NRL broadcast deal

 
Talk about NRL, State of Origin, Tests, Four Nations, World Cup, everything rugby league

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13599
Joined: January 13, 2005, 5:22 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 4:21 pm
reptar wrote:Isn't the Usual Suspects a movie?


Nah, you're thinking of a Fish Called Wanda.
Quote
User avatar
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5635
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 4:49 pm
GE is right, some people are so misguided.

Rob the Raider's list includes only the 5 major cities, no regionals. Of course the AFL is going to win there they have no regional teams and 18 teams in capital cities (GC suns may be marginal).

The NRL has 16 teams, 4 / 3.5 of which are regional canberra, townsville, newcastle, illawara st george steel dragons. and the NZ warriors whose ratings dont even get counted in the figures that include regionals. So you only have 11/16 sides truly represented by one of the 5 cities. Not to mention only 3 of them have an nrl side, whilst afl have all five of them covered with at least 2 (if gc is included in brisbane). Thus using citywide figures you are always going to bring up stuff favourable to the AFL.

The only fair way is to use australia wide figures which includes regionals (ie people from canberra)

which the NRL smashes them in terms of 20 shows.

The averages as quite rightly pointed out by GE only favour the AFL because they have their product simulcast with fox and broadcast live into more markets. If you actually look at the comparable data ie what a game gets when it is only on the nrl comes out ahead. Now we play in better timeslots, but still it proves more popular.

Same with crowds for the afl they play in better crowd timeslots and are "a lot" more popular.

But tv the nrl is at the very least even in terms of viewers but apples to apples are probably ahead and will probably extend that lead with the new deal seeing more games on fta.
Quote
User avatar
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5635
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 4:51 pm
The big strength the AFL has with their broadcast, is they can put in more adverts and the long long time of the game.

Just tv popularity nrl wins.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18173
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Location: Greener pastures
Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 5:03 pm
Papabear, you have highlighted most of the reasons TV stations value the AFL higher.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 5:21 pm
Actually, Nine has valued NRL more highly than AFL in the most recent deal. It is the STV deal that now needs to be done. Foxtel wants to pay as little as they can, the NRL just wants what it's worth. I agree that AFL can fit more ads in. The way NRL has overcome that is give a whole game day product which covers more than one match. We will see what happens there.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18173
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Location: Greener pastures
Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 5:34 pm
So we really shouldn't be passing any judgment of the value of the deal until we know what its worth.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 5:47 pm
Northern Raider wrote:Papabear, you have highlighted most of the reasons TV stations value the AFL higher.


Correct
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 5:49 pm
What I've been pointing out is that there is no significant reason why the NRL should not expect to get a broadcasting deal of similar magnitude to AFL. Others have been saying we a secondary sport, AFL has a national TV audience and NRL not, and should expect much lower. I've supplied a whole lot of data to show some of the reasons being cited are fallacious. Just plain wrong, when you look at the facts.
Image
Quote
User avatar
John Ferguson
Posts: 2459
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 7:01 pm
greeneyed wrote:What I've been pointing out is that there is no significant reason why the NRL should not expect to get a broadcasting deal of similar magnitude to AFL. Others have been saying we a secondary sport, AFL has a national TV audience and NRL not, and should expect much lower. I've supplied a whole lot of data to show some of the reasons being cited are fallacious. Just plain wrong, when you look at the facts.


In my opinion an NRL TV deal around 80% of the AFL deal would be reasonable. Extra Brisbane and NZ team would see that figure jump.
Quote
User avatar
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 7:28 pm
This whole argument came out of whether an advertiser would want to advertise in the AFL or NRL based on the audience numbers/"reaching a national audience".

People talking game attendance and how many ads fit in and the like have wandered off the topic a bloody mile.

Pigman said advertisers prefer the national audience. GE suggested that if you had larger viewership even if it wasn't more geographically dispersed it you could still consider it a more national audience. It's a reasonable point and the argument has devolved into off-topic straw man **** IMO.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 7:44 pm
Why the NRL is looking for greater exposure instead of top dollar in TV rights strategy
Roy Masters

The decision by David Smith to accept a $925 million five-year offer from Channel Nine to broadcast four free-to-air NRL games a week, potentially jeopardising more than a billion dollars he could receive from Fox Sports, is designed to project rugby league into as many Australian homes as possible.

