What is more important, crowds or TV ratings?

[DC_fan]

Crowds this season are down (slightly) on last years figures. From what I read it seems that TV ratings are up. So what is more important, crowds or TV ratings?

Crowds is what everyone sees each weekend, be they attending the game or watch it on TV. It looks good to see a stadium full or near full with screaming fans cheering on their team. Crowd figures are listed and it is quite easy to keep track of them.

TV ratings are little different. For me TV viewers are the hidden crowds. These are the tens of thousand of fans we don't see because they are at home watching it on TV. But they are important.

Both bring in money. TV probably more so. But we need both for our game to survive. Thier is nothing worse then watching a game on TV when their is a small crowd.

 

[docbrown]

In terms of future money generation - TV ratings.

However we need to keep building a large fan base. When our game hits the 20,000 H&A average mark, I think everyone will be quite pleased and it will be a good look for the game. I think we will get there before the decade's out, potentially even within the next 7 years.

I would like to see memberships/tickets subsidised by the TV deal in order to achieve this goal faster.

The impact on fans at the ground affecting TV ratings is minimal as fans will still watch multiple games. If anything, it actually encourages their involvement.

Our game is a sleeping television powerhouse. Why else do you think that outside figures try to keep it in a coma?

Next year's All Stars match should be played under the 50 minute halves format in order to show all networks just how big we will be.

 

[Didgi]

I'd say in the context of the upcoming TV deal, as well as a range of other things - money issues, natural disasters etc - TV ratings are more important, because they show that although people may not have the resources to attend the game, they're still interested, as well as of course the significant income boost possible from the TV rights deal.

 

[DC_fan]

No doubt that in the seasons to come TV revenue will be much bigger then crowd revenue.

But what is the more accurate barometer of how a sport is going, fans attending the game or fans watching the sport being played on TV?

I wonder if fans stop attending games do they eventaully lose interest in the game and not watch it on TV.

 

[Billythekid]

Both are important and we should work on improving both. Yeah this year won't be a record breaking year for crowds but it's not like it's way down either.

I still think crowds are going to get a fair bit better over the next few years.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

It looks bad to be watching a game on TV where there are lots of empty seats at the ground. I think part of the fault is with how crap & expensive some venues are. It would take a lot to get me to attend the Homebush stadium but I love grounds such as SFS and Leichhardt.

 

[Perth Red]

Crowds for me.
TV ratings are not accurate statistically but crowds are (except Q'land teams it seems!) so you can gauge far more accurately how the code is travelling by the crowd sizes.

Crowds offer direct income to clubs, TV viewing at this point in tim do not seem to make a huge difference to TV$'s ie if TV viewing figures go up 100K it doesn;t mean clubs get any more money where as if clubs attract an extra 10,000 through the gate it makes a massive difference to the bottom line.

Full stadiums look and sound great and give the perception of a code going great guns. Empty stadiums are embarrasing and make NRL look like park football.

Depending on your stadium deal you can make more money from direct crowd attendance than you can from TV money.

TV audiences are obviously critical to media and sponsorship deals but give me 20,000 at the ground over 20,000 extra in front of a TV any day.

 

[BunniesMan]

Well tv ratings matter twice a decade when negotiations happen. After we negotiate this next deal, ratings will be irrelevant to our game for 5-6 years. Crowds matter week in and week out every game of every year. Ask the struggling Sharks how much difference it is for them when they get a 5k crowd and a 15k crowd.

We ignore crowds at our peril.

 

[Chook Norris]

Crowds -> Fans.
Fans have no idea about tv ratings, and their perceptions regarding the game can be swayed by poor crowds imo. I'm more so talking about the younger generation who now have easy access to a lot of football codes

 

[Paullyboy]

As has been said by others, crowds are how the general public (rightly or wrongly) measure the health of a sport. Everytime the dogs/rabbitohs or whoever else uses that ridiculous venue at Homebush, rugby league suffers in terms of credibility with the general public.

Whether you believe it or not, a lot of the general community are nothing more than sheep - if something looks cool or popular they'll be into it no matter what it is. Obviously there are passionate one's at both ends of the supporting spectrum, but the money comes from winning over the 80% in the middle who just swing with the flow.

