Rugby TV ratings 2015

[Marcelo]

wamberal I'll say this again..

The only place in the world where rugby is declining is Australia and possibly NZ. Why should World Rugby alter the game to suit one country? The game is extremely healthy in Europe and booming in countries where it's not very popular.

Possibly NZ? I don't think so

World Rugby should invest in Australia. It's an important market that they are missing. It's more realistic to invest money in a market like Australia that have a history in the game that new markets such as USA, Russia or China.

With money in hand Aussie Rugby can rise from the ashes and compete against their rivals codes. The main problem is that ARU don't have money to compete in the market.

Nevertheless, Australia remains competitive. Two teams in the finals, twice than South Africa, which has more supporters, more players and more money invested in our sport.

 

[Gnostic]

Possibly NZ? I don't think so

World Rugby should invest in Australia. It's an important market that they are missing. It's more realistic to invest money in a market like Australia that have a history in the game that new markets such as USA, Russia or China.

With money in hand Aussie Rugby can rise from the ashes and compete against their rivals codes. The main problem is that ARU don't have money to compete in the market.

Nevertheless, we remain competitive. We have two teams in the finals, twice than South Africa, which has more supporters, more players and more money invested in our sport.

Why would World Rugby invest in a country that has won two RWC, had a bucket load of cash and pissed it up the wall? They should be investing to grow the game globally and that would mean China and USA, that is where the real growth is, not in a country with 25M population that is a tier 1 nation.

 

[qwerty51]

Possibly NZ? I don't think so

Yes it's true. Why would rugby grow in NZ where it's #1? League is growing, rugby is not.

 

[Marcelo]

Why would World Rugby invest in a country that has won two RWC, had a bucket load of cash and pissed it up the wall? They should be investing to grow the game globally and that would mean China and USA, that is where the real growth is, not in a country with 25M population that is a tier 1 nation.

World Rugby must understand the importance of Australia on the world stage. Oceania is an important market for rugby. In terms of percentages should be the most important continent for rugby. If you're missing the biggest market of a continent where rugby has power, it will bring consequences for everyone, including NZ.

China will never be a power in rugby, they aren't good for violent sports. Japan has a lot of money invested in rugby and remain hit by poor Pacific islands. They don't like the violence and don't have the necessary genetic. Their best athletes are small and fast, they aren't designed for rugby.

The American market is very difficult, I would say impossible. Even the soccer which is 50 times bigger has not been able to get there, with much more money than World Rugby. Americans are very nationalistic and aren't interested in supporting foreign sports.

World Rugby is losing a big market where once had a high participation. Maybe with some marketing can help a lot in the sport. Australia should be a priority for them.

 

[qwerty51]

Ah invest in a country with 20 mil PPP or the one with 300 mil pop. No brainer

 

[Marcelo]

Ah invest in a country with 20 mil PPP or the one with 300 mil pop. No brainer

It's not about the size, it's about the real possibilities that rugby have in a country.

Australia has a history in rugby and is good for contact sports. Australia has a community of loyal Union supporters that would take decades to create in USA or China. A country with 20 mil PPP is very very important for a sport like rugby where two of the countries where rugby is the most popular sport (NZ and Wales) don't exceed 5 million

 

[qwerty51]

No it's really all about population in terms of getting $$ from sponsors and broadcasters.

 

[Omar Comin']

Australia has a community of loyal Union supporters that would take decades to create in USA or China.

You should do some reading on the growth of rugby in the US over the past 5-10 years or so.

Here's a couple of relatively recent articles that may be of interest:
http://www.thespectrum.com/story/sp...nues-americas-fastest-growing-sport/18830397/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbe...ionship-evidence-of-sports-rising-popularity/

 

[Highlander35]

Islands are a financial drain. New Zealand is virtually at Saturation point. Australia is a heavily contested battleground for airtime and sponsorship, where Rugby is behind AFL, Mungoball, Cricket and depending on who you talk to, Football.

Short term money is in the established European nations. Long term money is in the States and Japan.

Wouldn't be surprised if Oceania is rather low on the priority list for the moment.

 

[Marcelo]

You should do some reading on the growth of rugby in the US over the past 5-10 years or so.

Here's a couple of relatively recent articles that may be of interest:
http://www.thespectrum.com/story/sp...nues-americas-fastest-growing-sport/18830397/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbe...ionship-evidence-of-sports-rising-popularity/

I know the growth of USA but still it's a semi-professional sport there. Proof of this is that they are more interested in 7s, when the most of Tier 1 nations only use seven as a platform to develop young players

 

[Omar Comin']

I know the growth of USA but still it's a semi-professional sport there. Proof of this is that they are more interested in 7s, when the most of Tier 1 nations only use seven as a platform to develop young players

I don't think they're more interested in 7's than 15's, they just emphasise it more than most tier 1 countries. 7's has actually been a big driver for the total sport (including 15's) because of the Olympics inclusion. That's a really big deal in a lot of countries. Tier 1 nations using it solely as a platform to develop young players would be making a mistake.

There'll be professional 15's rugby in America before long. And the national team has started to get good crowds there in the past few years. Fact is that rugby is growing considerably in the USA at every level of the game, while here it isn't. These trends (and the long term potential) are important when considering where to focus attention. WR (World Rugby) are focused on developing the sport in places like the US and Brazil because they want to add to the number of serious rugby nations in the world.