While the AFL will receive $2.5 billion over six years, at least five of its weekly games will be shown on Rupert Murdoch's Fox Sports, which reaches only 30 per cent of Australian homes.

Largely unreported in the comparison between the AFL and NRL deals is the significant populations in regional and rural NSW and Queensland.

Channel Nine's four prime-time games on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, together with a Sunday afternoon telecast, will go into more than twice as many non-metropolitan homes in the rugby league states of NSW and Queensland than in the equivalent homes in the AFL states of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. There are more than 5 million people living outside Sydney and Brisbane in the two northern states, compared to 2.3 million people living outside the capital cities of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It is these people in rural NSW and Queensland who made the 2014 NRL grand final the most-watched program Australia wide on TV last year, compared to the AFL decider, which was No.1 on the six capital city count.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-l ... z3judqTWw0
Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 7:53 pm
gangrenous wrote:Pigman said advertisers prefer the national audience. GE suggested that if you had larger viewership even if it wasn't more geographically dispersed it you could still consider it a more national audience. It's a reasonable point and the argument has devolved into off-topic straw man **** IMO.


And that's where we get a little ridiculous

When you stack the two up, and you agree that the over all numbers are basically the same. ON what planet could you argue that more "national" audience is the code with almost it's entire viewing population coming from 2 states, as opposed to the code who's viewing population is more widely dispersed across the entire county?

It literally makes no sense what so ever to argue that.
Let me lay it out to you this way, you're the CEO of a Optus, you have a great new service you'd like to promote. You decide advertising during sporting fixtures is the way to go to promote this.

On one hand you can advertise during an NRL game and you'll get 1 million viewers, but 80% of your viewers coming from NSW and QLD, a **** load of people in those two states will see your new service but you wont get much out of VIC, you'll barely scrap WA. And SA, NT, TAS are virtual black holes

Or you can advertise during an AFL game, and you'll also get 1 million viewers, but you'll also reach a significant number of people in WA, SA, VIC, TAS, NT, as well as reaching a decent number in QLD and NSW.

2 questions:
1. Which option would you rather go with?
2. Which option do you think would cost you more?

When you answer those questions, you'll realise why the AFL get what they get for what they give, and why the NRL gets what they get for what they give.

And a 3rd question just for **** and giggles...
3. Which option do you think could be best described as a "national advertising campaign"?
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:04 pm
Actually, I said that neither code had a national TV audience, that both had TV audiences that are geographically concentrated. The NRL dominates in (more than) half the country, and AFL in the other half. The figures also show you do not, as an advertiser, reach significant numbers of people in Queensland and NSW, if you advertise in AFL programs. You'll reach very large numbers of people as an advertiser if you advertise in the broadcasts of either code. You don't get significantly more people watching in broadcasts of one or other.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13599
Joined: January 13, 2005, 5:22 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:14 pm
Pigman wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Pigman said advertisers prefer the national audience. GE suggested that if you had larger viewership even if it wasn't more geographically dispersed it you could still consider it a more national audience. It's a reasonable point and the argument has devolved into off-topic straw man **** IMO.


And that's where we get a little ridiculous

When you stack the two up, and you agree that the over all numbers are basically the same. ON what planet could you argue that more "national" audience is the code with almost it's entire viewing population coming from 2 states, as opposed to the code who's viewing population is more widely dispersed across the entire county?

It literally makes no sense what so ever to argue that.
Let me lay it out to you this way, you're the CEO of a Optus, you have a great new service you'd like to promote. You decide advertising during sporting fixtures is the way to go to promote this.

On one hand you can advertise during an NRL game and you'll get 1 million viewers, but 80% of your viewers coming from NSW and QLD, a **** load of people in those two states will see your new service but you wont get much out of VIC, you'll barely scrap WA. And SA, NT, TAS are virtual black holes

Or you can advertise during an AFL game, and you'll also get 1 million viewers, but you'll also reach a significant number of people in WA, SA, VIC, TAS, NT, as well as reaching a decent number in QLD and NSW.

2 questions:
1. Which option would you rather go with?
2. Which option do you think would cost you more?

When you answer those questions, you'll realise why the AFL get what they get for what they give, and why the NRL gets what they get for what they give.

And a 3rd question just for **** and giggles...
3. Which option do you think could be best described as a "national advertising campaign"?



