Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Rugbynutter39]

Interesting.

I'm not the target market for this event, but I guess it makes sense considering they've got Sonny Bill involved with the rugby stuff.

I'll be interested to see how much money they drop into the production values for something like this. The general consensus amongst my mates was the Gallen v Lusick card which was charged out at $60 a pop by Main Event, was very underwhelming and frankly a ripoff.

$60 to watch some B grade celebrity amateur boxers - no thanks

 

[liquor box]

Maybe this is an indication of where Rugby sits in importance to the Australian public.

Sportsbet.com.au have a market for the Highest Rated Sporting Event in 2022.

Rugby (unsurprisingly) does not feature on the list.

AFL Grand Final $1.90
State of Origin any match $2.62
NRL Grand Final $4.50
Commonwealth Games $6.00
Melbourne Cup $8.50
FIFA World Cup $10.00
Men's T20 World Cup $11.00
The Ashes $21.00
Rugby League World Cup $26.00
Winter Olympics $34.00
Australian Open Tennis $41.00
Wimbledon $51.00
Big Bash $67.00
AFL Regular Season $101.00
NRL Regular Season $101.00
NFL Superbowl $126.00
Tour De France $151.00

Settled Upon the Sporting Event (includes any pre or post match coverage) with the highest Total TV Audience for the 2022 Ratings Period. Results Via OzTam (and via TV Tonight & TV Blackbox). Dead Heat Rules Apply. All In Betting, Others May be Added.

I would have thought if we were playing well and were looking like winning a Bledisloe Cup then we should rate better than a some on that list.

 

[Rebel man]

Maybe this is an indication of where Rugby sits in importance to the Australian public.

Sportsbet.com.au have a market for the Highest Rated Sporting Event in 2022.

Rugby (unsurprisingly) does not feature on the list.

AFL Grand Final $1.90
State of Origin any match $2.62
NRL Grand Final $4.50
Commonwealth Games $6.00
Melbourne Cup $8.50
FIFA World Cup $10.00
Men's T20 World Cup $11.00
The Ashes $21.00
Rugby League World Cup $26.00
Winter Olympics $34.00
Australian Open Tennis $41.00
Wimbledon $51.00
Big Bash $67.00
AFL Regular Season $101.00
NRL Regular Season $101.00
NFL Superbowl $126.00
Tour De France $151.00

Settled Upon the Sporting Event (includes any pre or post match coverage) with the highest Total TV Audience for the 2022 Ratings Period. Results Via OzTam (and via TV Tonight & TV Blackbox). Dead Heat Rules Apply. All In Betting, Others May be Added.

I would have thought if we were playing well and were looking like winning a Bledisloe Cup then we should rate better than a some on that list.

In the glory days Bledisloe tests did out rate the AFL/NRL GF

 

[RugbyReg]

RLWC

surely FIFA WC is #1?

 

[PhilClinton]

I reckon the only event which would give a shout is a RWC Final featuring Australia, that makes the 5 or 6, above T20 World Cup final. And if it’s against NZ or England, probably top 3 contender. Although I imagine the final played in France next year will be at around 5am AEDT, which would deter the casual fan from waking up to watch it live.

An Oz v NZ final played in Australia would be a chance of top spot I reckon.

 

[PhilClinton]

RLWC

surely FIFA WC is #1?

Globally for sure, but my read of the post is that it’s based on Australian rating only, so unless Australia are in the FIFA WC Final, it probably won’t eclipse the other heavyweights.

 

[liquor box]

RLWC

surely FIFA WC is #1?

I think Barty winning the Australian open should rate pretty highly and possibly the odd commonwealth games event if a world record for a popular athlete looks likely.

 

[Set piece magic]

Barty getting into the open final would pull 3M plus, (Hewitt did 4 but TV audiences have decayed since 2005), but it's all about that times the probability of her making the final, which she's struggled to get to in the past. At $41 that is absolutely worth a punt though, because it will be the 1/2 rated event for the year if she makes it.

I wouldn't read too much into rugby not making that list, we haven't had anything in the top 20 programs for the year since about 2004

 

[half]

The simple thing is broadcast hours in prime time....AFL/NRL/A-L all have roughly 200 games from various competitions , with NRL & A-l allowing 2 hours per game and AFL allowing three hours per game. Meaning AFL say 600 hours NRL / A-L 400 hours and all in prime time.

Super Rugby has 91 plus internationals say 12 on average per year. But with maybe 65% in prime time also allow two hours per game. So 206 hours @ 65% say 135 hours in prime time.

