TV rights thread part 4

[El Diablo]

the Storm will get no press in Victoriania in AFL GF week

Victorians too insular

 

[Billythekid]

the Storm will get no press in Victoriania in AFL GF week

Victorians too insular

True but it didn't stop us from getting decent ratings in the past for storm GF's. The AFL will rate more in Sydney but i'm still expecting some decent ratings for the storm.

 

[El Diablo]

True but it didn't stop us from getting decent ratings in the past for storm GF's. The AFL will rate more in Sydney but i'm still expecting some decent ratings for the storm.

how many of tose were on the same w/e as the AFL GF?

you would have got press when on different weekends and that would help

 

[Edwahu]

If there is no Melbourne team in the AFL the Storm might get a bit more column space.

 

[El Diablo]

If there is no Melbourne team in the AFL the Storm might get a bit more column space.

Melbourne media would not allow that in AFL GF week

 

[Billythekid]

how many of tose were on the same w/e as the AFL GF?

you would have got press when on different weekends and that would help

I still doubt we got much. You may be right but i think having the storm in the final is still a huge boost for our ratings.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

storm being in the GF will add about 500000 viewers...


Just wish the swanes got booted

 

[Edwahu]

Melbourne media would not allow that in AFL GF week

I was thinking a boost from two paragraphs to four

 

[user_nat]

Maybe they'll even get a colour picture.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...al-is-likely-to-be-modest-20120922-26dn5.html

Kiwi NRL TV deal is likely to be modest

Date
September 23, 2012

Ben Stanley

DESPITE the recent announcement of a $1 billion television broadcast deal for rugby league in Australia, the ARL Commission does not look destined for a boon Kiwi deal.

The ARLC and SKY TV have entered into preliminary discussions on a potential five-year deal for broadcast rights of all the NRL's regular and post-season games, as well as State of Origin and international clashes. A New Zealand broadcast deal, which will include improved television coverage, was reported in Australia to be worth about $100 million over five years.

Rights to online and mobile phone coverage are also being discussed with SKY TV, though this deal could be secured separately to the broadcast rights. It is understood the ARLC hopes to have its New Zealand deal wrapped up within the next month.

While the likely five-year contract would definitely be more than the $14 million a year SKY currently pays for the NRL broadcast rights and near the $100 million figure, it appears increasingly likely there will not be a significant rise in payment.

SKY TV chief executive John Fellet said the Australian deal would not influence how he would negotiate New Zealand television rights for NRL games.

The 2012 NRL season was on a one-year broadcast deal with the NRL, to bring New Zealand in line with Australia.

''Whatever goes on in Australia has no bearing here,'' Fellet said. ''It all depends on the demand of the content … My viewers set the value - we'll pay whatever the viewership is able to generate.''

The Warriors' dismal season and continuing off-field dramas may make it harder for the NRL to negotiate a significantly higher deal with SKY TV.

Acting ARLC chief executive Shane Mattiske said despite the Warriors' poor 2012 showing, he was confident the NRL had made significant progress in terms of Kiwi viewing interest this season.

He added that the likely appearance of former All Black Sonny Bill Williams would also increase New Zealand interest.

''Certainly in 2012 it's been more competitive than it's ever been,'' he said. ''That is very positive for us as we move into a discussion over the value of our broadcasts and the level of interest in our broadcast rights.

''We certainly expect the Warriors to be a stronger team in 2013. They've got a great roster of players and you can see that whilst their performance this year wasn't what a lot of people thought it would be, they still have a huge amount of talent there.

''The potential for Sonny Bill to be playing in the premiership next year is going to bring a huge amount of interest to the competition, from a New Zealand point of view.''

i'd hardly call $100 million modest

 

[Parramatta1947]

Anyone know why Channel 9 seems to turn up the volume for a second for each hit up? It sounds really annoying, it isn't the commentators not talking, they seem to think there will be more noise as a tackle is made.

 

[flippikat]

If they get $100 mill from NZ that will be an outstanding result considering there is only
Y one NRL team there. Hopefully they'll use some of the increase to further develop the game over there and aim for a nz2 team by the time the next rights are due.

I'm thinking that instead of just going for the biggest money, why don't the NRL get a decent FTA coverage deal in NZ for slightly less?

