Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Yeah the availability of Stan’s in pub is a big issue. That been said, even when rugby was on Foxtel it was often hard to get a non rugby put to chuck one of the channels onto rugby
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Sadly half the crowd in the pub would rather the Friday night replay over live Saturday Rugby.
90% of my Club would rather have the NRL on than Super Rugby. The other 10% are sickos that watch the Swans.
90% of my Club would rather have the NRL on than Super Rugby. The other 10% are sickos that watch the Swans.
HooperPocockSmith
Bill Watson (15)
This might be a very privileged take of mine but given the number of NRL/AFL games behind a paywall at Fox, would rugby really be that inaccessible if we went back? Most people I know have a kayo subscription and prefer the Fox NRL coverage to Nine.
it’d be interesting to see the % of households with a Kayo subscription. If you really want to follow the AFL or NRL it’s a non-negotiable that you pay your $30/month. Especially if your team rarely gets the big ticket time slots.
it’d be interesting to see the % of households with a Kayo subscription. If you really want to follow the AFL or NRL it’s a non-negotiable that you pay your $30/month. Especially if your team rarely gets the big ticket time slots.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I actually wonder after reading all these posts, if Fox will actually make much of a bid. Would they attract EXTRA subscirbers than they have now, as many seem to allude that most already have Fox/Kayo. No good paying much money if you not going to get more subsciptions to cover the 4050 mill a year?
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Kayo stats are easy to find. As of 21/09/2023:
Stan is a lot harder to find up-to-date figures. From 2021:
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
I already have Kayo and I’d guess the majority on here would as well?
wamberal99
Jim Clark (26)
STAN gives us the club rugby. All the club rugby.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
I canned my subscription at the earliest opportunity.
Apart from not wanting the content, the platform itself is a bit crap.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Interesting. Personally never had an issue with the platform and I watch a of the US sports and NRL.
Cricket coverage is good as well with the ODI World Cup starting.
Cricket coverage is good as well with the ODI World Cup starting.
HooperPocockSmith
Bill Watson (15)
The Stan coverage is great but I’m not sure, at this stage, it has the wide scale penetrance we need.
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
I know beggars can’t be choosers, but I’d love to know if Stan are looking to make a bigger splash on the sports streaming market and take the ESPN contract or similar from Fox.
Our game needs broader exposure and I think we underestimate how many casuals will flick over whilst flicking through a sports catalogue. The problem is the options on Stan are quite limited so no one really goes to it for sports only.
Our game needs broader exposure and I think we underestimate how many casuals will flick over whilst flicking through a sports catalogue. The problem is the options on Stan are quite limited so no one really goes to it for sports only.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I'd much prefer we stay with Stan, their output and engagement with the game has been light years ahead of what fox was offering at the end of their time.
That said, fox bidding (along with Amazon and others) can only be a good thing, without actual competition for the broadcast rights we have no leverage and very little chance of improving our broadcast deal in terms of money or FTA exposure.
That said, fox bidding (along with Amazon and others) can only be a good thing, without actual competition for the broadcast rights we have no leverage and very little chance of improving our broadcast deal in terms of money or FTA exposure.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Yep so they don't really have a need to pay big money for rugby as they already have the subscibers. With pay TV etc, the holy grails isn't eyeballs, but who is paying subscriptions from what I understand.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I've got Kayo and Stan, mainly because I watch several different sports (cricket, rugby, Aussie Rules, baseball etc), but I like both and it doesn't cost me a lot. It's certainly cheaper than what I could be paying for Foxtel (which I haven't had for over 20 years).
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
From a kayo perspective not so much, but from a broader media groups perspective they still need as full a sport offering as possible to draw subscribers in. Warner Bros have announced they're going to be launching a streaming platform in Australia in 2024, this will Binge (and maybe foxtel) lose HBO original content, which is far and away the most valuable properties they own. Without these they're likely to bleed subscribers and there are really any other international sources for content they could sign up to offset that.
This means they'll need to be getting maximum return from the sport side of things in the near term to give them the best chance of finding a way to keep their broader entertainment offering alive. From their perspective that means they need to block Stan/9 from making a succesful whole of game bid for the NRL. Taking rugby off of Stan a few years before they get the chance to make that bid would negatively impact Stan's preparation. The bare minimum from their perspective would be to make sure Stan/9 didn't get a deal on the rugby so were playing with a bit less money when those NRL roll around.
Mick The Munch
Vay Wilson (31)
Foxtel's priority was League and AFL as they have skin in the game. The coverage for union was awful, one of the reasons no one watched........urgh I can still hear Kafe and Kearns droning on - no thanks - and I i don't want to give the Murdochs any money
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I can't really see how going back to Fox would be a good thing for the game here
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
The argument isnt about whether having Union back with Fox/Kayo gets you more eyeballs (it most likely does), it's whether Rugby in Australia is better off on Fox or Stan.
We have decades worth of evidence to show us how Fox ran Union when theyg had it and now we have a couple years of coverage on Stan.
It is night and day which platform puts our game in a better light. That will have a bigger impact on the casuals wanting to watch something.
Additionally, most of the casual viewers that have fox will most likely be watching NRL or AFL, so you're talking about a tiny percentage of people who may casually watch Union over another sport. So, with that in mind, why do we drop the product to a sub optimal one on the odd chance we may get a dozen or so extra eyeballs?
Anyway, I think it's a mute point. Most people have more than one streaming platform, Stan just needs to show why people should choose it over Netflix, Amazon or one of the other major tv/movie streamers.