I still don't think average audience is reach, which is more about how many people watched the program at one time during the coverage. Average audience is about the average audience size over the time.Raiderdave wrote:yeah ... its called reach you **** halfwitXman wrote:Nothing to do with reach.
3 hours at 800k is better than 2hrs at 900 and 2 at 250. Yet cumulative numbers say the NRL is 1150k to the AFLs 800. Rubbish! The AFLs game is more valuable because the better audience is for longer. This increases revenue for the network. This is irrespective of the fact that the AFL has more ads in it anyway.
Hence the cumulative audience argument is mute.
both codes had around 4 million veiwers a weekend for their 8 games when all audiences were counted
the AFL was on for 24 hours
the NRL for 16
but our 4 Million veiwers are mainly in states with far more value to advertisers then the AFL's
& into the bargain... we had more of them as a code with our extra rep games etc
so again
this is a lame argument ........
It's not a lame argument at all. The NRL claim a cumulative advantage on FNs because they can fit in 2 games, where as the length of the AFL game means they can only fit in one. Yet as an average audience the AFL clearly wins, with substantially more ads televised during their program than the 4 hrs of RL combined. This year will be even better with 4 live games on FTA nation wide.
=D>