AFL vs NRL - the TV war

[TLPG]

Mark actually brings up an excellent comparison on hours coverage, particularly FTA (adds aren't a major factor on Foxtel/Austar because they are add free and only show adds during the game breaks - ie half time NRL and the three breaks AFL, with not much time for it at quarter time and 3/4 time). It support's Beau's point that the NRL rights won't bring the sort of money the AFL rights brings.

Here's another point - one also has to take into account the variables on advertising. What works in NSW might not work in Victoria (and vice versa) for example. So think about this. More variables may well push the price up further. That means that NRL would take into account it's presence in NSW and QLD and maybe Victoria purely because of the Storm - and NZ of course. But nowhere else. Whereas AFL has to take into account all the states and territories (and not NZ). So the cheaper advertising outside of the east coast doesn't even come into the NRL equation - whereas it does for the AFL.

Pussycat, you just don't get it. Preaching the population difference between the Gold Coast and Hobart is avoiding the point. The way they read the FTA figures is out of date and just plain wrong. I'm hoping the move to digital leads to more accurate figures and the real story will be revealed.

[pussycat]

I don't know the answer to the question I am going to ask. I will leave that to others to dig up the facts (remember I said facts not "I think", I know or I think I know to be true).

When the AFL is paid by TV for its coverage, how many hours do they pay for? When the NRL is paid by TV for its coverage, how many hours do they pay for? I ask this question because AFL games go on for a lot longer than NRL games. There is more opportunity for the all important "break from our sponsors."

Doing the math, 3 NRL games/week converts to 6 hours of coverage to insert adds and 3 games/week of AFL converts to 9 hours of coverage to insert adds.

If you do the math, AFL received $1.253 billion (correct me if I am wrong, that's the number that came up when I googled it) for selling the TV rights, for the NRL to have a comparable (i.e. $/hour) deal they would need to get around $835 million.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

TV buy coverage to be able to sell advertising space during the program, having 9 hours a week as apposed to 6 hours a week should mean they should be able to get more for their $ so you would expect them to pay more.

What does this mean? To me, it means looking at the $ they are paid is only part of the picture. It comes down to value for money. How many hours of broadcast/$ spent divided by the $ they can recieve for selling adds during the broadcast.

An AFL match, due to it being played over quarters, does give FTA TV networks a larger opportunity for advertisment. Something though, that is more than counterbalance by the fact the NRL regions get much more for there advertisg space.

There were surveys conducted recently that showed RL was shown more often.

Under your new Tv deal you will have just 4 matches on FTA. With 2 new teams to join our competion, Rugby League will have at least that many. Rugby League also has Advantages such as Tests, Origin and the ability for the network holders to onsell matches all around the world.

The only reason league has been copping piss poor TV deals is because Foxtel and the NRL are one and the same. With News Leaving rugby League there monopoly will end and RL will begin to get the money it deserves.

[pussycat]

Mark actually brings up an excellent comparison on hours coverage, particularly FTA (adds aren't a major factor on Foxtel/Austar because they are add free and only show adds during the game breaks - ie half time NRL and the three breaks AFL, with not much time for it at quarter time and 3/4 time). It support's Beau's point that the NRL rights won't bring the sort of money the AFL rights brings.

But Mark would also need to remember that the NRL is a much more popular product on Pay TV, providing something like, 70 of the top 100 programs on foxtel last year and consistently coming up with higher ratings figures.

Pussycat, you just don't get it. Preaching the population difference between the Gold Coast and Hobart is avoiding the point. The way they read the FTA figures is out of date and just plain wrong. I'm hoping the move to digital leads to more accurate figures and the real story will be revealed.

TLPG, I have a feeling' it wouldn't matter what method they choose to measure the figures, You would still claim them to be incorrect whenever they show figures you didn't like.

[MarkZZZ]

Your preaching to the converted pussycat. NRL is a far more exciting game as far as I'm concerned. I have tried watching the AFL but just can't get into it. Someone, maybe on this site said that watching the AFL is like watching a flock of seagulls chasing after a chip, I would have to agree. Maybe being there, live at the match might make it different but to me it looks like a waste of around 3 hours of my life that I would never get back. There was two great games of NRL today that I would have loved to have been at.

To bring it back into context of this thread, for me, NRL is a better game to watch on TV than the AFL.

[TLPG]

AFL murders NRL live, because AFL doesn't translate well to TV. NRL does. That's why TV figures can be skewed because people are more likely to stay at home and watch on the TV than they are to go to the game. That's a bad thing actually because the clubs need gate receipts to stay afloat as well as memberships.

Just to reply to Pussycat, if the figures are collected correctly you're the one who'll have to eat crow because I'll be proved right. I have the contacts within the game across the country and I have a feel for it that you'll never have. I would expect the NRL to be winning in places like Moree, Wellington, Kempsey, Taree and any other place in NSW that doesn't have any local AFL presence. In fact the only places in New South Wales that I would claim the AFL is right up there with the NRL would be in the Riverina - and in Canberra (and maybe the Sapphire Coast as well). Or would be if they would just put the AFL against the NRL instead of hiding it at other obscure times when it has no chance!

[pussycat]

AFL murders NRL live, because AFL doesn't translate well to TV. NRL does. That's why TV figures can be skewed because people are more likely to stay at home and watch on the TV than they are to go to the game. That's a bad thing actually because the clubs need gate receipts to stay afloat as well as memberships.

