Rugby TV Ratings 2016

[mst]

Honestly, I just don't think the Boks are a big of a draw as they used to be. I'd actually have the AB's, BL's probably England ahead of them. Add in the poor form and everything else.

As a draw card either are the Wallabies. If you compare the Springboks and Wallabies side by side at the moment they are scarily similar. At least the can blame it on politics and quotas. Our issues are self inflicted.

 

[wamberal]

As a draw card either are the Wallabies. If you compare the Springboks and Wallabies side by side at the moment they are scarily similar. At least the can blame it on politics and quotas. Our issues are self inflicted.

That is very harsh. The issues are mostly to do with (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the attractiveness of the opposition winter codes.


If there was no AFL, for example, how would we look as a code?

 

[mst]

So not as disastrous as the Gold Coast Argie game of some years back (<120k Fox, <200k FTA) but still seriously low.

If anyone ever wonders why we can't get more FTA coverage just point them to these numbers.

Hopefully we don't test those lows next week, but given who might be on sat night for the NRL and AFL, we just might .

Sadly I think the ARU has sailed us in to waters where we are now at the mercy of the Sporting Gods. Rugby is stuck somewhere in-between being dead in the water or adrift; with no wind and at the mercy of the currents.

It wont change for a long while yet as they (the ARU) have through grossly incompetent navigation, and no clue of a destination committed us to these backwater ratings and attendances due to ineptitude and egos ahead of competence.

Lets face it, the Wallabies winning used to be the silver bullet. But that no longer is the case. The magic bullet is almost a myth as it would need several wins (at least 3 out of 4 consecutive games) against the AB's to kick start interest and ratings.

The Wallabies have crossed a threshold and the ARU really need to get some people with business and marketing acumen. Wins are valueless right now. We need the product, (the Wallabies) to capture hearts and minds, be interesting and especially be entertaining. Our current team (coaches and players) wont recover the audience we have lost nor ever expand it.

The Pumas are a good example to consider right now. For 50mins they played really entertaining rugby. It showed passions, risk, skill and enthusiasm, and it was really captivating. They lost but we all loved watching it will tune in again as they are getting closer to winning.

So until the slate is wiped clean and the chance taken on fresh-blood we just need to hope we don't run out of supplies (money), the NRL or AFL currents don't smash us in to the rocks or the "SS A League" doesn't beat us to a newly discovered bountiful lands.

 

[mst]

That is very harsh. The issues are mostly to do with (a) the Laws of the Game and (b) the attractiveness of the opposition winter codes.


If there was no AFL, for example, how would we look as a code?

The laws apply universally - it makes no difference to the NH, Asia or to the Kiwis. I see plenty of entertaining games with the same laws.

With out AFL, the NRL would be the problem. Without NRL Soccer would be the problem.....etc etc. Its a moot point and ignoring reality.

Have a look at the UK. Rugby competes against the round ball game and league.

We just are too slow and to stupid to compete. We are still using the same structure from the amateur times. The AFL was borne from the unpopular "gutting"of the VFL to make it AFL.

The reality is AFL comes from and expansion of the VFL. Why - teams were struggling financially like the Swans (Old Sth Melb).

The NRL is built on blue collar money in 2 states primarily.

Yet good old Rugby - private schools, top end of town, white collar money, smart educated people, national team and international footprint (global market)......um, and look at it!

Rugby is on the brink but the thought of gutting SS or the like to save the game? We will kill the game before we are willing to change like the VFL did to be the powerhouse they are today.

 

[half]

mst, your post had me look at and compare our finances with our closet rival soccer. I wanted to see if there is any evidence of incompetence, and or sign our governing body is poorly lead.


What better way than to compare the financials, remember soccer, in 2013, 2014 and 2015 had a 40 million dollar media deal and in the other years it was 17 million.

Side note the FFA financials just give a figure for total revenue, the ARU break theirs down. I have listed in this order, ARU revenue, ARU sponsorships, FFA revenue and noted FFA WC years. I am told current FFA sponsorship is almost 50 million this year.