 

[wamberal]

Do the American and Brazilian rugby public have more in common with us than with the old fogeys of the Old World?


Or do they prefer endless scrums, the refereeing of which can totally change the outcome of games, pointless and illogical rolling mauls, endless stoppages and incomprehensible rules?

The point is, the game that is going to have lasting and growing appeal in these markets is the same game that will have lasting and growing appeal here.


That is the point, chaps. Open, running, easy to understand, rugby is the way of the future. Seems pretty obvious to me, get the game's rules right for our market, and they will be right for all the New World.

 

[Joe King]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Like it or not, our code is now in the entertainment business, and to the vast majority of Australians it is just not entertaining enough. And, regrettably, as the grass roots shrinks, the number of tragics who will watch it come hell or high water will continue to fall.

There is SFA we can do aboUt it, unless and until the powers that be at Whirled Rugby wake up to this.

Rugby's strength and weakness is probably the fact that it's such a dynamic game. The style of game can vary a lot - ranging from very thrilling type rugby to very stop-start type rugby.

I would say that one of rugby's main issues (after all it's more complex that just one issue) of being in the entertainment industry is that it's not consistently entertaining enough. To the potential rugby spectator, you don't always know what you're going to get, and whether it will be worth it or not.

While some teams play a more consistently entertaining style of rugby, they will only adhere to that spirit of play insofar as it helps them to win. If a team knew they could win by milking penalties, their priority is to win (however ugly) rather than to entertain. Maybe not always, but in general.

However, we've seen what only small tweaks to the laws can potentially do in the NRC. It seems to be possible to really shape how teams approach the game - to make them want to take the option for a try rather than a penalty goal for instance. That actually has a huge impact of how a team plays the game.

While I don't think Australia's situation is enough to became a top priority for World Rugby to try and "fix", I wonder if another force might influence the laws of the game.

If there really is a boom in Rugby Sevens after the Olympics, then that alone might have others calling for a tweak to the laws of the XV person game.

I know it's not the only factor affecting the ratings for Super Rugby, but I'm sure it plays a part.

 

[half]

Just one game over 50k this week. Ratings have been slipping all year and must really be a concern for fox.

@MediaweekAUS: Fri STV #SuperRugby #FoxSports
#HURvHIG 44k
#FORvBRU 34k

@MediaweekAUS: Sat STV #SuperRugby #FoxSports
#REDvCHI 58k
#BLUvCRU 48k
#REBvBUL 33k
#CHEvWAR 30k

Do you have the season average to date the last time you posted it ... you said 56K I think...

 

[Joe King]

I have a genuine question that someone here might be able to help me with.

Why wouldn't closing off the conferences until the finals increase the ratings?

If ratings are higher (on average) for conferences-derbies, and lower (on average) for cross-conference games, wouldn't it increase the ratings to have just conference-derbies until the finals?. And then with the excitement and suspense of the best teams from the 3 conferences meeting in the finals, wouldn't those games rate higher than usual?

I know it won't happen because NZ wants to keep playing against the SA teams. And for the NZ and SA spectators, the conference-derbies in Super Rugby are basically just more of the same as their own domestic competitions.

But still, why wouldn't the ratings be higher in a format like that?

I'm sure there must be something I'm missing. I don't always understand the revenue side of things very well. Any insight would be appreciated.

 

[Braveheart81]

Will the ratings remain higher if these matches are played more often? If you played 16 local derbies instead of 8 would the extra interest be maintained for those additional fixtures?

I tend to think they wouldn't.

 

[Highlander35]

If you closed the conferences, the Kiwis would fuck off and fix up the ITM Cup, make it a full regular double round robin instead.

Saffas wouldn't bother sticking around either.

We'd then be left with... what? 2 strong domestic leagues, and an Australia left in limbo.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The product and quality has just been too diluted for Super Rugby to have appeal.

Super Rugby once had appeal exactly because of the international element. Now there's a bunch of nothing teams and the lack of any equalization measures for new teams has meant that no team outside the original Super 12 teams has ever made the finals a decade on from the original expansion.

Couple that with the back and forth between the Lions and the Kings in SA and it creates a real perception that Super Rugby is now a competition with more poor quality games than good quality games when it used to be considered the other way around.

This was probably always unavoidable in the desire to chase profits, but this highlights that Super Rugby has a use by date and the ARU need an exit plan.

 

[half]

T

but this highlights that Super Rugby has a use by date and the ARU need an exit plan.

Thoughts on what they can do, and are / is it being considered by the ARU.

I am not sure so maybe someone with better knowledge can advise. Has the new media deal been signed or is it still to be agreed our rating from memory over the life of the current SANDZAR have fallen by a reasonable %. We have asked for almost double the money.

RedsHappy posted back on page 13

only 4 years ago the first ever Rebels game in early 2011 was watched by no less that 231k! In 2015, we are struggling to average 50+k per game on Fox.

Wonders aloud if anyone has the Fox average ratings for each year of Super Rugby. The calls over the years from many about being stuck on Fox is poor for growing the game could well be coming true if Strewcobber is correct in his 2015 averages.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm hoping the NRC is part of that exit strategy. It's in a format that has been successful in Australian sport.