Super Rugby Australian Team Memberships

[El Gamba]

Hi all,

First thread... There has been a lot of talk of late about the Rebels starting in Super Rugby with heavy undertones that they should have been in long before the Force. As a staunch Western Force supporter this obviously riled me a little and I got to thinking about Membership numbers knowing that the Force do have a reasonable number of Members year to year - the most of all Australian sides in their first year if I recall correctly. Searching through avenues (via google which is, I suppose, just one avenue...) I have struggled to get these numbers and would love to compile a little history of Membership numbers, including this year for the last few years.

It would be great if anyone knows where to look or can perhaps provide information so that I can complete the table at the bottom. Outside of my Force interest, I think that it would be quite interesting to have a look at this as a barometer of Australian rugby support over the last few years. Thanks in advance!!


Year ACT Rebels Waratahs Reds Force
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006

 

[Moses]

G'Day El Gamba,
I tried to find some information on membership numbers a few weeks ago. It's quite tough to get any information on this, the clubs would see membership numbers as commercial and are hesitant to release it.

I've put together a summary of the different types of membership offered here: Super Rugby Season Memberships

 

[waratahjesus]

Hi all,

First thread... There has been a lot of talk of late about the Rebels starting in Super Rugby with heavy undertones that they should have been in long before the Force. As a staunch Western Force supporter this obviously riled me a little

ive been one of those people bringing it up, its not about membership numbers or crowd figures. the reason melbourne should have been in before perth is about numbers that could be. its the fact that the population of melburne is 3.9 million (registered in 2010) to perths 1,658,992 (registered 2010), super rugby in australia makes its money off tv and corporate sponsors of the main body. while the force have been good at getting local sponsors etc, they do little to put australia in a strong position when negotiating tv etc. as friday nights game showed breaking tv records etc, having a team in melbourne will create alot more avenues for people to watch and invest int he game.

its not a knock at perth and there fans is a marketing and planning opinion.

 

[El Gamba]

They announce them from time to time - hopefully some people have seen some figures out there..

 

[El Gamba]

warahtahjesus,
I understand where you are coming from but still think Perth was the right choice at the time, whether by good management or luck. A couple of reasons (moving away from "coz Perth rulz"):

- The memberships have been strong which, I think, shows that whilst a smaller market there is a larger market share. I think that crowd numbers also attest to this, I was at the Rebels/Crusaders pre-season game and the establishment thought close to 14,000 was a fantastic result. I was also at the Crusaders / Force pre-season game a few years ago which set a Members Equity record of 20,000 odd. In general, and in comparison to the established teams, attendances and memberships have been strong.

- Had Melbourne got it instead of Perth originally, I would bet any money that the Southern Spears from South Africa would be the 15th side right now. Perth had to be the best long term option because Melbourne was going to make sense at some stage.

My comment wasn't just about being a Force supporter, I do believe that it was the best option and has also proved to be. In addition to membership and attendance, the Force has provided a number of Wallabies (despite the cries of "theft!", a great example is Pocock with the Qld talk of "he was ours" - the fact was that last year would have been his first year at a chance of first choice flanker in red - who knows where he would have been now. There are plenty more examples), delivers a profit often in excess of the other Club's and in terms of television ratings, similar to Friday night, Sunday afternoon broke all records.

I don't begrudge the Rebels at all, quite the opposite as I live in Melbourne now and love rugby (now I get some games here!). I'd even be a Member except I get the odd corporate invite and so they packages aren't value for money for me.
I just firmly believe that the Force was the best option as a springboard to the future of Australian rugby.

 

[kiap]

They announce them from time to time - hopefully some people have seen some figures out there..

Which have you heard then? Got any rough numbers for the Force?

 

[Moses]

There's a bit of info here: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/exclusive-aussie-rugbys-remarkable-numbers/

 

[El Gamba]

only that Force in their first year had in excess of 16,000 before their first pre-season game. Will continue on google!

Which have you heard then? Got any rough numbers for the Force?

 

[kiap]

only that Force in their first year had in excess of 16,000 before their first pre-season game. Will continue on google!

No worries. I reckon we're doing alright though. Melbourne and Perth are both in and there are now five pro teams to select players from. All good.

 

[El Gamba]

No worries. I reckon we're doing alright though. Melbourne and Perth are both in and there are now five pro teams to select players from. All good.

Agreed. May take a couple of years but it's all up!

