Rugby TV ratings 2015

[TahDan]

Apologies for telling it how it is but part of the problem with rugby in this country is that it sees things as it wishes they were not as they are. One of the few things JON ever got right.

If by that you mean it's not run in a way one could describe as demonstrating business acumen, then yes I agree.

What specifically do you see them as seeing "as they wish it were" rather than how it is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

In terms of making Super Rugby more profitable, RUPA had the best idea in terms of building a comp with more product and less overheads, and that was their proposal for a Super 10s trans-tasman comp.

Eliminate the South African time zone and you eliminate a huge part of the problem.

You also eliminate a huge part of the revenue, it's not just the South African broadcast right which boost the value it's also now the TV rights which are on-sold in Europe. South Africa's conference provides a large portion of the time zone friendly matches which appeals to the European broadcasters.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You also eliminate a huge part of the revenue, it's not just the South African broadcast right which boost the value it's also now the TV rights which are on-sold in Europe. South Africa's conference provides a large portion of the time zone friendly matches which appeals to the European broadcasters.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, but (and I'll try to find the article) it was reported a while ago that it was the games involving the NZ and Aus franchises that held the most appeal.

While I doubt it will ever happen, going the trans-tasman route could be a case of short term pain for long term gain. If the product is quality then in time it could significantly bolster the games bottom line. Part of Super Rugby weakness in terms of negotiations from the Aus standpoint is that a third of the competition in the middle of the night.

In addition. Sports broadcasting is changing and will continue to accelerate in the coming years. Come 2021 the landscape will look significantly different than it does today. New players will emerge etc. Take for example Rugby International Marketing. This is USARugby's for profit commercial wing. It's express purpose is to develop a 24/7 Rugby digital Rugby channel. Their model and potential seems to have convinced the RFU who have recently bought a stake in the company. It also count Will Chang who owns the majority stake in the MLS franchise DC United and a stake in the San Fran Giants in the MLB. He's there as he can bring more parties with sports interests into play.

 

[TahDan]

You also eliminate a huge part of the revenue, it's not just the South African broadcast right which boost the value it's also now the TV rights which are on-sold in Europe. South Africa's conference provides a large portion of the time zone friendly matches which appeals to the European broadcasters.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily as bad as the Africans argue though. When they were negotiating the most recent deal it was shown that the South African rights were bought by the broadcasters as a package, with the Currie Cup being awarded more than Super Rugby. There was a suggestion there that this was collusion on the part of the SARU and the South African broadcasters (Super Sport I think) aimed at minimizing the loss of Super Rugby TV revenue to its SANZAR partners.

RUPA's argument was that the ability to have more prime time product, plus less travel and logistical challenges would lead to a similar price and a more sustainable competition.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Not necessarily as bad as the Africans argue though. When they were negotiating the most recent deal it was shown that the South African rights were bought by the broadcasters as a package, with the Currie Cup being awarded more than Super Rugby. There was a suggestion there that this was collusion on the part of the SARU and the South African broadcasters (Super Sport I think) aimed at minimizing the loss of Super Rugby TV revenue to its SANZAR partners.

RUPA's argument was that the ability to have more prime time product, plus less travel and logistical challenges would lead to a similar price and a more sustainable competition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps that was the case in 2011 but TV rights to the ITM Cup and Currie Cup are pooled under the new deal and not sold independently.

As for the UK value of the TV rights, these have contributed a large increase in the value of the SANZAR rights:
"A content war in Britain between pay TV giants BSkyB and BT has forced a massive price increase in what BSkyB must pay for SANZAR matches."

A major reason SANZAR Matches appeal in Europe is because of the content provided via the South African conference time zone.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

How much of this new NRL deal is actual money, and how much "free advertising" on Channel Nein?

Just remember the much-trumpeted "Billion dollar" deal last time was 20% advertising, so the clubs didn't really gain a lot that they couldn't already by impoverishing (more of) their members at the pokies.

Anyway, its fucking loig.

I keep seeing these arguments happening: need to change the Laws to make the game more appealing, need to get a trans-Tasman comp going, etc.

Now I'd love a Trans-Tasman comp - because FUCK the Seffricans' corrupt racist bullshit, quite frankly - but its not likely to fly because money.

EDIT: note that having an Aussie pool and a Kiwi pool with a few crossover games will probably illustrate to potential rights holders just how good it could be, so maybe that is not off the table just yet!

As for the Laws changes - the international rugby community give not one lonely fuck for the struggles we have here. Quite frankly, pointing at other codes and saying they're responsible for our woes is abrogation of responsibility on our part.

No, we need the Wallabies to win. That's important.

We need less selfish old pricks trying to cut the game as a whole down because it doesn't suit their personal goals (yes, I'm talking about the Axis of Evil who don't want the NRC, the shady bastards).

We need less school competitions organised in pathetically small pools where the haves keep having, while the have-nots learn nothing. That competition needs to be made attractive to the never-weres to get into the competition and make it something real, on the back of Olympic participation.

