2018 TV ratings and crowd numbers

[Jamie]

I would argue that we only played a couple of game in that tournament but that is my opinion. Like you mention only 3 years ago but we have been mostly horrible since, I also don't remember us being that great before that tournament. Anyway that seems like ages ago now.

Perhaps I sound pessimistic, it is just how I am feeling now. Also I respect your opinion, trust me there is a reason than I am spending every spare second I get at work to write this comments, I care.

 

[Jamie]

Trust me I will be watching this Saturday AND the NRC and everything else that comes my way, I really want to believe in this team again. It seems like pretty much every other nation is making progress but the Wallabies AND fans are noticing.

We drive through the RA headquarters on our way to work every morning and yes I have been temped to walk in and give them my two cents.

This is the Wallabies! this team has to represented the best of the best in this country, don't want to get into another rant but how come a year out of the world cup we don't seem to have a settled 15 and back up options?

Anyway hope we win this Saturday, the Pumas are coming and they smell blood.

Ps: Happy to eat humble pie all year if we win this game in style

 

[Derpus]

There must be a lot of ex-Wallabies fans out there who are whiney and expectant then given the decline in ratings. I didn't walk away, but I certainly went to sleep in my chair.

Yup, lots. We have a (apparently well founded) reputation for being fair weather fans.

 

[half]

I find the scary part not the rating of say 350K with a combined FTA metro and Fox. As others have illustrated we where up against the AFL & NRL in their finals, next week the same and as Stew posted in addition to the AFL & NRL finals SBS have a Liverpool match at 9:00.

What is the scary part for me is the next media deal, in 2020 with rating like we have, NZ having a small population and SA looking to Europe and if the US team is in then addition costs .

Ratings = revenue and falling ratings means falling revenues, especially as pressures mount of broadcasters costs structures.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There's an argument to be made there Half but not with these numbers.

2013 ratings were pretty identical - didn't make the top 20 FTA and Fox ratings of 167k

Same in 2012. 2016 was 139k.

Would be pretty similar almost every year Id expect under the TRC format with games against SA and Arg

Test matches at this time of year do not rate and never have.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[half]

Stew, I agree with what you have said.

My concern is we have hit a plateau at best, I would argue Super Rugby rating are down, and thats what seems to trigger the 4 team dilemma faced by the ARU.

When we cannot increase our ratings to something that is worth fighting for i do wonder how we will fair in the future.

How many people on Fox as an example are solely Union watchers, the sporting market is becoming more crowded and new players are also taking up funds even if only to broadcast it still reduces whats available.

More worrying is what plans seem to being considered to turn things around.

The rugby ship is large and a quick turn around is near impossible, but I am yet to see signs of systems and structures for growth.

I think 2020 will be very difficult unless we can grow our ratings.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's really a bit odd to want rugby-only fans watching on Fox (or anywhere else that it might be shown).

I watch nearly all Super games involving the Aus teams, and all tests with either the Wallabies or All Blacks involved. I also watch Moto GP, world cycling and occasionally others, and while I regard myself as a rusted on rugby fan, I would never confine myself to rugby only.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's really a bit odd to want rugby-only fans watching on Fox (or anywhere else that it might be shown).

I think it was in reference to how damaging it would be for Foxtel if they didn't pay for rugby. I.e. how many subscribers would they lose if they didn't have Super Rugby etc.

 

[sunnyboys]

a recent AFR article (actually the second AFR article on this) suggests Fox has a project on the go to launch a Fox Sports stand alone streaming offer - basically Foxtel Now - but you can get just sports - no base pack required first. with a price that reflects this. this is seen as a response to the 30% household penetration ceiling they hit and have so far not overcome.

Potential launch date was for late sept so they could test it on early womens cricket (on their newly branded Fox Cricket channel - replacing 501). they want it ready to hard launch in time for mens cricket content come Nov. it mentioned their fears of repeating Optus debacle from FIFA WC.

this may open up access to Super Rugby to a lot more supporters.

