2012 Super Rugby - crowds & TV viewer numbers

[kronic]

During the negotiations, Ten/One's offer was the "match of the round" on FTA, plus a fair bit more money than Nine. Now we all know what has happened to Ten/One since then. Hindsight is beautiful thing though.

 

[TOCC]

During the negotiations, Ten/One's offer was the "match of the round" on FTA, plus a fair bit more money than Nine. Now we all know what has happened to Ten/One since then. Hindsight is beautiful thing though.

that ten offer also meant significantly less money then from fox sports,

 

[tragic]

I tried the running rugby on demand as well but the live streaming quality was rubbish unless you watched it on a small screen computer. I hooked the laptop up to a big screen plasma and it was so pixelated you could hardly see the ball. Wasnt worth the $70 IMO. No wonder illegal streaming exists.

 

[Rob42]

that ten offer also meant significantly less money then from fox sports,

Herein lies the major problem in Australia. Foxtel pays money to have exclusivity over Super Rugby, because it drives subscriptions. If they lose that exclusivity, they'll pay a whole lot less, because they'll lose subscribers, and that loss won't nearly be made up by any money from FTA or fledgling internet operators.

So does the ARU take the money from Foxtel and accept the limitations in terms of spreading the game beyond pay TV subscribers, or take a punt on FTA and slash the money available to pay for players and grass roots development?

 

[Braveheart81]

The ARU wouldn't have that option on their own. It would be a SANZAR decision in as much as the TV revenue for Super Rugby is the property of the entire Super 15.

It is crazy to think that Foxsports would let go of the match of the round and let FTA have that. It would be great if FTA could have one match per round (that would also be shown live on Foxsports like test rugby is). It wouldn't need to be the Aussie match of the round. It could be the second best game.

 

[wamberal]

Herein lies the major problem in Australia. Foxtel pays money to have exclusivity over Super Rugby, because it drives subscriptions. If they lose that exclusivity, they'll pay a whole lot less, because they'll lose subscribers, and that loss won't nearly be made up by any money from FTA or fledgling internet operators.

So does the ARU take the money from Foxtel and accept the limitations in terms of spreading the game beyond pay TV subscribers, or take a punt on FTA and slash the money available to pay for players and grass roots development?

Scheduling SupeRugby on FTA would be a nightmare. For starters, only a minority of the games involve Australian teams, and of these, a further minority are at schedule friendly times - 7.30 pm. Further I doubt that any except the three or four blockbusters every season would see the light of day on a main channel, otherwise it would be the backblocks for sure.

Even if FTA wanted the accessible matches, the rest would be lost from sight, except possibly as replays.


Another problem is that negotiations are not done by the ARU, they are done by SANZAR.



Incidentally, I would suggest that a case could be made that Foxtel would not lose many subscribers if they did not have exclusivity, simply because the demographic that traditionally plays and supports the game can afford the subscription, and would keep paying, even if the games were on FTA. Who wants commercials during the game, when for a few bucks a month you can watch uninterrupted coverage (except for the inane commentaries for home games).

 

[Roundawhile]

simply because the demographic that traditionally plays and supports the game can afford the subscription

As long as everybody thinks along these lines the game will never grow.

You may be well-off but I, and a number of my rugby mates, certainly are not!

How do you expect to enlarge your audience, and consequently your player base, if it cannot be seen except on Fox.

 

[PaarlBok]

We had disappointing crowds on Loftus and Newlands this weekend. Dont look like this break was a good thing.

 

[Rob42]

The ARU wouldn't have that option on their own. It would be a SANZAR decision in as much as the TV revenue for Super Rugby is the property of the entire Super 15...

Yes, I forgot that point. Even less likely that the ARU would be able to persuade the SA and NZ unions to cut their income to help out Australia on what would be at best a gamble.

 

[wamberal]

As long as everybody thinks along these lines the game will never grow.

You may be well-off but I, and a number of my rugby mates, certainly are not!

How do you expect to enlarge your audience, and consequently your player base, if it cannot be seen except on Fox.