Where you have it wrong is question 3. The answer is neither. What do you think would happen if one of those companies told an agency to run a national primetime campaign and they came back with sub 100k viewers in Sydney & Brisbane? Would they accept that it was a national campaign?
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26787
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:17 pm
Id love to see a Perth team.. It would be good to have games at 3 5 7 and 9
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:29 pm
edwahu wrote:
Pigman wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Pigman said advertisers prefer the national audience. GE suggested that if you had larger viewership even if it wasn't more geographically dispersed it you could still consider it a more national audience. It's a reasonable point and the argument has devolved into off-topic straw man **** IMO.


And that's where we get a little ridiculous

When you stack the two up, and you agree that the over all numbers are basically the same. ON what planet could you argue that more "national" audience is the code with almost it's entire viewing population coming from 2 states, as opposed to the code who's viewing population is more widely dispersed across the entire county?

It literally makes no sense what so ever to argue that.
Let me lay it out to you this way, you're the CEO of a Optus, you have a great new service you'd like to promote. You decide advertising during sporting fixtures is the way to go to promote this.

On one hand you can advertise during an NRL game and you'll get 1 million viewers, but 80% of your viewers coming from NSW and QLD, a **** load of people in those two states will see your new service but you wont get much out of VIC, you'll barely scrap WA. And SA, NT, TAS are virtual black holes

Or you can advertise during an AFL game, and you'll also get 1 million viewers, but you'll also reach a significant number of people in WA, SA, VIC, TAS, NT, as well as reaching a decent number in QLD and NSW.

2 questions:
1. Which option would you rather go with?
2. Which option do you think would cost you more?

When you answer those questions, you'll realise why the AFL get what they get for what they give, and why the NRL gets what they get for what they give.

And a 3rd question just for **** and giggles...
3. Which option do you think could be best described as a "national advertising campaign"?



Where you have it wrong is question 3. The answer is neither. What do you think would happen if one of those companies told an agency to run a national primetime campaign and they came back with sub 100k viewers in Sydney & Brisbane? Would they accept that it was a national campaign?


It isn't sub 100,000 for AFL. The latest TV figures for AFL are 20,000 and 10,000 people in Sydney and Brisbane. The highest was a Swans TV audience in Sydney of 49,000. This is barely above an asterisk. The comparable figures for NRL in those cities is are 200,000 to 400,000.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13599
Joined: January 13, 2005, 5:22 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:48 pm
I was going with best case combined.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:56 pm
How's this for another fact re FTA audiences: In Sydney and Brisbane, AFL has an average audience per match of a total 50,000. This is 50,000 people in the whole of Sydney and Brisbane watching out of 7 million people. In Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, NRL has an average audience per match of a total 40,000. This is without a live broadcast in Adelaide, despite assurances from Nine that there would be national live broadcasts in all five State capitals for NRL. That's from a population of 7.7 million. That's a rounding error in terms of reach of one sport into the other's geographic area.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18409
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 8:57 pm
Pigman wrote:The people care SOOO little about the AFL, that their lowest crowd attendance average, the GC Suns is 18,000.
Which is good for what? 3rd or 4th place in the NRL

And nearly double that of the GC Titooons, their NRL counterpart

Interesting you posted those GE, given that this figure in particularly is DAMNING for the NRL v AFL debate... basically it's SOO and the Test match the rates out of it's ****, and the round games are dominated by AFL. So for 4 games a year, the NRL has huge viewership, and for the other 300 games a year, the numbers much the same, only AFL has viewers in all the majors for each game. Whilst the NRL does not.

http://footyindustry.com/files/codewar/ ... 082015.png

I've been to a few Suns games and there is absolutely no way that they are averaging 18000 this year. If you told me that the biggest crowd that they had this year was 18000, but average? Get out of here! Most of the crowd are away supporters too. AFL fans are much more likely to travel than league fans.

And according to this GWS average about 10000
http://afltables.com/afl/crowds/gws.html
Last edited by Dr Zaius on August 26, 2015, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RIP Greenbits: 2007-2014
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:01 pm
edwahu wrote:
Pigman wrote:And a 3rd question just for **** and giggles...
3. Which option do you think could be best described as a "national advertising campaign"?



Where you have it wrong is question 3. The answer is neither. What do you think would happen if one of those companies told an agency to run a national primetime campaign and they came back with sub 100k viewers in Sydney & Brisbane? Would they accept that it was a national campaign?