 

[Derpus]

a recent AFR article (actually the second AFR article on this) suggests Fox has a project on the go to launch a Fox Sports stand alone streaming offer - basically Foxtel Now - but you can get just sports - no base pack required first. with a price that reflects this. this is seen as a response to the 30% household penetration ceiling they hit and have so far not overcome.

Potential launch date was for late sept so they could test it on early womens cricket (on their newly branded Fox Cricket channel - replacing 501). they want it ready to hard launch in time for mens cricket content come Nov. it mentioned their fears of repeating Optus debacle from FIFA WC.

this may open up access to Super Rugby to a lot more supporters.

Murdoch is such a raging pain in the arse.

If we had decent infrastructure and didn't have to bow down to the all consuming foxtel monopoly we would already have multiple streaming options.

 

[half]

It's really a bit odd to want rugby-only fans watching on Fox (or anywhere else that it might be shown).

I watch nearly all Super games involving the Aus teams, and all tests with either the Wallabies or All Blacks involved. I also watch Moto GP, world cycling and occasionally others, and while I regard myself as a rusted on rugby fan, I would never confine myself to rugby only.

BH,s answer was correct what if Fox stopped paying or paid much less.

To explain, why do people buy Fox, say rugby folk or AFL folk. The primary driver to buy is because of their sport. Given you can watch anything else on Fox as you suggested you do. But would you pay for it. Your example Moto GP would you buy Fox for Moto GP.

Rugby provided Fox especially in the early days a core group of watchers and for a while we were the number one Fox rating show if game average was measuring stick and our crowds were second to AFL but almost 50% more than the NRL.

Fox loved rugby, but slowly our ratings have fallen and I wonder aloud how many people would walk if Fox moved away from Super Rugby, and just showed test matches. My guess is very few as many rugby fans these days openly say they support AFL.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

a recent AFR article (actually the second AFR article on this) suggests Fox has a project on the go to launch a Fox Sports stand alone streaming offer - basically Foxtel Now - but you can get just sports - no base pack required first. with a price that reflects this. this is seen as a response to the 30% household penetration ceiling they hit and have so far not overcome.

Potential launch date was for late sept so they could test it on early womens cricket (on their newly branded Fox Cricket channel - replacing 501). they want it ready to hard launch in time for mens cricket content come Nov. it mentioned their fears of repeating Optus debacle from FIFA WC.

this may open up access to Super Rugby to a lot more supporters.

I think it will certainly see a fairly significantly uptake. I know quite a lot of people who would subscribe in quick time if they don't need to bundle it with some other rubbish.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH,s answer was correct what if Fox stopped paying or paid much less.

To explain, why do people buy Fox, say rugby folk or AFL folk. The primary driver to buy is because of their sport. Given you can watch anything else on Fox as you suggested you do. But would you pay for it. Your example Moto GP would you buy Fox for Moto GP.

Rugby provided Fox especially in the early days a core group of watchers and for a while we were the number one Fox rating show if game average was measuring stick and our crowds were second to AFL but almost 50% more than the NRL.

Fox loved rugby, but slowly our ratings have fallen and I wonder aloud how many people would walk if Fox moved away from Super Rugby, and just showed test matches. My guess is very few as many rugby fans these days openly say they support AFL.

It's all relative though. Fox Sports are paying vastly more for NRL and AFL rights than they are for Rugby.

 

[Rebels3]

The whole mindset of how we maximise our audiences need to change. I have a desire to see the Bledisloe played throughout the year, specifically having one of the tests played on Anzac day, straight after the AFL ANZAC day clash. There isn't anything more Australian and kiwi than a Bledisloe clash. Would be a guaranteed sell out and guaranteed audience, a great chance to celebrate whats so good about the relations between the two

 

[Strewthcobber]

16,019 at CBUS for Aus v Arg

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Beer Baron]

16,019 at CBUS for Aus v Arg

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Maybe that's why Nudgee turned down the request to move their game to be the curtain raiser.... Would rather a decent crowd.

