Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[leeroy*NRL*]

But that’s just on Fox isn’t it? As most AFL games are in fta and most nrl games on fox I don’t see the point in comparing. Of course figures for NRL will be higher on Foxz. it’s common sense. If they weren’t or if they were even close I think that would be a concern. And of course AFL generally rate higher on fta.

I think you need to compare them, It highlights the massive F@#$ UP FOX did When negotiating rights between the two codes.

the fox deals were about growing subscriptions, not ratings

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

[NlolRL]

I think you need to compare them, It highlights the massive F@#$ UP FOX did When negotiating rights between the two codes.

the fox deals were about growing subscriptions, not ratings

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

absolutely. Subs pay fox, not ratings. Fox wanted to capture some of the AFL's many FTA viewers

[leeroy*NRL*]

the fox deals were about growing subscriptions, not ratings

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

absolutely. Subs pay fox, not ratings. Fox wanted to capture some of the AFL's many FTA viewers

but is that not a huge gamble ??

well it doesn't look like it has paid off..

Interesting though, your highest rating programs which are NRL (are in themselves SUBS who have purchased the product to watch
which = Ratings.

[NlolRL]

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

absolutely. Subs pay fox, not ratings. Fox wanted to capture some of the AFL's many FTA viewers

but is that not a huge gamble ??

well it doesn't look like it has paid off..

Interesting though, your highest rating programs which are NRL (are in themselves SUBS who have purchased the product to watch
which = Ratings.

You gotta spend money to make money. Fox already had the nrl market. They wanted all AFL games to try and break into the AFL market but were forced to pay a pretty penny for the rights to do so.

Subs don't always equal ratings. Depends on why people subscribe. If all they want to do is watch one game a weekend, such as their own side, they will count far less than someone who subscribes to watch as much sport as they can

[leeroy*NRL*]

absolutely. Subs pay fox, not ratings. Fox wanted to capture some of the AFL's many FTA viewers

but is that not a huge gamble ??

well it doesn't look like it has paid off..

Interesting though, your highest rating programs which are NRL (are in themselves SUBS who have purchased the product to watch
which = Ratings.

You gotta spend money to make money. Fox already had the nrl market. They wanted all AFL games to try and break into the AFL market but were forced to pay a pretty penny for the rights to do so.

Subs don't always equal ratings. Depends on why people subscribe. If all they want to do is watch one game a weekend, such as their own side, they will count far less than someone who subscribes to watch as much sport as they can

agree your gotta spend to make and also NRL states did have a large following over AFL before Deal.

If your spending Money on a Product would you not want big ratings from the subs you have converted in Southern States.
I think you will fine, it did not all go to plan the way FOX intended it to go, and FTA is taken a bigger share than FOX thought it would.

you imply they were forced, do you recan it was more along the lines,
all 9 games locked up for 6 years was a deal they thought would bring in mega subs and viewers..

[Fred]

TV Blackbox
@TV_Blackbox

Foxfooty
Saints/Crows 167,000
Dockers/Suns 139,000

Isolation games wern't they? But, But, But

But that’s just on Fox isn’t it? As most AFL games are in fta and most nrl games on fox I don’t see the point in comparing. Of course figures for NRL will be higher on Foxz. it’s common sense. If they weren’t or if they were even close I think that would be a concern. And of course AFL generally rate higher on fta.

I think you need to compare them, It highlights the massive F@#$ UP FOX did When negotiating rights between the two codes.

I think they knew what they were doing. They have the nrl market and got the tv rights for them for a good price. They don’t have as high an AFL market re: subscriptions and were probably hoping given the large amount of (untapped) people as new possible subscribers they were willing to pay as a massive upside. Whether that worked out or not I don’t know .. it’s not about ratings for fox per se I would say but subscriptions ... especially given fox show no adds during quarters.

Re: nrl and getting more money from fta... they need (and will) go to quarters. It’s just too big a carrot.

[Fred]

no doubt it does, it is a joke really..
you have 36 payers missing for origin duties week prior and than over half dont even play the week after,
or get limited game time. and this happens over 6 weeks in and out.

the NRL is at a catch 22

they do not want to put the NRL on pause for 1 month why REP Games happen.

so they fit in REP Games in an around NRL Games,
and prefer to take a slight hit in between, for the duel of crown STATE OF ORIGIN.

Agreed. I still reckon the soo is so big they could play it anytime and it would still rate... still think emd of season. If they ever decide to go national in a proper way and say have teams in wa, sa etc. and it takes off you will have people from those states wondering why their team gets gutted and loses matches due to their players playing or getting injured in a game that they have no skin in the game. I know I was annoyed that the storm nearly lost to the Titans... cause half their team was missing ... I couldn’t really care who won origin and for my team to be shackled cause of it sucks. Play it at the end of the season. This is what killed soo in Aussie rules.

It generally has to remain mid season. but in a dedicated Window for REP Games,
end of season is hard, as once the Grand Final finishes, Cricket starts to gain Momentum..

yes it is pathetic, but it has been the norm in the NRL for years,

SOO for AFL would of benefited if VICTORIA had a another Big State to vs.

If NSW was a heartland of AFL>> could you imagen how big SOO in AFL would be..
i guarantee you it would still be in the fixture.

A great deal of players come from wa and sa. Plus too many coming out of other states. It would be interesting if the named a soo team each year. Would Qld and nsw be able to feild a decent one ?