 

[waratahjesus]

warahtahjesus,
I understand where you are coming from but still think Perth was the right choice at the time, whether by good management or luck. A couple of reasons (moving away from "coz Perth rulz"):

- The memberships have been strong which, I think, shows that whilst a smaller market there is a larger market share. I think that crowd numbers also attest to this, I was at the Rebels/Crusaders pre-season game and the establishment thought close to 14,000 was a fantastic result. I was also at the Crusaders / Force pre-season game a few years ago which set a Members Equity record of 20,000 odd. In general, and in comparison to the established teams, attendances and memberships have been strong.
as i said its not about perths success, its about the game being available to the largest markets to raise more corporate dollar through tv rights etc. Perth has done well, but it was the wrong choice in an actual marketing world, it was picked at the time on heart.
- Had Melbourne got it instead of Perth originally, I would bet any money that the Southern Spears from South Africa would be the 15th side right now. Perth had to be the best long term option because Melbourne was going to make sense at some stage. Perth would have got in, the spears would never have joined as long as the current format was coming in.

My comment wasn't just about being a Force supporter, I do believe that it was the best option and has also proved to be. In addition to membership and attendance, the Force has provided a number of Wallabies (despite the cries of "theft!", a great example is Pocock with the Qld talk of "he was ours" - the fact was that last year would have been his first year at a chance of first choice flanker in red pocock would have been there first choice years ago, they wouldnt have had to import braid if they had him.- who knows where he would have been now. There are plenty more examples), delivers a profit often in excess of the other Club's and in terms of television ratings, similar to Friday night, Sunday afternoon broke all records.
There isnt a core audience in perth that can spike a rating outside of perth, thats the problem, games played on the eastern seaboard attract alot more vieweers and therefore put the code in a stronger position to negotiate more money at contract time. it again is not a knock on the team but simple economics.
I don't begrudge the Rebels at all, quite the opposite as I live in Melbourne now and love rugby (now I get some games here!). I'd even be a Member except I get the odd corporate invite and so they packages aren't value for money for me.
I just firmly believe that the Force was the best option as a springboard to the future of Australian rugby.

 

[El Gamba]

Mate to your points:
- I think that you have confused market size with market share. 50% of 10 is 5, 5% of 50 is 2.5. Perth was the right choice to have a sound base originally, Melbourne is now the right choice to work off a sound base.
- Chicken and Egg, the additional team was selected before the competition structure set. Had the spears been selected then a different structure would have been selected.
- Croft retired from the Reds in 2008 and was their solid first choice open-sider. They drafted Braid in 2009/2010. Pocock started at the Force from 2006. He would not have had the same opportunities and there are many more examples of this. The Rebels approach has been different with less youthful players onboard but I'd argue that the Force model has been better for Australian rugby.
- I am not sure what you mean. Of course there isn't a core audience in Perth that can spike ratings outside of Perth. There isn't a core audience anywhere that spike ratings elsewhere (?). Location is not related to TV ratings necessarily and I'd argue that the ratings last Friday were driven by NSW supporters foremost and then out of interest with Rod Macqueen etc. A similar situation would have occurred had Force debuted in Perth against the Tahs with an Australian coach.
I maintain, the right decision was made five years ago and the right decision has been made now.... well I'm not a fan of the new structure, but apart from that.

 

[waratahjesus]

i think your missing my point totally, again, im not knocking perth its set up or anything else. From a pure marketing point of how the ARU makes money and grows the game, having a team available in the largest market is always the best thing possible. its not rocket science at all.

i think your market share is a bit off, 50% of perth is not at all tapped into rugby. if your saying perhaps 10% of perths 1.7 million are into rugby compared with 5% of melbournes 4 million (both rounded up) then perth has a market share of 170,000 thousand people, while melbourne have 200,000. if a marketing person or television producer look at this, there going to see that growing the game in melbourne is going to result in alot more people both seeing or buying into the product and create a much larger revenue stream down the line. Robodirect being on a rebels jersey is so much more valuble than emerites on a force jersey for example due to the amoutn of people they can tap into. Both sponsorships work and im not doubting why emerites are there but if there paying the same amount then robo are getting a far better deal out of it.

 

[El Gamba]

No, I get your point, I disagree. I understand it isn't a knock at the Force. Those figures were purely to explain market share over market size - clearly you get that though. A far better indicator of market share is arguably membership and attendances, back to the original point of the post.

