Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[hoggy]

The only pressure Fox are under is protecting its existing Rugby Union subscribers. Theirs no doubt they want the rights, lose union and potentially 20/30% of there remaining subscribers walk(at a guess), but I imagine if rugby was not already on the foxtel books, the interest would be minimal, not like broadcasters are waiting in line.

The issue is no one is driving real change, Fox just want rugby to appease its current subscribers and the set up of RA is essentially self interest, that's not a good recipe for a genuine solution.

 

[Adam84]

I think Australian Rugby could be considered a bit of collateral damage in this whole sports broadcasting negotiations issue, they were the first code to really explore the option of an alternative streaming service as the broadcast partner. That is a massive threat to Foxtel, I also think Foxtel considered rugby union expendable so they’ve made the process as difficult as they could through a smear campaign to send a message to the other codes.

I think Foxtel and News Corp deliberately released articles and news report aimed to devalue the value of rugby unions broadcast rights, this reduces the value in the face of alternate bids leaving rugby union to go back to Foxtel asking for forgiveness with less bargaining power then it started.

I think Foxtel and NewsCorp went hard because they were ok with losing rugby union as a sport, but wanted to ensure other codes received the message in the process.

Maybe a bit tin-foil hat stuff, but I don’t trust those NewsCorp mongrels at all, they have no issues using their media influence to influence agendas in other areas, sport would be no different.

 

[Juan Cote]

Foxtel had 2.2M subscribers at 31 Dec 2019. https://www.afr.com/companies/media...-pressure-increases-on-foxtel-20200207-p53ylc


Soup rugby games would be lucky to pull 100K views. I reckon Fox would be happy to drop that number in return for savings in production costs....

 

[KOB1987]

I think Australian Rugby could be considered a bit of collateral damage in this whole sports broadcasting negotiations issue, they were the first code to really explore the option of an alternative streaming service as the broadcast partner. That is a massive threat to Foxtel, I also think Foxtel considered rugby union expendable so they’ve made the process as difficult as they could through a smear campaign to send a message to the other codes.

I think Foxtel and News Corp deliberately released articles and news report aimed to devalue the value of rugby unions broadcast rights, this reduces the value in the face of alternate bids leaving rugby union to go back to Foxtel asking for forgiveness with less bargaining power then it started.

I think Foxtel and NewsCorp went hard because they were ok with losing rugby union as a sport, but wanted to ensure other codes received the message in the process.

Maybe a bit tin-foil hat stuff, but I don’t trust those NewsCorp mongrels at all, they have no issues using their media influence to influence agendas in other areas, sport would be no different.

The NRL are the target in this morning's Australian, they're facing the 'black hole' now, to the tune of $250m.

 

[Rebels3]

I agree the number of Rugby subscribers to Fox is often inflated, what we should be looking at is the advertising revenue rugby potentially brings. Rugby is a high value customer sport, therefore brings in high value sponsors such as Landrover, Qantas etc. because a significant proportion of the demographic of the fan base is in a position to purchase these items. That’s where the base will come from, will these businesses be in a position to afford advertising revenue going forward at the same rate they currently pay? Will their target audience take a financial hit therefore lose the ability to pay for their products? Subscriptions are nice but let’s say 50,000 people are rugby hardcore followers and they each pay $100 per sub, that’s only $5m. The real make or break is in the advertising revenue of the business, obviously the more subscribers the more likely someone is to be exposed to something, however the general financial demographic of who in that subscriber model is watching is the deciding factor on profitability.

Personally I think if we can get a deal done for the next 12-18months under whatever offering it is, the market will bounce back pretty strong and things from a sporting perspective will look almost as they were in 18-24months time. Peoples want to consume these days means companies will be wanting to put themselves front and centre in peoples eyes after a period of stagnation, maybe regression over the next 18-24months. Any deal done on a reduced rate should stop short of including 2025 in the discussions.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If Super Rugby doesn't continue in its pan-continental form or it continues and Australia isn't part of it, then SA and NZ would need to renegotiate their respective broadcast deals. SARU and NZRU aren't in the same position as RA though - no AFL in either and league is virtually non-existant in SA and very much a minor sport in NZ. Rugby rights in SA and NZ are a far more attractive proposition to broadcasters that they are in Australia.