I will let the figures speak for themselves
Year ===== ARU revenue === ARU Sponsorship === FFA Revenue
2008 ==== 76 million ======= 21 million ======== 96 million
2009 ==== 71 million ======= 24 million ======== 85 million
2010 ==== 68 million ======= 23 million ======== 112 m WCY
2011 ==== 72 million ======= 23 million ======== 92 million
2012 ==== 97 million ======= 27 million ======== 96 million
2013 ==== 146 million ====== 28 million ======== 76 million
2014 ==== 78 million ======= 21 million ======== 129 m WCY
2015 ==== 85 million ======= 23 million ======== 163 m ACY

 

[mst]

So if I am reading this correctly the ARU were:

YEAR $Million
2008 +1
2009 +14
2010 -21
2011 +3
2012 +28
2013 +98 : to this point total +$123 million on the FFA. Coincidentally the year O'Neill left and Pulver appointed and revealed game nearly broke.

So with (substantially) less they jumped the ARU and got more at this point - how?

2014 -30
2015 -61 : slipped by -$91

The biggest issue is the 2014/2015 figures. Why are the ARU $91mil down on the FFA? That's a huge war-chest they have!

I can only guess that some of the difference in revenue could be down to the fact that Rugby is paying to get people to watch it. The ARU fork out $300K for a select privileged group of about 27K in a small catchment to get the Shute Shield on TV and we get FOXTEL to absorb the cost of telecasting the NRC as part of our TV deal. We don't have any real domestic income as we don't have much of a product (so the answer to the whinging about why we are not on FTA is pretty obvious) but it doesn't seem to worry anybody. Imagine if we could front up with a 32 team domestic competition! (trade in Brisbane's Global Rugby 10's maybe?)

Compared to the FFA who are expanding their domestic footprint via the FFA cup to compete against the rival codes (yes that includes us!!) and increase their revenue by selling more product and gaining sponsor dollars etc.

Its embarrassing they can have national domestic competition televised with 32 teams, and the best we can offer is 8 NRC teams that are poorly supported but our only hope at this point.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...e/news-story/c6f6a86308a8237f7340c11b4e906664

 

[Strewthcobber]

So if I am reading this correctly the ARU were:

YEAR $Million
2008 +1
2009 +14
2010 -21
2011 +3
2012 +28
2013 +98 : to this point total +$123 million on the FFA. Coincidentally the year O'Neill left and Pulver appointed and revealed game nearly broke.

So with (substantially) less they jumped the ARU and got more at this point - how?

2014 -30
2015 -61 : slipped by -$91

The biggest issue is the 2014/2015 figures. Why are the ARU $91mil down on the FFA? That's a huge war-chest they have!

I can only guess that some of the difference in revenue could be down to the fact that Rugby is paying to get people to watch it. The ARU fork out $300K for a select privileged group of about 27K in a small catchment to get the Shute Shield on TV and we get FOXTEL to absorb the cost of telecasting the NRC as part of our TV deal. We don't have any real domestic income as we don't have much of a product (so the answer to the whinging about why we are not on FTA is pretty obvious) but it doesn't seem to worry anybody. Imagine if we could front up with a 32 team domestic competition! (trade in Brisbane's Global Rugby 10's maybe?)

Compared to the FFA who are expanding their domestic footprint via the FFA cup to compete against the rival codes (yes that includes us!!) and increase their revenue by selling more product and gaining sponsor dollars etc.

Its embarrassing they can have national domestic competition televised with 32 teams, and the best we can offer is 8 NRC teams that are poorly supported but our only hope at this point.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...e/news-story/c6f6a86308a8237f7340c11b4e906664

The Asian cup tournament skews 2015, like the Lions tour skews the ARU numbers and the World Cups do for both organisations.

As a resilt, year on year comparisons don't make much sense.

It's also worth pointing out that the FFA had an additional $60m in the Asia cup year but only broke even. There was no substantial surplus as a result of it.