Why? Because Sky Sport has everything else pretty much sewn-up.. if the NRL can be seen at a decent hour on FTA TV by families that don't have Sky, it might just encourage growth of the game here over other sport.

Especially if it's coupled with some NRL teams once more taking the odd 'home' game over here.

 

[Perth Red]

Tbh flippikat they would be better going for the extra money then putting that $5mill towards school program's, on the road Nrl games in Wellington, the local Wellington comp, supporting the improvement of the NZRL infrastructure and helping the NZRL develop a serious bid for Wellington in 2018. $5mill a year could buy you an awful lot of development if spent wisely!

 

[Quidgybo]

Tbh flippikat they would be better going for the extra money then putting that $5mill towards school program's, on the road Nrl games in Wellington, the local Wellington comp, supporting the improvement of the NZRL infrastructure and helping the NZRL develop a serious bid for Wellington in 2018. $5mill a year could buy you an awful lot of development if spent wisely!

Conversely a weekly prime time FTA slot could build ratings to the point that the next television contract is much more valuable while at the same time building the public mindshare necessary to support a second team.

Leigh.

 

[marlene w 1]

Will be interesting to see if the NRL will make any demands over free-to-air coverage in NZ - the delay for games on Prime is terrible.

With no anti-syphoning laws here - the only way to get sport on free-to-air TV is for the governing body to demand it when they negotiate rights.

In NZ if you pay, you get a far better deal than over the ditch - On Sky Sport we get the vast majority of games live and in HD. The Channel 9 games take a direct feed where we see everything that happens between tries when Australian audiences are watching commercials.

However the free-to-air replays are shown hours later on Sky's FTA Prime network - it's almost impossible for those without Sky to watch the game.

Only in New Zealand can a Pay TV operator can own a free-to-air channel to screen the same game again & get 2 bites of the cherry.

The NRL would do well to demand that Sky delay games by a maximum of 2 or 3 hours on Prime, or sell some free-to-air rights to another broadcaster.

I know it would probably mean less money, but it would add enormously to the profile of the game here if they had the nerve to do it.

I don't get it. It's on FTA but you have to be on Sky to watch the replay?

 

[Perth Red]

Conversely a weekly prime time FTA slot could build ratings to the point that the next television contract is much more valuable while at the same time building the public mindshare necessary to support a second team.

Leigh.

Could being the operative word. Don't disagree fta would boost viewers and interest but cold hard cash can do alot more in half the time imo.

 

[Starkers]

glen dyer's tv ratings from crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/24...ight-seals-it-for-seven/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

[SIZE=-1]Finals update: Friday night saw the AFL on Seven win with the Swans beating Collingwood in Sydney. The free-to-air game on Seven's main and digital channels had 1.721 million viewers in metro and regional markets, according to ratings data from Oztam. Add in the audience on pay TV of 480,000 and the audience was 2.2 million.
The NRL final between Melbourne and Manly in Melbourne averaged a solid 1.570 million on Nine's main and digital channels in metro and regional markets.


Saturday night's second NRL final between Canterbury and Souths saw 1.786 million people watch on Nine (main channels and Gem digital). That was well ahead of the 1.569 million who watched the AFL final when Hawthorn beat Adelaide in the closest of all the finals this year so far. The 397,000 people who watched on Foxtel boosted the total audience to 1.966 million people.


The boost from the pay TV audiences again underlines what the Australian Rugby League Commission missed in the recent contract talks with Nine and Foxtel/Fox Sports (which wanted co-broadcasting).
[/SIZE]

 

[ek999]

Is he trying to say that the Foxtel viewers wouldn't have watched the AFL if it wasn't on Foxtel? I would have thought they would just watch it on free-to-air

 

[Starkers]

i think they watch it on foxtel because it is in HD. i assume they're the AFL fans in VIC, SA and WA who own fox and can choose.

 

[El Diablo]

The boost from the pay TV audiences again underlines what the Australian Rugby League Commission missed in the recent contract talks with Nine and Foxtel/Fox Sports (which wanted co-broadcasting).

Dyer is speaking out his arse again

it was never reported 9 or any FTA would agree to that