with Melbourne a token gesture. Comes down to NRL poor marketing, lack of exposure for Melbourne and RL's general failure to have a strategic plan for growing the game beyond the East coast.

I think Swans and Lions crowds also probably help, If Storm were getting 30k to games then i think the perception of popularity of RL in Vic would be different. People forget how much time and money Swans and Lions have had to build that fanbase and what it was like for their first decade.

This is what doesn't make any sense. Why the hell would the people signing these contracts be looking at crowds or national perception. They have the ratings in front of them.

It just seems incredibly foolish to be making a billion dollar decision which is in anyway based on something besides the cold hard facts in front of them.

 

[Tigger Madness]

The fact is that the game of AFL allows for more "captive audience" advertising than NRL, after all they do have a scoring play every few minutes followed by an ad.

NRL has a lower amount of scoring with our add blocks longer - usually the time when the audience gets up and grabs another beer or hangs a piss.

Unfortunately, if I were an advertiser I know which audience I would prefer to show my ad to.

 

[Highway1]

The fact is that the game of AFL allows for more "captive audience" advertising than NRL, after all they do have a scoring play every few minutes followed by an ad.

NRL has a lower amount of scoring with our add blocks longer - usually the time when the audience gets up and grabs another beer or hangs a piss.

Unfortunately, if I were an advertiser I know which audience I would prefer to show my ad to.

I'd still go for NRL because there is no use having flexible ad timings if the ratings are sh*t eg Swans and Lions.

Besides that problem is can be minimised with implementation of the sponsors logo being placed on screen (to an acceptable point) during the coverage, like replays or that rolly thing.

 

[Highway1]

we have 'sources' saying because the AFL is national it adds to their TV rights

then we have things like this http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...-expansion-plans/story-fn2mcuj6-1225916365797



so why will it add to to the AFL rights but do nothing for the NRL :?

Two words: Agenda driven.

National perception. It is very weird but it matters, AFL has a perception of being a National sport, NRL as being NSW and Q'land with Melbourne a token gesture. Comes down to NRL poor marketing, lack of exposure for Melbourne and RL's general failure to have a strategic plan for growing the game beyond the East coast.

I think Swans and Lions crowds also probably help, If Storm were getting 30k to games then i think the perception of popularity of RL in Vic would be different. People forget how much time and money Swans and Lions have had to build that fanbase and what it was like for their first decade.

Well unfortunately for the Swans and Lions, the "national perception" may very well be useless if people from Lions and Swans areas turn away from AFL due to the AFL admins complete cockup with the northern expansion.

National perception is good, but if people aren't following it, then its useless. Just look at the A-League, national perception alright, but still comparatively way behind along with cricket.

Remember, NRL is not a national comp, its an international comp 8)

 

[Titanic]

Well, I'm sad to report that "international" part of the NRL is completely off base. Australia Network (the ABC's international presence) has canned the NRL for 2011 completely.

Once the face of international rugby league and even last year 4 games a weekend were broadcast plus finals and Origin. Now 5 games of Union + 6 games of AFL and 0 that's right nada/nix/nil of NRL.

I emailed them and received a reply that the NRL had given the rights to Setanta. This means that Australia's one and only government free to air international channel will promote everything except rugby league ... bloody disgraceful ... why pay taxes?

 

[applesauce]

How come whenever their is a "National" argument about the NRL V AFL, New Zealand never gets a mention?

 

[Perth Red]

probably due to the fact that Oz TV stations and australian advertisors don't really give a stuff we have a team from NZ in the comp?

 

[docbrown]

probably due to the fact that Oz TV stations and australian advertisors don't really give a stuff we have a team from NZ in the comp?

Which completely ignores the fact that a significant proportion of their country actually lives here.

 

[BunniesMan]

Which completely ignores the fact that a significant proportion of their country actually lives here.

It's NZ...noone even thinks of them as a separate country. They're basically our 7th state (and for a period in 1840 NZ was a part of NSW).

 

[applesauce]

probably due to the fact that Oz TV stations and australian advertisors don't really give a stuff we have a team from NZ in the comp?

Many NZ and AUS companies based want to be multinational. Air NZ, Vodafone, Toyota, Bundaberg Rum etc.

Sky and Nine are different entities but there is huge advantages that the AFL can NEVER have by having partnered advertising across countries.

 

[Perth Red]

so why is ity not translating into cold hard cash, either in media deals or in corporate sponsorship?

 

[applesauce]

so why is ity not translating into cold hard cash, either in media deals or in corporate sponsorship?

Because the NRL is so poor at selling itself hence the TV rights, Jersey sponsorship etc.