 

[half]

^^^^^

Maybe hand picking line items is OK.

The simple facts are sponsorship grew from 2008 to 2015 from 21 million to 23 million or just under 10%.

Our total revenue grew from 76 to 85 million say 9 million just under 12 %.

This is well below inflation, tis not good.

 

[wamberal]

The laws apply universally - it makes no difference to the NH, Asia or to the Kiwis. I see plenty of entertaining games with the same laws.

Not many Australians are interested in our game, with the same laws.

With out AFL, the NRL would be the problem. Without NRL Soccer would be the problem...etc etc. Its a moot point and ignoring reality.

Not its not, it is the reality. We face the AFL and the NRL, which are both designed specifically for the local sporting tastes. Soccer is a simple game to understand, just like the AFL and NRL.

Have a look at the UK. Rugby competes against the round ball game and league.

So what? Different place, different history. They are not us, we are not them.

We just are too slow and to stupid to compete. We are still using the same structure from the amateur times. The AFL was borne from the unpopular "gutting"of the VFL to make it AFL.

The reality is AFL comes from and expansion of the VFL. Why - teams were struggling financially.

You do know that the game was hugely popular back than in states other than Victoria, do you? As it happens, I was living in Victoria when the AFL was mooted, and the main driving factor was to be able to offer a national competition to national advertisers. Obviously some Melbourne franchises were either moved or merged, and South Melbourne was one of them. This was unpopular with their 6000 local supporters. Nobody else cared much.

The NRL is built on blue collar money in 2 states primarily.

Are you serious? They are doing bloody well in all sectors in both Queensland and NSW, and making huge progress in Victoria. Money is money. Sponsors are sponsors. Ratings are ratings. They are all colour blind. You need to open your eyes a bit.

Yet good old Rugby - private schools, top end of town, white collar money, smart educated people, national team and international footprint (global market)..um, and look at it!

Yes, look at it. That is what I have been doing, and it is pretty obvious that all levels of society actually prefer the other winter codes. As demographic and other trends continue, you can expect the popularity of rugbby in the private schools to diminish, just as it is in the state schools.

My concern is not about what is happening in the NH, or in Asia (not a lot, by the way, other than in Japan) or New Zealand. I was commenting on the Australian sporting landscape.

In terms of facing reality, there is absolutely no doubt that the fact that the rules of both AFL and NRL are administered here in Australia, for Australian sporting tastes, is an undeniable advantage. Soccer is soccer, it has waned and waxed. It will always be around. It is also a very simple game to understand with very few stoppages, just like the other two.

 

[Pfitzy]

Lets face it, the Wallabies winning used to be the silver bullet. But that no longer is the case. The magic bullet is almost a myth as it would need several wins (at least 3 out of 4 consecutive games) against the AB's to kick startinterest and ratings.

Has not been the case for a long time. At ANY level. For example:

2014 Waratahs get 38k to Brumbies semifinal
2014 Waratahs get 62k to home final and win the fucking thing in dramatic circumstances.

Attendance at 2015 first home game on a Sunday afternoon for defending champions: 18k.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My concern is not about what is happening in the NH, or in Asia (not a lot, by the way, other than in Japan) or New Zealand. I was commenting about the Australian sporting landscape. Who cares about why the NRL and AFL are much stronger today than our code?


In one sense, it does not matter. But in terms of facing reality, there is absolutely no doubt that the fact that the rules of both games are administered here in Australia, for Australian sporting tastes, is an undeniable advantage.

If you check, I think you will see that the NRL is actually becoming very popular in Victoria (check the ratings for SOO) and that good old Aussie Rules was being played seriously in all the southern states, not just Victoria, for a hundred years before the AFL came into being.


Your opinion that the NRL is all "blue collar money" is pretty shallow.

You have to be careful as not to confuse SOO ratings witg general interest in the NRL. We Australians love an event. Which SOO fits nicely. On another note, SOO ratings have actually been declining over the last couple of series.

