Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[NlolRL]

Its the nuances in the tv deals that generate the cash, so you can all fuck off with your pleading not to discuss the differences and begging for raw numbers.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!! I don't think that's right Wookser!!! It's quite ok to talk both. That's why I set up that other beautiful thread where all the "nuances" can be gone over with a fine tooth comb away from the reality of the actual figures.

Raw numbers are exactly that. They actually show who is watching what.

The "nuanced" arguments are subjective, opinionated, prone to over reach and emotive to some.

It makes sense!!!!

ch7 wouldnt care that their 600k audience on a Saturday night over 3 hrs is from 2 games. All they care about is it's a single telecast into each state. They wouldnt care about an average ratings for both games, but you guys do.

Foxtel wouldnt care if they get 100k ratings from a Saturday night because they know they also get another 120k for another AFL game on another channel.

[Terry]

Its the nuances in the tv deals that generate the cash, so you can all fuck off with your pleading not to discuss the differences and begging for raw numbers.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!! I don't think that's right Wookser!!! It's quite ok to talk both. That's why I set up that other beautiful thread where all the "nuances" can be gone over with a fine tooth comb away from the reality of the actual figures.

Raw numbers are exactly that. They actually show who is watching what.

The "nuanced" arguments are subjective, opinionated, prone to over reach and emotive to some.

It makes sense!!!!

ch7 wouldnt care that their 600k audience on a Saturday night over 3 hrs is from 2 games. All they care about is it's a single telecast into each state. They wouldnt care about an average ratings for both games, but you guys do.

Foxtel wouldnt care if they get 100k ratings from a Saturday night because they know they also get another 120k for another AFL game on another channel.

Right!!!!!!!!!! So your saying Ch7 and Foxtel don't care about their ratings???? So two companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to broadcast the respective sports don't actually care about the actual numbers on a Saturday night?????

This is an incredible revelation!!!!! Almost unbelievable!!!!! It's like it just don't make sense!!!!! Like it's kinda idiotic!!! Ummmm.............yeah..........it's complete and utter nuts pal!!!!!

You're gonna have to do better than this pal!!!! Shhhhhhhhhheeeeesssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!

[NlolRL]

Right!!!!!!!!!! So your saying Ch7 and Foxtel don't care about their ratings???? So two companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to broadcast the respective sports don't actually care about the actual numbers on a Saturday night?????

This is an incredible revelation!!!!! Almost unbelievable!!!!! It's like it just don't make sense!!!!! Like it's kinda idiotic!!! Ummmm.............yeah..........it's complete and utter nuts pal!!!!!

You're gonna have to do better than this pal!!!! Shhhhhhhhhheeeeesssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

[Terry]

Right!!!!!!!!!! So your saying Ch7 and Foxtel don't care about their ratings???? So two companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to broadcast the respective sports don't actually care about the actual numbers on a Saturday night?????

This is an incredible revelation!!!!! Almost unbelievable!!!!! It's like it just don't make sense!!!!! Like it's kinda idiotic!!! Ummmm.............yeah..........it's complete and utter nuts pal!!!!!

You're gonna have to do better than this pal!!!! Shhhhhhhhhheeeeesssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

Great post pal. Nonsensical, but a good try. Now please transfer it over to the TV scheduling thread created for non Ratings issues. This thread is about numbers.

Thanks pal!!!!!!!!!

[leeroy*NRL*]

And about 140 of ours overlap with another game FFS. How is that even close to comparable?

most are partial overlaps and some are half overlaps
and rest are full, though who in Melbourne wants to watch Suns v West Coast game, they don't.
they will get a Richmond v Essendon Game on FTA! and the very small minority can watch the Suns Game lol

3 of the Saturday games have full overlap, and 2 have partial overlap. 1 Sunday game has full overlap and 2 partial overlap.

Lets take last night for example. If played in isolation Bulldogs v saints would rate at least 600k on FTA and 150k on Fox. Playing 2 games at once got 850k but divided by 2 is 425k average compared to 750k for a single isolated game. Targeting multiple home markets with 2 games shows an advantage but the average still drops well below that of a single game

to put it simple, it is an advantage and disadvantage.
you have some games that overlap, but these overlap games are being shown on FTA into home states.
you lose some but you gain some with a wider audience

[leeroy*NRL*]

If concurrent games isn't an issue why does the NRL do everything possible to avoid it?

because the NRL tv deal is set up different, with FOX holding rights to 5 games.
and only having 3 games on FTA.

if you put FOX exclusive games at the same time, it loses value.

but with the AFL if you did this it is difference as they have an FTA to that game in some states.
and getting a wider audience

[leeroy*NRL*]

I can’t remember but thought when the AFL was playing games throughout the week last year .. so not overlapping, they won the ratings?

as stated before,

AFL reverted to an Exclusive Primetime scheduled last year.
where alot of games were played Primetime through the week Monday to Sunday.

remember the Huge event of 5 weeks of football..

add this with Melbourne in Lockdown, unable to go anywhere and locked in homes at 8pm
and you get what Happened with ratings..

[leeroy*NRL*]

Right!!!!!!!!!! So your saying Ch7 and Foxtel don't care about their ratings???? So two companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to broadcast the respective sports don't actually care about the actual numbers on a Saturday night?????

This is an incredible revelation!!!!! Almost unbelievable!!!!! It's like it just don't make sense!!!!! Like it's kinda idiotic!!! Ummmm.............yeah..........it's complete and utter nuts pal!!!!!

You're gonna have to do better than this pal!!!! Shhhhhhhhhheeeeesssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

AFL got more for its TV rights because of more advertising spots, it is as simple as that..

