hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
Interesting article and i wonder if this has any change on rugby on 2020. What was interesting was that Rugby Union the original Pay TV product for Fox Sport, did not get a single mention in the article.
2018 TV ratings and crowd numbers
- Thread starter Strewthcobber
- Start date
- Status
Interesting article and i wonder if this has any change on rugby on 2020. What was interesting was that Rugby Union the original Pay TV product for Fox Sport, did not get a single mention in the article.
Strewthcobber
Andrew Slack (58)
Yeah - Broncos game under 200k, fox footy games under 100k. Aleague tiny, F1, Winx, it's pretty low all round
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Strewthcobber
Andrew Slack (58)
NSW v Queensland at the SCG - 15,648
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Will be interesting. They certainly are pricing it competitively in order to get as many through the gates as possible.
It's clear the digital sporting revolution is coming, and the answer may not be Netflix or Amazon, but Foxtel.
If Foxtel can get out a $20 a month streaming service (as rumoured), then it's great for our code. It's great for every code.
While we may attract the same proportion of viewers (ie less than League and AFL), we will still see a big boost in viewership in Super Rugby. All of a sudden the 'Super on FTA' quest becomes a bit redundant, and it reshapes the landscape for the next Super deal beyond 2020.
The flipside is it further damages attendance, but really you have to wonder how many people go to games just because they don't have Fox.
.
If Foxtel can get out a $20 a month streaming service (as rumoured), then it's great for our code. It's great for every code.
While we may attract the same proportion of viewers (ie less than League and AFL), we will still see a big boost in viewership in Super Rugby. All of a sudden the 'Super on FTA' quest becomes a bit redundant, and it reshapes the landscape for the next Super deal beyond 2020.
The flipside is it further damages attendance, but really you have to wonder how many people go to games just because they don't have Fox.
.
I expect they will get a big bump to start with but I don't think it will last for a long time.
I don't think solidarity against RA will work as a long term driver of crowds in excess of what they drew for Super Rugby.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
I actually think Fox Sports will live well into the future, it's Foxtel that is probably looking over their shoulders. For those that might not be aware the two are actually separate entities, but obviously in a relationship where one supplies the content the other supplies the platform. Fox Sports numbers are on the up as a whole, its the other channels on Foxtel (movies etc.) that are struggling for viewers. Hence i can see Fox Sports becoming its own platform in the future, similar to Netflix. Getting cricket is a massive coup for them, i also believe they are heading in the right direction to get the epl back, as a whole it's pretty strong and looking to invest more money into its comprehensive dictionary of content.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Nah, it's really not the answer.
Here's the problem: It's the punters already on the hook that pay to subscribe.
Even a sport as big as cricket understands this, as any fule kno.
The problem with rugby union, after more than two decades of being largely invisible, is that the stock out there to 'catch' is small and dwindling.
It's a totally different ballgame to the major leagues – AFL, and to a lesser extent, NRL.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Not for much longer, my friend.
You've got a bit over two months:
Foxtel and Fox Sports are set to merge and become a single company by the end of June — three months after the competition regulator dropped its initial opposition to the deal.
This is Foxtel's big play though. They are betting their future on Fox Sports which seems like the smart thing to do. Sport is the one thing that is somewhat immune to losing all the advertising dollars because people still want to watch it live.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
I agree, some heavy investment will come in the next few years into other sports such as NBA etc. looking to get a grip on the digital market before other players can come into the market and disrupt things.
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
Sounds a bit desperate to me.
As time goes on the product owners will take control and the platforms will just be a service provider.
At some point, yes. I think it is a fair way away for most sports though.
I spoke to a senior person at the NRL about it last year and they said they looked at it but at the moment the money from the broadcasters is far too great for little risk. Putting it on their own platform that they need to sell has greater potential upside but they literally need hundreds of thousands of subscribers from not long after day 1 not to lose a huge amount of money.
You're right, but Fox Sports subscribers are increasingly on a range of different hooks - cricket, soccer, league, AFL, F1 etc.
What this allows us to do is attract the eyeballs of general sports fans who may be cricket tragics, but only have a passing rugby interest. Now they have access to Waratahs/Reds on a Saturday night, where previously they didn't. We won't get 100% of these people, but we will get a few.
So you may end up in a situation where the potential audience is actually approaching what you could get on FTA.
.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Maybe, although it's something that's been available on Fox for some time now without boosting rugby union at all discernibly.
The purported difference here will be instead of paying forty-odd bucks a month to stream, it's twenty.
For supe's sake, you've gotta hope there's enough drive there to stem rugby's draining coffers.
And the problem with Supe is there's not even regular content available over consistent Fri/Sat/Sun slots to catch the non-rusted-on viewer.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
This is already somewhat happening with many large sporting organisations, including Tennis Australia and the Supercars, already acting as their own host broadcasters and delivering a pre-packaged product to both the local networks and overseas rights holders.............
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I tend to agree with this. I suspect a lot of people will be far happier to fork out $20 a month for Fox Sports without the extra baggage of the rest of the dead weight (for the most part) that comes with having to bundle it with other Foxtel packages. Which will be a boon for viewership.
Regarding attendance. I don't know if that's a bad thing. Something I've always enjoyed about the AP is the intimacy of the ground. They have a smaller capacity but they appear to place the crowd closer to the action overall. As before that's not a bad thing. I don't know. But if streaming does permit greater overall access then it could effectively flip the equation in regards to needing to get as many bums on seats and more on ensuring what's being offered is of the highest possible quality. Which would be ideal for shifts away from the larger stadiums.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I also think we'll see the NBL do it in the future as well. While we may never see the respective sporting codes in this country launch their own channels I can see them looking to assume the operations of their broadcast much in the same way as Tennis Aus etc. have. Which isn't the worst possible outcome.
It's certainly something we or SANZAAR should be looking at.
Fair enough. Though I think with cricket and a cheaper price Fox reaches a critical mass where just about every sports fan will sign up.
.
- Status