Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[Beaussie]

You can't formalise anything until the regional viewers are counted correctly and accurately. At present they are not. NZ don't matter to Australian advertisers. How much money can they make from a Warriors game being shown on NZ television? Nothing. A Trans Tasman strategy involves two deals and not one. See my signature otherwise.

NZ broadcasters do pay the NRL tough Tipsy .. current deal .. 12 Mill a year , new deal tipped to be 20 mill a year
& if the NRL rates well there & continues to increase its ratings there .. as it is presently

guess what
they pay more next time round

Stop posting BS.

We've been over this before. Sky actually wants to decrease their investment in the NRL.

Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1iCftV12X

[Beaussie]

"Culmative" is just further proof that things "add up" differently in the alternate AFL world. Some cannot spell it and at least one does not know what it means.

Mythbusted

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL

by: James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM

ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.

This will not stop many members of the extended rugby league family - including the odd commentator and club chairman - from making unrealistic claims about the the game's value. But strip away the emotion, ideology and historic grievances and you are left with good news and bad news as far as the NRL broadcast rights are concerned.

There are several reasons why the NRL is less valuable. The most obvious is that a free-to-air broadcaster cannot show as many ads. This is because a game of rugby league is not only shorter but contains less tries than goals and therefore fewer breaks in play.

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237

[Topper]

Beaussie, that article is a tremendous find and highly accurate.

[Raiderdave]

You can't formalise anything until the regional viewers are counted correctly and accurately. At present they are not. NZ don't matter to Australian advertisers. How much money can they make from a Warriors game being shown on NZ television? Nothing. A Trans Tasman strategy involves two deals and not one. See my signature otherwise.

NZ broadcasters do pay the NRL tough Tipsy .. current deal .. 12 Mill a year , new deal tipped to be 20 mill a year
& if the NRL rates well there & continues to increase its ratings there .. as it is presently

guess what
they pay more next time round

Stop posting BS.

We've been over this before. Sky actually wants to decrease their investment in the NRL.

Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1iCftV12X

& since when has ANY broadcaster stated publicly .. they will pay more for anything
its a standard ploy .... " oh .. we're not so sure we're interested "
nice one wombat

they want the NRL from 2012 onwards ... & they do ... its rating extremely well
they will pay more
& they will

[Raiderdave]

"Culmative" is just further proof that things "add up" differently in the alternate AFL world. Some cannot spell it and at least one does not know what it means.

Mythbusted

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL

by: James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM

ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.

This will not stop many members of the extended rugby league family - including the odd commentator and club chairman - from making unrealistic claims about the the game's value. But strip away the emotion, ideology and historic grievances and you are left with good news and bad news as far as the NRL broadcast rights are concerned.

There are several reasons why the NRL is less valuable. The most obvious is that a free-to-air broadcaster cannot show as many ads. This is because a game of rugby league is not only shorter but contains less tries than goals and therefore fewer breaks in play.

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237

meh

100 Million less this time
100 Million more next time

its all good

[Topper]

That burp machine should be shut down.

[enarelle]

Dear Beauassie exactly what myth were you "busting" pray tell. The use of "cumulative" was raised by the AFL mob not the leaguies. The word by itself has no context eg are we adding up the full season results,those of a round or part a series eg SOO or finals.

I guess what we have now discovered is that not only are certain numbers "forbidden" but also words. So we have literacy challenge as well as a numerical one.


OK so SOO/tests,warriors and regional are gone from the "official" AFL count and now "cumulative".

So how about "average" like average for fox eg NRL 240k and AFL 170K. No that doesn't work either. Bloody NRL comes out on top again.

How about highest rating show? Dam that's SOO . Gets knocked out twice.

I am sure if we continue to work at we will get the "right" words and the "right" numbers to keep the AFL crew happy.

[Topper]

We will be happy when the NRL admit that they are in big trouble across the board. And I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

[enarelle]

Topper dont be such a tease start holding your breath now. We will concede maybe.

[Topper]

No you won't. That's your culture. Avoid the truth.

[enarelle]

Topper on this you are actually right. The amazing thing with the TV ratings that it has taken the AFL crew so long to work out that OZ Tam,Nielsen,Repucom etc are actually NRL subsidiaries put in place to manipulate the TV ratings in favour of the NRL. Otherwise who could believe that these supposedly independent organizations would show the NRL in front of the AFL. Has to be a conspiracy doesn't it?

One area where we cannot dispute the AFL easily beats the NRL and all other codes is the area of paranoia. I think they have more than the rest of us put together.

However,like most covert operations they have gone overboard by "showing" that the NRL has gone from 10m behind to 15m in front over the last five years. You would have thought they would have waited until their were alot less AFL games being played or alot more NRL being played before "creating" these figures. A 25M change when the number of games is the same is outrageous.

[Topper]

That is the most outrageous comment I've read from you ever, enarelle. The paranoia is reeking out of you and your fellow RL supporters because you know that your sport is in trouble and don't want to see it happening.

[Xman]

Topper on this you are actually right. The amazing thing with the TV ratings that it has taken the AFL crew so long to work out that OZ Tam,Nielsen,Repucom etc are actually NRL subsidiaries put in place to manipulate the TV ratings in favour of the NRL. Otherwise who could believe that these supposedly independent organizations would show the NRL in front of the AFL. Has to be a conspiracy doesn't it?

One area where we cannot dispute the AFL easily beats the NRL and all other codes is the area of paranoia. I think they have more than the rest of us put together.

However,like most covert operations they have gone overboard by "showing" that the NRL has gone from 10m behind to 15m in front over the last five years. You would have thought they would have waited until their were alot less AFL games being played or alot more NRL being played before "creating" these figures. A 25M change when the number of games is the same is outrageous.

I dont believe the oz tam figures are a conspiracy. I just don't think they are intended to gauge popularity across all of Australia because they are heavily weighted to the north eastern coast.

[enarelle]

OZTAM and Diary system are designed so that TV stations can sell advertising space where ever a TV is plugged in or cabled for that matter.

[Topper]

And it fails badly in regional areas, enarelle, due to massive gaps and consequent inaccuracies.