 

[DC_fan]

Crowds for me.
TV ratings are not accurate statistically but crowds are (except Q'land teams it seems!) so you can gauge far more accurately how the code is travelling by the crowd sizes.

Crowds offer direct income to clubs, TV viewing at this point in tim do not seem to make a huge difference to TV$'s ie if TV viewing figures go up 100K it doesn;t mean clubs get any more money where as if clubs attract an extra 10,000 through the gate it makes a massive difference to the bottom line.

Full stadiums look and sound great and give the perception of a code going great guns. Empty stadiums are embarrasing and make NRL look like park football.

Depending on your stadium deal you can make more money from direct crowd attendance than you can from TV money.

TV audiences are obviously critical to media and sponsorship deals but give me 20,000 at the ground over 20,000 extra in front of a TV any day.

I, and probably most other people, have never really understand how the TV ratings system works. They put meters in something like a 1,000 homes and from that they can supposedly work what the whole of Sydney is watching.

But while ever the TV channels and sponsors believe in them and pay the NRL accordingly then what does it matter

 

[Spanner in the works]

Crowds - sort of. I think having big crowds is a good representation of how strong rugby league is at that present time. Even if you have two lowly ranked teams hitting out, I think if you can get good crowds to that game it means we have a strong and loyal supporter base. Money wise TV ratings are most important. Strength of the code wise I think crowds are most important.

 

[Burwood]

Good TV ratings equal a big dollar TV deal. We are currently getting $91 million per year and easily have the potential to be earning upwards of $160 million. You can't tell me that that money isn't more important than boosting crowds by an extra couple of thousand.

What direct revenue does a club even get from bigger home crowds? Some extra money from gate takings and food/beverage sales? And club sponsors would be much more interested in their brand being seen by a potential audience in the hundreds of thousands each week compared to 20,000 at the ground.

 

[docbrown]

I, and probably most other people, have never really understand how the TV ratings system works. They put meters in something like a 1,000 homes and from that they can supposedly work what the whole of Sydney is watching.

But while ever the TV channels and sponsors believe in them and pay the NRL accordingly then what does it matter

It's just survey sampling via electronic format. It costs money for each meter installed. But they do alter distribution and number of meters with population shifts.

They're accepted in the industry as the tentpole and are the only accurate way to measure relative performance.

The people who usually don't accept them are typically outsiders.

 

[docbrown]

You can't tell me that that money isn't more important than boosting crowds by an extra couple of thousand.

What direct revenue does a club even get from bigger home crowds? Some extra money from gate takings and food/beverage sales? And club sponsors would be much more interested in their brand being seen by a potential audience in the hundreds of thousands each week compared to 20,000 at the ground.

Agreed. But LEK's projected revenues from free to air advertising, subscription advertising, pay subscription renewals and follow on related programming are calculated to be over $300 million a year - approximately $1.5 billion over 5 years - not including audience halo.

Now how much of that we will get will be determined by how well we negotiate.

 

[Flapper]

It's hard with crowds being the main yardstick, as it costs more to go to an NRL game than an AFL game. Sitting in front of a FTA channel costs the same, so it's at least more comparable in that respect.

 

[eozsmiles]

The TV deal is what will pump a billion dollars into the game up front. So I'll say that's more important. The NRL needs that money to get the show on the road. And without that money all the talented blokes would be playing Union and RL would be left with the part time nuffies who will take less money.


No money = no game = no crowds.


The thing about crowds is that they help the bottom line of a club more than the NRL. Everyone loves a big crowd but the club gets the cash out of it. And as more and more clubs like Souths and Manly are private the crowds help people like Rusty, Tinkler, etc. The private clubs pretty much have guaranteed futures because someone has put their hand up to pay all the bills. The Knights probably don't need any crowds for 10 years as Tinkler is willing to put in $10 million a year above the NRL grant.

 

[Perth Red]

It's hard with crowds being the main yardstick, as it costs more to go to an NRL game than an AFL game. Sitting in front of a FTA channel costs the same, so it's at least more comparable in that respect.

Not always, it is a heck of a lot cheaper to get a Bulldogs ticket membership than a Eagles or Dockers one I can tell you!

Lets say TV audiences increase 160k avg a week, it will mean very little to the amount of $'s NRL gets in the next TV deal whch subsequently means that the club grant won;t change much. However an extra 10k avg on each clubs gate could be an increase in income of $2million+ over the season.

