Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[dru]

Thats what happens when you have a competition (or anything) run by a committee

You make this statement as if that is a necessary consequence. It isn’t. In fact very little in the modern world is decided by a single dictator. Working collegiately is the norm. That doesn’t make THIS committee effective. But that’s not your point I think.

 

[barbarian]

I'm a bit skeptical of these articles. Call me when there's ink on paper, until then it's all just posturing.

While it's nice to have multiple players in the market, surely Foxtel are still $1.10 favourites to win the rights.

 

[half]

The issue or complexity if complexity is the right word is some posters on here believe that Test matches are separate in some way from grassroots, shute shield, NRC & Super Rugby.

Its almost as if some see each level as a separate component.

When in fact each level feeds off the one below.

Without a strong national domestic competition you cannot have a strong national team.

Without strong third tier competitions i.e Shute Shield as an example, you cannot have a strong local domestic competition.

Without strong grassroots you cannot have strong third tier competitions.

A strong national domestic competition is essential to create pathways for lower levels and the player depth at test level.

Further both a strong local domestic competition and strong test sides help with sponsorship's.

On the surface the Optus offer is more than Fox, as my understanding was a large part of the last media deal was made of international rights being sold to Europe, Japan & the USA.

At some point in a distant universe we may all agree that the key to our long term survival is a strong local domestic competition, of some form or other.

 

[Derpus]

^^^^
I dont think anyone disagrees with any of that. Also, what does it have to do with broadcasr rights?

 

[Adam84]

And, not the first time Foxtel have withdrawn from negotiations only to return with a better figure.

 

[Lorenzo]

Plenty of people on the internet or down at the local club have their own rusted on ideas about how to make the Super Rugby/semi-pro/club tier work but personally, I'm not envious of those that have to come up with actual solutions. We are talking about a niche (in australia) sport with talent that often have other options (OS, league). We need loads of money to keep them around but then if that means we need to sell it subscription only, it limits it's exposure to casuals. I doubt that any one who thinks going solely FTA is a good idea has had even a quick look at the RA financial report. How does Super get turned back into a desirable product?

 

[kiap]

How does Super get turned back into a desirable product?

It doesn't.

Once that reality kicks in, alternatives can be considered.

A tweak here, a change there. Nup. Rugby peeps in Australia have been through maybe five years of denial on this.

Only five more to go.

 

[cyclopath]

FTA (below Tests) is a pipe dream. Only way it gets there is by RA paying for it to be there, which really does not seem a viable long-term plan. Networks don't want it.

 

[barbarian]

Rugby peeps in Australia have been through maybe five years of denial on this.

Only five more to go.

One glance at the 'future of Super Rugby' thread would suggest the denial ended long ago.
.

 

[kiap]

One glance at the 'future of Super Rugby' thread would suggest the denial ended long ago.
.

And yet we're going around for another 4-5 year spin.

You're right - it's clear enough on here. I should have said the rugby peeps in charge ...... although even they must know it has run its course.

In which case they're happy to step over the turds and pretend that there's no stink.

 

[kiap]

FTA (below Tests) is a pipe dream. Only way it gets there is by RA paying for it to be there, which really does not seem a viable long-term plan. Networks don't want it.

What is your beer coaster number?

My thought is it's not massively high. This ain't for every game in the tournament by any stretch.

Bear in mind that Super Rugby is a loss-leader on Foxtel as well. Surely there's no suggestion that Uncle Rupe makes this good out of his own pocket?

Hell, no. It comes off the bottom line of the deal.

 

[cyclopath]

What is your beer coaster number?

My thought is it's not massively high. This ain't for every game in the tournament by any stretch.

Bear in mind that Super Rugby is a loss-leader on Foxtel as well. Surely there's no suggestion that Uncle Rupe makes this good out of his own pocket?

Hell, no. It comes off the bottom line of the deal.

Yeah, I get that, but when money's tight, the likelihood of any decent amount of FTA coverage remains low.

