Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Quite funny that everyone wanted rid of 'cable' or Foxtel if you're here and for a while it was great but now we see programs bringing them all under one umbrella almost like it's cable or foxtel again....

All these streaming options makes me wonder. Does anyone else find matches broadcast through streaming services a little harder to watch? I just think the picture seems a little jumpy to me.

Feels like a dick answer but I think it really depends on bandwidth of your connection, other devices on the network and age of your device. I've never had an issue with Kayo except for this years 4k and it's my stuff I'm sure of it as its over that 6-7 years old and probably not keeping up with demand.

 

[Ignoto]

Quite funny that everyone wanted rid of 'cable' or Foxtel if you're here and for a while it was great but now we see programs bringing them all under one umbrella almost like it's cable or foxtel again....

I think the biggest issue Rugby Union had with Foxtel, was the lopsided and abuse like relationship.

Foxtel gave the viewer absolutely nothing to watch mid-week, the pundits and commentators they put in front of us were absolutely atrocious and then Fox journos would rip into the code rather than help build it up.

I would happily pay more if the code moved to an umbrella company if the product that company puts out is worth it. But the low effort Kearns et al put in will never be worth it.

 

[Dan54]

Quite funny that everyone wanted rid of 'cable' or Foxtel if you're here and for a while it was great but now we see programs bringing them all under one umbrella almost like it's cable or foxtel again....


Feels like a dick answer but I think it really depends on bandwidth of your connection, other devices on the network and age of your device. I've never had an issue with Kayo except for this years 4k and it's my stuff I'm sure of it as its over that 6-7 years old and probably not keeping up with demand.

I actually found some games were jumpy that Stan broadcast, and that was viewing it on Sky and not streming as such. The U20s game from Sunshine Coast were quite bad.

 

[JRugby2]

Oztam is directly owned by Seven, Nine and Ten. Reach is being driven almost entirely by Seven.

The ABC is owned by the government - doesn't mean its state media.

 

[JRugby2]

I actually found some games were jumpy that Stan broadcast, and that was viewing it on Sky and not streming as such. The U20s game from Sunshine Coast were quite bad.

I think this has more to do with the production company than the broadcaster. U20s was outsourced by 9/stan as I understand - shit weather probably didnt help

 

[Braveheart81]

I think this has more to do with the production company than the broadcaster. U20s was outsourced by 9/stan as I understand - shit weather probably didnt help

I think the facilities available at the venue also impact this significantly in terms of the quality of the stream that is able to be uploaded.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I think you might be bang on about weather and outsourcing @JRugby2

Sunshine Coast has hosted a lot of NRL games so you'd think the infrastructure is there. On the host then as well as other factors like the horrendous conditions some of those games were in.

 

[half]

Some years ago I watched an interview with the then head of the AFL.

It was put to him the GWS[Great Waste of Space] was costing $$$$$$ that could be better spent. His answer was that GWS made money. Why because it gave the AFL 9 games to sell rather than 8. The revenue from the extra game was more than the GWS loss.

I assume, discussions pertaining to the loss of revenue because, first Rugby has only 4 teams now and secondly is no longer in Australia's second biggest population centre.

Not sure it will ever come out, however how much the next media deal is reduced due to only 4 teams, against the losses incurred.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Hi Half. Is the obvious conclusion that unlike AFL games on Fox and FTA, domestic Super Rugby games on Stan don't make RA much broadcast money?

Especially with bye rounds, they only get 12 weeks with 6 games

 

[dru]

Hi Half. Is the obvious conclusion that unlike AFL games on Fox and FTA, domestic Super Rugby games on Stan don't make RA much broadcast money?

However much it didn't make, it is less now.

 

[half]

Hi Half. Is the obvious conclusion that unlike AFL games on Fox and FTA, domestic Super Rugby games on Stan don't make RA much broadcast money?

You probably right, maybe most of the broadcast revenue is for international matches.

As an aside if international matches is the major revenue earner, then why play Super Rugby and move to a NDC.

 

[liquor box]

Some years ago I watched an interview with the then head of the AFL.

It was put to him the GWS[Great Waste of Space] was costing $$$$$$ that could be better spent. His answer was that GWS made money. Why because it gave the AFL 9 games to sell rather than 8. The revenue from the extra game was more than the GWS loss.

I assume, discussions pertaining to the loss of revenue because, first Rugby has only 4 teams now and secondly is no longer in Australia's second biggest population centre.

Not sure it will ever come out, however how much the next media deal is reduced due to only 4 teams, against the losses incurred.

They could also be replaced to give the same number of games per week. I would think that a team from Japan would possibly increase the TV revenue however unlikely this is to occur.

 

[Wilson]

However much it didn't make, it is less now.

Maybe, depends on how they re-gear the season. More rounds may mean more content overall and with a subscription model Stan might be more interested in a longer season than more games per weekend

 

[Strewthcobber]

You probably right, maybe most of the broadcast revenue is for international matches.

Especially with the bye rounds, broadcasters only get 12 weeks with 6 games as it is.

Stan is a different model. They don't need to fill hours of content.

RA will definately lose revenue from this. But it's linked to how many rebel supporters don't pay for Stan, not how many games a week there are

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Maybe, depends on how they re-gear the season. More rounds may mean more content overall and with a subscription model Stan might be more interested in a longer season than more games per weekend

They could cover the loss in content and then some if they moved to a full home and away season. At present the SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) season runs 84 games plus finals. Going to a home and away schedule would deliver 100 not including finals.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

They could also be replaced to give the same number of games per week. I would think that a team from Japan would possibly increase the TV revenue however unlikely this is to occur.

The only way Japan gets involved in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is if the JRL1 structure has a spectacular collapse over the off season (and considering the crowds saw a 50% jump this season that seems unlikely) or some kind of Asia-Pacific Cup competition is developed. Which is something I would like to see.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Unless it drives significant subscriber growth, and can't really see how - do people cancel their subscription as soon as Super Rugby finish and don't watch anything else including Wallabies on it? - extra weeks of Super Rugby is just an extra cost for Stan.

They don't get any additional revenue from more games as they aren't getting advertising dollars, they want subscribers

 

[Wilson]

Unless it drives significant subscriber growth, and can't really see how - do people cancel their subscription as soon as Super Rugby finish and don't watch anything else including Wallabies on it? - extra weeks of Super Rugby is just an extra cost for Stan.

They don't get any additional revenue from more games as they aren't getting advertising dollars, they want subscribers

Given the wallabies games are all free to air I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decent subset of subscribers who did just that. Whether or not it's enough to move the needle I don't know, but this isn't the old days of foxtel - people absolutely switch their various streaming services on and off on a whim.

 

[dru]

Maybe, depends on how they re-gear the season. More rounds may mean more content overall and with a subscription model Stan might be more interested in a longer season than more games per weekend

Apples for oranges, Wilson. You would have had more rounds with 5 teams. Which most of us would have gone for depending on the age old issues of running across internationals or starting too early.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Given the wallabies games are all free to air I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decent subset of subscribers who did just that. Whether or not it's enough to move the needle I don't know, but this isn't the old days of foxtel - people absolutely switch their various streaming services on and off on a whim.

Sure, but if you sign up on the first game and cancel on the last, there's still 3 weeks of subscription paid for this month with no games.

You are already paying for 18 weeks, even if you only get 15 rounds of content.

Stan have to produce way more games, for minimal additional revenue (maybe 1 month for all those who cancel straight away?)