Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Buuuuut......... their streaming service is still utter bollocks.
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Buuuuut......... their streaming service is still utter bollocks.
T
TOCC
Guest
And Foxtel prices are ridiculous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Parse
Bill Watson (15)
Went and checked my IQ planner and it was still listed as 6am. However when I clicked it for info the listing dissappeared. The guide had updated to the 4:30pm (Qld time) slot.
Still not a great time slot to have the one and only Rugby show on Foxtel.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Yes a pretty ordinary time, I won't be watching it live
T
TOCC
Guest
With the rise of professional al women's tournaments there's a strong chance Super Rugby will fall further down the pecking order.
Previously it was a choice between NRL, AFL and A-League.. now the W-AFL, Netball, BBL and WBBL all rate higher then Super Rugby. It's only a matter of time before we see a W-NRL as well.
Whist Super Rugby remains on Foxtel and in its current form, then Rugby Union will fail to engage with the wider public.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Previously it was a choice between NRL, AFL and A-League.. now the W-AFL, Netball, BBL and WBBL all rate higher then Super Rugby. It's only a matter of time before we see a W-NRL as well.
Whist Super Rugby remains on Foxtel and in its current form, then Rugby Union will fail to engage with the wider public.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Well, yes. We are going around in ever-diminishing circles. We are on cable because it pays well. But it does virtually nothing to build up our support base.
One unfortunate fact is that the public at large clearly prefers simple, easy to understand, sports.
Our sport is complex, and takes time to learn to appreciate fully. Even then it can be a bit frustrating, as the technical side sometimes overwhelms the entertainment.
One unfortunate fact is that the public at large clearly prefers simple, easy to understand, sports.
Our sport is complex, and takes time to learn to appreciate fully. Even then it can be a bit frustrating, as the technical side sometimes overwhelms the entertainment.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Is it though? Something that was striking about the recent Brisbane 10s was despite being played under the same rules the fact that each team had only 10 players on the pitch seemed to make the game easier to get your head around as opposed to 15s.
My experience with non Rugby fans of which there are plenty in my family is that the often messy nature of the ruck and the resetting of the scrum are what often confuses them the most. Often the ref awards a penaly for something that has occured among a mess of bodies.
With the 10s that wasn't such an issue. So maybe we really need to look at the numbers of players on the field at any one time.
T
TOCC
Guest
I've come a full circle, I don't think rules are the issue.. some of them are an issue, but broadly I don't think they are a detriment to the game.
People understand the broad concept of Rugby, there are certainly technical parts of the games which the casual observer and even the devoted Rugby fan won't understand, but for the most part this doesn't detract from the enjoyment value. It's no different to NFL which takes the technical aspect of laws to another level, but that doesn't stop people from enjoying the game because they still understand the broad concept.
On a global scale negative Rugby is a bigger issue then the rules, but again it's not different to soccer where negative tactics lead to dour games, I think the current style of rugby at Super Rugby and Test level is at the right balance.
Australian Rugby suffers because of 2 things, lack of variety in the teams to support and lack of exposure on FTA. 80% of the Rugby public support 3 teams, the Reds, Waratahs and Wallabies, the success of the code is too heavily dependant on those 3 teams, and for most part over the last 10 years they have underperformed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
People understand the broad concept of Rugby, there are certainly technical parts of the games which the casual observer and even the devoted Rugby fan won't understand, but for the most part this doesn't detract from the enjoyment value. It's no different to NFL which takes the technical aspect of laws to another level, but that doesn't stop people from enjoying the game because they still understand the broad concept.
On a global scale negative Rugby is a bigger issue then the rules, but again it's not different to soccer where negative tactics lead to dour games, I think the current style of rugby at Super Rugby and Test level is at the right balance.
Australian Rugby suffers because of 2 things, lack of variety in the teams to support and lack of exposure on FTA. 80% of the Rugby public support 3 teams, the Reds, Waratahs and Wallabies, the success of the code is too heavily dependant on those 3 teams, and for most part over the last 10 years they have underperformed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Problem is, the only way we're getting onto FTA anytime soon is if we purchase a digital licence and create our own channel. By we I'm refering to WR (World Rugby).
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Eventually the penny will drop that they need to overhaul their business model to something along the lines of Hulu in the US.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
It is interesting. Something that Netflix has proven is that people are willing to pay in order to avoid ads. Hulu is a partnership among several US TV networks that offers it's platform with two options. A free subscription but with ads or a paid subscription with no ads. It's something networks here need to look at and consider.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
That's an interesting prospect WCR. You'd think that subscription TV without ads would put some pressure on Foxtel to reduce the number of ads they run during normal programming.
One observation though, Foxtel's rugby coverage is without ads (except for half time breaks), but very few Australians, including rugby tragics, seem to be willing to open their wallets to take the service. Some on here claim an ideological stance in that they refuse to put money in Murdoch's pockets, but many seem to just whinge about having to pay at all.
I am inclined to think that the FTA channels here wouldn't see the need to collaborate in such a partnership. They don't respond to viewer pressure obviously, but serve up utter tripe in the knowledge that their competition is doing the same. Might see the demise of FTA one day, but I am not that confident in the good sense of the Australian public in general.
One observation though, Foxtel's rugby coverage is without ads (except for half time breaks), but very few Australians, including rugby tragics, seem to be willing to open their wallets to take the service. Some on here claim an ideological stance in that they refuse to put money in Murdoch's pockets, but many seem to just whinge about having to pay at all.
