Talking Footy

Phelpsy wrote:

Comparing ratings on fox alone is a bit misleading. All you are comparing is those people who have fox, a very distinct population. Whereas almost everyone has fta tv. When comparing just fox you have to consider who would take or up and for what reason. If your an nrl fan there has been a big incentive to have fox as basically if you want to watch nrl at any decent level, you need fox . And it has been like this for some time. So I would imagine there is quite the substantial population of fox subscribers who got it for the nrl. I also suspect a proportion of them would flick on the AFL from time to time. For the AFL a lot of games can be accessed on fta therefore the uptake is a lot less . As more and more games , and higher quality games go over to fox, we will see the AFL subscriptions rise , but they are a long way behind those of nrl, as it is only recently AFL supporters needed fox. So I am surprised that AFL ratings on fox are as high as they are .. It would be great to have a state by state breakdown , however I suspect a significant proportion of AFL ratings would come from Sydney and qld given the high update of fox in those states. This would also account for low fta numbers in Sydney as most would watch on fox.

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

Even if your game reached an average of 230k its still 20k to 40k per game behind the NRL, and that if can never happen because of the nature of your game - long winded & boring. so I guess you 'll have to settle for your slighly under 200k average.

Any increase in PTV from a decrease in FTA is just robbing Peter to pay Paul!

will you and X man be amongst the 4m + viewing tomorrow night? - must see viewing.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

Even if your game reached an average of 230k its still 20k to 40k per game behind the NRL, and that if can never happen because of the nature of your game - long winded & boring. so I guess you 'll have to settle for your slighly under 200k average.

Any increase in PTV from a decrease in FTA is just robbing Peter to pay Paul!

will you and X man be amongst the 4m + viewing tomorrow night? - must see viewing.

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

Even if your game reached an average of 230k its still 20k to 40k per game behind the NRL, and that if can never happen because of the nature of your game - long winded & boring. so I guess you 'll have to settle for your slighly under 200k average.

Any increase in PTV from a decrease in FTA is just robbing Peter to pay Paul!

will you and X man be amongst the 4m + viewing tomorrow night? - must see viewing.

You shouldn't knock a game you clearly don't watch closely, some cant get enough of that long winded game and imo at its best it is the most action packed, skillful game in the world. Clearly a lot of people disagree and that's fine. All im trying to show that on TV AFL is just as popular as RL. Apples to apples we rate as good if not better in every sense, except SOO (which the AFL chooses not to do). That's not to say that the NRL can't pass the AFL (in a big way) as a competition in terms of popularity, however at this time i believe that there is no major difference in the ratings and popularity as shown by the similar TV money they both got.
RL is also a great product and there is no reason why both of these games can't continue to grow and get bigger and better, even if they both invade each others home markets.

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

, however I suspect a significant proportion of AFL ratings would come from Sydney and qld given the high update of fox in those states. This would also account for low fta numbers in Sydney as most would watch on fox.

hes serious folks ..... :_<> :_<>

the fta figures are low in NSW & QLD because no one gives a fuck about the fumbles & bumbles
& guess what

they're even lower on pay
Victorian rules is poison on tv ( all forms) north of the murray ..... it is a dud
a disaster
an embarrassment

pop yr head outside yr bubble once & a while & experience reality
you & it aren't in the same post code

eelofwest wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

That's 3 weeks in a row with the AFL averaging about 238k on foxtel. All due to no overlapping games. Now if AFL had some fox exclusive games these ratings would be massive.

Why would there be any difference? for the add free , Hi Deff , live broadcast. - who forks out $50 - 80 a month for the same program with adds and often a lesser quality?

Im a little confused, if you are referring to the higher ratings then.

Your kidding right? Ummm maybe because it is next to impossible to watch 2 games on foxtel at once. All of the games bar Friday night overlap with another game. In the last three weeks none of the games overlap, due to there only being 6 games a week. The difference in ratings was on average 40k more Per game. It's not rocket science.

If you are referring to fox exclusive games, then this would make a huge difference to markets like SA and WA, who don't have to pay a cent to watch their teams week in and week out on FTA TV. The subscription rates in these states would boom.

Even if your game reached an average of 230k its still 20k to 40k per game behind the NRL, and that if can never happen because of the nature of your game - long winded & boring. so I guess you 'll have to settle for your slighly under 200k average.

Any increase in PTV from a decrease in FTA is just robbing Peter to pay Paul!

will you and X man be amongst the 4m + viewing tomorrow night? - must see viewing.

You shouldn't knock a game you clearly don't watch closely, some cant get enough of that long winded game and imo at its best it is the most action packed, skillful game in the world. Clearly a lot of people disagree and that's fine. All im trying to show that on TV AFL is just as popular as RL. Apples to apples we rate as good if not better in every sense, except SOO (which the AFL chooses not to do). That's not to say that the NRL can't pass the AFL (in a big way) as a competition in terms of popularity, however at this time i believe that there is no major difference in the ratings and popularity as shown by the similar TV money they both got.
RL is also a great product and there is no reason why both of these games can't continue to grow and get bigger and better, even if they both invade each others home markets.

Yeah

113m NRL, 5 games Live Fox, 1 live FTA game 2 delayed + 12m SOO + 12m NZ sky+ 6m Rep RL..........143M
123m AFL, 9 games Live Fox, 3 live fta games 1 delayed..........123m

RL 208 telecast games 48 of which are delayed/not live, total = 143m
AFL 207 telecasts of which 80 are played on 2 different mediums(FOX, 7 simulcast) therefore maximizing the ratings.......20 not live, telecast games total = 123m

Yeah really close on tele Pies............... :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Phelpsy wrote:

That's just fta though .. Got to add in fox but not sure how you do that when they don't give a state figure?