Interesting that crowd numbers at schoolboy appear unchanged, club rugby same in qld, growing in Sydney, not sure elsewhere. NRC definitely growing substantially. But S15 and tests diving hard.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

Just as an additional subjective method of judging viewership and engagement look at the posting on the forum. Look at the Argie game tonight, when was the last time you can remember a Wallabies game attracting so few posts. I would also point out that a great many former regular posters have left and some that I know do not watch pro Rugby at all now. From Rugby tragics to disengaged and disinterested people who will still turn up and watch their club level grass roots sides, but don't ask them about anything above that level, they are not interested at all. In many cases I think that they are lost to the Pro game as fans, they have been so totally alienated and disenchanted that even people engaged with our game at a lower level no longer support the game in any way at Pro level.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Foxtel ratings

NZ v SA - 111k
Aus v Arg - 104k (!)

Argie test always the lowest rating every year, but this is breaking new ground

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[RoffsChoice]

We get, on average, six test matches a year, and we continue to waste one of them on the Gold Coast every few years. How is this helping anyone in Australian Rugby besides the 5000 people on the Gold Coast who actually attend? Even Newcastle managed to get 20,000 out to watch the B team.

Why aren't we playing more games in Perth and Melbourne? Over the last ten years, we have played more games in Brisbane (17) than we have in Perth (7) and Melbourne (8) combined. IMO, we should always give the mid-year tests to Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, and the Rugby Championship should alternate on a three year cycle between these fixtures:

• Year one: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Brisbane, Argentina in Perth
• Year two: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Perth, Argentina in Melbourne
• Year three: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Melbourne, Argentina in Brisbane

If we happen to get a third Bledisloe that year, play it in Brisbane.
If we want more games for cities like Canberra, the Gold Coast, or Brisbane, we should do as we did in 2012 and have a mid-week test. If bloody Newcastle could bring 20,000 fans to a game against a bad Scotland side, in the driving rain, where we had six debutants, then Canberra and the Gold Coast should accept the same situation. Hell, Canberra has a better crowd record against Italy (22468) and Fiji (15438) than they do against Argentina (14229).

As an aside, here are the win %s and average attendance numbers in Aus for 2009-2018:

 

[Derpus]

We get, on average, six test matches a year, and we continue to waste one of them on the Gold Coast every few years. How is this helping anyone in Australian Rugby besides the 5000 people on the Gold Coast who actually attend? Even Newcastle managed to get 20,000 out to watch the B team.

Why aren't we playing more games in Perth and Melbourne? Over the last ten years, we have played more games in Brisbane (17) than we have in Perth (7) and Melbourne (8) combined. IMO, we should always give the mid-year tests to Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, and the Rugby Championship should alternate on a three year cycle between these fixtures:

• Year one: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Brisbane, Argentina in Perth
• Year two: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Perth, Argentina in Melbourne
• Year three: All Blacks in Sydney, South Africa in Melbourne, Argentina in Brisbane

If we happen to get a third Bledisloe that year, play it in Brisbane.
If we want more games for cities like Canberra, the Gold Coast, or Brisbane, we should do as we did in 2012 and have a mid-week test. If bloody Newcastle could bring 20,000 fans to a game against a bad Scotland side, in the driving rain, where we had six debutants, then Canberra and the Gold Coast should accept the same situation. Hell, Canberra has a better crowd record against Italy (22468) and Fiji (15438) than they do against Argentina (14229).

As an aside, here are the win %s and average attendance numbers in Aus for 2009-2018:
View attachment 10268

I'm well sick of the yearly first Bled in Sydney shellacking. Rotate that as well please. I'd be just as happy to watch Argentina, Springboks etc. Can't remember the last time i saw the Wallabies verse anyone live besides the damn All Blacks.