Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[pussycat]

More ads risks viewer turn-off, says analyst
Michael Chammas
March 16, 2012

THE NRL must carefully consider the impact more stoppages during games would have on its viewers, according to media analyst Steve Allen.

As revealed in yesterday's Herald, the NRL has been working on a strategy during the past few months to allow for ad breaks at scrums and penalties, and has even considered adding a drinks break to ensure it gets the most out of the upcoming television rights deal.

While Allen, the managing director of media specialists Fusion Strategy, believes the plan to increase the number of breaks during matches to provide more advertising opportunities will maximise the television deal, he warned the future broadcasters of the sport faced a backlash from viewers if the code's governing body was to tinker with the structure of the game.

The NRL hopes to attract a television rights package worth close to the AFL's $1.25 billion deal. But the structure of AFL has historically made the sport more appealing to television networks, which have been able to take advantage of the breaks at each of the quarters, as well as after each goal, to screen commercials.
An AFL match typically lasts around an hour longer than a rugby league game, another factor that Allen believes will ensure the NRL falls short in their bid to attract a similar figure to the AFL.
''This is what's making it impossible, in our view, for the NRL to gain the same kind of bidding and price that the AFL got,'' he said. ''[Adding more stoppages] is their only way forward on this, if they do it properly. Any of the people bidding for the NRL, if they hadn't before, they'd be now thinking about how much more money they can put on the table if they could put more commercial air time into every game.''

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... z1pDOwR3Tb

This is old news, there was a lot of discussion about this last year when David Gyngell first brought it up. Roy provideded further details yesterday. This AFL lover, Chammas, has just rehashed the story ad given his own point of view to go with. This guy has photos of men in tight shorts all over his bed room wall.

This add Idea was first put forward by Channel 9's boss if the NRL hoped to get $1.4 million!

[Xman]

Old news but still relevant and in the media again because it's still true.

You seriously think the NRL are up for 1.4b for a maximum of 16hrs tv every week for 6 months of the year which only rates in 2 states?

[Xman]

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

[Xman]

Another NRL game doesn't make the top 20! What's happened to the NRL ratings for games at 9.30pm??

[Beaussie]

Another week and the delayed NRL Friday night game fails to make the list of top broadcasts.

Down, down, NRL tv ratings are DOWN!

[pussycat]

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

What was so negative about that article???? The part about 7, 9 & 10 all wanting a chunk of the Rugby Legue? and if you do happen to read more its becomes even more positive. - Wow - the possibilities almost blow your mind.

Surely you dont expect the potential bidders to be talking up the product during negotiations?

Foxtel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year . They'll be well aware, if they want to keep it that way then they will have to look after the people that provide them with 75 of its top 100 programs every year!

[Xman]

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

What was so negative about that article???? The part about 7, 9 & 10 all wanting a chunk of the Rugby Legue? and if you do happen to read more its becomes even more positive. - Wow - the possibilities almost blow your mind.

Surely you dont expect the potential bidders to be talking up the product during negotiations?

Foxtel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year . They'll be well aware, if they want to keep it that way then they will have to look after the people that provide them with 75 of its top 100 programs every year!

Conversely you don't expect the owners of the product to be talking the price down do you? All the talk about a deal of over 1billion has come from the Sydney media or the NRL. They are talking it up to pressure the networks into thinking that's the value it deserves to be paid. The reality is probably somewhere in between which in my opinion will be south of 1billion.

[pussycat]

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

What was so negative about that article???? The part about 7, 9 & 10 all wanting a chunk of the Rugby Legue? and if you do happen to read more its becomes even more positive. - Wow - the possibilities almost blow your mind.

Surely you dont expect the potential bidders to be talking up the product during negotiations?

Foxtel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year . They'll be well aware, if they want to keep it that way then they will have to look after the people that provide them with 75 of its top 100 programs every year!

Conversely you don't expect the owners of the product to be talking the price down do you? All the talk about a deal of over 1billion has come from the Sydney media or the NRL. They are talking it up to pressure the networks into thinking that's the value it deserves to be paid. The reality is probably somewhere in between which in my opinion will be south of 1billion.

Who are the owners that are talking down our product?

[Xman]

Where did I say that?

[Beaussie]

Was just looking at Friday's tv ratings.

The Bold and the Beautiful rated better than Friday night NRL.

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/03/fri ... -2012.html

The Friday night prime time 9:30pm NRL game didn't even make the Top 20 broadcasts for the day. No doubt the tv networks have noticed.

$1 Billion fantasy for the NRL.

[Xman]

Was just looking at Friday's tv ratings.

The Bold and the Beautiful rated better than Friday night NRL.

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/03/fri ... -2012.html

The Friday night prime time 9:30pm NRL game didn't even make the Top 20 broadcasts for the day. No doubt the tv networks have noticed.

$1 Billion fantasy for the NRL.

The FN live games rate well, but for 2 reasons only, there are 2 live games combined, and they play the Broncos, by far the most popular NRL team, just about every week. The rest of the NRL ratings this year have been dismal, other than payTV, which fox footy is winning.

1bil?

[pussycat]

The Bronco may be the most popular Qld team, they are certainly not the most popular NRL team.

[Xman]

The Bronco may be the most popular Qld team, they are certainly not the most popular NRL team.

Yeah well they appeal to 2 million of your heartland in one game, the most of any team of either the NRL or AFL. Memberships and crowds say they are the most popular NRL team too.

Ch9 obviously see the benefit in showing them and have noted the dramatic drop in ratings when they aren't shown in Brisbane.

As I have said, imagine if the AFL targeted games like this on FN! Collingwood, westcoast and adelaide crows live to each relevant city each FN!

Shame about the lack of exposure for every other team!

[pussycat]

The Broncos are the only team, currently, in Brisbane in the countries 3rd biggest city. Brisbane benefit greatly from that, but they are a fair way from being the most popular.


Don't you think your TV carriers do the Same thing? Do WA tv show there team each week? Do Sydney show there team each week ? & so on. All TV stations work the same way.

[Xman]

The Broncos are the only team, currently, in Brisbane in the countries 3rd biggest city. Brisbane benefit greatly from that, but they are a fair way from being the most popular.


Don't you think your TV carriers do the Same thing? Do WA tv show there team each week? Do Sydney show there team each week ? & so on. All TV stations work the same way.

Yes but not on Friday night every single week. Friday night football is easily the biggest rating game of the week. Well done ch9. Shame about the other NRl teams who don't get a fair go at the biggest TV spotlight. It also effects the ratings of your other FTa games negatively, as can be shown by the poor results for your last FN and Sunday games.