Just to reply to Pussycat, if the figures are collected correctly you're the one who'll have to eat crow because I'll be proved right. I have the contacts within the game across the country and I have a feel for it that you'll never have. I would expect the NRL to be winning in places like Moree, Wellington, Kempsey, Taree and any other place in NSW that doesn't have any local AFL presence. In fact the only places in New South Wales that I would claim the AFL is right up there with the NRL would be in the Riverina - and in Canberra (and maybe the Sapphire Coast as well). Or would be if they would just put the AFL against the NRL instead of hiding it at other obscure times when it has no chance!

Thats fair enough. But Its not the thousands of dollars that come from gate receipts that will see the game and it's clubs prosper but rather the millions that television provides.

TV stations are a bussiness, they don't play sides - they don't have favourite...They show whatever rates the best.


I would't hold my breathe if your relying on the figures to prove you right.
As new technology allows us to take more accurate rating figures the regional figures will play an even greater role.

[TLPG]

Indeed, and the new technology will reveal the folly of the actions of Prime in particular in the past.

Oh, and if a network pays for the rights, they are obliged to show the event. And under the new deal that's what has to happen with the AFL.

[Raiderdave]

The Swans -where are they nearly thirty years down the track?

Doing much better than every other sporting club in NSW I would have thought is a fantastic result for the AFL after just 30 odd years in Sydney compared to the NRL. Thoughts?

Swans rated the No. 1 sporting club in town in terms of sponsorship, membership and attendances

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225837530086

umm.. doing much better then every other sporting club in NSW are they
....they're broke
last time I looked the Sharks were the only Sydney NRL club in as bad a shape financially

[TLPG]

You looked in the 1980's I assume? LMAO!

[Raiderdave]

You looked in the 1980's I assume? LMAO!

ummm...... what

[Beaussie]

I've deleted all the rubbish you posted below Beaussie because last I heard Alice Springs is REMOTE Australia, not regional

May be in remote Australia but many of the TV channels here are broadcast from QLD with ads for places like Townsville, Rockhampton and Mount Isa.

Again as I said before, the ads look very cheap for local grocers, car yards etc (as if anyone from Alice Springs would travel to Townsville to visit the advertised butcher shop ). Oh and that's when there are ads, usually we see advertising filler involving images of towns/places with annoying music playing for what would normally be the advertising period between shows, goals etc. From that, all I can gather is that the advertising spend is regional areas of QLD in this instance is worth very little indeed.

I'm positive the regionals are taken seriously by the TV networks. From a population perspective regional Australia numbers at least 3 million in QLD and NSW, probably a fair bit more. In total this is bigger than most the "all powerful cities" you continue to dribble about.

To your question on whether I think league will get a similar TV deal to Aussie Rules. I say yes. I'm thinking it's gunna be atleast 900,000.

I'm pretty positive that tv executives in Sydney and Melbourne don't care either way about regionals. I mean if advertisers in regional areas aren't interested as I have pointed out above, why would tv executives in the cities who bid for football tv rights care about tv stations scattered in the bush?

As for your final point regarding the NRL tv deal, I think you're being very optimistic. Good luck is all I can say. The NRL will need all the luck it can muster.

[Beaussie]

The Swans -where are they nearly thirty years down the track?

Doing much better than every other sporting club in NSW I would have thought is a fantastic result for the AFL after just 30 odd years in Sydney compared to the NRL. Thoughts?

Swans rated the No. 1 sporting club in town in terms of sponsorship, membership and attendances

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225837530086

umm.. doing much better then every other sporting club in NSW are they
....they're broke
last time I looked the Sharks were the only Sydney NRL club in as bad a shape financially

Swans broke? Absolute rubbish

[enarelle]

Are yes "scattered in the bush". That would include those bush settlements of Wollongong, Newcastle,Townsville,Canberra,Cairns etc Small clusters of people desperately hoping that one day electricity will come to their small communities.

Seriously the need of some AFL supporters to diminish the importance of the regional communities so that they can directly indicate that the NRL tv deal will not be great and indirectly that these NRL supporters dont really count would be something that Freud would need to diagnose.

Lets get it right. The greater majority of regional viewers live in major cities and towns. They buy and consume major products and services. They are targetted by all the major businesses in this country.

TV stations did not start regional ratings for the purpose of deciding which football code has the highest ratings but because the advertisers want to know.

[King-Eliagh]

Beaussie, I think you're telling some little white lies within your semi factual post. I agree that Alice Springs has adds for Mount Isa and from memory maybe Rockhampton, but Townsville...??? Comon now you know I've lived in Alice Springs before right?

Another Beaussie myth busted!

[Raiderdave]

Doing much better than every other sporting club in NSW I would have thought is a fantastic result for the AFL after just 30 odd years in Sydney compared to the NRL. Thoughts?

umm.. doing much better then every other sporting club in NSW are they
....they're broke
last time I looked the Sharks were the only Sydney NRL club in as bad a shape financially

Swans broke? Absolute rubbish

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/w ... 1ev0o.html

We're not Broke
We're not broke

phhhhttttttt ... Dimetriou had to address the Swans players to assure them they'd be 2 sides in Sydney in 2012 & they'd be one of them

they've lost about 2 million in the last 3 seasons ... & have made the finals 2 out of theose 3 years
yeah .... they're the most succesful sporting club in NSW alright
NAAAARRRRRTTTTTT