I sympathise, but the alternative does not bear serious examination. For starters, there is no guarantee that FTA would show all Australian games, or even all Australian games at friendly times in Australia, certainly no guarantee that any games would be shown outside the big, rugby-friendly, cities. At least Foxtel does not discriminate, all games are shown live, and all are televised throughout Australia, which surely counts for a lot when we talk about growing the game.


We need the money from Fox Sports to subsidise the current game. Take the Fox money away, and you can be sure that the player base and support will not grow, in fact, I would bet that it would shrink. We are in a professional era, without money, we die.


The only ray of hope that I can think of is that the people at Fox Sports come to understand that it is in their long-term interests for the game to be more accessible on FTA, and allow some sharing of certain games.

 

[Bardon]

I don't mind the pay TV having the rights to the games under the current model. That's mainly because the same umbrella organisation that includes Sky Sports and Foxtel own all the major rights that aren't protected for FTA. That means I pay just one subscription and I get HEC, Aviva Premiership, S15, Lions tour, The Rugby Championship & June test series. While on FTA I get the 6Ns, RWC, November tests & some Pro12 game.

The rest of the Pro12 is on ESPN/Setanta which is an additional subscription. The nightmare scenario for me is that ESPN decide to go after more rugby content and then I need to stump up another fee if I want to watch certain competitions or even worse sometime in the future the rights to the comps I want to watch could be split between 3+ pay TV companies.

1 fee for as much rugby as one person can reasonably watch is fine with me. Especially since without Sky Sports S15 wouldn't even be shown in Ireland.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

...snip....

So does the ARU take the money from Foxtel and accept the limitations in terms of spreading the game beyond pay TV subscribers, or take a punt on FTA and slash the money available to pay for players and grass roots development?

ARU view of Grass Roots is U16 representation level and the "pathways" above that.
Pretty sure that Subbies club level is not seen as part of grass roots by the Ivory Castle in St Leonards. Same for Sydney Shute shield clubs at 2's, 3's, 4's, golden oldies and Womens rugby.

How many of the above grass roots outfits saw any of the RWC 2003 surplus that was set aside of grass roots development?
$10m IIRC was set aside from RWC profits for grassroots rugby.

 

[Roundawhile]

As usual it comes down to money, so lets look at this....

WRC 2003 - Wabs have put in a really good show, yes we lost in a very dreary game, but the feeling amongst the general population (far more than the traditional followers) was one of excitement. It was a true chance to really make a difference. So what happens (even though the coffers are overflowing), the ARU (JON) decides that if you can't afford Fox you shouldn't be able to watch our game.

You can sprout all you want about how many $millions this brought in and how this was the professional era and how it would help, but the truth is all that money was wasted because it wasn't put into the grassroots, the kids who were excited lost interest because they couldn't watch any games, and the elitist few were once again the only beneficieries.

They lost the most amazing chance to grow OUR game because of the ridiculous shortshightedness of a person that was "a corporate achiever".

Give me somebody that really believes in our game rather than a "business person" any day!

An Independant Commission please

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Peter Cosgrove perhaps?

Has his time with the ARU Board been successful?

 

[It is what it is]

Peter Cosgrove perhaps?

Has his time with the ARU Board been successful?

Not sure what Cosgrove has added.
Aren't Cosgrove and Arbib reviewing the ARU structure at the moment?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Not sure what Cosgrove has added.
Aren't Cosgrove and Arbib reviewing the ARU structure at the moment?

Second question first - Yes they are, although I think the official title is ARU Governance rather than structure.

First statement. Me too, hence my original second question.

Given his public profile as a bloke's bloke, and his undoubted managerial abilities and network following his East Timor activities, he could be useful as the ARU leader......but will the ARU politics be his Arnhem Bridge and drown him in a swimming pool full of treacle, as only the ARU and ARU politics can and will do.

 

[TOCC]

More importantly, does Cosgrove even want to assume the lead role in the ARU or any company for that matter...