Basically rugby needs to stop being a whiny little bitch, put its big girl panties on, and start moving its disparate parts in the same direction.

I have for years been surprised that, with all the fucking corporate bigwigs this white-collar private-school breeding ground has generated, it still finds itself up financial shit creek on a regular basis.

That isn't to slander private schools - just the "rugby people" that supposedly come out of them.

 

[TahDan]

We need less school competitions organised in pathetically small pools where the haves keep having, while the have-nots learn nothing. That competition needs to be made attractive to the never-weres to get into the competition and make it something real, on the back of Olympic participation.

Basically rugby needs to stop being a whiny little bitch, put its big girl panties on, and start moving its disparate parts in the same direction.

I have for years been surprised that, with all the fucking corporate bigwigs this white-collar private-school breeding ground has generated, it still finds itself up financial shit creek on a regular basis.

That isn't to slander private schools - just the "rugby people" that supposedly come out of them.

Everything you just said. Was having this same discussion with a couple people at a work lunch last week on just how myopic the development of the game has been. One of the guys commented on how it seems fewer schools seem to offer union, but more and more have league than ever.

That's a massive issue right there, but it seems we're just content to keep the game in the North shore and in the private system without ever considering how well that bodes for our future fan base.

 

[Happy]

In today's Australian:

The media adviser who worked with the NRL on the previous broadcast rights deal has warned that the decision to sign a new agreement with the Nine Network, blindsiding Fox Sports, has put at risk the code’s hopes of an expected $1.7 billion payday.
Colin Smith, an adviser on sports media rights who has worked with most professional sports, including helping the NRL net a then record $1.25bn for the last broadcast rights deal, said yesterday Fox Sports had been disrespected and left with “crap content”.
“You can’t say this is entirely respectful of them, being a long-term broadcaster, by the NRL,’’ Smith, managing director of Global Media and Sports, said of Monday’s announcement.
“A deal has still got to be done with Fox Sports and everyone has been predicting — me included — that it could be up to $1.7 billion. And if people are mad it could even go up to $2 billion, but that’s going to be a lot tougher now. It’s a massive gamble. As I understand it, they hadn’t even got an offer from anybody else so they’ve gone with a deal without ever going to market properly.
“The totality of the deal is more important than the deal is for the huge amount that Channel Nine are paying. The dumb thing is they could only get a marginal increase (from the last deal) out of this.’’

 

[liquor box]

I think the interesting thing will be the future of Foxtel in NSW and QLD.

CH9's new deal means that 8 teams will be on FTA each week, which means there will be 3-4 teams that are on 95% of the time.

Fans of Broncos, Roosters, Rabbitohs, Bulldogs, St George, Parramatta, Manly may not need Foxtel and could watch their team live on FTA foor 20 rounds of the year, scrap Foxtel and see the rest live at a ground or at a pub.

Is this a long term plan by CH9 to give STAN a chance? If Foxtel goes downhill internet based stations will have more success.


Does the new deal include HD?

 

[TahDan]

In today's Australian:

I'm not surprised the Aus are running stories like that though to be honest, given them and Fox are all Murdoch. The NRL have given themselves 2 years to negotiate the rest and according to the Fairfax press the FOXTEL side of the negotiations had been incredibly "arrogant" in their approach to the NRL. So in a sense this is the NRL saying "well fuck you - see how well you do without us."

For that alone I have renewed respect for the NRL and can only dream of the ARU one day being in such a position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Happy]

This is what I have been able to glean from reading several different reports on the deal.

1. Channel 9 will pay $925m for FTA and digital rights for 4 games per week, to be played on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, and Sunday afternoons.
2. This figure includes "contra" or free advertising, but no one is saying how much this time. Last time it was 20%.
3. This deal was done without the knowledge of Fox Sports, who previously had the rights to 5 games per week.
4. The NRL will now try and sell Fox the rights to the other 4 games. This means Fox has lost it's highest rating game, on Saturday night, plus the exclusive Monday night game. Even though the NRL has mentioned others like Netflix (seriously?), the reality is that Fox is the only realistic customer.
5. The NRL is gambling that Fox needs them, so they won't refuse the rights all together, or cut their offer too much. Fox can also buy the simulcast rights, but simulcast games have never rated well. The deal with 9 is also reduced if simulcast rights are sold to someone else.
6. Apart from that the only things left to sell are the digital rights for the remaining 4 (lower rating) games, plus NZ rights and international rights.

It seems to me that the whole thing is a huge gamble by 9 to try and shore up their advertising revenue in the Sydney and Brisbane markets. It is well documented that their ratings, and more importantly their revenue, is well down, and they have been forced to offer advertisers free spots to prevent them reducing their spend. If they can win the propaganda war about how popular NRL is, and how much it costs to buy the rights, then they hope this will translate into increased advertising revenue.

