Fairfax and News Corp are boycotting the RWC

[fatprop]

One part of "news" won't play to the RWC rules, another part, Foxtel, is setting up a RWC channel full of rugby goodness

 

[Pfitzy]

And, just quietly, and this is about the tenth time I've said this in the last year (mostly to wamberal): they don't give a flying fuck about rugby's problems in Australia.

And you'd have to question whether Fairfax or News do, at times.

*cough* *cough* Growden *cough*
*cough* *cough* Daily NRLegraph *cough*

 

[A mutterer]

probably syndicated/licensed packs

 

[Slim 293]

I'm curious as to whether there's much difference to the restrictions placed on the media by the IOC during the Olympics, and also how it compares to FIFA World Cup reporting guidelines..........

Have World Rugby gone too far or are the two news organistions unjustified in their tantrum?

 

[RugbyFuture]

They're falling for the same thing that the movie studios do in thinking that if things are distributed outside of normal distribution channels it will only result in a loss for the official content providers, when in actuality all evidence (in terms of films) points to the opposite, where unofficial channels put people more onto the official ones.

But traditional media content producers are still about 20 years behind so its all good.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I'm curious as to whether there's much difference to the restrictions placed on the media by the IOC during the Olympics, and also how it compares to FIFA World Cup reporting guidelines....

Have World Rugby gone too far or are the two news organistions unjustified in their tantrum?

I'd have thought that what works for IOC and FIFA would be what IRB (Still coming to terms with the pretentious "World Rugby" name) should be doing - corruption, and backhanders excluded.

 

[Quick Hands]

Everyone loves to rag on News Corp, but Fairfax really isn't much better.

In some ways Fairfax is worse.

 

[TahDan]

I'd have thought that what works for IOC and FIFA would be what IRB (Still coming to terms with the pretentious "World Rugby" name) should be doing - corruption, and backhanders excluded.

Well no not really. Soccer and the Olympics have enough captive audiences that they can afford to be a bit pig headed in their treatment of rights. Rugby has one or two genuinely captive markets in countries with sub 5 million populations, so from a marketing and growth perspective reducing the prospect of coverage for the tournament makes little sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm curious as to whether there's much difference to the restrictions placed on the media by the IOC during the Olympics, and also how it compares to FIFA World Cup reporting guidelines....

Have World Rugby gone too far or are the two news organistions unjustified in their tantrum?

Anyone who thinks that News and Fairfax are doing this for any reason other that $$$$$$$$ is delusional.

Note that Foxtel which is for all intents and purposes owned and run by the same people as News don't appear to be part of the boycott. Or didn't they get the memo? Or is it just that Foxtel will be making money from telecasting RWC?

 

[barbarian]

QH my understanding is that Foxtel are different because they actually have the rights. So they have no issues with broadcasting video content. The newspapers have no such agreement, and thus are locked out of using match highlights.

Here is an interesting article on this and the state of sports media generally from Steve Mascord in the SMH. Obviously has a league bent but he makes some great points:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...orthwhile-to-go-to-games-20150624-ghwbgt.html