See bolded font. As said i just added it for **** and giggles.

As i said, and reading back through this thread, Seiffert made an excellent post a few pages back. There is very real, very logical reasons why we dont get the deal the AFL get and it has absolutely nothing to do with some desire by the networks to keep us down.
It's business, it's about what those networks and sell and what they cant, it's about how advertisers value the slots. And right now, for very obvious reasons, the AFL can generate more advertising revenue, thus, they get paid more for their product (or paid the similarly whilst maintaining greater control of their product and getting better and more comprehensive coverage)

GE keeps talking about facts. The simple fact here is AFL is more popular and it's more valuable to networks and their advertisers. That's a fact he and others are simply just going to have to come to terms with
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:05 pm
Dr Zaius wrote:
Pigman wrote:The people care SOOO little about the AFL, that their lowest crowd attendance average, the GC Suns is 18,000.
Which is good for what? 3rd or 4th place in the NRL

And nearly double that of the GC Titooons, their NRL counterpart

Interesting you posted those GE, given that this figure in particularly is DAMNING for the NRL v AFL debate... basically it's SOO and the Test match the rates out of it's ****, and the round games are dominated by AFL. So for 4 games a year, the NRL has huge viewership, and for the other 300 games a year, the numbers much the same, only AFL has viewers in all the majors for each game. Whilst the NRL does not.

http://footyindustry.com/files/codewar/ ... 082015.png

I've been to a few Suns games and there is absolutely no way that they are averaging 18000 this year. If you told me that the biggest crowd that they had this year was 18000, but average? Get out of here! Most of the crowd are away supporters too. AFL fans are much more likely to travel than league fans.


GE's really going to have a tough time with trying to decide how to deal with this post. :lol:
Does he lay the boot into the AFL and claim they inflate figures, or does he stick solid with his "but the turnstyles have electric counters!"

Im keen to find out.

I dont go to a lot of Suns game (or any), im not going to say you're wrong, in fact i think you're probably right... but i DO go to a lot of Raiders games, then there's no way the Canberra Raiders crowd figures are accurate either. I think we can agree that there is some fudging of figures when it comes to crowd figures on both sides, and it probably cancels each other out.
Last edited by Pigman on August 26, 2015, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:06 pm
It's not more popular. You've been smashed out of the park by facts Nick. I know this is hard to deal with, having a discussion based on actual facts. Instead of making broad ranging statements, based on belief systems, or preconceived notions. It's now up to the NRL to get the deal NRL truly deserves. And I can say without hesitation, that is not less than the AFL deal.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15300
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm

Favourite Player:
Josh Hodgson
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:06 pm
I think we should be focusing on why Dave Smith is so willing to jump straight back into bed with channel 9 who are a horrendous broadcaster.

Remember this is the network where someone suggested Tom Waterhouse should be on pre games coverage and a majority of people in that room then agreed.

SBS2 would do a better job.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:07 pm
Pigman wrote:
Dr Zaius wrote:
Pigman wrote:The people care SOOO little about the AFL, that their lowest crowd attendance average, the GC Suns is 18,000.
Which is good for what? 3rd or 4th place in the NRL

And nearly double that of the GC Titooons, their NRL counterpart

Interesting you posted those GE, given that this figure in particularly is DAMNING for the NRL v AFL debate... basically it's SOO and the Test match the rates out of it's ****, and the round games are dominated by AFL. So for 4 games a year, the NRL has huge viewership, and for the other 300 games a year, the numbers much the same, only AFL has viewers in all the majors for each game. Whilst the NRL does not.

http://footyindustry.com/files/codewar/ ... 082015.png

I've been to a few Suns games and there is absolutely no way that they are averaging 18000 this year. If you told me that the biggest crowd that they had this year was 18000, but average? Get out of here! Most of the crowd are away supporters too. AFL fans are much more likely to travel than league fans.


GE's really going to have a tough time with trying to decide how to deal with this post. :lol:
Does he lay the boot into the AFL and claim they inflate figures, or does he stick solid with his "but the turnstyles have electric counters!"

Im keen to find out.

I dont go to a lot of Suns game (or any), im not going to say you're wrong, in fact i think you're probably right... but i DO go to a lot of Raiders games, then there's no way the Canberra Raiders crowd figures are accurate either. I think we can agree that there is some fudging of figures when it comes to crowd figures on both sides, and it probably cancels each other out.