[Fred]

I think you need to compare them, It highlights the massive F@#$ UP FOX did When negotiating rights between the two codes.

the fox deals were about growing subscriptions, not ratings

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

Definetely think that’s a reasonable thing. Pay tv has always higher in nsw... probably due to, if you want to watch rugby l a fair bit you need it. This has never been the case with AFL across the nation.

[NlolRL]

but is that not a huge gamble ??

well it doesn't look like it has paid off..

Interesting though, your highest rating programs which are NRL (are in themselves SUBS who have purchased the product to watch
which = Ratings.

You gotta spend money to make money. Fox already had the nrl market. They wanted all AFL games to try and break into the AFL market but were forced to pay a pretty penny for the rights to do so.

Subs don't always equal ratings. Depends on why people subscribe. If all they want to do is watch one game a weekend, such as their own side, they will count far less than someone who subscribes to watch as much sport as they can

agree your gotta spend to make and also NRL states did have a large following over AFL before Deal.

If your spending Money on a Product would you not want big ratings from the subs you have converted in Southern States.
I think you will fine, it did not all go to plan the way FOX intended it to go, and FTA is taken a bigger share than FOX thought it would.

you imply they were forced, do you recan it was more along the lines,
all 9 games locked up for 6 years was a deal they thought would bring in mega subs and viewers..

Time will tell if the AFL has provided fox with value for money. We will see in the next media rights. But they were no doubt aware of the effect scheduling concurrent games, no exclusive games, and kayo would have had on ratings and subscriptions.

[Fred]

but is that not a huge gamble ??

well it doesn't look like it has paid off..

Interesting though, your highest rating programs which are NRL (are in themselves SUBS who have purchased the product to watch
which = Ratings.

You gotta spend money to make money. Fox already had the nrl market. They wanted all AFL games to try and break into the AFL market but were forced to pay a pretty penny for the rights to do so.

Subs don't always equal ratings. Depends on why people subscribe. If all they want to do is watch one game a weekend, such as their own side, they will count far less than someone who subscribes to watch as much sport as they can

agree your gotta spend to make and also NRL states did have a large following over AFL before Deal.

If your spending Money on a Product would you not want big ratings from the subs you have converted in Southern States.
I think you will fine, it did not all go to plan the way FOX intended it to go, and FTA is taken a bigger share than FOX thought it would.

you imply they were forced, do you recan it was more along the lines,
all 9 games locked up for 6 years was a deal they thought would bring in mega subs and viewers..

I would imagine that whilst fox may look at ratings in that they are keeping their subscribers happy, it really is all about subscriptions and where to grow. Doing a SWOT back then certainly the strength would have been Sport. A weakness would have been lack of subscriptions in say Victoria. Obviously the Opportunity would be AFL to target Victorian subscribers. The Threat would be to maybe lose nrl viewers (but was that a threat?) or possibly some other entity snaps up and locks away these potential subscribers.

[baselinepanther]

TV Blackbox
@TV_Blackbox

Foxfooty
Saints/Crows 167,000
Dockers/Suns 139,000

Isolation games wern't they? But, But, But

Yep, 1 at 2pm in Perth involving the smallest club in the AFL. The other involving 2 of the bottom sides. Even our biggest games don't get much over 200k so not surprising for poor teams on a Sat

Play them concurrently and the ratings wouldn't have reached 100k. In fact we have games with less than 100k on fox for many games on fox3. But not yesterday.

all i see here is

but but but lol

[baselinepanther]

the fox deals were about growing subscriptions, not ratings

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

Definetely think that’s a reasonable thing. Pay tv has always higher in nsw... probably due to, if you want to watch rugby l a fair bit you need it. This has never been the case with AFL across the nation.

watch rugby ?



what has rugby got to do with this

[Terry]

TV Blackbox
@TV_Blackbox

Foxfooty
Saints/Crows 167,000
Dockers/Suns 139,000

Isolation games wern't they? But, But, But

Yep, 1 at 2pm in Perth involving the smallest club in the AFL. The other involving 2 of the bottom sides. Even our biggest games don't get much over 200k so not surprising for poor teams on a Sat

Play them concurrently and the ratings wouldn't have reached 100k. In fact we have games with less than 100k on fox for many games on fox3. But not yesterday.

all i see here is

but but but lol

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Spot on!!! These desperate fumblers are incredible. They're blind to the truth. Which is sad. They're the absolute world reigning kings of but but but but but but lolololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!

I genuinely feel sorry for the poor buggers!!!

[Fred]

So let me get this straight..

NRL has been king of FOX >> yet FOX come out and pay AFL More, even knowing they get less figures than the NRL>
to increase subs in Victoria, SA and WA..

is this what you are saying ?

Definetely think that’s a reasonable thing. Pay tv has always higher in nsw... probably due to, if you want to watch rugby l a fair bit you need it. This has never been the case with AFL across the nation.

watch rugby ?



what has rugby got to do with this

There’s an “l” after rugby .

[Fred]

TV Blackbox
@TV_Blackbox

Foxfooty
Saints/Crows 167,000
Dockers/Suns 139,000

Isolation games wern't they? But, But, But

Yep, 1 at 2pm in Perth involving the smallest club in the AFL. The other involving 2 of the bottom sides. Even our biggest games don't get much over 200k so not surprising for poor teams on a Sat

Play them concurrently and the ratings wouldn't have reached 100k. In fact we have games with less than 100k on fox for many games on fox3. But not yesterday.

all i see here is

but but but lol

At the end the day which sport rates more ... what does it matter?

But it was good to have a decent conversation with Leroy about the fox ratings, which no one is arguing about, and what they mean and also in the context of why fox paid so much more for AFL.