TV rights thread part 4

[Cumberland Throw]

I said we dropped the ball on simulcasting weeks ago. And got bagged relentlessly

How can Crikey get away with it


On another point. The idiots at ch 9 have not separated the pre and post game show from the game

So the averages are down. Most people don't tune in till 8 pm

 

[El Diablo]

and simulcasting of finals would not help as the games were shown live on FTA nationally

 

[El Diablo]

I said we dropped the ball on simulcasting weeks ago. And got bagged relentlessly

How can Crikey get away with it


On another point. The idiots at ch 9 have not separated the pre and post game show from the game

So the averages are down. Most people don't tune in till 8 pm

because Dyer is as dumb as you

negotiations were confidential so he knows jack shit and there have been no leaks saying any FTA network would allow simulcasting

 

[Cumberland Throw]

And of course seven / afl has separated

 

[El Diablo]

Is he trying to say that the Foxtel viewers wouldn't have watched the AFL if it wasn't on Foxtel?

yes

he's an idiot

 

[Starkers]

still, 480k is massive. i know it's a prelim but it must be close to a sports record. if we had simulcast i'd drop ch9 immediately for fox's coverage.

i'm not sure if i have followed correctly over the 4 threads, but did someone point out that there is a doubling up of numbers via oztam?

ie oztam correctly assume a viewer is watching the AFL and count it for ch7, buut they are actually watching it via fox?

 

[El Diablo]

still, 480k is massive. i know it's a prelim but it must be close to a sports record. if we had simulcast i'd drop ch9 immediately for fox's coverage.

i'm not sure if i have followed correctly over the 4 threads, but did someone point out that there is a doubling up of numbers via oztam?

ie oztam correctly assume a viewer is watching the AFL and count it for ch7, buut they are actually watching it via fox?

Union had more for their Super 15 final a year or two ago and also for the RUWC http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...-super-rugby-win/story-e6frep5o-1226091854462

Cricket may have had higher too

 

[applesauce]

There is no way there are ~500k more viewers/AFL Finals game compared to last year.

OZtam FOX ratings are a true value of viewers (actual FOXTEL boxes on that channel) where OZtam FTA figures are extrapolated from a smaller sample size.

Explains the ridiculous jump in viewers through 'double counting'. The commission did miss the boat on simulcasting as the loss of FTA revenue would of been offset by an increase FOX price. The commission could have broken their balls on this (whether they wanted it or not) but obviously caved or ignored it.

 

[El Diablo]

There is no way there are ~500k more viewers/AFL Finals game compared to last year.

OZtam FOX ratings are a true value of viewers (actual FOXTEL boxes on that channel) where OZtam FTA figures are extrapolated from a smaller sample size.

Explains the ridiculous jump in viewers through 'double counting'. The commission did miss the boat on simulcasting as the loss of FTA revenue would of been offset by an increase FOX price. The commission could have broken their balls on this (whether they wanted it or not) but obviously caved or ignored it.

yeah

they just ignored it :roll:

Fox wanted exclusivity as did 9

 

[user_nat]

There is no way there are ~500k more viewers/AFL Finals game compared to last year.

OZtam FOX ratings are a true value of viewers (actual FOXTEL boxes on that channel) where OZtam FTA figures are extrapolated from a smaller sample size.

Sure about that?

OZtam provide the pay TV numbers. I've always thought it was the same system.

 

[CC_Roosters]

Looking at the Tv tonight numbers for brisbane 304k and 339k respectively. That seems pretty poor, its not much of an increase on a regular premiership match. Do they really lose interest once the broncos are gone up there? Personally when your team isn't in the finals it seems more enjoyable/less nerves.

 

[Kirky]

Seems pretty obvious that the AFL's increase is reflective of the small sample size of the Australian ratings system. The issue is that theses ratings - flawed though they are - are one of the key metrics used by sponsors when determining how much they're willing to fork out for shirt sponsorships etc. For the next 5 years, AFL clubs are able to walk into these negotiations with doubled-up ratings figures thanks to simulcasting, and our clubs can't. Quite frustrating.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

The problem is "THE TRUTH DOESNT MATTER"

Is its printed in the official ratings, no matter how much you whine about, sample sizes, and double counts.

and this is what the next rights will be determined by.

If they get 5 years of 400k per game on fox, plus normal FTA... They will double our cash next time.

Exclusive NRL games on Monday nights only get 400k, and there isnt an extra 800 k on FTA.


If the ARLC want to do one positive thing, why dont they simply publish a press release every monday morning with the regional OZTAM figures on them, for all programs not just RL.

Then we may start to see regional's added to the linked rating s sites such as mediaspy, tribal mind etc.

Its the one TV stat we still rule in, why would we keep it hidden ???

 

[Cumberland Throw]

yeah

they just ignored it :roll:

Fox wanted exclusivity as did 9

Yeah and I want to tit f**k Liz Hurley...

but as the stones say "you can't always get what you want

Make it non negotiable; Gyngell offered it with the AFL deal he just bid on FFS

HELLLOOOOO

 

[El Diablo]

Yeah and I want to tit f**k Liz Hurley...

but as the stones say "you can't always get what you want

Make it non negotiable; Gyngell offered it with the AFL deal he just bid on FFS

HELLLOOOOO

9 didn't have first and last rights options for AFL you simpleton

 

[applesauce]

yeah

they just ignored it :roll:

Fox wanted exclusivity as did 9

Learn to read... If the whole premise of the sentence is it was a fight to try and get it, then caved means they gave into 9/Fox's wishes and ignored means they didn't force the issue.

Clearly there was no demand from 9 for it. But 9 also didn't want to fork out $400mill+ and they did.

Is that simple enough for you forum cop?

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Seems pretty obvious that the AFL's increase is reflective of the small sample size of the Australian ratings system. The issue is that theses ratings - flawed though they are - are one of the key metrics used by sponsors when determining how much they're willing to fork out for shirt sponsorships etc. For the next 5 years, AFL clubs are able to walk into these negotiations with doubled-up ratings figures thanks to simulcasting, and our clubs can't. Quite frustrating.

You would think or hope the sponsors would probe the validity of the figures a bit before paying up.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Yeah and the afl would say

Oztam the Independaent body for national television ratings says so

The truth is out there, but it don't matter

Perception is reality

 

[El Diablo]

Learn to read... If the whole premise of the sentence is it was a fight to try and get it, then caved means they gave into 9/Fox's wishes and ignored means they didn't force the issue.

Clearly there was no demand from 9 for it. But 9 also didn't want to fork out $400mill+ and they did.

Is that simple enough for you forum cop?

how the f**k would you know?

the big kahuna was getting them to give up first and last rights

idiots like you have no idea what a big deal that is

we get the money and that which is what will set the game up well into the futurre

not bloody simulcasting

 

[seanoff]

]Seems pretty obvious that the AFL's increase is reflective of the small sample size of the Australian ratings system[/B]. The issue is that theses ratings - flawed though they are - are one of the key metrics used by sponsors when determining how much they're willing to fork out for shirt sponsorships etc. For the next 5 years, AFL clubs are able to walk into these negotiations with doubled-up ratings figures thanks to simulcasting, and our clubs can't. Quite frustrating.

statistics, how do they work??? the confidence interval would be above 95% and probably 99% with a error margin of less than 5%.

the TV execs know, they'd get detailed data sets showing them who, age, location, etc etc. a sample size in the thousands would be more than enough for australia's population.

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html in fact for 99% and 3% the sample size for 22M would be 1843