As for the NRL, it has already had to drop the Under 20's competition from the end of 2016 as they can't afford it any more. There is also the fact that Fox is under pressure from the streaming services such as Netflix entering the market. I think the NRL were worried the next deal would at best be about the same as their present one, with the real possibility of a reduction in real terms. They took this deal to give them an extra FTA game, plus it ensures they at least won't be worse off when their current deal expires.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I really don't understand why the NRL now expect a high offer from Foxtel. Channel 9 have been tapped out making this offer so I doubt they can afford to offer even half as much for the remaining games so who else are the NRL going to sell too?

Their annual profits have been overrated and they are already paying out to th clubs on the advance. They need the money. If Foxtel offered them $75M per year for the remaining 4 games they'd have to take it. Being the least desirable time slots and giving FTA a game every night already I can't see what value it offers to everybody. Foxtel have already lost their exclusive Monday's and super Saturday's which were big for them. Why on earth would they pay more for less in return?

But if the NRL can afford to take home the same value or only marginally more, more on FTA and control of scheduling is surely a win for them. May pay dividends longer term.

 

[TahDan]

I really don't understand why the NRL now expect a high offer from Foxtel. Channel 9 have been tapped out making this offer so I doubt they can afford to offer even half as much for the remaining games so who else are the NRL going to sell too?

Their annual profits have been overrated and they are already paying out to th clubs on the advance. They need the money. If Foxtel offered them $75M per year for the remaining 4 games they'd have to take it. Being the least desirable time slots and giving FTA a game every night already I can't see what value it offers to everybody. Foxtel have already lost their exclusive Monday's and super Saturday's which were big for them. Why on earth would they pay more for less in return?

But if the NRL can afford to take home the same value or only marginally more, more on FTA and control of scheduling is surely a win for them. May pay dividends longer term.

I think you're underestimating how much Foxtel rely on NRL content to keep its subscription base in NSW and Qld... with online streaming services for movies and TV shows the drive to have Foxtel for anything other than sport is fast dwindling. With two years left on the current deal and likely more of Foxtel's non sport customer base likely to opt for cheaper streaming services, time is very much on the NRL's side.

The NRL realistically has enough on this Channel 9 deal alone to move forward with, so in the longer term it would hurt Foxtel a lot more than it would hurt the NRL if the last 4 games just went to another FTA network.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No I'm not.

They've lost their two greatest selling points of that. Saturday and Monday you need Foxtel to watch NRL. Now you don't when this deal kicks in.

 

[TahDan]

No I'm not.

They've lost their two greatest selling points of that. Saturday and Monday you need Foxtel to watch NRL. Now you don't when this deal kicks in.

We'll have to wait and see I guess, but there's only half the games are on FTA, so there'd still be a pretty strong incentive to get Foxtel if you liked your NRL.

The other thing of course is whether it's SD or HD. If Nine keep doing what they are with SD, that alone creates an incentive to get Fox for sports fans.

Put it this way, if Super Rugby had half its game FTA, but were SD, and Fox had all the Super Rugby games and in HD, I'd definitely still be keeping Foxtel. We are after all talking essentially about middle class Australia - only 30% of the country have Foxtel, and it's weighted therefore to sports lovers with a disposable income.

That's the likely outcome here - Foxtel will need to get ALL the NRL games and the word is they're looking at an AFL style dedicated channel.

Personally, I reckon it's a smart play by the NRL. Even if it falls through with Fox, they've made a decision that gets more of the game to more people and thus increased their exposure, and strengthen their position in the future. If the ARU had those sorts of business brains in the after math of the '03 RWC we'd be in a much better position than we are now.

 

[Antony]

The TV advertising during NRL games is going to get crazy now. Tom Waterhouse will probably get to play halfback for the Roosters.

 

[TahDan]

The TV advertising during NRL games is going to get crazy now. Tom Waterhouse will probably get to play halfback for the Roosters.

Thankfully I think channel 9 learned their lesson on Waterhouse. Now if only they'd learn their lesson on Hadley...

 

[Happy]

As I understand it, current broadcasting regulations prevent NRL games (among others) from being broadcast in HD unless it is also broadcast in standard definition. This means 9's only option would be to simulcast on 9 and GEM.

They won't do this for obvious reasons. Until broadcasting regulations change you will only see FTA NRL on SD channels.

 

[TOCC]

As I understand it, current broadcasting regulations prevent NRL games (among others) from being broadcast in HD unless it is also broadcast in standard definition. This means 9's only option would be to simulcast on 9 and GEM.

They won't do this for obvious reasons. Until broadcasting regulations change you will only see FTA NRL on SD channels.

Yes this is correct, however these are outdated regulations and in the best interest of the industry as a whole to have them changed, I don't think it will be long before it is changed either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TahDan]

As I understand it, current broadcasting regulations prevent NRL games (among others) from being broadcast in HD unless it is also broadcast in standard definition. This means 9's only option would be to simulcast on 9 and GEM.

They won't do this for obvious reasons. Until broadcasting regulations change you will only see FTA NRL on SD channels.

That's what I thought. To me that makes the option of an all-NRL game deal with Foxtel the most likely option. If Foxtel only offers to take the four remaining games, then the NRL might just offer them to Channel 10 instead, as there'd be no material difference in the money. That would be a massive kick in the balls to Foxtel though.