I don't know what counters they have at Suns games. I only know what counters they have at Raiders games.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18409
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:11 pm
Pigman wrote:
Dr Zaius wrote:
Pigman wrote:The people care SOOO little about the AFL, that their lowest crowd attendance average, the GC Suns is 18,000.
Which is good for what? 3rd or 4th place in the NRL

And nearly double that of the GC Titooons, their NRL counterpart

Interesting you posted those GE, given that this figure in particularly is DAMNING for the NRL v AFL debate... basically it's SOO and the Test match the rates out of it's ****, and the round games are dominated by AFL. So for 4 games a year, the NRL has huge viewership, and for the other 300 games a year, the numbers much the same, only AFL has viewers in all the majors for each game. Whilst the NRL does not.

http://footyindustry.com/files/codewar/ ... 082015.png

I've been to a few Suns games and there is absolutely no way that they are averaging 18000 this year. If you told me that the biggest crowd that they had this year was 18000, but average? Get out of here! Most of the crowd are away supporters too. AFL fans are much more likely to travel than league fans.


GE's really going to have a tough time with trying to decide how to deal with this post.
Does he lay the boot into the AFL and claim they inflate figures, or does he stick solid with his "but the turnstyles have electric counters!"

Im keen to find out.

I dont go to a lot of Suns game (or any), im not going to say you're wrong, in fact i think you're probably right... but i DO go to a lot of Raiders games, then there's no way the Canberra Raiders crowd figures are accurate either. I think we can agree that there is some fudging of figures when it comes to crowd figures on both sides, and it probably cancels each other out.

I can't open your table but according to this their average home crowd is 12000. As I said though, a sizeable proportion of them are away fans.
http://afltables.com/afl/crowds/goldcoast.html
RIP Greenbits: 2007-2014
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:12 pm
greeneyed wrote:It's not more popular. You've been smashed out of the park by facts Nick. I know this is hard to deal with, having a discussion based on actual facts. Instead of making broad ranging statements, based on belief systems, or preconceived notions. It's now up to the NRL to get the deal NRL truly deserves. And I can say without hesitation, that is not less than the AFL deal.


:lol: You really are one of the most ridiculous people i've ever come across in my life. All you do is piss and moan about facts, when your own facts have proven you to be incorrect.
There is one person here making statements based on belief systems and preconceived notions and hot tip pal, it's the guy who has RL blinkers on.

I understand how tough this may be for you, you're entire life revolves around the game of RL, and hearing that it's not the be all and end all you believe it to be must be quite earth shattering to you. But as you say, the facts are here for all to see, and those of us who are able to appreciate other sports, those of us who haven't invested their entire adult lives around the notion that RL is the only thing worth investing time in, know that the NRL has some ground to make up on the AFL.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19976
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:15 pm
Dr Zaius wrote:I can't open your table but according to this their average home crowd is 12000. As I said though, a sizeable proportion of them are away fans.
http://afltables.com/afl/crowds/goldcoast.html


Hmmm interesting. Wonder why there is such a disparity between this and the "Facts" that GE provided.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:16 pm
greeneyed wrote:How's this for another fact re FTA audiences: In Sydney and Brisbane, AFL has an average audience per match of a total 50,000. This is 50,000 people in the whole of Sydney and Brisbane watching out of 7 million people. In Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, NRL has an average audience per match of a total 40,000. This is without a live broadcast in Adelaide, despite assurances from Nine that there would be national live broadcasts in all five State capitals for NRL. That's from a population of 7.7 million. That's a rounding error in terms of reach of one sport into the other's geographic area.


This is for the people claiming that the AFL has a "more national" TV audience than NRL.

I know some people have trouble with reading tables and numbers, but this has surely, and finally confirmed that all the claims to the contrary are completely wrong.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:27 pm
Pigman wrote:
greeneyed wrote:It's not more popular. You've been smashed out of the park by facts Nick. I know this is hard to deal with, having a discussion based on actual facts. Instead of making broad ranging statements, based on belief systems, or preconceived notions. It's now up to the NRL to get the deal NRL truly deserves. And I can say without hesitation, that is not less than the AFL deal.