 

[kiap]

True.

The idea of FTA is not so much about being more lucrative than paid subscriptions. It costs. Ratings may not be high (but they're low on Fox as well).

But it's about keeping a window open for the non-rusted-on so there's some way of people knowing the game still exists.

NBL was just about dead here a few years ago but has come back. FTA is part of the mix of all these sports.

 

[Adam84]

On this FTA debate... Super Rugby typical only offers 2, maybe 3 Australian games in whats considered Australian prime time each week.

To then ask that 33-50% of the Australian games that week be played on FTA has massive impacts on the bottom line of what an exclusive broadcaster willing to pay. Theres more chance of having the kiwi 5:30 match be played on FTA then the Australia prime time match.

 

[dru]

On this FTA debate. Super Rugby typical only offers 2, maybe 3 Australian games in whats considered Australian prime time each week.

To then ask that 33-50% of the Australian games that week be played on FTA has massive impacts on the bottom line of what an exclusive broadcaster willing to pay. Theres more chance of having the kiwi 5:30 match be played on FTA then the Australia prime time match.

Well there's a problem with Super rugby to start with.(Yes the chat just gets circular.)

How much would it impact the broadcaster for RA to hold rights to stream replays 24 hours after the game? Still a problem? 48?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

FTA (below Tests) is a pipe dream. Only way it gets there is by RA paying for it to be there, which really does not seem a viable long-term plan. Networks don't want it.

Not at this point I agree. Growth of streaming may make viable alternative to get to the masses.....

 

[Spruce Moose]

If you look at the popularity of Kayo its not unforeseeable that Optus could reach similar heights with purchasing more sports. However as has been mentioned this has similar sounds to what Foxtel did with the cricket last time to play hard ball, I would imagine this is their strategy going forward, probably do similar with League and AFL.

 

[kiap]

On this FTA debate. Super Rugby typical only offers 2, maybe 3 Australian games in whats considered Australian prime time each week.

To then ask that 33-50% of the Australian games that week be played on FTA has massive impacts on the bottom line of what an exclusive broadcaster willing to pay. Theres more chance of having the kiwi 5:30 match be played on FTA then the Australia prime time match.

So, it comes down to the broadcaster paying a BIG premium for Super Rugby?

I don't think there is a big premium, man.

There's a reason this stuff is packaged up with internationals to be sold.

In the general sporting landscape, barely anyone knows Super Rugby games are on. A few rusted-ons will watch but the average tramsission ain't worth that much on it's own. It's largely low-rating filler grade with, admitedly, a few hightlights to brighten the picture.

If Tests are the meat then Supe is the soup - or perhaps a steak knife. It's there to pad out the content for rugby subscribers. And, yes, occasional games from kiwiland could be on FTA instead (they're actually a better grade of rugby).

One quarter of buggerall does not have to cost a mot$a.

 

[Adam84]

So, it comes down to the broadcaster paying a BIG premium for Super Rugby?

I don't think there is a big premium, man.

There's a reason this stuff has to be packaged up with internationals to be sold.

In the general sporting landscape, barely anyone knows Super Rugby games are on. A few rusted-ons tune in but the average tramsission ain't worth that much on it's own. It's largely low-rating filler grade with, admitedly, a few hightlights to brighten the picture.

If Tests are the meat then Supe is the soup - or perhaps a steak knife. It's there to pad out the content for rugby subscribers. And, yes, occasional games from kiwiland could be on FTA instead (they're actually a better grade of rugby).

33-50% of buggerall is not necessarily going to cost a mot$a.

no, never said there is a big premium, just that exclusivity means something to broadcasters, regardless of whether its a ratings winner or not.

 

[kiap]

no, never said there is a big premium, just that exclusivity means something to broadcasters, regardless of whether its a ratings winner or not.

Exclusive access to the peanut gallery is only worth peanuts.

The other sports available on your TV … y'know, the successful ones … how much of an exclusivity bonus would they be raking in?

It must be huuuge.