 

[wamberal]

SOO ratings have been pretty good in Victoria, which is outside the "two states", that is the point I was making, perhaps a bit poorly.


BTW, we can expect FTA and cable ratings to fall with the introduction of other media offerings. Not much comfort there for us, either. It will affect all sports who do not get on the alternative bandwagons.

 

[RedsHappy]

Same Test, RSA v Wallabies, same venue, Suncorp

Crowds

2006 47,000
2013 42,000
2015 37,000
2016 30,000

Note these figures are not rebased for substantial greater Brisbane population growth since 2006, which has been at least 10% over the last decade, so the relative population-share adjusted decline is worse than the nominal decline.

 

[Ignoto]

Same Test, RSA v Wallabies, same venue, Suncorp

Crowds

2006 47,000
2013 42,000
2015 37,000
2016 30,000

Note these figures are not rebased for substantial greater Brisbane population growth since 2006, which has been at least 10% over the last decade, so the relative population-share adjusted decline is worse than the nominal decline.

Figure was given at the ground of around 32,000ish. It was also the first game where it absolutely pissed down rain all afternoon and didn't stop until 40 minutes before kick off. As a result, walk up numbers would have been down.

Couple that with the Wallabies looking average and same with the Saffers it's no wonder why it was down. On the face of it, nothing too alarming but the trend can't continue.

 

[RedsHappy]

Figure was given at the ground of around 32,000ish. It was also the first game where it absolutely pissed down rain all afternoon and didn't stop until 40 minutes before kick off. As a result, walk up numbers would have been down.

Couple that with the Wallabies looking average and same with the Saffers it's no wonder why it was down. On the face of it, nothing too alarming but the trend can't continue.

- I try to be careful with facts. The official figure released by Suncorp was 30, 327. It was not 32,000, even on the screens at the game. See: http://www.austadiums.com/sport/crowds.php

- The 2006 Suncorp crowd of 47,000 vs RSA came off the back of the failed 2005 end of the EJ (Eddie Jones) era when the Wallabies looked awful and were getting awful media coverage.

- the rain and walk-up had little to do with it all. I noted in another post here (well before the game) my alarm when I could see the ARU via Ticketek was clearly only marketing (and thus expecting) around 30-35,000 Suncorp seats. Large tracts of the stadium for ticket sales were greyed-out as 'Unavailable'.

- the difference in gross income to the ARU in a Suncorp crowd of 47,000 and one of 30,000 would be at least $1.2m, most of this would be net income or close to it as the ground fees are paid out of the base load.

 

[Tip]

When the cheapest adult ticket is 90 dollars PLUS a ridiculous 7 dollar "booking fee"...

One simply puts his feet up on the coach and buys a bottle of Red twice as expensive.

 

[GPSM]

You have to be careful as not to confuse SOO ratings witg general interest in the NRL. We Australians love an event. Which SOO fits nicely. On another note, SOO ratings have actually been declining over the last couple of series.

Really ? I think you might find that SOO ratings are holding, there has been drop off in certain markets, particularly when there is a dead rubber, but NRL events have had 4 of the top 5 TV events each of the last couple of years:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d/news-story/c1f34e1c1f523f4e63a9026e7d9aa935

 

[RedsHappy]

When the cheapest adult ticket is 90 dollars PLUS a ridiculous 7 dollar "booking fee".

One simply puts his feet up on the coach and buys a bottle of Red twice as expensive.

I am guilty here Tip as this thread is meant to deal with TV ratings. I posted the scary Suncorp crowd figure trends (in one of our two rugby heartlands) as I think they will roughly correlate with media-viewed trends and crowd figures are certainly watched by new or existing sponsors in terms of code support levels generally.

