What is more important, crowds or TV ratings?

[bobmar28]

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.

But 20,000 extra in front of a TV will see networks bidding more to get their hands on the rights. That flows on to clubs. And, by the way makes your Reds a more viable option for a new franchise. The billion dollar contract should be used to subsidise tickets and fill up those stadiums.

 

[Raiderdave]

they are both important

but lets not forget the only reason NRL crowds are down this season slightly ( I think we'll finish ahead of 2010 at least ) is the weather

the wettest autumn / winter in Sydney for 60 years have played havoc & I'd say we'd be pushing past 17K if we'd had a drier season

I think TV ratings .. just right now .. are making a compelling case for us to crack a billion dollars next season for our TV rights
so right now .. they are more important.

 

[Raiderdave]

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.

Are you kidding

there isn't a Rugby club comp anywhere in the Nthn Hemisphere that attracts crowds the size of the NRL
not one :?

I do think the NRL could do better crowd wise , when they get to a 20K average which will be in the next 5 years or so , that will be outstanding given the relatively small population in its heartland ..

but ludicrous comparisons like yours need to be called out for the rubbish they truely are

there are soccer comps in Europe that attract a lot less too
the Serie A in Italy only averages 23K
The Spanish La Leige not much more

& they are the ONLY sports in town in these entire nations

I think we've established theres something wrong with Victorians
thus explaining the crowds the AFL gets in Melbourne.

but if you put up a table of leagues world wide
then put up the potential for crowds on a per head basis .. the NRL would be in the top 5 or so .. maybe even 2nd
the AFL would be first of course ... Victorians have issues with their insanity though.;-)

 

[Joker's Wild]

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.

You switch off a game if it is being played in front of a small crowd?

Isnt the quality of the game or who you support more of a factor in your viewing interest?

That's quite strange if true mate

 

[Perth Red]

But 20,000 extra in front of a TV will see networks bidding more to get their hands on the rights. That flows on to clubs. And, by the way makes your Reds a more viable option for a new franchise. The billion dollar contract should be used to subsidise tickets and fill up those stadiums.

I don't agree, there is no historical evidence for this. AFL just signed the biggest TV deal ever despite lower viewing figures (that have in fact declined slightly this year). S14 just signed a TV deal equal to the last NRL deal sespite vastky smaller viewing figures.

If the audience was a million more, yes I agree, but that isn't what we are talking about. In all honesty would you rather have 10k extra at every NRL game or 160k extra in front of their TV's each week? From a financial and perception of the games health point of view you would be mad not to take the 10K crowd increase.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Igniore teddyboy, he's an idiot.

 

[Eels Dude]

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 not that hard a concept to grasp. It's an expensive process and it's all about collecting from a sample size and for the most part it's going to pretty accurate. It's much more reliable recording rating digitally than the old system of handing out people diaries and getting them to fill them out over the course of the week each time they sit down to watch tv.

It's not a matter of believing them, it's the only system to go off and television networks swear by the ratings, as do advertising companies and sponsors.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

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.

Too expensive to go to games these days and people dont have the $ when they can watch it at home.

 

[BDGS]

Definitely TV Ratings.

No question.

 

[LESStar58]

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.

Crowds.

Hopefully when the IC comes in they can come up with a plan to make footy a bit more affordable for families.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

TV ratings.

The main reason French RL suffered in the 70's and 80's is because they thought TV would kill their crowds when infact, not being on TV eventually killed their crowds anyway as no one could see a game, get sponsorship and spread the word.

Some here are saying crowds, do you want RL to end up like France having to rebuild from such a low base and when you start to and it's on TV, no one has a clue wtf the game is?

 

[Eels Dude]

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.

It might not look good... but do you really think anyone is going to turn off their TV and stop watching a game because the crowd appears low?

There's no reason why you can't get higher crowds without affecting the TV ratings and vice versa. Getting an extra 3 or 4 thousand to each game will have very little effect on TV ratings. Even if 3 thousand people watching on TV decided to go to the game instead that would only result in negative 0.3 percent to the ratings, which is absolutely nothing.