 

[Adam84]

Conversely, NFL play most of their games outside of prime time and NFL remains king of US Sport broadcasting. At a rough guess NFL probably only has around 150 hours in prime time

however MBA/MLB get much more exposure due to the number of games a season.

 

[half]

Conversely, NFL play most of their games outside of prime time and NFL remains king of US Sport broadcasting. At a rough guess NFL probably only has around 150 hours in prime time

however MBA/MLB get much more exposure due to the number of games a season.

Seriously you pick the only code in the worlds that applies to and are you suggesting Australia rugby & US gridiron are in any way similar in terms of support

 

[Adam84]

Did I misunderstand, were you not opening a discussion about broadcast hours in prime time?

I thought the most lucrative broadcast rights in the world might be relevant to that discussion.

No, I’m not comparing rugby to NFL. Nor am
I comparing A-League to AFL or NRL.

 

[mst]

When its comes to prime time and ratings, I also have to ask. with all the statics saying that its all about convenience and product on demand, is "Primetime" as we in Australian really what it used to be? Or is it that the key sporting products are sticking to their traditional games time which are in the old "primetime" slots?

I think its a valid question to ask and Adam's data above suggest its worth thinking about. Why compete with something when you don't need to?

 

[liquor box]

When its comes to prime time and ratings, I also have to ask. with all the statics saying that its all about convenience and product on demand, is "Primetime" as we in Australian really what it used to be? Or is it that the key sporting products are sticking to their traditional games time which are in the old "primetime" slots?

I think its a valid question to ask and Adam's data above suggest its worth thinking about. Why compete with something when you don't need to?

I think sports like to be able to boast about their prime time ratings as it makes them feel more significant.

If we won the Bledisloe in an afternoon game from NZ and had great ratings at lunchtime there would not be as much publicity about the resurgence of rugby that would occur if we had a primetime rating with the same number.

I very rarely watch anything live, usually on a delay so I can skip through half time panels and any significant break in a game like a major injury. Technology allows this to happen easily and fit the game around my lifestyle rather than me having to plan around the Rugby schedule.

I think the important ratings are number of views, not the time that it was broadcast.

 

[Dan54]

When its comes to prime time and ratings, I also have to ask. with all the statics saying that its all about convenience and product on demand, is "Primetime" as we in Australian really what it used to be? Or is it that the key sporting products are sticking to their traditional games time which are in the old "primetime" slots?

I think its a valid question to ask and Adam's data above suggest its worth thinking about. Why compete with something when you don't need to?

I think there is a lot of sense in what Adam says too mst, look at how popular the French test series was, and rated well in NZ, was on when there not a lot of other sports on tv!

 

[Dan54]

I think sports like to be able to boast about their prime time ratings as it makes them feel more significant.

If we won the Bledisloe in an afternoon game from NZ and had great ratings at lunchtime there would not be as much publicity about the resurgence of rugby that would occur if we had a primetime rating with the same number.

I very rarely watch anything live, usually on a delay so I can skip through half time panels and any significant break in a game like a major injury. Technology allows this to happen easily and fit the game around my lifestyle rather than me having to plan around the Rugby schedule.

I think the important ratings are number of views, not the time that it was broadcast.

I beg to differ mate, I would think TV wouldn't pay as much for games that were on at bad time, as when a lot of people record games, it loses a lot of appeal to to their advertisers who know that people are just fast forwarding through ads!

 

[Adam84]

Sunday afternoon games are some of the highest rating for the NFL, Sunday afternoon football is a bit of an institution in the US.

prime time is important because that’s the maximum potential viewers available, but it’s also when there’s the greatest competition from other sports and tv shows.

 

[Derpus]

We should have more midweek games. That French series was excellent.

 

[Set piece magic]

We should have more midweek games. That French series was excellent.

Absolutely. IMO going forward the three test series should be a wednesday-wednesday-saturday proposition, two midweek games on TV that let you know the rugby test season is on then a Saturday finale. The Wallabies got significant momentum out of the visibility of a mid-week start to the season that was visible on television. Suspect it may be done in future years

 

[PhilClinton]

We should have more midweek games. That French series was excellent.

I think there is genuine opportunity to play the next iteration of the NRC/Club championship or whatever it is going to be, on weeknights.

Play games Tuesday - Thursday nights, have the Rugby Championship and Spring Tour on the weekends, and the 'game of the round' on Sunday afternoon or something to attract a bigger crowd/audience.