For me give me an extra 160k attending games over an extra 160k watching TV.

We will likely not get a bigger pay day than the AFL again, that should tell you how much more value an extra couple of hundred thousand veiwers a week has.

 

[eozsmiles]

Not always, it is a heck of a lot cheaper to get a Bulldogs ticket membership than a Eagles or Dockers one I can tell you!

Lets say TV audiences increase 160k avg a week, it will mean very little to the amount of $'s NRL gets in the next TV deal whch subsequently means that the club grant won;t change much. However an extra 10k avg on each clubs gate could be an increase in income of $2million+ over the season.

For me give me an extra 160k attending games over an extra 160k watching TV.

We will likely not get a bigger pay day than the AFL again, that should tell you how much more value an extra couple of hundred thousand veiwers a week has.

Depending on where those 160k viewers go changes their worth. That is like 10% of the entire population of Brisbane isn't it? In Australian TV terms 160k is a decent figure. I think I read on friday night the AFL and NRL pulled about 800k viewers each? If channel 9 got that same figure today they are on 1.6 million for the week - 160K is another 10%. An extra 160k on Friday night is 20%. 20% more viewers means 20% better deal I suppose. I think the biggest ever rating game on Fox is around 400k viewers and we all know that RL is the reason pay tv survives in Australia. They show 5 games a week so another 160k viwers for them over a week is pushing 10% of their best audience per game. If they could add 20% to that audience the next deal will be worth $2 billion.
Let's say that they get an extra 10k viewers and they sign up to pay TV. At about $100 a month it's $100 million a year to Fox. What you want to do is get a piece of that before you even open the gates. The NRL will be getting money out of people who may have never been to the ground in their life. It's highway robbery.


The AFL deal has absolutely nothing to do with their crowds, only their viewers. What RL has to realise is that TV is it's lifeblood. It has to realise that it can cripple the pay tv industry north of the Murray. And they have to realise that there are a couple of FTA stations hanging out for some high interest content.


As has been pointed out earlier, with the proliferation of private ownership there are clubs that don't rely on crowd figures. An extra 10k through the gate at Homebush or Ausgrid probably makes Rusty and Tinks not worry about reaching as deep in their pockets. The bills are getting paid but the boss just doesn't have to contribute as much. The reason these people put their hands up is so the team doesn't have to rely on crowds and the flow on from that. They must be glad to know that in a year's time they will be getting more assistance than ever from the NRL.

This is all without mentioning the obvious reason TV money is more important - crowds are fickle. If the Sharkies have a party in NZ again then some fans will leave. Ditto for the Doggies at Coffs. People will toss it in over Carney and Myles. Or a Brett Stewart saga. Salary cap scandals. Gold Coast is in some kind of recession and people are unemployed so not going to the footy. You name it and it can make fans stop paying to go through the gates.

At the end of the day no TV money means there is nowhere for the fans to go, the game dies. Small crowds will affect a couple of clubs. It is an easy call for the NRL to decide which path to take in order to secure the games future.

 

[Teddyboy]

Crowds this season are down (slightly) on last years figures. From what I read it seems that TV ratings are up. So what is more important, crowds or TV ratings?

Crowds is what everyone sees each weekend, be they attending the game or watch it on TV. It looks good to see a stadium full or near full with screaming fans cheering on their team. Crowd figures are listed and it is quite easy to keep track of them.

TV ratings are little different. For me TV viewers are the hidden crowds. These are the tens of thousand of fans we don't see because they are at home watching it on TV. But they are important.

Both bring in money. TV probably more so. But we need both for our game to survive. Thier is nothing worse then watching a game on TV when their is a small crowd.

I totally agree and it sicken's me saying poor crowds for some teams.American Sports including CFL, worldwide Soccer leagues,AFL,GAA and and some NH Rugby Union don't same to have a problem with crowds yet Rugby League has had for a long while with as I say certain clubs and it seems it's been going on since the 1980's.

It hasn't been all doom and gloom for the game as SOO and the ANZAC test getting big crowds both at Suncorp twice, Sydney and the Gold Coast.

But if you watching it at home or in the pub then I think you need the games being at least 75% full as it just comes over crap and I switch off.