Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[dru]

Definitely not - key metric is Audience and Attention - ultimately FTA is the only thing that will give us the opportunity to be exposed to a larger audience. But Kayo sub number definitely trump Stan's so if the dollars are similar, I know what I'd chose.

That metric would have to be massively skewed to warrant even considering Kayo and their bosses after anti rugby stunts last time round. Starting position with any negotiation is a red line through that option.

 

[Braveheart81]

We also have years of evidence that people having access to be able to watch games doesn't have a material effect on viewership.

 

[JRugby2]

That metric would have to be massively skewed to warrant even considering Kayo and their bosses after anti rugby stunts last time round. Starting position with any negotiation is a red line through that option.

I don't think the game is in a position to knock back a reasonable offer due to historic grudges against a media organisation reporting on the same story lines as every other media organisation at the time.

Lets not kid ourselves here - all other things equal (investment, production etc), outside of a 100% FTA deal, something on Fox/Kayo is objectively our best option.

We also have years of evidence that people having access to be able to watch games doesn't have a material effect on viewership.

This is also not true.

 

[LeCheese]

I don't think the game is in a position to knock back a reasonable offer due to historic grudges against a media organisation reporting on the same story lines as every other media organisation at the time.

Historic grudges? Have you seen any coverage of rugby, outside of ‘disaster’ pieces, from a newscorp outlet in the last 5 years? I certainly haven’t.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There is more free to air coverage in Australia now than there has ever been.

There is pretty much universal free to air access across the country to 18(?) Super Rugby games and 12 (?) test matches each year.

I don't see how you could conclude that that has resulted in higher viewership?

 

[JRugby2]

Historic grudges? Have you seen any coverage of rugby, outside of ‘disaster’ pieces, from a newscorp outlet in the last 5 years? I certainly haven’t.

Well, since Super Rugby moved away from Fox/Newscorp in 2020 - not really. But prior to that there were regular game recaps, round reviews, etc. which we don't get now (we have historically seen this type of coverage across most major new publishers irrespective of our broadcast deal - but no longer get this on foxsports/ newscorp which command a large SOV).

Besides - outside of filler - Rugby in Australia hasn't exactly offered anything outside of disaster pieces for anyone to write about. Even Fairfax/Nine couldn't spin 2023 into a positive story and they have a vested interest in having people watch. Rugby has jumped from controversy to controversy - what do you expect?

 

[Slim 293]

Nah…

For years prior to the split from Fox, rugby coverage in NewsCorps’ papers had been poor at best, and certainly paled in comparison to what the SMH was offering.

 

[Slim 293]

The Reds v Waratahs game attracted 736,000 viewers on Nine alone…

That’s what, 10x the viewership of what it would’ve received on Fox Sports?

Yeah, let’s go back to their shitty coverage and lack of promotion, without FTA, and any of the end of year tests.

 

[Braveheart81]

For years prior to the split from Fox, rugby coverage in NewsCorps’ papers had been poor at best, and certainly paled in comparison to what the SMH was offering.

It also needs to be considered that print copies of papers have decreased drastically and pretty much all the News Corp rugby coverage is behind paywalls.

For me the value proposition this adds is minimal.

 

[Ignoto]

Rugby has jumped from controversy to controversy - what do you expect?

Are you trying to sit there with a straight face and tell me that the other two major codes are above these controversies?

I must be dreaming about the systemic drug skirting clubs have been caught doing, the cte class action that is roaring along in the press over the last few weeks.

 

[liquor box]

I think they've said everything will be free this year, but haven't been to specific on how that will work. I could see everything being streamed live for free but replays (or replays after a certain point) being behind a paywall on Stan for example.

I would imagine a "free trial" of Stan Sports through the games and they will hope people retain their subscription after the games.

 

[PhilClinton]

I would imagine a "free trial" of Stan Sports through the games and they will hope people retain their subscription after the games.

Retain people with what?

 

[liquor box]

Retain people with what?

forgetfulness to unsubscribe when it changes to being paid for

 

[JRugby2]

The Reds v Waratahs game attracted 736,000 viewers on Nine alone…

That’s what, 10x the viewership of what it would’ve received on Fox Sports?

