Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

The AFL have an audience in each state. Sure its pretty small in NSW. But its not bad in Brisbane (maybe 1/3 of the NRL). It's great in the rest of the country. The NRL have little to no audience in AFL states because it has no teams in SA, WA and TAS.

The AFL have almost double the viewing hours compared to the NRL each weekend, with more ads in each hour. Therefore the advertising revenue per game, in a level playing field, could be 3-4 times as much for the AFL. Surely you are not trying to tell me advertising space is that much more expensive in NSW/QLD compared to VIC/SA/TAS/WA, especially given the size of the markets is not that different, and the AFL have some audience in NSW/QLD anyway.

The AFL presence in Sydney is a joke - a very sick one(just ask the iron chef), And Qld isn't much better.

That BS a bout the viewing hours. There been a few surveys done lately that showe league is the most telecast sport on TV. The AFL may have greater time in the major AFL/NRL competitions, but this is more than balanced by the fact that advertising time is more costly in rugby league territory.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

The AFL have an audience in each state. Sure its pretty small in NSW. But its not bad in Brisbane (maybe 1/3 of the NRL). It's great in the rest of the country. The NRL have little to no audience in AFL states because it has no teams in SA, WA and TAS.

The AFL have almost double the viewing hours compared to the NRL each weekend, with more ads in each hour. Therefore the advertising revenue per game, in a level playing field, could be 3-4 times as much for the AFL. Surely you are not trying to tell me advertising space is that much more expensive in NSW/QLD compared to VIC/SA/TAS/WA, especially given the size of the markets is not that different, and the AFL have some audience in NSW/QLD anyway.

The AFL presence in Sydney is a joke - a very sick one(just ask the iron chef), And Qld isn't much better.

That BS a bout the viewing hours. There been a few surveys done lately that showe league is the most telecast sport on TV. The AFL may have greater time in the major AFL/NRL competitions, but this is more than balanced by the fact that advertising time is more costly in rugby league territory.

The AFL presence in Sydney is better than the storm in Melbourne. The majority of their games on FTA are either simulcast on fox, or on Saturday/Sunday arvo which rates lower for all sports. Same as the lions in Brisbane, yet the population is half Melbournes so they thrash the storm.

Few surveys? Every survey I have seen showing sports popularity has the AFL in front. I have never seen a survey favoring the NRL! So if the cost af advertising in Sydney isn't at least double that of Melbourne then the NRL will be well under the value of the AFL per game because the AFL have so many more hours each week.

Surveys?
Here's one: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-rel ... ersion=yes

Here's another: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2010/1210/

Is all about population size not the amount of dots on a map. The AFL love to claim some type of superiority because they have a Geographic advantage - Its a myth. In the superbowl they get a $billion for an add, or whatever it is, because they go to such a large audience. it has nothing to do with geographics.

The AFL ratings in Sydney are currently better than the storm in Melbourn. But thats becuse its not shown to after midnight. Last year a few game where shown at decent times and they beat the Swans. The coverage time will change.

I know AFL games drag on , but over 3 hours ? No wonder there so boring. Also you are forgetting, there often is a very exciting extra time period in league. But what about rep football? 3 games of origin all rating around the same level as your GF.

As far as the numbers for the cost of advertising time, I believe its 1.5x for the capitol cities and double for regional areas.

Ps. Isn't Morgan the fellow that claims the AFL rates better on pay TV?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1jkrtlKFb
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 15z9t.html
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/07/nr ... gs-battle/

Don't compare us to the Superbowl, Pussycat! That's like comparing cheese with bricks and makes no argument either way for geographics as a result!

The reason NRL is show after midnight is because it doesn't rate before and is therefore ratings poison. The only time RL rates in Melbourne is for SOO and that's only because it's an event and not just a regular game.

And RL is boring because it's predictable, no matter what the score is. In AFL draws are exciting and the whole make up of the game is so varied it can fill 3 hours easy.

pussycat wrote:

Is all about population size not the amount of dots on a map. The AFL love to claim some type of superiority because they have a Geographic advantage - Its a myth. In the superbowl they get a $billion for an add, or whatever it is, because they go to such a large audience. it has nothing to do with geographics.

The AFL ratings in Sydney are currently better than the storm in Melbourn. But thats becuse its not shown to after midnight. Last year a few game where shown at decent times and they beat the Swans. The coverage time will change.

I know AFL games drag on , but over 3 hours ? No wonder there so boring. Also you are forgetting, there often is a very exciting extra time period in league. But what about rep football? 3 games of origin all rating around the same level as your GF.

As far as the numbers for the cost of advertising time, I believe its 1.5x for the capitol cities and double for regional areas.

Ps. Isn't Morgan the fellow that claims the AFL rates better on pay TV?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1jkrtlKFb
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 15z9t.html
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/07/nr ... gs-battle/

You're quoting cumulative figures which are grossly flawed for numerous reason that have been described ad nauseum

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Is all about population size not the amount of dots on a map. The AFL love to claim some type of superiority because they have a Geographic advantage - Its a myth. In the superbowl they get a $billion for an add, or whatever it is, because they go to such a large audience. it has nothing to do with geographics.

The AFL ratings in Sydney are currently better than the storm in Melbourn. But thats becuse its not shown to after midnight. Last year a few game where shown at decent times and they beat the Swans. The coverage time will change.

I know AFL games drag on , but over 3 hours ? No wonder there so boring. Also you are forgetting, there often is a very exciting extra time period in league. But what about rep football? 3 games of origin all rating around the same level as your GF.

