Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Ash]

$50 / month buys an online subscription to Foxtel Go / Play, which you can get SuperRugby coverage from plus all the other sports channels (with NRL, AFL, NFL, soccer, and so on) and quite a few crappy Foxtel channels on top to boot.

For anything approaching even $30 or $40 a month, you'd need a heap of extras, such as: watch games on demand (e.g. watch a game anytime up to, say, the end of the season), various game highlights packages (e.g. 2 minutes to 10+ minute packages), sped up games (e.g. stoppages removed), and maybe some basic analysis.

All those extras starts increasing the overhead of providing the service.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

$100 for the Super Rugby season would seem like about the most you could charge.

It's not like SANZAR could have the rights to sell much apart from Super Rugby that isn't on FTA already.

If you were only offering Super Rugby then yes. But the key to drawing in the maximum number of subscribers is offering as high a value as possible. We actually have a far broader range of competitions in which to offer the market and should look to do just that.

 

[TOCC]

SANZAR are unlikely to ever do it as a package, the legislation, infrastructure and economies of the three major countries all vary and SANZAR as a body itself isn't a sizeable organisation, it's a small body representing the three national unions..

If it is to happen it would have to be driven from an ARU level since they negotiate the TV rights within Australia. Perhaps the next tv rights will be a suitable time to introduce such a package... Cricket just had a video streaming service added to Apple TV but it only features highlights, not live content.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

$50 / month buys an online subscription to Foxtel Go / Play, which you can get SuperRugby coverage from plus all the other sports channels (with NRL, AFL, NFL, soccer, and so on) and quite a few crappy Foxtel channels on top to boot.

For anything approaching even $30 or $40 a month, you'd need a heap of extras, such as: watch games on demand (e.g. watch a game anytime up to, say, the end of the season), various game highlights packages (e.g. 2 minutes to 10+ minute packages), sped up games (e.g. stoppages removed), and maybe some basic analysis.

All those extras starts increasing the overhead of providing the service.

All aspects that should be investigated over the next few years.

 

[Jagman]

When I was in Germany for 4 weeks last year I contemplated subscribing to stream stream superrugby. Found a site that was 7 euros a month but 5 to start. At he site had a lot more than super rugby. European rugby too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

That's the biggest problem currently. Eschewing big TV deals or greatly reducing TV deals to be able to sell the content directly is only really viable once it becomes possible to sell a similar service.

Live streamed content is so far off being capable of being streamed at a sufficient quality for the bulk of Australians it really isn't a viable replacement yet. It's a real shame that we live in a country full of luddites.

Yes indeedy...........

 

[Brendan Hume]

The problem with content that isn't covered is the cost to broadcast games at a quality that people are willing to pay for. It costs heaps to broadcast sport


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[the sabanator]

I'd pay good money to some form of online site to get on-demand European rugby to get me through the dark, dark days of December & January

 

[TOCC]

The problem with content that isn't covered is the cost to broadcast games at a quality that people are willing to pay for. It costs heaps to broadcast sport


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why talk of Foxtel only paying $1million for the NRC can be a little misleading, they are probably spending another $2million in production costs... That's why the ITM Cup is broadcast in Australia, another broadcaster covers the production costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[qwerty51]

I'd pay good money to some form of online site to get on-demand European rugby to get me through the dark, dark days of December & January

http://www.beinsports.com.au/

 

[Highlander35]

BeIn only has the Challenge/Champions Cups though, no coverage of Pro12/EngPrem/Top14 as of yet, albeit Eurosport has the latter ATM.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

BeIn only has the Challenge/Champions Cups though, no coverage of Pro12/EngPrem/Top14 as of yet, albeit Eurosport has the latter ATM.

Would have been interesting if Bein bid for the rights.

 

[the sabanator]

http://www.beinsports.com.au/

Thank you

 

[p.Tah]

Hot on the heels of the successful Asian Cup victory, Australian soccer rolled into the return of the A-League. Pundits waited with high expectations to see the flow on effect now that Soccer had come of age.

With no cricket, AFL, League or Rugby to compete with on TV. The Brisbane vs. Newcastle game brought in 70k viewers on Fox. No real change.