Yeah, let’s go back to their shitty coverage and lack of promotion, without FTA, and any of the end of year tests.

I'm not advocating for that - I think my comment history on this thread is pretty strong in favour of making rugby as accessible as possible. But if being partially behind a paywall is our only option than I'd rather be behind the paywall with the most people paying.

Are you trying to sit there with a straight face and tell me that the other two major codes are above these controversies?

I must be dreaming about the systemic drug skirting clubs have been caught doing, the cte class action that is roaring along in the press over the last few weeks.

All of these have gotten significant coverage. The fact you're aware of them is testimony to that fact.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm not advocating for that - I think my comment history on this thread is pretty strong in favour of making rugby as accessible as possible. But if being partially behind a paywall is our only option than I'd rather be behind the paywall with the most people paying.

More people paying for Kayo than Stan, doesn't translate into more money for Rugby Australia...

 

[Adam84]

Is it really surprising that News Corp would run an agenda through media affiliates to influence their own bottom line?

The editorials and columns arguing why Foxtel was better than any other option and how RA should be happy to settle with what Foxtel was offering during the broadcast negotiations had a deliberate agenda, even the News Corp rugby journalists with integrity had livelihoods dependent on Foxtel securing rugby broadcast rights. Also served as as cautionary tale for other codes considering leaving the News Corp empire.

 

[JRugby2]

More people paying for Kayo than Stan, doesn't translate into more money for Rugby Australia...

Correct - but my opinion is we need to rebuild our audience and re-establish our value proposition (buggers me how we do that second one...) first. My prediction is that Nine will offer us more money than Fox will for Super Rugby (tests are protected by anti-siphoning) but I think we need to prioritize Audience and Attention size over the pay packet for now.

I assume a Nine deal would be conditional of streaming being on Stan and channel 10 is fraught with risk - so to me an ideal situation would be a similar set up to AFL where there is coverage across both 7 FTA and Fox (+Kayo).

None of this is perfect, and is also conditional on there being an appetite for rugby outside of Nine.

 

[Slim 293]

Correct - but my opinion is we need to rebuild our audience and re-establish our value proposition (buggers me how we do that second one...) first. My prediction is that Nine will offer us more money than Fox will for Super Rugby (tests are protected by anti-siphoning) but I think we need to prioritize Audience and Attention size over the pay packet for now.

I assume a Nine deal would be conditional of streaming being on Stan and channel 10 is fraught with risk - so to me an ideal situation would be a similar set up to AFL where there is coverage across both 7 FTA and Fox (+Kayo).

None of this is perfect, and is also conditional on there being an appetite for rugby outside of Nine.

Fox has always demanded exclusivity for live coverage of Super Rugby in their deals, and there has never been enough interest from the other FTA broadcasters to do anything about it.

 

[Braveheart81]

We absolutely get more exposure to the casual and non-rugby fans through one Super Rugby game a week being on FTA with the rest being exclusive to Stan than we ever got with all Super Rugby games being on Fox Sports. While Foxtel has more subscribers than Stan Sports we have very clear evidence that there was never a lot of non-rugby or casual fans tuning in on Fox Sports.

It is the lowest order priority in my view. The concept that there are a meaningful number of people who will go from being non-fans to core fans who will spend money on the game just because they flick channels at the right time is absolute fantasy stuff.

 

[Derpus]

We absolutely get more exposure to the casual and non-rugby fans through one Super Rugby game a week being on FTA with the rest being exclusive to Stan than we ever got with all Super Rugby games being on Fox Sports. While Foxtel has more subscribers than Stan Sports we have very clear evidence that there was never a lot of non-rugby or casual fans tuning in on Fox Sports.

It is the lowest order priority in my view. The concept that there are a meaningful number of people who will go from being non-fans to core fans who will spend money on the game just because they flick channels at the right time is absolute fantasy stuff.

Is it not more the case that a lack of FTA presence actively reduces your existing fan-base (rather than an FTA presence providing growth opportunities). Particularly given runaway inflation is currently arse-fucking the discretionary budgets of all but the most asset rich fuckers in the country/world.