True but point being would need to renegotiate and that means less content so point being still commercial implications...so nz in particular still has lot to gain from trans Tasman comp and our continued involvement with them

 

[Slim 293]

Maybe a bit tin-foil hat stuff, but I don’t trust those NewsCorp mongrels at all, they have no issues using their media influence to influence agendas in other areas, sport would be no different.

Trust me, it's not tin-foil hat stuff at all......... that's just NewsCorp.

Jessica Halloran has had one job since taking on the rugby portfolio in March:

EXCLUSIVE
How Castle blew $1m on TV rights ‘experts’

INSOLVENCY FEARS
Rugby in the red, spending at $120m

EXCLUSIVE
Rugby’s books reveal a blackhole

RA rotting financially and needs to come clean

EXCLUSIVE
$7m shadow over Rugby Australia solvency

Olympic chief aborts his tilt at RA’s top job

EXCLUSIVE
Explosive emails expose Rugby clash

CODE IN CHAOS
RA’s turmoil over captain’s pick

EXCLUSIVE
Powerbroker’s threat to quit rugby board

CODE IN CRISIS
Kingmaker who rose as Castle crumbled

Captains’ recipe for rugby rescue

INSIDE STORY
How rugby’s Castle was toppled

CASTLE QUITS
Secret meeting sealed rugby chief’s exit

UNION
Board discusses Castle’s future

RUGBY CRISIS
Lynagh pulls out of rebel Wallaby push

Wallaby captains call for a rugby revolution

EXCLUSIVE
Wallaby skippers demand change

$16m loan would only service existing debts

RUGBY
Financial hell has Castle under siege

EXCLUSIVE
Castle’s $114k bonus as rugby burns

RUGBY
Stand down threat for players in pay dispute

EXCLUSIVE
Rugby players offer to take 40 per cent pay cut

EXCLUSIVE
Castle set to fall as key backers flip

EXCLUSIVE
Embattled Castle set to fall

INTERNAL SCORECARD’
Castle’s bizarre ‘pass mark’ a sign of denial

Rugby faces $90m blackhole

 

[Pass it to Dunning!]

Well, it's not like there's been any good news to report since March.

 

[Slim 293]

Well, it's not like there's been any good news to report since March.

There have been other news though (she doesn't pen those stories), and many of the articles are fairly obvious political hatchet jobs.............

There was the example in the Daily Telegraph yesterday of using old news (up to six months) to invent an "explosive" story of player departures tying it to recent events.

 

[Quick Hands]

True but point being would need to renegotiate and that means less content so point being still commercial implications.so nz in particular still has lot to gain from trans Tasman comp and our continued involvement with them

Yes, less content would mean less money. But Trans-Tasman without South Africa would also mean less content and less money for the kiwis. And SA have a broadcast deal in place, as do NZ, so economically the two of them could probably make money together than NZ could with RA.

 

[half]

Must Read article...could this be our future... K-League streaming..

WCR especially and Redshappy , Dru and RugbyReg have been talking about this sorta stuff for a while now.

https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/live-s...-virtual-victory-for-sports-fans-548147/page0

LIVE STREAM PLUS REMOTE PRODUCTION A VIRTUAL VICTORY FOR SPORTS FANS​

By ​

Aidan Ormond ​

May 15 2020 8:00AM​

​

For 15 years, Simon Hill traversed the world as a TV commentator covering the Socceroos in gantries from Riyadh to Rotterdam. But a live stream was something new.

Instead of sitting in a media center in Jeonju, South Korea, he was sat in his cozy living room in Sydney.


