NRC Crowd Watch

[Strewthcobber]

I think I've seen a figure of $2.00 to 2.50 per viewer per game for the NRL and AFL broadcast deals, so (if that has any truth to it) it's around twice what you'd want.

Get the average viewer number up to over 40,000 and it's probably a sustainable competition on it's own feet.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But let's remember, surely there is far more potential growth in the NRC than the AFL and NRL.

Apparently the Foxtel Ratings are between 60,000-150,000 per game depending on the game from http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/super-rugby-television-ratings-2014.13891/

Based on that the NRC has triple of the growth within it's capability just to reach the smallest pool of rugby fans in Australia without even growing the game's fan base.

 

[Pfitzy]

Yeah next year they'll have to really work on engaging rugby fans all over again. The problem will continue to be that NRC comes at the end of a long club season so keeping people engaged is difficult. Summer is coming and the beaches are opening!

 

[Omar Comin']

Guys didn't Fox pay $1.5 million for 2 seasons, not per season? If that's the case the figures seem more reasonable.

Would be good to know what the ratings were for the Bledisloe Cup curtain raiser. Thursday night was good in theory but I don't think it worked too well. Maybe a 3 or 4pm kick off on a Sunday would rate better. Or just Friday or Saturday night when people are used to watching rugby.

I tend to think that just 1 game per week doesn't allow momentum and habits to build. You need to be able to see more than 1 game per week to follow a competition. I think it'd be in Fox's interests to try showing 2 per week, but either way the ARU really need to work out a consistent live streaming product that has decent quality, commentary and is all in the one location. Then fans will be able to watch their team every week, and that's how you build a better following and some tribalism.

 

[Pfitzy]

Maybe a 3 or 4pm kick off on a Sunday would rate better. Or just Friday or Saturday night when people are used to watching rugby.

But all those time slots are occupied until the NRC is into its final rounds. Its a strategic decision by FoxSports to protect all the airtime they're paying for.

Yes, its difficult to get casual fans into Thursday night with limited promotion.

It is impossible if they're following another team in another sport on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, when the finals are happening.

 

[Highlander35]

Now, with 5 channels plus Fox Footy, there's perhaps a bit more room to wiggle on that front. Of course, they'd have to be night games, because ITM Cup would provide similar enough content for a similar price, along.with the added bonus of not having to film it themselves.

 

[TOCC]

Foxtel will be reluctant to place the NRC in the same timeslot as the NRL and AFL, live content is limited so Foxtel will be reluctant to do them all on the same time-slot regardless of how many channels they have.

My suggestion, if Foxtel came to the ARU and said, we will broadcast all the NRC games, but we want to do it on a Tues, Wed and Thu night; then i say let them do it. Understandably crowds will suffer, but like sports in the US, midweek games are a common occurrence and provides live sporting content 7 days a week. If thats the niche market the NRC is destined to carve out to justify the cost, then thats the way it has to be.

 

[Omar Comin']

Most of the Thursday night games clashed with the NRL. It's always going to clash with something. I mean Super Rugby always clashes with NRL and AFL and still rates okay. Just gotta get more of that fan base watching the NRC for it to be viable.

And I think the atmosphere at the ground effects viewing numbers. It always feels flat watching any sort of sports match when there's no one in the stands. I think if you played every match mid week with 500 people in the crowd that not many people would watch on TV.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Why does the NRL manage good viewing number then when the vast majority of their games are played in front of 10,000 people?

 

[Wilson]

Guys didn't Fox pay $1.5 million for 2 seasons, not per season? If that's the case the figures seem more reasonable.
.

I am pretty sure it's $1.5 mil per year:

The estimated $350,000 Buildcorp paid to be the NRC’s naming rights sponsor is one of several private equity partnerships that have — along with FoxSports’ $1.5m a year sponsorship and nominal player payments — ensured the ARU will carry zero of the NRC’s financial risk.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n-is-established/story-fni2fxyf-1226991399666

 

[qwerty51]

Can't say I've ever cared what the crowd was at a game in terms of whether I'll watch or not. Game quality does.

 

[Braveheart81]

I tend to think that just 1 game per week doesn't allow momentum and habits to build. You need to be able to see more than 1 game per week to follow a competition. I think it'd be in Fox's interests to try showing 2 per week, but either way the ARU really need to work out a consistent live streaming product that has decent quality, commentary and is all in the one location. Then fans will be able to watch their team every week, and that's how you build a better following and some tribalism.