 

[p.Tah]

As usual it comes down to money, so lets look at this..

WRC 2003 - Wabs have put in a really good show, yes we lost in a very dreary game, but the feeling amongst the general population (far more than the traditional followers) was one of excitement. It was a true chance to really make a difference. So what happens (even though the coffers are overflowing), the ARU (JON) decides that if you can't afford Fox you shouldn't be able to watch our game.

The First SANZAR deal was US$555 million for 10 years 1996-2005
the second deal US$323 million for 5 years 2006-2010
The third deal US$437 million for 5 years 2011- 2015

The opportunity to get Rugby on Free to air (FTA) TV after the 2003 RWC was 2006. They couldn't get rugby on FTA TV straight after 2003. The momentum was lost. JON wasn't involved in the 2006 deal. The ARC was an attempt to get rugby on FTA TV, good concept poorly executed.

Rugby has to take every cent it can from Foxtel. There is already a tighening of the purse strings (i.e. reducing funding to the states).

Absolutely agree rugby needs to be on FTA, but not at the expense of the SANZAR deal. I think they need to develop another 'product'. An ARC won't rate on TV however a national 7s tournamnet would do well. I know many G&GRs aren't fans of 7s but it is a version of the sport that does interest people outside of rugby. It's fast and simpler to understand. It is a golden egg for rugby. I don't know why the ARU don't do something with it.

A 2 day tournament is too long for TV. I have spoken about this previously but they could develop an 8 team knockout 7s tournament that could be completed in 4 hours. Put this on FTA TV and it would expose a lot more people to a form of rugby. If they begin to understand the rules of rugby in a less congested game, they would soon begin to understand the complexities of the 15s game.

 

[liquor box]

The First SANZAR deal was US$555 million for 10 years 1996-2005
the second deal US$323 million for 5 years 2006-2010
The third deal US$437 million for 5 years 2011- 2015

The opportunity to get Rugby on Free to air (FTA) TV after the 2003 RWC was 2006. They couldn't get rugby on FTA TV straight after 2003. The momentum was lost. JON wasn't involved in the 2006 deal. The ARC was an attempt to get rugby on FTA TV, good concept poorly executed.

Rugby has to take every cent it can from Foxtel. There is already a tighening of the purse strings (i.e. reducing funding to the states).

Absolutely agree rugby needs to be on FTA, but not at the expense of the SANZAR deal. I think they need to develop another 'product'. An ARC won't rate on TV however a national 7s tournamnet would do well. I know many G&GRs aren't fans of 7s but it is a version of the sport that does interest people outside of rugby. It's fast and simpler to understand. It is a golden egg for rugby. I don't know why the ARU don't do something with it.

A 2 day tournament is too long for TV. I have spoken about this previously but they could develop an 8 team knockout 7s tournament that could be completed in 4 hours. Put this on FTA TV and it would expose a lot more people to a form of rugby. If they begin to understand the rules of rugby in a less congested game, they would soon begin to understand the complexities of the 15s game.

What about a couple of 7's games before the friday or Saturday night S15 game and show these 2 games live on FTA? This will make viewers aware of the S15 game they are about to miss andmight spur them to get Foxtel and it is Rugby on FTA, it could be state based to try and get some passion involved.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There are many purists such as the redoubtable Bruce Ross who do not have much time for "lolly rugby" AKA 7's.

I have been a long term advocate of this form of the game, and firmly believe that both forms can coexist without detriment to the 15 aside game.

With 7's in the Olympics, the cloudwatchers and dreamweavers in ARU need to start thinking about how to package a 7s product that the FTA networks will buy and promote into a very competitive and congested sports content segment. Agree that a full two day tournament is probably not the format to win new punters over en masse. The TV "demise" of 50 over format in preference to the Big Bash T20 is a good indicator of the length of the average punter's attention span.

Maybe we have to target the "quieter" months - after the main winter codes GF's and before the Cricket ramps up too much. P'raps even take on Cricket head to head over the summer.