As far as the numbers for the cost of advertising time, I believe its 1.5x for the capitol cities and double for regional areas.

Ps. Isn't Morgan the fellow that claims the AFL rates better on pay TV?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1jkrtlKFb
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 15z9t.html
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/07/nr ... gs-battle/

You're quoting cumulative figures which are grossly flawed for numerous reason that have been described ad nauseum

And what are you quoting? flawed dubious figures that are out of date. You google anything current on the TV ratings for the two codes and they'll all say similar.

Show us a comparison between both then!

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Is all about population size not the amount of dots on a map. The AFL love to claim some type of superiority because they have a Geographic advantage - Its a myth. In the superbowl they get a $billion for an add, or whatever it is, because they go to such a large audience. it has nothing to do with geographics.

The AFL ratings in Sydney are currently better than the storm in Melbourn. But thats becuse its not shown to after midnight. Last year a few game where shown at decent times and they beat the Swans. The coverage time will change.

I know AFL games drag on , but over 3 hours ? No wonder there so boring. Also you are forgetting, there often is a very exciting extra time period in league. But what about rep football? 3 games of origin all rating around the same level as your GF.

As far as the numbers for the cost of advertising time, I believe its 1.5x for the capitol cities and double for regional areas.

Ps. Isn't Morgan the fellow that claims the AFL rates better on pay TV?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1jkrtlKFb
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 15z9t.html
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/07/nr ... gs-battle/

You're quoting cumulative figures which are grossly flawed for numerous reason that have been described ad nauseum

And what are you quoting? flaw dubious figures that are out of date. You google anything current on the TV ratings for the two codes and they'll all say similar.

What? One poll was this year! You're quoting cumulative figures for an entire season which include SOO, and a longer season. They are not an indication of popularity or overall viewership. If they were why does the AFL GF beat the NRL GF year after year despite being shown on Saturday arvo?

Im sorry to disapoint you but yes they are. Rugby League has greater product and that gives them greater viewing numbers. You were arguing a few post back about the AFL having longer matches (which supposedly gave them some type of supperiority), so whats changed????

The 2012 season is only just beginning. So your not going to get much more up todate then late 2011, which is certainly more uptodate then what you presented. If you want to argue popularity then your in the wrong thread - but rugby league wins that one too

Do you honestly think the AFL have ever rated better on PTV?

TLPG why are you going by the name of X-Man nowadays?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tv-rati ... 6157562636

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-ready-to-cash-in ... fault.aspx

They will this year now that Fox Footy is back.

pussycat wrote:

Im sorry to disapoint you but yes they are. Rugby League has greater product and that gives them greater viewing numbbers. You were arguing a few post back about the AFL having longer matches , so whats changed???? The 2012 season is only just beginning. So your not going to get much more up todate then late 2011, which is certainly more uptodate then what you presented.

Do you honestly think the AFL have ever rated better on PTV?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tv-rati ... 6157562636

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-ready-to-cash-in ... fault.aspx

What?

1. If the NRL was a better product it would win the GF showdown. It rarely ever does.

2. The AFL have longer matches. Why is this relevant? Because 3 hours of AFL on Friday nights counts as 1 game. 4 hours of NRL counts as 2 games. There are 14 hours of viewable NRL each weekend for each fan. If they watch each game they are counted 7 times in cumulative figures. The are 13.5 hours of AFL (this year is different) which if all watched by AFL fans only counts as 4.5 games because the majority are shown against another game. Therefore the cumulative figures are rubbish.

3. The NRL have won payTV year after year because subscription rates are much better in NSW and Qld, fact. The NRL is also exclusive to payTV and they have the rights to some of the key games. The AFL is only ever shown on payTV against another FTA game, Diluting the audience. Plus payTV only got the poorer selection of matches.

4. The poll I showed you was Independant and for last year.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Im sorry to disapoint you but yes they are. Rugby League has greater product and that gives them greater viewing numbbers. You were arguing a few post back about the AFL having longer matches , so whats changed???? The 2012 season is only just beginning. So your not going to get much more up todate then late 2011, which is certainly more uptodate then what you presented.

Do you honestly think the AFL have ever rated better on PTV?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tv-rati ... 6157562636

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-ready-to-cash-in ... fault.aspx

What?

1. If the NRL was a better product it would win the GF showdown. It rarely ever does.

.

the VFL hasn't had the mosted watched football game in Aust since 2005
Rugby League has won every year .. wether it be SOO or our GF

VFL........ an inferior Product

The VFL is on the ABC so that makes sense.

The AFL on the other hand.....

Get the difference yet, Dave? GET IT RIGHT!!

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Im sorry to disapoint you but yes they are. Rugby League has greater product and that gives them greater viewing numbbers. You were arguing a few post back about the AFL having longer matches , so whats changed???? The 2012 season is only just beginning. So your not going to get much more up todate then late 2011, which is certainly more uptodate then what you presented.

Do you honestly think the AFL have ever rated better on PTV?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tv-rati ... 6157562636

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-ready-to-cash-in ... fault.aspx

What?

1. If the NRL was a better product it would win the GF showdown. It rarely ever does.

.

the VFL hasn't had the mosted watched football game in Aust since 2005
Rugby League has won every year .. wether it be SOO or our GF

VFL........ an inferior Product

Wrong! Absolute rubbish. Your SOO in prime time still loses almost every year!

Didn't lose last year, according to the dodgy stats on this site.