When these are high, you aren't talking "potential market" you are talking "captive market". It then follows that your points on sponsorship value are flawed and I'd submit that all you need to do is look at the sponsorship stable of Emirates v Rabobank. Agreed, both good sponsorships but having worked on sponsorship deals with Emirates I know exactly how they value, prioritise and measure their deals.

You noted that the ratings were high for the tahs rebels game, how do you think they'll be for an away game vs the Highlanders? I reckon that the Force would be higher for a similar fixture mid season.

 

[waratahjesus]

No, I get your point, I disagree. I understand it isn't a knock at the Force. Those figures were purely to explain market share over market size - clearly you get that though. A far better indicator of market share is arguably membership and attendances, back to the original point of the post.

When these are high, you aren't talking "potential market" you are talking "captive market". It then follows that your points on sponsorship value are flawed and I'd submit that all you need to do is look at the sponsorship stable of Emirates v Rabobank. Agreed, both good sponsorships but having worked on sponsorship deals with Emirates I know exactly how they value, prioritise and measure their deals.

You noted that the ratings were high for the tahs rebels game, how do you think they'll be for an away game vs the Highlanders? I reckon that the Force would be higher for a similar fixture mid season.

it would this year, but as someone that has worked in television, if i was selling super rugby i would never walk into a room and say hey, i know melbounre has a potential audience of 4 million plus the rest of the state but im going to go with the town of perth that has less than half, its suicide.

im aware of sposorship, im saying if they have payed the same amount, robobank has a far better deal as its going to get alot more bang for its buck.

your judging your team against the melbourne franchise, its like judging the force against the brumbies in the forces first year in. you have had a few years to develop an identity, you have toughed it out with a less than steller team and built a new one to go on with now that has a chance in every game they play. its really apples and pears. my point is, most money for the game comes from television sales and overriding sposorship that the ARU collects. having melbourne earlier would have made television rights and a major sponsor worth more for a few years now and since the budget has been so tight that would have been a very good thing.

memberships and attendence go back to the franchise/union as far as im aware (unless someone knows the ARU takes a cut, please enlighten me) while its a factor to messure the teams success, i hate to say it, but there isnt a sport this country right now that would trade a tenth of there tv deal to sell out a stadium consistantly.

as far as mid year ratings against kiwi teams, im not sure, we will have to wait and see. at the moment where in a black hole of no afl or league and that will be the litmus test for ratings and let them know how the rebels really sit, but again, its the population that the ARU can expose the game to that make it the more lucrative market.

 

[El Gamba]

Agree to disagree. I don't think working in television makes you more or less qualified (unless you're the guy in charge of negotiating TV rights packages) and I think that your comments don't substantiate themselves, there are certainly no figures to back them up and it's a good thing that you weren't making that decision.

The Force were the right decision then, Melbourne are the right decision now. Up with Australian rugby.

 

[waratahjesus]

Agree to disagree. I don't think working in television makes you more or less qualified (unless you're the guy in charge of negotiating TV rights packages) and I think that your comments don't substantiate themselves, there are certainly no figures to back them up and it's a good thing that you weren't making that decision.

The Force were the right decision then, Melbourne are the right decision now. Up with Australian rugby.

sorry, i am qualified to monitor and program a television channel and as part of that training we go over trends in ratings and go into detail about how sport etc works as well as normal programming. i understand the trends and i recieve them for all networks in a nice little email with the rest of my monthly package.

your a force fan and i respect that, but to actually grow the game requires money in teh ARU coffers, not the western australian rugby football union, and therefore melbourne is the best economic choice, was and is.

population of victoria = 5.5 million (2009)
population of W.A = 2.234 million (2011)

you cant see how its more financial benificial to have a larger population represented in an international competition to increase revenue?

 

[El Gamba]

So what were the ratings of Friday's game verse Sunday's game by region?

 

[waratahjesus]

no idea, i get them monthly with 15 minute breakdowns, i will send it to you and you can bother going through it and see.
that said i know the tahs v force game last year was outrated in perth by some crappy old movie, so hopes aint high.

 

[TOCC]

In terms of the ratings each team gets, the Western Force are on average the lowest rating of the existing 4 Super Rugby teams, its to early to factor in the Rebels.. the past 3 years have followed the same ranking:

It goes
1. NSW
2. QLD
3. ACT
4. WA