I am inclined to think that the FTA channels here wouldn't see the need to collaborate in such a partnership. They don't respond to viewer pressure obviously, but serve up utter tripe in the knowledge that their competition is doing the same. Might see the demise of FTA one day, but I am not that confident in the good sense of the Australian public in general.
I'm somewhat of the opinion that rugby's popularity in Australia is what it is and whether games are on FTA (Wallabies) or pay TV it stays fairly similar.
For a multitude of reasons we've become an increasingly niche sport in Australia of which the biggest one in my opinion is the lack of success of the Wallabies. Casual fans tune in to watch hype events when our teams are winning. That hasn't been happening for a long time.
Look at the AFL and NRL audiences on Foxtel. They are much higher than anything for rugby and that ratio continues for Wallabies games on FTA when compared against blockbuster AFL and NRL games. If the standard NRL or AFL game on Foxtel rated similarly to a Super Rugby match then there would be a huge argument that being on FTA was the silver bullet for success.
Foxtel's proliferation within Australia is still reasonable and I think that will remain for some time. There will be wholesale changes in the way television in general operates over the next decade or so and it remains to be seen what that will do with sporting rights.
I think the broadcast deals the ARU are part of need to be as lucrative as possible to help fund the game here and the key focus must be on improving rugby in Australia from the standard and results in the professional game to the participation at the grassroots. I think more lucrative TV deals will become available based on the success of the professional game.
I don't think there is any option whereby the right league structure or availability of the game on FTA generates a huge increase in viewership. I just don't believe there are that many rugby fans dying to watch content that just can't access it.
For a multitude of reasons we've become an increasingly niche sport in Australia of which the biggest one in my opinion is the lack of success of the Wallabies. Casual fans tune in to watch hype events when our teams are winning. That hasn't been happening for a long time.
Look at the AFL and NRL audiences on Foxtel. They are much higher than anything for rugby and that ratio continues for Wallabies games on FTA when compared against blockbuster AFL and NRL games. If the standard NRL or AFL game on Foxtel rated similarly to a Super Rugby match then there would be a huge argument that being on FTA was the silver bullet for success.
Foxtel's proliferation within Australia is still reasonable and I think that will remain for some time. There will be wholesale changes in the way television in general operates over the next decade or so and it remains to be seen what that will do with sporting rights.
I think the broadcast deals the ARU are part of need to be as lucrative as possible to help fund the game here and the key focus must be on improving rugby in Australia from the standard and results in the professional game to the participation at the grassroots. I think more lucrative TV deals will become available based on the success of the professional game.
I don't think there is any option whereby the right league structure or availability of the game on FTA generates a huge increase in viewership. I just don't believe there are that many rugby fans dying to watch content that just can't access it.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Foxtel charges far too much. That's the issue. I suspect that if they were to offer their Sports package as a stand alone product at a competitive price they'd see people come across in greater numbers.
Tuat's probably what it should move more toward. There's an ever increasing push toward the consumer customising their own experience in many other fields. I suspect this is the same with TV. Consumers will want to pick and choose what they want to see in terms of entertainment. The first network to figure out how to male that work will gain a significant upperhand.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I agree with Braveheart that if super rugby was suddenly on FTA every weekend that there probably wouldn't be a noticeable boost in popularity. You only have to look at the AFL's TV ratings in Sydney for example, they're still not that good (and nothing near the NRL ratings) despite decades of investment and being on FTA for ages and the Swans being one of the best teams pretty much every year for over a decade. And the A League hasn't had any significant boost from being on FTA.
Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but I don't think it would be worth it if it meant losing a lot of broadcast revenue.
Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but I don't think it would be worth it if it meant losing a lot of broadcast revenue.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Access to FTA is more about accessibility than anything else. But as you suggest the broadcast lamdscape is changing so there are opportunities on the horizon. Quite frankly, Super Rugby is a premium Rugby product not just here but abroad and that's where any growth in value will likely come in the near future.
We don't even really need to be aiming Super Rugby toward FTA. The NRC is the vehicle that should be targeting FTA broadcast. The ARU should be working toward developing a womens equivalent and then looking to bundle both in order to leverage the growing interest in womens sport to get more exposure.
Regarding Rugby as a niche sport. I really hate that. There seems to be this acceptance that it is what it is and we should be happy with that. Well, I call bullshit on that line of thought. While I don't expect to see the game usurp other sports I think there's plenty of room to grow. It's all about accessibility.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Interesting article if we copy this.
The NRC could use this format and arguably SS games as we. I have no idea how much this is used by the team or competition involved. However it makes a lot of sense.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4...-facebook-broadcast-tops-93000-views/?cs=2439
The NRC could use this format and arguably SS games as we. I have no idea how much this is used by the team or competition involved. However it makes a lot of sense.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4...-facebook-broadcast-tops-93000-views/?cs=2439
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
There are a number of broadcast opportunities out there. FB is one that we probably should examine particularly in regards to club games. The NRC could work but Fox controls the digital rights to those.
I saw this on Thursday night and then some of the football pundits correcting the record.
"A unique audience of 15,437 tuned in through the course of the broadcast for at least 30 seconds, peaking at 1652 concurrent during the game's thrilling conclusion."
http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/bulleen-south-clash-a-click-frenzy-for-victoria/