Logged in to Grabyo’s Producer software - and in touch with a small team of Grabyo production staff in remote locations - the respected broadcaster commentated last Friday night's K-League 1 live stream between Suwon Bluewings and Jeonbuk Motors.

A large audience on Twitter and YouTube watched the live stream as his expert commentary described the action at the Jeonju World Cup Stadium.


"I really enjoyed it. And the huge numbers on Twitter watching the live stream seemed to enjoy it too,” Hill told FTBL.


“It was really different calling a game in another country from my front room.


“And to be honest, doing the live stream was a really positive experience all-round."
Robust remote technology, a live stream together with human creativity all worked together to bring a live-sport hungry viewership what it craved - albeit COVID-19 style (empty stadium, face masks, and social distancing protocols) but all at a fraction of a linear broadcast cost.


"The most important takeaway from the match was that K-League put together a blueprint that could help other sports start to get going again,” Marcello Fabiano, Head of Grabyo in Australia and New Zealand, explains.


"Traditional hardware and software-based tools weren’t designed for the needs of digital platforms. Cloud technology is helping producers take the tools they need and helping them to create content more quickly and efficiently.


"Remote productions will likely become the new normal. You don’t need to send lots of equipment and personnel to broadcast a live event from the other side of the world.


"The cost and time savings are more evident now than they ever have been.


"The viewership was very positive, and it will only continue to grow as more matches are delivered to social and digital platforms.”


Certainly, COVID-19 has opened up the conversation about broadcast costs with remote video production companies like Grabyo at the vanguard of OTT (over the top broadcasting).


NPL competitions - Australia’s semi-pro second tier - have already twigged that a live stream of their leagues is a savvy broadcast solution for their under-publicized competitions.


With remote production capability and SAAS (Software As A Service) like LIGR.live for in-game graphics, it is a budget-friendly way for smaller sports organizations to showcase their teams, players, and, importantly, sponsors within a live stream.


What is clear is that, as you’d expect, there’s a boom in live streaming.


Live-stream users reached 560 million in China as of March this year, an uptick of 163 million users since 2018.


Live stream talk shows, cooking shows, lifestyle shows, you name it, it’s being streamed right now as brands cleverly adapt their content marketing strategies.


For instance, reported figures from the China Internet Network Information Centre point to year on year growth in live stream analytics.


The number of live-streaming users reached 560 million in China as of March this year, an uptick of 163 million users since 2018.


And globally, gaming live is going through the roof, with Twitch leading the charge. The gaming live-streaming sector grew 45% between March and April this year (according to Arsenal and StreamElement’s monthly report).


The industry had 3.934 billion hours of live streams watched across Twitch, YouTube Gaming, Facebook Gaming, and Mixer this past month, up from 1.971 billion last April.


Consumers now have a choice: linear TV and set-top boxes or OTT and connected devices. This change is accelerating, and it is forcing publishers and broadcasters to change the way they think about production.


"Many people across the world are staying at home, so providing a place for people to watch live sport for free and communicate, discuss and chat on a social platform will pave the way for more accessible live sport in the future," Fabiano adds.


"Many have come to realize the cloud is not only very flexible but robust. There is no longer the trade-off of quality when switching from traditional tools to cloud production."


Fabiano notes remote technological innovation, a live stream, and human quality combined as well as Jeonbuk Motors for its winning goal in the 1-0 victory last Friday night.


"It was a huge coup to have Simon calling the live stream. Alongside being a top commentator and presenter, he’s a great advocate of innovation.


"He did an amazing job which gave the live stream greater depth and quality."

​

 

[RedsHappy]

Must Read article.could this be our future. K-League streaming..

WCR especially and Redshappy , Dru and RugbyReg have been talking about this sorta stuff for a while now.

https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/live-s...-virtual-victory-for-sports-fans-548147/page0

LIVE STREAM PLUS REMOTE PRODUCTION A VIRTUAL VICTORY FOR SPORTS FANS​

By ​

Aidan Ormond ​

May 15 2020 8:00AM​

​

For 15 years, Simon Hill traversed the world as a TV commentator covering the Socceroos in gantries from Riyadh to Rotterdam. But a live stream was something new.