 

[Slim 293]

What about the SBS ratings?

Soccer's popularity has well eclipsed rugby in this country.........

 

[Strewthcobber]

What about the SBS ratings?

Soccer's popularity has well eclipsed rugby in this country...

81k on SBS.

70k on fox is about the equivalent of a mid range super rugby game for context.

 

[p.Tah]

Soccer's popularity has well eclipsed rugby in this country...

Yes and no. If we had decent PR and lobbyists, rugby would be in a much better place in the public's mind.

The Asian Cup was a great result. As an Aussie I love that we won, but most of the countries participating were ranked 80+ in the world. However Soccer brilliantly publicised all the positives. Even crowd figures were positive (I.E. Better than expected) despite the fact that most stadiums (finals aside) were nowhere near full. Compare that to RWC 2003 where everything was a sell out ( even in Tasmania). The papers are reporting that Soccer had a great profit, but they had to pay that back to the governments who underwrote the tournament. In all seriousness, well done FFA. Rugby pull your finger out.

 

[wamberal]

Soccer is a simple game, easy to understand and it is widely played and enjoyed throughout the nation.


Top-flight soccer is a very good spectacle (if you care who wins, which I used to, but don't now). European soccer can be breathtakingly exciting, again, if you care who wins.

Rugby, on the other hand is a complex, often slow-moving game with an opaque rule book. Results sometimes depend on arbitrary judgements on events which cannot be televised properly and/or are subjectively arbitrated by officials who are guessing. Scrums are the best example of this, rolling mauls, and of course the ever present breakdown.

Don't blame PR for the game's problems. As for lobbyists, if we could afford them, they should be fully occupied trying to get the IRB to simplify the bloody rules of the game.


The trajectory in popularity in this country is quite clear. We are going down, our three main rivals are either holding their own, or out-stripping us.

They are not successful because of publicity, mate, they are more popular because many more people like them, to play, and to watch.

 

[p.Tah]

Yes soccer is a simple game and hugely popular, but always has been. It's becone popular in Australia over the last ten years because of success of the Socceroos backed up with good PR (and I'm including media relations) and excellent lobbying. Soccer has many issues, as does rugby, the AFL and NRL, but the AFL, FFA and the NRL succeed off the field where rugby doesn't.

Until recently I would have agreed that rugby's lower popularity levels is caused by the Laws. However on reflection, if we go back to our Golden period of the late 90s early 2000s, rugby was the hottest ticket in town and the Laws used then are essentially the same now. The TV ratings for the 2003 RWC final was over 4million (2nd all time ratings record on Free to air TV after a Hewitt Tennis final). When the Reds won the Super Rugby in 2010 Fox ratings were over 500k. That's still a Foxtel ratings records. The Tahs final was over 400k.
Soccer hasn't surpassed us yet in any of these. Despite the season differences, the A-League does not rate higher than Super Rugby.
What this points to is everyone loves a winner. The Socceroo are winning, the Wallabies are not winning consistently. If that reverses I am certain rugby's popularity will surge, however this time the ARU better have decent PR and lobbying to capitalise on it.

Anyway back to the topic of the thread. Free to air TV coverage would also help, but we are a cutely aware of the challenge

 

[wamberal]

I love your optimism. Mate, the punters are not stupid, they watch and support the game or games that are the most appealing.


That is the beginning and end of it, unfortunately.


Yes, we had a golden age from the mid nineties until the mid noughties, I think you would have to acknowledge that the game was different then, scrums were not a deciding factor (remember Bill Young?) but everything went to shite in and after the 2007 RWC which featured some of the most boring rugby ever witnessed. It has been downhill ever since, with very few exceptions.

Also, never forget that our main rival was tearing itself apart during our Golden Age.

Soccer is a major competitor, but the AFL and NRL are both codes that are governed locally, and designed specifically to appeal to Australians. They have the financial momentum, to put it mildly.

We are deep in the dark stuff, and if the product on the field does not change, radically, the future is very, very bleak.


Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news. Fox still makes money out of our code, but only TEN shows the slightest interest in the ranks of FTA broadcasters, and they are struggling, big time.