Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[JRugby2]

Acknowledging the revenue share NZRu currently undertake (giving us $5m a year), but I'm cynically wondering if this might be a SA-style reduced offer for the Super Rugby/TRC component - that could be shared with RA, while they end up with a bigger than expected offer for the other comps not currently covered by this deal

Not usually one to buy into conspiracy theories but NZR having a minority stake in Sky makes this more compelling

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

TV rights upheaval: Sky in line for critical All Blacks deal and then a possible takeover

NZ rugby TV rights are now open to negotiation for global streamers: What are fans in for?

www.nzherald.co.nz

Hoping @zer0 can work his magic & make the paywall fuck off...

 

[Strewthcobber]

TV rights upheaval: Sky in line for critical All Blacks deal and then a possible takeover

NZ rugby TV rights are now open to negotiation for global streamers: What are fans in for?

www.nzherald.co.nz

Hoping @zer0 can work his magic & make the paywall fuck off...

Pretty much just speculation that Sky could be taken over by DAZN and confirms that Sky's offer is much lower than previous years, and may result in less domestic games being broadcast to save coats

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ that's going to cost them subscribers & possibly advertisers which I wouldn't have thought wise if you're looking to sell the business?

 

[Strewthcobber]

^ that's going to cost them subscribers & possibly advertisers which I wouldn't have thought wise if you're looking to sell the business?

Domestic = NPC

Sky, which needs to reduce production costs, seems set to agree to a deal whereby it screens, for example, only three NPC games each weekend, leaving the opportunity open to another broadcaster or media company, such as TVNZ, to screen other NPC games. Or NZR might decide it can further build up its own NZR+ digital platform and audience base by screening those other games itself.

 

[JRugby2]

^ that's going to cost them subscribers & possibly advertisers which I wouldn't have thought wise if you're looking to sell the business?

Probably not honestly - more content ≠ more subscribers / advertisers in the new digital world. Provided the content offering is semi decent and quality of the content is high you'll still draw your audience. Ad frequency may drop but reaching people is less of an issue these days anyway if your budget is big enough

 

[Wilson]

^ that's going to cost them subscribers & possibly advertisers which I wouldn't have thought wise if you're looking to sell the business?

The argument is that if they get the All Blacks rights for less they'd be a particularly good pickup because that's where all the value is and they're doing well to get it cheaply.

The likely new broadcast deal, as well as Sky being fit for a takeover bid, has been commended by investment firm Forsyth Barr, which has upgraded its rating for the publicly listed company from “neutral” to “outperform”.

The idea that DAZN is interested in a takeover bid feels a bit more like wishful thinking though - I'm not sure there's a hell of a lot of benefit for them buying another broadcaster in a market that's smaller than QLD right now. Maybe down the track they would, but I can't see them rushing to snap up Sky versus just competing directly with them as DAZN (or any of the other international players giving two shits). It is at least much more likely to happen while Sky has the rugby rights though.

 

[Wallaby Man]

DAZN looking to become a one stop shop for all markets. So essentially removing the need to on sell your sports rights to other markets. BeIn sports is like this, they purchased some euro league rights and therefore can distribute these leagues into any market they exist in. With DAZN looking to by out Sky NZ, they will own the NZRU rights and we could see some rugby back on DAZN/FOX in the coming years in the form of All Blacks games. Could make it interesting in coming years what happens with Super Rugby rights.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Domestic = NPC

Well, yes, of course it does.

Probably not honestly - more content ≠ more subscribers / advertisers in the new digital world. Provided the content offering is semi decent and quality of the content is high you'll still draw your audience. Ad frequency may drop but reaching people is less of an issue these days anyway if your budget is big enough

What if I told you there are literally tens of thousands of Kiwis who watch NPC/ Farah Palmer Cup but not Super Rugby?

 

[Wilson]

DAZN looking to become a one stop shop for all markets. So essentially removing the need to on sell your sports rights to other markets. BeIn sports is like this, they purchased some euro league rights and therefore can distribute these leagues into any market they exist in. With DAZN looking to by out Sky NZ, they will own the NZRU rights and we could see some rugby back on DAZN/FOX in the coming years in the form of All Blacks games. Could make it interesting in coming years what happens with Super Rugby rights.

