stoff
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Why don't they do it now then?
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
JRugby2
Larry Dwyer (12)
Great question, I'll try and keep the word count down and should definitely caveat that this is purely based on my experience working in this space rather than absolute gospel - no doubt it's much more complicated than this, but this is my read. Short answer is the cost to compete and lack of inventory.
Sponsorships and Broadcast partnerships are delicately intertwined. So when sporting codes sign broadcast agreements with networks, in those agreements is that networks must approach the sporting codes sponsors first when they go to market with their sponsorship packages (eg: AAMI being a major sponsor of the AFL will always get the first opportunity to also be the major insurance broadcast partner with Channel 7). So because gambling companies (along with several other major brands) have deals with the codes, they get first bite of the cherry to buy ads. This doesn't completely soak up all of the inventory - but a fair chunk.
When it's time to renew those deals, those code level partners also get the first right of refusal when those partnerships go back to market, again locking out other brands from taking up those lucrative partnerships. Advertisers don't really get a chance to 'counter offer' here either - networks have to go to market at a reasonable price and once the deal is signed, its done. Most of the time in the NRL and AFLs case - other brands don't get a chance to pitch.
For the remainder of these spots - the lack of inventory (sport only goes for so long) and the relatively strong audience numbers mean costs are high. The average cost of a 30s spot pre-game at say 7:45pm (prime time) in sport can be 1.5-6+ times the cost than in regular general entertainment programs (depending on the fixture). Side note - this is why you typically see a lot of ancillary sport programs and long pre-game and post game shows. An NRL game might only go for 80 minutes +/- a few stoppages (ie: limited time for ads) - but if you can host an hour long pre-game and 30mins post game you significantly increase your ad inventory.
So if all of a sudden gambling companies can no longer buy the ad space they're entitled to (I'm assuming here that a future ad ban wouldn't stop them from still partnering with the NRL/AFL) you'll suddenly free up all of this inventory that other code level partners and general advertisers couldn't previously access.
PhilClinton
Tony Shaw (54)
Would the lobbyists not push for a total advertising ban once sponsorship agreements have expired with specific NRL/AFL clubs?
My memory of the ciggies ban was it included anything related to tobacco advertising i.e. the Winfield Cup got shafted along with any advertisements.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
<1% ad spend? Seems a little implausible.
JRugby2
Larry Dwyer (12)
Yeah I've just done there own math for them... it more like 6% (~200m/3.3B). The podcasters (definitely not me) obviously forgot to convert a decimal to a percentage. Teach me to trust the Guardian!
JRugby2
Larry Dwyer (12)
Yeah potentially, I have no idea what the actual outcome will be - based on the current debate I'm guessing there will be some concessions made from both sides. Either way that wouldn't impact the TV ad inventory and partnership wheelin' and dealin'
Strewthcobber
Steve Williams (59)
Feds banned the broadcast advertising. State governments banned the sponsorship, billboard stuff - the "incidental" marketing.
Marbig
Chris McKivat (8)
Rugby Australia would probably be in a much better place financially if they were able to capitalise on the SGM market in the same way the NRL & AFL has. There is definitely somewhat of a link between the increase in viewership of the NRL and market offerings by gambling companies/the SGM product as it pertains particularly to Rugby League.
I think the most reasonable outcome will be a total ban around/in live sport. Gone will be the pre-game odds updates and in-game (post 8:30) and post game gambling spots.
Fortunately for Rugby, this or even a total TV ban wouldn't affect the value of the next rights package as much as it will the other two codes given its usually just Bet 365 milling around and I doubt they pay that much comparatively.
I'd also be curious how much TABs front jersey deal with the Brumbies is worth and if they'd have to do away with that.
I think the most reasonable outcome will be a total ban around/in live sport. Gone will be the pre-game odds updates and in-game (post 8:30) and post game gambling spots.