I do agree with you though: Wallaby tickets have increasingly become weakened value at most levels. I bought 18 premium Wallaby Test tickets for family and friends this year - average cost c. $160 - and I have vowed never to buy that many or at that price point ever again and I am a passionate fan and supporter of the code here.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Really ? I think you might find that SOO ratings are holding, there has been drop off in certain markets, particularly when there is a dead rubber, but NRL events have had 4 of the top 5 TV events each of the last couple of years:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d/news-story/c1f34e1c1f523f4e63a9026e7d9aa935

Not according to this article published June 30 of this year.http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...p/news-story/b1e7afa70b9b881d68ec7b78ad7f73c1

 

[mst]

Not many Australians are interested in our game, with the same laws. So based on your statesmen we really should be positioning as a niche product and stop competing against the other winter codes? Its a pretty broad-brush statement and would conflict with the whole TV strategy that being pushed - and sounds like an excuse to be frank.

Not its not, it is the reality. We face the AFL and the NRL, which are both designed specifically for the local sporting tastes. Soccer is a simple game to understand, just like the AFL and NRL. Another broad-brush statement. Lets face it, if you could design sport to suit someone already would have. People watch the sport they like regardless of where they come from or are located. Even players switch codes. Again, an excuse mindset.

So what? Different place, different history. They are not us, we are not them. You do know that the game was hugely popular back than in states other than Victoria, do you? As it happens, I was living in Victoria when the AFL was mooted, and the main driving factor was to be able to offer a national competition to national advertisers. Obviously some Melbourne franchises were either moved or merged, and South Melbourne was one of them. This was unpopular with their 6000 local supporters. Nobody else cared much. More so than you know. I even had the privileged position of having family on both sides of the AFL push in to Canberra from when it was in its conceptual stage to now, where its almost decimated the local competition and clubs. One Cbr team remains in the NEAFL which really shows the statement about AFL being specifically designed is ridiculous.

Are you serious? They are doing bloody well in all sectors in both Queensland and NSW, and making huge progress in Victoria. Money is money. Sponsors are sponsors. Ratings are ratings. They are all colour blind. You need to open your eyes a bit. To the fact that while we jibber and make excuses other coeds are progressing and expanding their domestic footprint?What domestic product do we have? Look at the SS as a perfect example of institutionalised thinking. As you state, the competition is making inroads in to other markets; money is money. But no, not to Rugby, we want history and the patch where I pissed its outline. Its ridiculous that one of the key battle in NSW is how to covet and keep the SS on a foundation on ARU handouts - WTF? Has the penny not dropped about where the money comes from. It like dealing with children FFS.


Yes, look at it. That is what I have been doing, and it is pretty obvious that all levels of society actually prefer the other winter codes. As demographic and other trends continue, you can expect the popularity of rugby in the private schools to diminish, just as it is in the state schools. Nope, it rugby who erected the class wall, and the other codes exploit it. The other codes are after the average punter (a punter is a punter, they do care to discriminate), who are we marketing to? According to your arguments above the general populous don't like rugby due to its laws, prefers designer sports like the AFL and NRL and want to try to make out rugby is different to the other codes like using select history such as AFL being played in other states don't realise that right there is the ingrained counter argument. The AFL united the the game across states, We can get our shit together to work to sort out rugby in NSW, let alone nationally. We just don't have that level of maturity the other codes had 10+ years ago.

My concern is not about what is happening in the NH, or in Asia (not a lot, by the way, other than in Japan) or New Zealand. I was commenting on the Australian sporting landscape.

In terms of facing reality, there is absolutely no doubt that the fact that the rules of both AFL and NRL are administered here in Australia, for Australian sporting tastes, is an undeniable advantage. Soccer is soccer, it has waned and waxed. It will always be around. It is also a very simple game to understand with very few stoppages, just like the other two.

Rugby can be the same, if we make it that way. So the question is why don't we? Are we waiting for someone else to do it?

What is stopping us re-writing the rules to a more simplified
format without losing the essence of the game and showing the rugby world how its done? We could even market it to earn some revenue.

Why cant we "nationalise" the game and develop a string domestic foot print?

The answer to both about is our choice. Other codes are doing it. What are we doing except saying we can't?