3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Quick Hands]

Sponsorship is just another form of advertising.

A particularly expensive form, unless you are a private company and can claim it as a tax break.

 

[No4918]

It is disappointing that the NRC gets 1 game a week while the ITM this season had most games live. The cost of getting out and recording must be considerably higher than giving the kiwis a few dollars for the live feed. Hopefully when the comp is a success we can get a couple more live games, could not be too hard to have at least one in Bris and Syd live each week.

 

[wamberal]

A particularly expensive form, unless you are a private company and can claim it as a tax break.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, mate.

Are you asserting that a dollar spent on sponsorship is somehow less effective than a dollar spent on other forms of marketing? That is surely a decision for the relevant institutions to make, or do you have some special knowledge of the subject that you would care to share?

As I said, tertiary institutions are competing for students, not only with other tertiary institutions, but with the alternatives to further study (i.e. not continuing to study and joining the work force at a lower level as a consequence).

Given that the single most important determinant of an individual's prosperity is his or her educational attainment, I for one am totally in favour of tertiary institutions trying to attract students who would otherwise go in other directions, or no direction at all.

If a tertiary institution sponsors a sporting team, they are doing so to try to reach a demographic that is otherwise difficult for them to speak to.

Competition is tough these days for just about every corporation, institution, profit or non-profit, tax paying or tax exempt, throughout the whole economy. Attracting new customers is vital, whether you are selling cars, hamburgers, or tertiary education.

Attracting new customers costs money. Organisations who spent their promotional money wisely will do better than those who don't.


It is far more "expensive" - to use your term - to fail to attract new customers than it is to reach out and find them. Finding new customers usually means doing something different. Thus sponsorship apparently works, it is something new that finds new customers.

 

[Jets]

If you look at the other national comps in Aust it has been a case of building an audience to justify the spend for TV. The A-League started on Foxtel only and is now shown on SBS, one game a week on Friday. The Big Bash was on Foxtel only but kicks off on Ten this Friday.
Rugby is given a chance to show one game a week, on Thursday nights apparently, to build a support base. If the product is good we will see more games shown to the point where hopefully they are all live. Down the track they may even have games on FTA.
The other issue is that SA and NZ are both willing to take reduced revenue for Super rugby, which is split 3 ways. In turn they ask for more for their domestic comps. This results in them making more money than Aust off TV deals. Australia has 2 years to build a competition that will allow us not to fall behind the other 2 countries in terms of TV revenue.

 

[the coach]

Extracts from Ben Whitaker's Q&A re TV coverage.
He has a great future in politics if he decides to move on.
He's already mastered the art of not answering the question

3. Why only one live match and depending on how the NRC is received is there a possibility of showing more matches?

We are grateful for the support of FOX SPORTS and Foxtel. In addition to broadcasting one live match per round, FOX SPORTS will also televise the semi-finals and final.

4. Why would you have this competition on pay TV only and not open in up to free to air?

FOX SPORTS and Foxtel have been great partners of Rugby since the game turned professional in Australia in 1995. FOX SPORTS and Foxtel will apply the same production philosophy as they apply to Super Rugby. We have been very fortunate to receive significant support from FOX SPORTS and Foxtel that has enabled us to launch the NRC in 2014. We will continue to look at all options available to provide effective access for fans to the NRC.

5. TV is great, and 1 broadcasted game is a start. Will there be a possibility for a highlights package online, or via a free-to-air TV, for all games each week?

We will work closely with FOX SPORTS on opportunities to provide as much exposure for the competition as possible across various platforms. We are grateful for the support of FOX SPORTS’ one live match per round plus semi-finals and final.

6. If FOX SPORTS is only going to show one game and the finals, can the others be sold to free to air stations or streamed online?

FOX SPORTS and Foxtel own all rights to all matches. They have committed to showing a match per week plus the semi finals and finals live. Their commitment along with that of Foxtel’s has ensured that unlike the ARC there is no production contribution required by the ARU.

7. With the one broadcast game per week on FOX SPORTS, can we see this on a day or evening timeslot?

The agreement with Fox Sports nominates certain timings in which the games will be broadcast. This will be determined once the Commission completes the final structure of the competition. We will work closely with FOX SPORTS on this.



Anyone able to translate his answer to this question to explain what the ARU is actually going to do to promote the NRC:

1. How are you going to promote the NRC at a grassroots level - an area often neglected outside of established private schools?

The NRC provides a fantastic national opportunity to engage with players and supporters of all ages, geographic location and backgrounds. Access to matches will be central to the strategy of recognising our passionate and strong participant pool and growing the game across Australia

 

[Rugby Central]

Anyone able to translate his answer to this question to explain what the ARU is actually going to do to promote the NRC:

1. How are you going to promote the NRC at a grassroots level - an area often neglected outside of established private schools?

