Talking Footy

The_Wookie wrote:

channel 9 wouldnt be overly fond of the 8% dop in ratings across he season. Fox would be similarly unimpressed with a near 20% drop

The_Wookie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Last Year C.9 Had live games on Thursday & Friday night for the 1st 3/4 rounds so comparing apples to apples - we would be ahead there. whilst on Fox after the inclusion of last nights numbers there just a couple of hundred K difference.

You have your own channel, we share ours with darts & 70's cricket reruns? No inducements were required by NRL fans to sign up and watch there football.

Your averages are down - period. Your ratings are down - period. This has nothing to do with an AFL v NRL thing - its a statement of fact that after 3 rounds - all of which have been down fox is down 695k (including last night) on last year, and 379k in metro ratings.

No inducements were required? Maybe thats the problem with the NRLs deal - its not a fans deal - the fans gained nothing from the major competition, while getting a raft of smaller features (state level games and schoolboys). The AFL appeals to its viewers and at the same time sacrifices earnings by forcing broadcasters to show home teams in home states even when other games would almost certainly be both cheaper to broadcast and probably attract a slightly better market share. The AFL takes a financial hit on simulcasting every game thats on 7, with a live broadcast on Fox.

Theres a reason Foxfooty outrates every other STV channel during the footy season - and despite there only being 5 matches on this week!

The_Wookie wrote:

Your averages are down - period. Your ratings are down - period. This has nothing to do with an AFL v NRL thing - its a statement of fact that after 3 rounds - all of which have been down fox is down 695k (including last night) on last year, and 379k in metro ratings.

The_Wookie wrote:

No inducements were required? Maybe thats the problem with the NRLs deal - its not a fans deal - the fans gained nothing from the major competition, while getting a raft of smaller features (state level games and schoolboys). The AFL appeals to its viewers and at the same time sacrifices earnings by forcing broadcasters to show home teams in home states even when other games would almost certainly be both cheaper to broadcast and probably attract a slightly better market share. The AFL takes a financial hit on simulcasting every game thats on 7, with a live broadcast on Fox.

The_Wookie wrote:

Theres a reason Foxfooty outrates every other STV channel during the footy season - and despite there only being 5 matches on this week!

The_Wookie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The NRL have the good of the game at heart. If it was just a matter of more money/more coverage the NRL would have went with one of the other stations. CH.10 were offering four live games. But instead did what was best for the game so that it may prosper well into the future, unlike the AFL who have already sold there soul and have nothing more to offer. D seen the writing on the wall.

despite there being no evidence whatsoever to back that assertion.

The_Wookie wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Last Year C.9 Had live games on Thursday & Friday night for the 1st 3/4 rounds so comparing apples to apples - we would be ahead there. whilst on Fox after the inclusion of last nights numbers there just a couple of hundred K difference.

You have your own channel, we share ours with darts & 70's cricket reruns? No inducements were required by NRL fans to sign up and watch there football.

Your averages are down - period. Your ratings are down - period. This has nothing to do with an AFL v NRL thing - its a statement of fact that after 3 rounds - all of which have been down fox is down 695k (including last night) on last year, and 379k in metro ratings.

No inducements were required? Maybe thats the problem with the NRLs deal - its not a fans deal - the fans gained nothing from the major competition, while getting a raft of smaller features (state level games and schoolboys). The AFL appeals to its viewers and at the same time sacrifices earnings by forcing broadcasters to show home teams in home states even when other games would almost certainly be both cheaper to broadcast and probably attract a slightly better market share. The AFL takes a financial hit on simulcasting every game thats on 7, with a live broadcast on Fox.

Theres a reason Foxfooty outrates every other STV channel during the footy season - and despite there only being 5 matches on this week!

So the AFL uses the excuse that they did not play at any large cricket grounds and this why crowds are down in the first round,

But then try's to compare the NRL fta tv ratings of 2013 which had 2 live fta games for the first 5 rounds to 2014 which only has 1 in the first 5 rounds............. > > > > > >

I am guessing this is Victorian Logic coming through.................... :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

The only part you are spot on is the fox numbers are down.......................that is all you got correct in that statement wookie, that can be put down to the NRL digital app subscription service...

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/di ... vKxhnLbZXJ

The fact is the NRL have had 3 rounds to get their heads together, they have yet to catch last season so the ratings (both fox and metro) are down. THATS FACT. You can have whatever reasons you like to it, and they may even be perfectly logical, but it doesnt change the downward nature of the figures.

Using the app as an excuse is bullshit of the highest order. One notes that your article dates from July last year, according to the SMH three weeks ago (http://www.smh.com.au/business/viewers- ... z2x1gM6Np4) the AFL and NRL official apps for smartphones and tablets have been downloaded 1.8 million and 800,000 times respectively. If the AFL's 74% conversion rate from 2012 (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/new ... six-months) is to be believed (we have no later data on the conversions), it would imply that 1.3 million people actually pay for an AFL subscription versus 800,000 NRL app downloads (not necessarily subcribers). Holy crap, we may have stumbled on part of the reason for the decrease in 2012 AFL tv ratings.

pussycat wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Last Year C.9 Had live games on Thursday & Friday night for the 1st 3/4 rounds so comparing apples to apples - we would be ahead there. whilst on Fox after the inclusion of last nights numbers there just a couple of hundred K difference.

You have your own channel, we share ours with darts & 70's cricket reruns? No inducements were required by NRL fans to sign up and watch there football.

Your averages are down - period. Your ratings are down - period. This has nothing to do with an AFL v NRL thing - its a statement of fact that after 3 rounds - all of which have been down fox is down 695k (including last night) on last year, and 379k in metro ratings.

No inducements were required? Maybe thats the problem with the NRLs deal - its not a fans deal - the fans gained nothing from the major competition, while getting a raft of smaller features (state level games and schoolboys). The AFL appeals to its viewers and at the same time sacrifices earnings by forcing broadcasters to show home teams in home states even when other games would almost certainly be both cheaper to broadcast and probably attract a slightly better market share. The AFL takes a financial hit on simulcasting every game thats on 7, with a live broadcast on Fox.

Theres a reason Foxfooty outrates every other STV channel during the footy season - and despite there only being 5 matches on this week!

So the AFL uses the excuse that they did not play at any large cricket grounds and this why crowds are down in the first round,

But then try's to compare the NRL fta tv ratings of 2013 which had 2 live fta games for the first 5 rounds to 2014 which only has 1 in the first 5 rounds............. > > > > > >

I am guessing this is Victorian Logic coming through.................... :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

The only part you are spot on is the fox numbers are down.......................that is all you got correct in that statement wookie, that can be put down to the NRL digital app subscription service...

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/di ... vKxhnLbZXJ

The fact is the NRL have had 3 rounds to get their heads together, they have yet to catch last season so the ratings (both fox and metro) are down. THATS FACT. You can have whatever reasons you like to it, and they may even be perfectly logical, but it doesnt change the downward nature of the figures.

Using the app as an excuse is bullshit of the highest order. One notes that your article dates from July last year, according to the SMH three weeks ago (http://www.smh.com.au/business/viewers- ... z2x1gM6Np4) the AFL and NRL official apps for smartphones and tablets have been downloaded 1.8 million and 800,000 times respectively. If the AFL's 74% conversion rate from 2012 (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/new ... six-months) is to be believed (we have no later data on the conversions), it would imply that 1.3 million people actually pay for an AFL subscription versus 800,000 NRL app downloads (not necessarily subcribers). Holy crap, we may have stumbled on part of the reason for the decrease in 2012 AFL tv ratings.

Bullshit? It would seem they are different Apps.



http://www.techworld.com.au/article/455 ... phone_app/

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-live-app-awarded ... fault.aspx

And the NRL get a commission out of all this. While the AFL are still thinking about (HMM maybe next contract > ).

Is there any wonder why the NRL is No.1

pussycat wrote:

Thu TV #AFL #AFLTigersBlues Seven 488k 7mate 110k PTV = 237 about 1m.

There are two ways of looking at those numbers(depending on what side of the Murray you live on.). Looking at it from a 'North of the Murray' perspective you would think poor, maybe even piss poor. But it you lived South of the Murray you would probably be ecstatic - though not totally.

Raiderdave wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Thu TV #AFL #AFLTigersBlues Seven 488k 7mate 110k PTV = 237 about 1m.

There are two ways of looking at those numbers(depending on what side of the Murray you live on.). Looking at it from a 'North of the Murray' perspective you would think poor, maybe even piss poor. But it you lived South of the Murray you would probably be ecstatic - though not totally.

2 of the biggest Melbourne VFL clubs
on 2 forms of coverage on a Thursday Night
& we get approx 1 million veiwers all up

1 of the biggest Sydney NRL clubs ( Souths) playing a moderately sized Sydney NRL club ( Roosters) also on a Thursday night
on .. 1... form of coverage
& we get 1.348 Million all up




for the 55th time this week folks


it isn't a contest

Raiderdave wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Thu TV #AFL #AFLTigersBlues Seven 488k 7mate 110k PTV = 237 about 1m.

There are two ways of looking at those numbers(depending on what side of the Murray you live on.). Looking at it from a 'North of the Murray' perspective you would think poor, maybe even piss poor. But it you lived South of the Murray you would probably be ecstatic - though not totally.

2 of the biggest Melbourne VFL clubs
on 2 forms of coverage on a Thursday Night
& we get approx 1 million veiwers all up

1 of the biggest Sydney NRL clubs ( Souths) playing a moderately sized Sydney NRL club ( Roosters) also on a Thursday night
on .. 1... form of coverage
& we get 1.348 Million all up




for the 55th time this week folks


it isn't a contest

Xman wrote:

Amazing how after over a year you still can't include foxtel in Sydneys ratings


The AFL ratings have been disappointing so far this year but there's one reason: this is the first time the AFL have had 2 rounds prior to day light savings finishing. Last nights live AFL game was shown at 4.30pm into Perth add to that its on 7 mate. For our second biggest market to receive a FN game outside prime time will definitely affect ratings. This will improve in 2 rounds when they get the games at 5.30pm

Oh and lets not forget its the best of 2 NRL games v 1 AFL game