Fortunately for Rugby, this or even a total TV ban wouldn't affect the value of the next rights package as much as it will the other two codes given its usually just Bet 365 milling around and I doubt they pay that much comparatively.
I'd also be curious how much TABs front jersey deal with the Brumbies is worth and if they'd have to do away with that.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I'm actually none the wiser after reading that article.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Any fucken value the fluffybunny saved on that deal was firmly spoofed away on the Sua'ali'i and Jones deals.
dru
David Wilson (68)
I'm simply sticking with those last two words.
Question is with RA after that. What's next (outside of shrinking to four).
Adam84
Phil Kearns (64)
Little bit perplexed World Rugby signed with Nine/Stan without alligning those broadcast negotiations with RA. I’m not suggesting they pool the funds, just place conditional clauses in to benefit both recipients, the article does raise a good point that securing the rights for one reduce the demand for the other, so it would have come across as a wise idea to negotiate them as a package.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I mean WR (World Rugby) will want to ensure that they get as much of that slice of pie as possible right?
Without taking the scale of numbers as gospel, $25 million is bigger than $20 million even if the total pot Nine/Stan is paying comes to $90 million total rather than $100 million for each, and WR (World Rugby) can't reasonably be seen to be taking less money to help prop up a single member.
Without taking the scale of numbers as gospel, $25 million is bigger than $20 million even if the total pot Nine/Stan is paying comes to $90 million total rather than $100 million for each, and WR (World Rugby) can't reasonably be seen to be taking less money to help prop up a single member.
Wilson
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Australia is just the one body being talked about here but I don't think the argument is about taking less to prop up one member, it's about supporting the governing bodies in all local markets and working with them at a broadcast level to get more money in the game as a whole, rather than more to world rugby and less overall - making the biggest possible pie rather than getting the biggest possible slice of a smaller one.
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that though, with broadcast deals running at different times and some countries split between many partners, but as far as those situations go this should be a simpler one. There has at least been a shift in recent negotiations to favouring the current broadcast partner in the respective markets (as long as they have a sufficient FTA component), but it still seems far from perfect.
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that though, with broadcast deals running at different times and some countries split between many partners, but as far as those situations go this should be a simpler one. There has at least been a shift in recent negotiations to favouring the current broadcast partner in the respective markets (as long as they have a sufficient FTA component), but it still seems far from perfect.
Adam84
Phil Kearns (64)
I wasn’t suggesting they pool/split the value of the rights, just suggesting it would have been mutually beneficial for both parties to negotiate together for the purpose of inflating the rights of one another.
Look at it from the perspective of selling property, when you have a few neighbour's all negotiate to sell their properties as a bundle to the one developer, they achieve a premium because the value of the sum of the properties is worth more to a developer then individual properties are.
Look at it from the perspective of selling property, when you have a few neighbour's all negotiate to sell their properties as a bundle to the one developer, they achieve a premium because the value of the sum of the properties is worth more to a developer then individual properties are.
Adam84
Phil Kearns (64)
Maybe, it wouldn‘t really make sense though.. SVOD‘s platforms aren’t sustainable on the back of 4 week tournaments once every 4 years(especially ones like Stan that lack other consistent sports), the value in tournaments like the RWC for SVOD‘s are to recruit new consumers and then retain through other offerings(like Super Rugby/TRC), this is the value add proposition of negotiating it as a bundle, too attract new consumers and retain them/reduce the turnover rate.
Value of both rights are influenced by one another, it’s likely removed Kayo/Foxtel as a competitive bidder(or at least cut the value of any offer) for Super Rugby/SANZAAR If they can’t have both deals, it’s now in RA’s interest to go with Nine/Stan for synergies with the RWC broadcast.
Value of both rights are influenced by one another, it’s likely removed Kayo/Foxtel as a competitive bidder(or at least cut the value of any offer) for Super Rugby/SANZAAR If they can’t have both deals, it’s now in RA’s interest to go with Nine/Stan for synergies with the RWC broadcast.