:lol: You really are one of the most ridiculous people i've ever come across in my life. All you do is piss and moan about facts, when your own facts have proven you to be incorrect.
There is one person here making statements based on belief systems and preconceived notions and hot tip pal, it's the guy who has RL blinkers on.

I understand how tough this may be for you, you're entire life revolves around the game of RL, and hearing that it's not the be all and end all you believe it to be must be quite earth shattering to you. But as you say, the facts are here for all to see, and those of us who are able to appreciate other sports, those of us who haven't invested their entire adult lives around the notion that RL is the only thing worth investing time in, know that the NRL has some ground to make up on the AFL.


Come on Nick, there's no reason to go back to ridiculing people, just because you've been proven comprehensively wrong. I keep pointing to all the figures which have proven your claims to be incorrect, and I would have thought you'd be grateful for me sharing this knowledge with you, and helping to bring you into a higher state of consciousness and enlightenment. I would have thought you'd be saying: "I didn't know that, thank you, so much, for helping me understand that all my biases and preconceived notions were so ill-founded. That they were totally baseless. That so much of what I thought I knew, was not knowledge at all." But how am I rewarded for sharing this knowledge? It's sad, very sad, that there's none so blind than those who will not see.
Image
Quote
User avatar
John Ferguson
Posts: 2779
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:43 pm
greeneyed wrote:What the figures actually show us is that the AFL TV average audience per match is 440,000 and NRL is 425,000 so far this season. This is with NRL only having three matches on FTA, whereas AFL has ALL matches on FTA in one market or other (so they maximise each, including into small markets). This is a negligible difference, and why putting just one more NRL match on FTA could easily see that difference reversed. Either way it is probably negligible.

How does adding an extra NRL game increase the average audience per match? Any gain in total viewers would see the whole figure divided by 4 instead of 3; I'd expect the average to stay the same (could even go down if the Broncos aren't being aired every single week like they are now, or if some people that watch all 3 FTA games now don't have it in them to watch a 4th each week as well).
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13599
Joined: January 13, 2005, 5:22 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:47 pm
Because they will swap the rubbish late night Friday spot for Thursday primetime and add Saturday prime time.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:48 pm
Sterlk wrote:
greeneyed wrote:What the figures actually show us is that the AFL TV average audience per match is 440,000 and NRL is 425,000 so far this season. This is with NRL only having three matches on FTA, whereas AFL has ALL matches on FTA in one market or other (so they maximise each, including into small markets). This is a negligible difference, and why putting just one more NRL match on FTA could easily see that difference reversed. Either way it is probably negligible.

How does adding an extra NRL game increase the average audience per match? Any gain in total viewers would see the whole figure divided by 4 instead of 3; I'd expect the average to stay the same (could even go down if the Broncos aren't being aired every single week like they are now, or if some people that watch all 3 FTA games now don't have it in them to watch a 4th each week as well).


Adding an extra FTA game means that you have a potential audience for that match of essentially 100 per cent of Australian households. As opposed to 30 per cent of households if that match was broadcast on STV. FTA matches are watched by many more people on average than games on STV.

The average figure being quoted is the average of all games, not just games on FTA.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112203
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:51 pm
edwahu wrote:Because they will swap the rubbish late night Friday spot for Thursday primetime and add Saturday prime time.


That will also add total viewers, so the average across all games should go up due to this as well.
Image
Quote

David Furner
Posts: 3877
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 9:59 pm
I can't believe the ratings figures from a page back. Why do so many people watch the Block?
Raiders Member #4173
Bay 72, Row T, Seat 8
Quote
User avatar
John Ferguson
Posts: 2779
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket
PostPosted: August 26, 2015, 10:10 pm
I don't see how this is such a big debate, if the question is "which code is worth more to the FTA networks?" the answer should be reasonably easy to quantify, and you could essentially put a $$$ figure on each 30 second ad break - if anybody could be assed to actually do the math, that is (and that person isn't me).

All you'd need to do is obtain the total value of each of the code's FTA deals, divide that total figure by how many years the deal is for, divide that result by the total amount of FTA games per code per year, then use an estimate of how much ad time there is per-game-per-code to get the final figure.

If anybody's going to be quoting stats and figures, it should be that one. Its pretty easy to find statistics on the Internet that will support just about any position you choose to take (unless you're being silly and trying to prove something ridiculous like cannibalism being a popular recreational activity in Tasmania).
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to Rugby League


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests