Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Nothing to do with reach.

3 hours at 800k is better than 2hrs at 900 and 2 at 250. Yet cumulative numbers say the NRL is 1150k to the AFLs 800. Rubbish! The AFLs game is more valuable because the better audience is for longer. This increases revenue for the network. This is irrespective of the fact that the AFL has more ads in it anyway.

Hence the cumulative audience argument is mute.

yeah ... its called reach you **** halfwit

both codes had around 4 million veiwers a weekend for their 8 games when all audiences were counted
the AFL was on for 24 hours
the NRL for 16

but our 4 Million veiwers are mainly in states with far more value to advertisers then the AFL's
& into the bargain... we had more of them as a code with our extra rep games etc

so again
this is a lame argument ........

I still don't think average audience is reach, which is more about how many people watched the program at one time during the coverage. Average audience is about the average audience size over the time.

It's not a lame argument at all. The NRL claim a cumulative advantage on FNs because they can fit in 2 games, where as the length of the AFL game means they can only fit in one. Yet as an average audience the AFL clearly wins, with substantially more ads televised during their program than the 4 hrs of RL combined. This year will be even better with 4 live games on FTA nation wide.

=D>

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Nothing to do with reach.

3 hours at 800k is better than 2hrs at 900 and 2 at 250. Yet cumulative numbers say the NRL is 1150k to the AFLs 800. Rubbish! The AFLs game is more valuable because the better audience is for longer. This increases revenue for the network. This is irrespective of the fact that the AFL has more ads in it anyway.

Hence the cumulative audience argument is mute.

yeah ... its called reach you **** halfwit

both codes had around 4 million veiwers a weekend for their 8 games when all audiences were counted
the AFL was on for 24 hours
the NRL for 16

but our 4 Million veiwers are mainly in states with far more value to advertisers then the AFL's
& into the bargain... we had more of them as a code with our extra rep games etc

so again
this is a lame argument ........

The NRL claim a cumulative advantage
=D>

we can easily adjust the timing of our game to lengthen coverage ... play quarters etc
its been discussed ... its not impossible for us .. & easy tweak.
plus
we claim more veiwers ... true
they're pretty much all in the same time zone .... true
they're in the states where most advertising is written .... true
we have a more diverse product in terms of multi levels of games played .... true

we're in a great possie to hit a billion
& we will.

Look at it this way: if 800k RL fans are interested in watching FN football they may all watch the first game, and say half watch the second, because it's late and the teams involved are not theirs, and the game isn't live. Cumulative figures say the NRL had 1.2mil viewers. Reality is they actually had 800k fans who watched one game after another.

If the AFL game gets 800k viewers watching for the 3hrs, this is an average and could easily be 1mil for the first 2 hours and 500k for the last hour, especially if the game isn't close and is already over like Perth get every week. Cumulative audience says they only had 800k audience for the night. Yet they clearly had more fans watching at some stage of the night.

This is why cumulative figures cannot be used to gauge popularity or worth when comparing programs that are scheduled entirely differently.

Another example is the Melbourne cup, which gets huge ratings. Yet it only goes for 15 minutes.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

yeah ... its called reach you **** halfwit

both codes had around 4 million veiwers a weekend for their 8 games when all audiences were counted
the AFL was on for 24 hours
the NRL for 16

but our 4 Million veiwers are mainly in states with far more value to advertisers then the AFL's
& into the bargain... we had more of them as a code with our extra rep games etc

so again
this is a lame argument ........

The NRL claim a cumulative advantage
=D>

we can easily adjust the timing of our game to lengthen coverage ... play quarters etc
its been discussed ... its not impossible for us .. & easy tweak.
plus
we claim more veiwers ... true
they're pretty much all in the same time zone .... true
they're in the states where most advertising is written .... true
we have a more diverse product in terms of multi levels of games played .... true

we're in a great possie to hit a billion
& we will.

Sure you can lengthen your game. But then you'll suffer the same problems the AFL do. Not enough time slots to fit all your games on TV without having them overlap and taking viewers away from each other. 2hr games are an advantage when counting cumulatively. In reality they mean little because they do not take in to account the length of the program and therefore the value to the network in commercial timeslots.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

yeah ... its called reach you **** halfwit

both codes had around 4 million veiwers a weekend for their 8 games when all audiences were counted
the AFL was on for 24 hours
the NRL for 16

but our 4 Million veiwers are mainly in states with far more value to advertisers then the AFL's
& into the bargain... we had more of them as a code with our extra rep games etc

so again
this is a lame argument ........

The NRL claim a cumulative advantage
=D>

we can easily adjust the timing of our game to lengthen coverage ... play quarters etc
its been discussed ... its not impossible for us .. & easy tweak.
plus
we claim more veiwers ... true
they're pretty much all in the same time zone .... true
they're in the states where most advertising is written .... true
we have a more diverse product in terms of multi levels of games played .... true

we're in a great possie to hit a billion
& we will.

Yes the way the NRL is set up all along the eastern seaboard, and essentially in 2 states, is an advantage. But Is also a disadvantage if you want to grow. How are you going to appeal to more markets if you keep focussing on 2 states? Will viewers in NSW be interested in a FN game between Perth and Melbourne? What time would you play this game in Perth? 7.30pm? Well then everyone on eastern Australia would need to watch it at 9.30pm, when RL fans don't like watching tv.

Your current arrangment is about as good as it will get for RL. Going national will only compromise it and not result in extra viewers.

I'd have to check, but aren't the ratings for the AFL states watching RL a lot worse than the RL states watching AFL?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So is watching nrl at 9.30, yet this gets very poor ratings

thats the 2nd game dimwit

we've already watched a full game
that rips the AFL a new one

your lame excuses just appear to be getting lamer .. & lamer

So 2 hours is the maximum RL fans can take at one time? Got it. :P

Super Saturday on Fox says HI.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

thats the 2nd game dimwit

we've already watched a full game
that rips the AFL a new one

your lame excuses just appear to be getting lamer .. & lamer

So 2 hours is the maximum RL fans can take at one time? Got it. :P

Super Saturday on Fox says HI.

Fine. At 7.30 pm RL fans are so tired they can only stay awake for 2 more hrs.

NSWAFL wrote:

I'd have to check, but aren't the ratings for the AFL states watching RL a lot worse than the RL states watching AFL?

1.6 million for our 5 biggest games in melb

a 3rd of that number... if yr lucky ... for the 5 biggest flogball games in Sydney & Brissie

And the grand total of all games over the weekend? AFL catches up and takes the lead. That's what matters, Dave.

That's why RL won by 12 million huh?

They didn't win. They lost.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

That's why RL won by 12 million huh?

its actually 15 Million we won by Parra

Xman discovered the real figure for us
good on him too

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

That's why RL won by 12 million huh?

Seriously give it a rest. It's rubbish and you know it. You're as dumb as that other stupid fuck Raider when it comes to tv ratings.

Absolutely correct, Beaussie!