The NRC provides a fantastic national opportunity to engage with players and supporters of all ages, geographic location and backgrounds. Access to matches will be central to the strategy of recognising our passionate and strong participant pool and growing the game across Australia

I believe the translation is hope, pray and assume FOX will do everything for them. Looks like the "Build it and they will come" is at the heart of ARU strategic management.

As for all those people wanting it on FTA - give it up. They won't pay until they know how much it's worth. You need to remember it costs between $20K-$30K in production cost to televise a match. FOX at least has the experience, expertise and resources to give it a proper go.

I think at this stage, long suffering rugby fans shouldn't look this gift horse in the mouth, much less walk up and kick it in the teeth.

Free to air would be ideal, but i didn't win the $70 million last night either, so I play the cards I'm dealt

 

[suckerforred]

What I take from this:

We are not sure what the hell is going on at the moment, but we will let you know as soon as Fox Sports has decided.

Or am I being to cynical?

I am just getting the feeling that the ARU is releaseing 'stuff' to early to the media/community. I guess that they have had to to get people thinking about what is happening and how they are going to get any comp up and running, but the apparent seat of the pants functioning is not instilling any confidence that this is going to be any better run than the ARC.

I hope that Fox Sports does look into streaming those games that are not being broadcast. This will give an indication of how much the comp is wanted & watched. We will just have to work on everyone to watch it then.

Anyway, I can't wait until we get to see more rugby!

 

[the coach]

What I take from this:

We are not sure what the hell is going on at the moment, but we will let you know as soon as Fox Sports has decided.

Or am I being to cynical?

I am just getting the feeling that the ARU is releaseing 'stuff' to early to the media/community. I guess that they have had to to get people thinking about what is happening and how they are going to get any comp up and running, but the apparent seat of the pants functioning is not instilling any confidence that this is going to be any better run than the ARC.

I hope that Fox Sports does look into streaming those games that are not being broadcast. This will give an indication of how much the comp is wanted & watched. We will just have to work on everyone to watch it then.

Anyway, I can't wait until we get to see more rugby!

The 42 pages of this forum prove that they've at least been successful getting us to talk and think about it!

Hope they find a good way to promote the games outside of the closed pay TV community. I seem to remember it was a bit of a chore to even find out what games were been player and where with the ARC.

 

[suckerforred]

Yeah Coach, I am hoping that the ARU are not falling into the trap of relying totally on pay tv as the vehicle of promotion. They are also going to have to promote the hell out of games as to where, who, when they are being played and make sure that tickets are easy to get and not violently expensive.

I guess, like a lot of things to do with this comp, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Rugby Central]

What I take from this:
but the apparent seat of the pants functioning is not instilling any confidence that this is going to be any better run than the ARC.

The one thing FOX is good at is making money. If they figured there was no chance to turn a profit, they wouldn't be in it.

There's a lot the ARU should be doing but if they leave a lot of the early heavy lifting to FOX then I'm more confident of success.

I'm probably guilty of heavy cynicism, but I'm almost at the point of not caring for the who, what, where or how this works, just that it does.

 

[Braveheart81]

Regardless of who's in government, I find it odd that a publicly funded educational institution has sufficient spare money to sponsor a sporting team. I also noticed that UNE had sufficient spare cash to sponsor the Parramatta Eels NRL team in 2013.

Public funding per university place is only one way in which universities generate revenue. For some university courses like medicine, the cost for the university to provide the course is dramatically higher than the federal funding received per student.

Universities make money from fee paying local students, international students, partnerships with private business and from benefactors.

Universities are also competing to attract the top students because ultimately, the students a university produces has a big impact on the reputation of the institution.

I think it is simplistic to suggest that they're a publicly funded institution and therefore shouldn't be sponsoring anything or have the funds available to do so. UNSW for example earns around a third of their income from fee paying students. When you're turning over in excess of $1 billion a year, sponsoring a couple of sporting teams is a drop in the ocean.

 

[Quick Hands]

Public funding per university place is only one way in which universities generate revenue. For some university courses like medicine, the cost for the university to provide the course is dramatically higher than the federal funding received per student.

Universities make money from fee paying local students, international students, partnerships with private business and from benefactors.

Universities are also competing to attract the top students because ultimately, the students a university produces has a big impact on the reputation of the institution.

I think it is simplistic to suggest that they're a publicly funded institution and therefore shouldn't be sponsoring anything or have the funds available to do so. UNSW for example earns around a third of their income from fee paying students. When you're turning over in excess of $1 billion a year, sponsoring a couple of sporting teams is a drop in the ocean.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's a pretty sweeping statement, mate.

Are you asserting that a dollar spent on sponsorship is somehow less effective than a dollar spent on other forms of marketing? That is surely a decision for the relevant institutions to make, or do you have some special knowledge of the subject that you would care to share?

As I said, tertiary institutions are competing for students, not only with other tertiary institutions, but with the alternatives to further study (i.e. not continuing to study and joining the work force at a lower level as a consequence).