Instead of sitting in a media center in Jeonju, South Korea, he was sat in his cozy living room in Sydney.
Logged in to Grabyo’s Producer software - and in touch with a small team of Grabyo production staff in remote locations - the respected broadcaster commentated last Friday night's K-League 1 live stream between Suwon Bluewings and Jeonbuk Motors.
A large audience on Twitter and YouTube watched the live stream as his expert commentary described the action at the Jeonju World Cup Stadium.
"I really enjoyed it. And the huge numbers on Twitter watching the live stream seemed to enjoy it too,” Hill told FTBL.
.......
"Remote productions will likely become the new normal. You don’t need to send lots of equipment and personnel to broadcast a live event from the other side of the world.

Thanks half, very apt indeed and some great examples and quotes there.

There's absolutely no doubt whatever that RA should be looking at these technology/streaming/remote production mix opportunities. As mentioned before, RA should IMO strongly consider abandoning its conventional fixation with traditional visual distribution channels such as PAYTV and FTA and go to its own-originated and produced streaming service(s).

The potential advantages are massive and not the least of which is the opportunity to eradicate Foxtel's blight and fan-depleting impacts upon broadcast rugby, namely the deployment of inane, 'old world', stale, lazy and self-indulgent commentators that diminish the potential excitement and fan engagement that can be had in watching rugby on live TV.

The blockage to a streaming model is principally that RA's MO and governance culture is dull, unimaginative and essentially stuck in some of kind of illusory and yet unchanging replay of the 'golden era' of the late '90s-early 2000s. RA is a very conservatively run institution, the evidence of such is unambiguous.

RA's sole 'innovation' in the last decade has been the NRC and this been a dismal failure, not one of its stated objectives have been achieved. RA apparently spent $1m on outside 'media product and deal-making specialists' and they came up with.......

.........Super Rugby 3.0 (with less home games) with the vast commercial innovation that maybe this time we'd see if Optus was interested in this mad, dead-headed model as well as the old partner Foxtel. We know the rest.

 

[RedsHappy]

Trust me, it's not tin-foil hat stuff at all... that's just NewsCorp.

Jessica Halloran has had one job since taking on the rugby portfolio in March:

Putting aside the obvious News Co hate, the more objective question surely is: which of these headlines of JH's and the related content have been proven factually wrong. I would say, mostly..........none.

 

[Derpus]

Trust me, it's not tin-foil hat stuff at all... that's just NewsCorp.

Jessica Halloran has had one job since taking on the rugby portfolio in March:

Fukn hell what a fluffybunny

 

[Slim 293]

Putting aside the obvious News Co hate, the more objective question surely is: which of these headlines of JH's and the related content have been proven factually wrong. I would say, mostly....none.

Only if you agree with her angle.......... many of those headlines are funnily enough, not objective.

 

[RedsHappy]

Only if you agree with her angle.... many of those headlines are funnily enough, not objective.

Which ones? OK, one could debate the precise words, precise tone in some cases, but few that I can see either turned out to be factually materially incorrect or materially misleading. Few (if any) were ever actively or credibly rebutted by RA, principally as, like it or not, they turned out to be substantively true as events or new facts unfolded.

Personally speaking, I prefer JH's news-breaking quest than GeoRob's and Wayne Smith's lazy reporting MO namely to: (a) Call their mates on the RA board (b) get the RA latest board spin (typically obfuscatory and self-defending of course) (c) recycle it nearly verbatim with a typical tone of 'things are not that bad really, lots of positives, we have the issues well under control, let's all be more positive and those nasty people spreading negativity all just have their own agendas'. Rinse once, repeat often.

PS: I know you don't like News Corp in general.