 

[Stormarekings]

Why are the Broncos so much better off (money wise (at least in general)) then all of the other clubs. Answer: Large crowds. It doesn't matter what the TV deal is, Gallop will always give the clubs just enough to survive or a bit less because the players will always ask for and get more money and the league will want to skim off the top to grow grass roots, however if you really want to thrive you need good crowds. This is where the clubs need to improve over the next 10 years.

 

[BunniesMan]

Why are the Broncos so much better off (money wise (at least in general)) then all of the other clubs. Answer: Large crowds. It doesn't matter what the TV deal is, Gallop will always give the clubs just enough to survive or a bit less because the players will always ask for and get more money and the league will want to skim off the top to grow grass roots, however if you really want to thrive you need good crowds. This is where the clubs need to improve over the next 10 years.

Exactly. Ratings are more important to the comp as a whole. Crowds are more important to individual clubs and part of the reason for the divide between the haves and have nots.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

The old saying goes.

Out of sight, out of mind.

I'll leave it up to the brainiacs here to work that out.

 

[Teddyboy]

Are you kidding

there isn't a Rugby club comp anywhere in the Nthn Hemisphere that attracts crowds the size of the NRL
not one :?

I do think the NRL could do better crowd wise , when they get to a 20K average which will be in the next 5 years or so , that will be outstanding given the relatively small population in its heartland ..

but ludicrous comparisons like yours need to be called out for the rubbish they truely are

there are soccer comps in Europe that attract a lot less too
the Serie A in Italy only averages 23K
The Spanish La Leige not much more

& they are the ONLY sports in town in these entire nations

I think we've established theres something wrong with Victorians
thus explaining the crowds the AFL gets in Melbourne.

but if you put up a table of leagues world wide
then put up the potential for crowds on a per head basis .. the NRL would be in the top 5 or so .. maybe even 2nd
the AFL would be first of course ... Victorians have issues with their insanity though.;-)

Ah you missing the point is that when you watch some games from England and France the traditional grounds are always quite full as they have smaller stadiums.
Yes the NRL is the biggest Rugby comp in the world but alot of the grounds are very generous in capacity and those empty seats don't look good for the game and that goes for most teams.

 

[Teddyboy]

Igniore teddyboy, he's an idiot.

And you can f**k off too your bitch as you never have a discussion on these forums just all you same to do is look for an opening when someone post's there own opinion and then go in for the kill with your nasty sly f**king comments.
You are a f**king horrible man.

 

[Teddyboy]

You switch off a game if it is being played in front of a small crowd?

Isnt the quality of the game or who you support more of a factor in your viewing interest?

That's quite strange if true mate

I do mate as a good crowd brings atmosphere to the game be it live or on the telly plus it makes our game look to the non RL lot.

 

[Perth Red]

It's not that hard a concept to grasp. It's an expensive process and it's all about collecting from a sample size and for the most part it's going to pretty accurate. It's much more reliable recording rating digitally than the old system of handing out people diaries and getting them to fill them out over the course of the week each time they sit down to watch tv.

It's not a matter of believing them, it's the only system to go off and television networks swear by the ratings, as do advertising companies and sponsors.

ask a statistician if they feel a sample group of 3,500 out of 20million will provide a valid and reliable data set. Especially when you also consider all the other factors. We worked it out that for every person in Perth who has a box = 20k on the viewing figures. That means if me and my 3 mates where the fortunate ones to get boxes Perth viewing figures for NRL would be 80k better off!

 

[Eels Dude]

ask a statistician if they feel a sample group of 3,500 out of 20million will provide a valid and reliable data set. Especially when you also consider all the other factors. We worked it out that for every person in Perth who has a box = 20k on the viewing figures. That means if me and my 3 mates where the fortunate ones to get boxes Perth viewing figures for NRL would be 80k better off!

They don't just select random people to give boxes to. They make sure they they have all key demogrpahics covered and you need to be qualified to recieve to one. You need to answer all sorts of questions to fit the requirements of what OZTAM require, that includes number of members in the household, what age group they fall into, income, disposable income, what products you spend your disposable income on, whether you rent or own your place, your hobbies and interests. They require a 30 question or so questionaire to fill out and only then if you fit the bill do you qualify part of the ratings survey. It's not like they just knock on your door and say "here you go, wanna box?". Maybe you should learn a bit more about the advertising and media industry before making such assumptions.