Given that the single most important determinant of an individual's prosperity is his or her educational attainment, I for one am totally in favour of tertiary institutions trying to attract students who would otherwise go in other directions, or no direction at all.

If a tertiary institution sponsors a sporting team, they are doing so to try to reach a demographic that is otherwise difficult for them to speak to.

Competition is tough these days for just about every corporation, institution, profit or non-profit, tax paying or tax exempt, throughout the whole economy. Attracting new customers is vital, whether you are selling cars, hamburgers, or tertiary education.

Attracting new customers costs money. Organisations who spent their promotional money wisely will do better than those who don't.


It is far more "expensive" - to use your term - to fail to attract new customers than it is to reach out and find them. Finding new customers usually means doing something different. Thus sponsorship apparently works, it is something new that finds new customers.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Public funding per university place is only one way in which universities generate revenue. For some university courses like medicine, the cost for the university to provide the course is dramatically higher than the federal funding received per student.

Universities make money from fee paying local students, international students, partnerships with private business and from benefactors.

Universities are also competing to attract the top students because ultimately, the students a university produces has a big impact on the reputation of the institution.

I think it is simplistic to suggest that they're a publicly funded institution and therefore shouldn't be sponsoring anything or have the funds available to do so. UNSW for example earns around a third of their income from fee paying students. When you're turning over in excess of $1 billion a year, sponsoring a couple of sporting teams is a drop in the ocean.

I'd like to see some research on it.
I have my doubts about the demographics and as to what if any influence a sleeve sponsor could or should have on a decision to go to a particular uni - it surely cant be the case that a student in a category you mention would be unaware of of UNSW's existence.
An attempt to develop the appearance of Syd U culture of rugby etc may be the real driver.
it happened with UTS and Haberfield rowing and as I understand it the uni now runs the show - slightly different arrangement I guess but I know that is not what the RDRUFC power that be wants.

 

[Gibbo]

Don't forget Foxtel will be able to resell the broadcast into other markets. Europe, Asia, NZ and SA. It might not be much but it will return some cash back to them. Unique content is valuable.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

I'd like to see some research on it.

No doubt there is plenty. Otherwise, who would throw money away in today's economy?

I have my doubts about the demographics and as to what if any influence a sleeve sponsor could or should have on a decision to go to a particular uni - it surely cant be the case that a student in a category you mention would be unaware of of UNSW's existence.

I have no doubt that, at the margin particularly, there would be some young people who are attracted to at least consider a course of tertiary study when their favourite sporting team is sponsored by a tertiary institution.

There is an old saying in marketing circles, attributed to both Lord Leverhulme and John Wannamaker (two giants of industry): "50% of my advertising budget is wasted. The problem is, I do not know which 50%"

Marketing experts these days will vigorously dispute the truth of this old adage.

I worked for AGB Research in London, many moons ago, and I can tell you that there is plenty of science around the subject of market research and the effectiveness of advertising.

 

[suckerforred]

I understand the principle behind the sponsorships. It does not make me feel any more comfortable about it though.

 

[RugbyFuture]

my university decided not to give funding (a relatively modest $500,000 a year) to the solar car project I was a founding member of where it was involving upto 30 students from different backgrounds, gaining independant media and competing against the biggest universities in the world whilst developing photovoltaics and transport research at the same time it announced sponsorship of the western sydney wanderers which I would suggest would be a significant amount more than that.

But we couldn't have any money because of lack of funding.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'd like to see some research on it.
I have my doubts about the demographics and as to what if any influence a sleeve sponsor could or should have on a decision to go to a particular uni - it surely cant be the case that a student in a category you mention would be unaware of of UNSW's existence.
An attempt to develop the appearance of Syd U culture of rugby etc may be the real driver.
it happened with UTS and Haberfield rowing and as I understand it the uni now runs the show - slightly different arrangement I guess but I know that is not what the RDRUFC power that be wants.

I'm just trying to visualise the best and brightest young minds in Australia making their choice of university while watching the rugby at Coogee or the league at Parra. They're aren't sure where to go, they look up and see UNSW on the sleeve of the myrtle green or UNE on the front of the Eels and they make their decision.

I suspect you are correct in that Randwick, who are struggling financially, are looking for a silent partner to bankroll their quest for world domination.

 

[Quick Hands]

my university decided not to give funding (a relatively modest $500,000 a year) to the solar car project I was a founding member of where it was involving upto 30 students from different backgrounds, gaining independant media and competing against the biggest universities in the world whilst developing photovoltaics and transport research at the same time it announced sponsorship of the western sydney wanderers which I would suggest would be a significant amount more than that.

But we couldn't have any money because of lack of funding.

It's the world in which we live unfortunately, style over substance. Boys academic results continue to slide against that of girls as the society in which they live seems to value sporting success over academic rigour. My former uni cut back on un-sexy faculties like history, classics, languages etc, but could find the money to be the main sponsor of the Eels.