 

[Slim 293]

Which ones? OK, one could debate the precise words, precise tone in some cases, but few that I can see either turned out to be factually materially incorrect or materially misleading. Few (if any) were ever actively or credibly rebutted by RA, principally as, like it or not, they turned out to be substantively true as events or new facts unfolded.

Personally speaking, I prefer JH's news-breaking quest than GeoRob's and Wayne Smith's lazy reporting MO namely to: (a) Call their mates on the RA board (b) get the RA latest board spin (typically obfuscatory and self-defending of course) (c) recycle it nearly verbatim with a typical tone of 'things are not that bad really, lots of positives, we have the issues well under control, let's all be more positive and those nasty people spreading negativity all just have their own agendas'. Rinse once, repeat often.

PS: I know you don't like News Corp in general.

I don't think that's accurate at all...........

It's pretty easy to filter through the obvious politically motivated hatched jobs presented by the likes of Halloran, and the more balanced articles presented by others, who have been able to report on the negative dramas of RA without resorting to distorting the truth......... I don't always agree with them but their integrity should not be compared.

My favourite JH headline was one of the more recent ones (she's gone quiet since McLennan took over).........

How Castle blew $1m on TV rights ‘experts’

The actual headline should've been "SPORTING BODY DOES WHAT EVERY OTHER SPORTING BODY DOES WHEN NEGOTIATING BROADCAST DEAL - HIRES BROADCAST CONSULTANTS."

But no, she BLEW the money on 'experts'............ 'experts' being in quotation mark to suggest they weren't really experts.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't think that's accurate at all.....

It's pretty easy to filter through the obvious politically motivated hatched jobs presented by the likes of Halloran, and the more balanced articles presented by others, who have been able to report on the negative dramas of RA without resorting to distorting the truth... I don't always agree with them but their integrity should not be compared.

My favourite JH headline was one of the more recent ones (she's gone quiet since McLennan took over)...



The actual headline should've been "SPORTING BODY DOES WHAT EVERY OTHER SPORTING BODY DOES WHEN NEGOTIATING BROADCAST DEAL - HIRES BROADCAST CONSULTANTS."

But no, she BLEW the money on 'experts'.... 'experts' being in quotation mark to suggest they weren't really experts.

You realise that sub-editors write headlines and that the journalist who write the stories have nothing to do with it?

 

[RedsHappy]

The proof of the pudding’s in the eating.

I tend to agree the tone of that headline of hers.

RA already had a Chief Business Officer and a Chief Commercial Officer and board members who’d been around the broadcast rights issues before. And a $850,000 pa plus bonuses CEO with experience of NRL media dealings. But they needed ‘$1m media deal makers’ as consultants. Righto.

And they RA were facing very tight financial constraints already, as a business.

Then they still hire high cost media advisors.

Who seemingly join in with RA to endorse in 2019 Super Rugby 2021 + model (umm, merely a new version of insanity).

Then Optus might arrive....but later it (CEO Optus Sports) says itself it was never really there.

Then you say ‘they all do it’ like that’s justification solely through repetitive commonality as though that’s a great rationale - really?

Then the new Chair of NRL handles the v tough COVID media deal landscape and pretty much sorts it all out rather well himself in 1-2 months. No experts in sight.

And you say ‘they all need expensive media consultants so RA needed them too’.

But you don’t justify that statement. Or explain, given all above, why? Or quote the precise facts re how ‘all other codes have done just like RA did’.

IMO, your own bias is clear. Just different to Halloran’s is all.

And you picked just one headline. Of the many you effectively said were biased or wrong.

The vast majority of JH’s calls and facts have been right, or quickly proven right.

The Wayne Smiths of this world have made their recent commentary career on mostly leaking RA-biased stories or just trying to justify RA’s incompetence and ending up defending the indefensible. As we now see.

 

[Slim 293]

You realise that sub-editors write headlines and that the journalist who write the stories have nothing to do with it?

Yes, I do............ but it clearly follows the tone of the article.