I really don't agree that the reason people aren't watching 1 NRC game on Foxtel each week is because they can't watch 2 or 3.

I get the sentiment you're going for, but I just don't think it applies.

It's similar to wishing the North Harbour Rays played at North Sydney Oval and expecting thousands of extra people to wander down after work. It's more fairytale than reality.

Interest in the NRC will grow over time but it's all relative. Even rugby mad New Zealand struggles to get good crowds for ITM Cup games in many locations.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Whilst I think Omar is off his head most of the time, I think more games broadcast will help grow the audience.

One game per week has a real amateur feel to it. Also you cannot watch your team every week. When you are unable to watch away games your interest may wane.

But the important thing is the games have to be on TV. Streaming is not an option that will grow the game. People who would watch it no matter what will stream games. You won't attract viewers beyond those who already watch it by streaming games though.

People like us who bang on about rugby on an internet forum all day long may see that as a viable solution. For the general public it is not though.

 

[Omar Comin']

Can't say I've ever cared what the crowd was at a game in terms of whether I'll watch or not. Game quality does.

For me a crowd in the background and the noise from it through the speakers gives the game greater importance and impact.

I used to hate Channel 7's coverage of rugby tests because they'd always mix the crowd noise too low. It annoyed me.

For rugby I will watch anyway because it's my favourite sport but in general I think the crowd plays a part in the spectacle of any sport. Even just seeing a decent crowd gives the impression the match is meaningful and worth watching.

I would be surprised if there isn't a significant % of people that feel the same way, either consciously or subconsciously. People respond to loudness. There have been a lot of studies on it in the music industry.

 

[Omar Comin']

Why does the NRL manage good viewing number then when the vast majority of their games are played in front of 10,000 people?

In reality it's about 50% more than that, but even 10,000 people in a small stadium creates a pretty decent atmosphere. If the NRC ever averages 10k we'll be laughing! Even 5k would be great I think.

But hey, I never said it was the most important factor for viewing numbers! The NRL is popular because it's based on long running tribal support. Most rusted on fans watching a TV game don't care much about the atmosphere at the ground. But I think it makes a difference for casual or neutral viewers.

 

[qwerty51]

Sure a crowd creates a better atmosphere but whether it'll be the deciding factor in whether someone watches on TV or not - nah.

 

[Jagman]

Whilst I think Omar is off his head most of the time, I think more games broadcast will help grow the audience.

One game per week has a real amateur feel to it. Also you cannot watch your team every week. When you are unable to watch away games your interest may wane.

But the important thing is the games have to be on TV. Streaming is not an option that will grow the game. People who would watch it no matter what will stream games. You won't attract viewers beyond those who already watch it by streaming games though.

People like us who bang on about rugby on an internet forum all day long may see that as a viable solution. For the general public it is not though.

One of the biggest problems with streaming is that it will not be seen at the pub. That might change one day but for now it's a big factor. However, I watched most of the NRC Thursday night games at the pub because I only get Foxtel Play during Super Rugby season and virtually every week I had to ask for it to be turned on somewhere. At least by the end of the season the publican was saying, "oh yeah the rugby's on, I forgot it's Thursday."

I actually much preferred to watch the streamed games, especially BARTV.

 

[Antony]

I really don't agree that the reason people aren't watching 1 NRC game on Foxtel each week is because they can't watch 2 or 3.

I get the sentiment you're going for, but I just don't think it applies.

It's similar to wishing the North Harbour Rays played at North Sydney Oval and expecting thousands of extra people to wander down after work. It's more fairytale than reality.

Interest in the NRC will grow over time but it's all relative. Even rugby mad New Zealand struggles to get good crowds for ITM Cup games in many locations.

The ITM cup is much bigger out of the cities in New Zealand (see e.g. Taranaki losing its shit this year). There might be something to be learned from that.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Probably not. The NRC worst crowd was a Country Semi-Final. Just different markets with different competitors.

 

[Braveheart81]

The ITM cup is much bigger out of the cities in New Zealand (see e.g. Taranaki losing its shit this year). There might be something to be learned from that.

Our market is so different though.

We rely on a much larger population but with far less people being interested in rugby compared to NZ.

Some of the regional cities in NZ that don't get Super Rugby (or very little of it) but have a strong ITM Cup side get good crowds.

In Australia, I'm not sure the rugby fans starved of good quality live rugby in regional centres is enough to counteract the much smaller population pools.