Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Ash]

@Lindommer I would expect that SANZAR should a digital component as part of the next broadcast deal.

The issue is that the digital access should be world wide, and the 3 countries share the broadcast revenue profits. The problem is what union handles it, and how the profits and monitored and split.

 

[Tom Ando]

This from Bill Pulver himself just a few moments ago on ROAR : "We’re in the final stages of getting approval from each national Union of SANZAR (New Zealand, South Africa, Australia), on the competition structure for Super Rugby 2016-2020.
We are hopeful this will be completed within the next month, so we can communicate details publically"
"The current broadcast agreement with Fox Sports, gives them exclusive rights over all media platforms, including digital.
The next SANZAR broadcast agreement will be for the period 2016-2020 and while we do expect the digital component of this to be far more significant, in our negotiations, it’s premature to predict the final outcome.
Suffice to say, that from the perspective of the ARU, we’ll be looking for a far greater influence from digital media during this next contract period."

 

[TOCC]

Interesting read on foxsports from Pulver in regards to the next broadcast agreement, it addresses a number of points which have been raised on this forum..

Basically Pulver is using the last FFA deal as the benchmark, which is $40million/annum, a $15million/annum increase on the current ARU deal.

FTA, online services etc are all discussed as well

 

[MungoMan]

Interesting read on foxsports from Pulver in regards to the next broadcast agreement, it addresses a number of points which have been raised on this forum..

Basically Pulver is using the last FFA deal as the benchmark, which is $40million/annum, a $15million/annum increase on the current ARU deal.

FTA, online services etc are all discussed as well

Using the roundball rights agreement as the target shows sense.

 

[wamberal]

Using the roundball rights agreement as the target shows sense.

I hope the ARU is using the FFA deal as a benchmark, not a target. A benchmark can be exceeded, a target cannot.


It would be really bad negotiation tactics to telegraph your target. Unless the target is well in excess of the figure that you will accept.


Negotiation 101. Never publicly state a time deadline, and never publicly state your "bottom line". Another useful pointer that I picked up is that ALL elements of the deal are still in play until the final agreement is documented, which allows for last-minute wiggles and compromises. It can also help the savvy negotiator get a better all round deal, maybe by surprising the other party with a last-minute request, when you know they have had enough and just want to sign on the dotted line.

 

[TOCC]

@Wamberal, read the article, he never said the FFA agreement was the "target"...

He actually claims rugby union is a more valuable product due to the competitive matches played by the Wallabies as opposed to the soceroos.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/a...-ffas-40-million/story-e6frf4pu-1226874865294

 

[wamberal]

@Wamberal, read the article, he never said the FFA agreement was the "target".

He actually claims rugby union is a more valuable product due to the competitive matches played by the Wallabies as opposed to the soceroos.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/a...-ffas-40-million/story-e6frf4pu-1226874865294

I was responding to Mungoman's use of the term "target".

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

@Wamberal, read the article, he never said the FFA agreement was the "target".

He actually claims rugby union is a more valuable product due to the competitive matches played by the Wallabies as opposed to the soceroos.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/a...-ffas-40-million/story-e6frf4pu-1226874865294

I have to agree with him. Though I do hold a nature bias. But when you take into account the differences in terms of size of each game's base. The Wallabies punch well and truly above their weight.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Beau Robinson - from the Blog

"I’m just a country boy from a working class background that was saturated and surrounded by League growing up and was drawn to this great game by watching the Wallabies win the 1999 World Cup, John Eales kick us to historic Bledisloe victories, school boy rugby games attended by 15000 people, and the great spectacle that was the 2001 British and Irish Lions tour.
All on free to air TV…"

 

[p.Tah]

Well at least a FTA network is thinking of rugby

''[Australian Rugby Union chief executive] Bill Pulver is doing a great job with rugby and we'd be interested in getting some Super Rugby onto free-to-air,'' Mr McLennan told Fairfax Media.

''We think rugby needs to broaden and get into the mainstream to build its fan base.''

Ten has the rights to some international rugby union games and could potentially add some Super Rugby games to its schedule, most likely as part of a joint bid with Foxtel. This follows a joint Ten and Fox Sports deal signed last year with V8 Supercars for $241 million.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ten-...gby-deal-to-boost-ratings-20140413-36lgy.html

 

[TOCC]

10 have been getting battered in the ratings and they are eager to secure a winter sport to compete with 7 & 9.

 

[wamberal]

Fox and TEN are likely to end up in some sort of corporate partnership, if not an outright takeover (by Fox), assuming that the media rules are relaxed, which seems highly likely.