I'm not sure it quite works like that with Rugby rights - DAZN buying the All Blacks rights (or Sky who have them) would only give them the broadcast rights in NZ, not anywhere else. SANZAAR currently package all the rights to be sold by each nation in their home territory. The only broadcast they might be able to get worldwide rights for directly from the NZRFU is NPC games.

 

[JRugby2]

What if I told you there are literally tens of thousands of Kiwis who watch NPC/ Farah Palmer Cup but not Super Rugby?

I'd respond that although those people probably represent what is awesome about our game through their love of the grassroots - that tens of thousands isn't a lot of people in the grand scheme of things relative to the overall size of the market for an international rugby competition - even in a small market like New Zealand - and that segment of the audience is likely not going to be enough to shift a decision

 

[young gun]

Changes in Stan's top management just announced. Wonder if it impacts current negotiations, I would have thought so.

 

[Tazzmania]

Changes in Stan's top management just announced. Wonder if it impacts current negotiations, I would have thought so.

Unlikley, as with any large corporate its usually business as usual with deals that are are supposedly some way down the track. Unless its a game changer which this is probably not in that category especially with the world cup already signed off on.

 

[Adam84]

Mightn’t impact the value, but it may change how rugby is delivered. Stan is being brought back into the fold with the rest of the company after operating almost as a standalone company previously. Might be more crossover between Stan, 9Now and Nine now that they’re all back under the same roof and under the same director

Stan boss exits amid Nine overhaul

Former Foxtel executive Amanda Laing will lead a converged streaming and broadcast division as part of a major corporate shake-up.

www.smh.com.au

 

[dru]

more content ≠ more subscribers

JR2, you've been pushing this with some consistency. I have no idea on the truth or otherwise of what you are saying, but I do know that it completely flies in the face of what we have been told for years. ie that Super rugby couldn't be offered much in the way of broadcast $ due to not having enough content.

So between where we have been and what you are spruiking, what has changed?

 

[Strewthcobber]

JR2, you've been pushing this with some consistency. I have no idea on the truth or otherwise of what you are saying, but I do know that it completely flies in the face of what we have been told for years. ie that Super rugby couldn't be offered much in the way of broadcast $ due to not having enough content.

So between where we have been and what you are spruiking, what has changed?

Nine wants more content because they sell eyeballs to advertisers. More content = more eyeballs.

Foxtel wants more content because they sell channels of airtime which they need to fill.

Stan don't necessarily want it, because they sell access to on demand content. Extra Super Rugby games probably doesn't mean more subscribers (anyone interested is already subscribed), just extra costs

 

[Adam84]

JR2, you've been pushing this with some consistency. I have no idea on the truth or otherwise of what you are saying, but I do know that it completely flies in the face of what we have been told for years. ie that Super rugby couldn't be offered much in the way of broadcast $ due to not having enough content.

So between where we have been and what you are spruiking, what has changed?

A longer season ≠ more games on same weekend

especially when it comes to SVOD monthly subscriptions and churn rates..

 

[dru]

A longer season ≠ more games on same weekend

especially when it comes to SVOD monthly subscriptions and churn rates..

so Adam, for better commercials we need more teams? I thought that the initial issue was the length of the season. My support for the idea of more teams probably leads us back to some old themes that may be better left alone.

 

[Adam84]

so Adam, for better commercials we need more teams? I thought that the initial issue was the length of the season. My support for the idea of more teams probably leads us back to some old themes that may be better left alone.

JR said that more content ≠ more subscribers in relation to Sky potentially reducing number of NPC games it broadcast weekly, you questioned this claim as it goes against what you believe people have pushed for Super Rugby.

But a large push for more Super Rugby content has been about the season length, not the quantity of games in the weekend.. hence my comment ‘longer season ≠ more games on same weekend’.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Mightn’t impact the value, but it may change how rugby is delivered. Stan is being brought back into the fold with the rest of the company after operating almost as a standalone company previously. Might be more crossover between Stan, 9Now and Nine now that they’re all back under the same roof and under the same director

Stan boss exits amid Nine overhaul

Former Foxtel executive Amanda Laing will lead a converged streaming and broadcast division as part of a major corporate shake-up.

www.smh.com.au

To me this screams retreat and consolidate. Bit like RA recently... Few people picking up additional responsibilities for others shown the door.