[NlolRL]

Right!!!!!!!!!! So your saying Ch7 and Foxtel don't care about their ratings???? So two companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to broadcast the respective sports don't actually care about the actual numbers on a Saturday night?????

This is an incredible revelation!!!!! Almost unbelievable!!!!! It's like it just don't make sense!!!!! Like it's kinda idiotic!!! Ummmm.............yeah..........it's complete and utter nuts pal!!!!!

You're gonna have to do better than this pal!!!! Shhhhhhhhhheeeeesssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

AFL got more for its TV rights because of more advertising spots, it is as simple as that..

relevant for FTA but not really for fox or kayo. Also, the networks understand the value of similar ratings over a longer time period. They probably place far greater value over the AFL's 600k over 3hrs compared to the NRL's 450k over 2hrs

[Terry]

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

AFL got more for its TV rights because of more advertising spots, it is as simple as that..

relevant for FTA but not really for fox or kayo. Also, the networks understand the value of similar ratings over a longer time period. They probably place far greater value over the AFL's 600k over 3hrs compared to the NRL's 450k over 2hrs

"They probably" ain't gonna cut it pal. You just made that up. It's meaningless. Another post that should be on the scheduling and non ratings thread.

[leeroy*NRL*]

You're either being deliberately ignorant or you're a moron. I said they wouldnt care about the fact they telecast 2 games to get what amounts to a single figure of ratings. Neither would be halving the ratings and saying "damn we only averaged ...k ratings per game". They would be well aware of the repercussions of splitting audiences.

When the AFL sold their rights to ch7 and fox all parties would have known there were 9 games per round on offer (plus finals) but only about 18hrs of telecast time to air 27 hrs of sport. They would have known games must overlap. They would not have expected all games to average the same as a game shown in isolation. That's what they purchased, and they still paid the AFL more.

AFL got more for its TV rights because of more advertising spots, it is as simple as that..

relevant for FTA but not really for fox or kayo. Also, the networks understand the value of similar ratings over a longer time period. They probably place far greater value over the AFL's 600k over 3hrs compared to the NRL's 450k over 2hrs

agree relevant to FTA and not for FOX>
AFL Telecast is not 1 hour longer..

though an AFL Telecast getting 1 million viewers to NRL telecast getting 1 million viewers.
AFL is most certainty more valuable,
with 30mins longer and increased advertising opportunities.

In that 30mins that is longer, AFL probably get more Adverts than the entire NRL Game.
now that is saying something...

[pussycat Mark 11]

LOL's you really struggle with this overlapping PTV thing .You have(in there entirety) almost as many PTV as we do. and if one game doesnt suit or the scores blow out . you can simply change the channel.

R1 - 7 matches (half an hour off having 8)
R2 - 7 matches (half an hour off having 8)
R3 - 9 matches
R4 - 7m
R5 - 6m
R6 - 7m
R7 - 6m
r8 - 6m
R9 - 6m
R10 - 6m


And for any matches that have overlap they get extra fta, also some that don't. How many would be watching more than 6 or 7 matches a week?

God your a winger LOL's

And a very bad loser

[NlolRL]

LOL's you really struggle with this overlapping PTV thing .You have(in there entirety) almost as many PTV as we do. and if one game doesnt suit or the scores blow out . you can simply change the channel.

R1 - 7 matches (half an hour off having 8)
R2 - 7 matches (half an hour off having 8)
R3 - 9 matches
R4 - 7m
R5 - 6m
R6 - 7m
R7 - 6m
r8 - 6m
R9 - 6m
R10 - 6m


And for any matches that have overlap they get extra fta, also some that don't. How many would be watching more than 6 or 7 matches a week?

God your a winger LOL's

And a very bad loser

other than the terrible spelling in this post I have no idea what you're talking about

[NlolRL]

AFL got more for its TV rights because of more advertising spots, it is as simple as that..

relevant for FTA but not really for fox or kayo. Also, the networks understand the value of similar ratings over a longer time period. They probably place far greater value over the AFL's 600k over 3hrs compared to the NRL's 450k over 2hrs

agree relevant to FTA and not for FOX>
AFL Telecast is not 1 hour longer..

though an AFL Telecast getting 1 million viewers to NRL telecast getting 1 million viewers.
AFL is most certainty more valuable,
with 30mins longer and increased advertising opportunities.

In that 30mins that is longer, AFL probably get more Adverts than the entire NRL Game.
now that is saying something...

it is. But last year has shown the effect of a longer telecast on average ratings. So when the AFL rates 600k this number may well have been 650-700k if averaged over 2hrs. Another reason cumulative season ratings are irrelevant

[Terry]

relevant for FTA but not really for fox or kayo. Also, the networks understand the value of similar ratings over a longer time period. They probably place far greater value over the AFL's 600k over 3hrs compared to the NRL's 450k over 2hrs

agree relevant to FTA and not for FOX>
AFL Telecast is not 1 hour longer..

though an AFL Telecast getting 1 million viewers to NRL telecast getting 1 million viewers.
AFL is most certainty more valuable,
with 30mins longer and increased advertising opportunities.

In that 30mins that is longer, AFL probably get more Adverts than the entire NRL Game.
now that is saying something...

it is. But last year has shown the effect of a longer telecast on average ratings. So when the AFL rates 600k this number may well have been 650-700k if averaged over 2hrs. Another reason cumulative season ratings are irrelevant

Great story pal. If only the ratings companies adjusted the numbers the way you want 'em to do lolololol.

And another great post for scheduling and other non ratings thread!!!!!!