So it looks like Fox and TEN are the rugby channels for the forseeable future. Could be good for the game. However, it looks like the only possibility for increased FTA coverage.

 

[Pfitzy]

One game per week of the local product presents scheduling issues though for FTA. Because it NEEDS to be a local team playing, and probably one of the east coast teams if they're serious about ratings.

So SANZAR (and Fox) need to agree to one game every week in Australia that is a favourable time slot for east coast audiences. Preferably the same time slot every week like the A-League on Friday night. You could have it change between Fridays and Saturdays but that is a big ask when you're trying to solidify a market.

Anyone betting that will happen?

 

[TOCC]

One game per week of the local product presents scheduling issues though for FTA. Because it NEEDS to be a local team playing, and probably one of the east coast teams if they're serious about ratings.

So SANZAR (and Fox) need to agree to one game every week in Australia that is a favourable time slot for east coast audiences. Preferably the same time slot every week like the A-League on Friday night. You could have it change between Fridays and Saturdays but that is a big ask when you're trying to solidify a market.

Anyone betting that will happen?

There is already an Australian team in the Saturday 7:30AEST time-slot every weekend this year, pretty sure it was the same last season as well...

Given the NRL has no FTA coverage on Saturday this time-slot would work perfectly I'd imagine.

 

[Dan54]

Just wondering: Andrew Merhtens has talked in a paper column of allowing SA to go their own way,and the NZ -Aus super 10-12 or whatever taking over. While I against it, as I have said numerous times I both enjoy and think we need SA for the different style of rugby that is played. The point being SA have always said (and rightly) they get more money from their TV rights than NZ/Aus. Would a NZ/Aus comp be worth more to Foxtel because all games would be played in a time friendly zone, and so perhaps go quite some way to making up difference? As I said I prefer Saffa teams in comp, but just wondering if it does come to this,how badly off financially would we be, thinking that a comp like that would also probably be a bit more appealing to FTA!! I just think it is an interesting thing to discuss, especially as the new TV deals are about to be done, and when you think that NH rugby have settled their differences and so SA teams probably would have nowhere else to go so any threats they make on pulling out would be quite empty anyway!!

 

[TOCC]

The point for South Africa and New Zealand is, that without the other two countries it's just the Currie Cup or ITM Cup..

South Africa pulling out of Super Rugby would leave them with just the Currie Cup, at which point they would need to at least double the length of season to justify the cost to the broadcaster. They would still fall short of the income provided by Super Rugby, hence the continual talk of linking with Europe....Unlikely to ever happen

 

[Omar Comin']

Would a NZ/Aus comp be worth more to Foxtel because all games would be played in a time friendly zone, and so perhaps go quite some way to making up difference?

Of course it would.

At the moment there are 3 or 4 games per week in the right time zone. These are the only games that provide value to Foxtel (or any potential broadcaster) in Australia. Hardly anyone watches the games in South Africa in the middle of the night.

Now the alternative would be to have a trans tasman competition, possibly linked with Asia. With 10, 12 or 14 teams that creates 5-7 matches in prime time viewing hours in Australia every week. Doubling the amount of content each week doubles the advertising slots, which increases the value to broadcasters. Rugby fans in Australia are much wealthier than rugby fans in South Africa...thus advertisers pay more per Australian eye ball, than South African eye ball.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think the value to foxtel is in the games with the lowest ratings though, as they appeal to the people that subscribe for the rugby, where as some of the games with the bigger audiences probably only appeal to the casual fan who wouldn't pay for foxtel for the rugby, it just happens to be on at the right time and they have foxtel

 

[Dan54]

I do agree with that Train, remember hearing that Foxtel don't really care how many people watch, just how many people sign up to be able to watch, thats where their main income is from, though as Omar says perhaps there would be more advertising $s.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the value to foxtel is in the games with the lowest ratings though, as they appeal to the people that subscribe for the rugby, where as some of the games with the bigger audiences probably only appeal to the casual fan who wouldn't pay for foxtel for the rugby, it just happens to be on at the right time and they have foxtel

I agree that audience for the South African games are the real die hards, but I disagree that the Friday and Saturday night games attract far more casual fans.

If you've got Foxtel and you like sport, you can be watching NRL, AFL, Super Rugby or A League on a Friday and Saturday night.

I think a standard Friday or Saturday night Super Rugby audience are a good indication of the people who subscribe to Foxtel for rugby. The NRL and AFL audiences show how many more people subscribe for those games.

It would be interesting to see how Super Rugby would rate on FTA TV if Channel 10 make a foray into in from the 2016 TV rights deal. My guess is that the ratings will be pretty poor unless the Wallabies really ramp things up in the next year or so, particularly at the RWC.