Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Wild

Mail on Sunday RL Coverage

65 posts in this topic

The only time I recall RL getting any sort of mass coverage in the Mail newspapers was when the Long/Gleeson scandal occurred.  They gave over the four back pages to it.  I emailed them congratulating them on the improvement of their RL coverage. But for some strange reason they never devoted 4 pages to RL again AFAIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet the RL section in the on line version is quite extensive, so they have the copy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunday People has regular RL coverage in its paper edition.  I buy one now and again just to support the cause (I'm a committed broadsheet reader).  They had a great little piece on London Skolars a couple of weeks ago for example.  Even though I think the paper as a paper is a load of old rubbish (each to their own!), it may be worth boosting their circulation given their consistent coverage of RL.

Same here. The paper is mostly nonsense but as they continue to give RL decent coverage I'll continue to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. The paper is mostly nonsense but as they continue to give RL decent coverage I'll continue to buy it.

Fred Trueman used to be their RL reporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old adage is that the people get what the people want, people who buy the mail don't want to read about RL, its simple, you think those football/RU etc fans who pick up the MOS to find out that its been suddenly replaced with wall to wall RL are going buy it again? its supply and demand, the readership want to read about things that interested and like it or not more people who buy the mail want to know about the football/RU etc, than they do about RL, you getting your knickers in the twist sending a complaint ain't going to give the publishers some sort of epiphany that they must get interested in RL. They'll get interested in RL if there readership demand it but I can't see that happening anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old adage is that the people get what the people want, people who buy the mail don't want to read about RL, its simple, you think those football/RU etc fans who pick up the MOS to find out that its been suddenly replaced with wall to wall RL are going buy it again? its supply and demand, the readership want to read about things that interested and like it or not more people who buy the mail want to know about the football/RU etc, than they do about RL, you getting your knickers in the twist sending a complaint ain't going to give the publishers some sort of epiphany that they must get interested in RL. They'll get interested in RL if there readership demand it but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Most papers sales are dropping like a stone so they obviously aren't listening to their readerships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old adage is that the people get what the people want, people who buy the mail don't want to read about RL, its simple, you think those football/RU etc fans who pick up the MOS to find out that its been suddenly replaced with wall to wall RL are going buy it again? its supply and demand, the readership want to read about things that interested and like it or not more people who buy the mail want to know about the football/RU etc, than they do about RL, you getting your knickers in the twist sending a complaint ain't going to give the publishers some sort of epiphany that they must get interested in RL. They'll get interested in RL if there readership demand it but I can't see that happening anytime soon. 

That's not really true.

 

RL gets next to no coverage across the various newspapers - are you saying there is nobody in the country that wants to read about RL in the written media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem can only be solved by getting RL supporting Sports Section editors of the big papers. This in itself is tricky because the current sports editors probably despise RL if they are from a posh background or will have no interest from a football background, and thus any young journalist wanting to cover RL will get his CV chucked in the bin. Its likely that the younger journalists will have to sneak in through the back door via also doing football/cricket etc

Can the RFL not sponsor budding sports journalists thru Uni?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old adage is that the people get what the people want, people who buy the mail don't want to read about RL, its simple, you think those football/RU etc fans who pick up the MOS to find out that its been suddenly replaced with wall to wall RL are going buy it again? its supply and demand, the readership want to read about things that interested and like it or not more people who buy the mail want to know about the football/RU etc, than they do about RL, you getting your knickers in the twist sending a complaint ain't going to give the publishers some sort of epiphany that they must get interested in RL. They'll get interested in RL if there readership demand it but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Absolutely no way does club RU warrant the coverage it gets in most papers and especially the broadsheets. So why does it get such big coverage? Forget the international angle, I am specifically talking about the club game, whose gates are not *that* much bigger than SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no way does club RU warrant the coverage it gets in most papers and especially the broadsheets. So why does it get such big coverage? Forget the international angle, I am specifically talking about the club game, whose gates are not *that* much bigger than SL.

 

It's a trickle down effect from the international game, works the same for cricket, the county game doesn't really warrant the coverage it gets.

 

If you a newspaper editor where do you put your resources 

 

Cricket gives you around 10 test matches a year, 20 ODI and twenty twenty finals day, plus a World Cup every four years

 

RU gives you 12 international weekend (in front of sold out stadiums) the Heineken Cup final (Once again Sold out) and the premiership final (you guessed it sold out again), along with a world cup every four years and the lions tour every four years.

 

RL gives you the grand final, the challenge cup final (complete with a fine view of thousands of empty seats), and well really thats it. There a world cup and internationals but thus far rugby league fans have done a decent impression of not caring so why should the media.

 

If your an editor which sport would you spend your money on, and once you've hired yourself a cricket and a rugby union writer you need to keep them busy so on the weekends when they don't have a major event they can fill the holes once you've run out of things to write about football.

 

Ultimately i think the amount of coverage Union gets is kind of irrelivent, if you told a sports editor he could only write about football and nothing else i doubt they'd lose much sleep over it. Every sport in the UK if it wants newspaper coverage has to convince the papers it's worth covering instead of championship and league one football, Union and cricket are simply better at it, they make themselves difficult to ignore. League with such a small amount of major events is easy to ignore and till it fixes that nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but club RU got pretty big coverage even when it really was three men and a dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most papers sales are dropping like a stone so they obviously aren't listening to their readerships.

So if the MOS started to give coverage to RL and reduce the coverage of RU, you really think there getting to get a massive spike in sales? 

 

That's not really true.

 

RL gets next to no coverage across the various newspapers - are you saying there is nobody in the country that wants to read about RL in the written media?

No I'm saying the MOS readership aren't particularly interested in reading about RL, hence little or no coverage, likewise readers of the Hull Daily Mail won't care about RU, is not what the readership that both the papers currently want at the moment, at the end of the day, these papers are business, they need to appeal to their audience for them to buy the paper, focusing on things which the readership find uninteresting and will make them not buy their paper again, is bad business sense not to listen your audience.

 

Absolutely no way does club RU warrant the coverage it gets in most papers and especially the broadsheets. So why does it get such big coverage? Forget the international angle, I am specifically talking about the club game, whose gates are not *that* much bigger than SL.

It gets bigger coverage, because like it or not, its the bigger game nationally, you can argue about SL getting bigger gates etc, but RU is more in the national conscious and my opinion thats down to the international game (six nations, lions etc) reflected on to the club games. They see the six nations/lions, get interested in the players and hence get knowledge of the club sides and then it snowballs. That's why the big corporates gravity to RU, they know people are interested in the game and want a piece of the action, look at the news today one of the stories about the British Lions at Downing street and the bunny ears to cameron, its publicity and it reinforces that the people making the news play RU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bunny ears? I have heard absolutely nothing about the RU lions being at Downing Street. It isn't so massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but club RU got pretty big coverage even when it really was three men and a dog.

 

I don't doubt that there is an element of keeping onside with the RFU, ultimately I'd imagine the club game for both union and league are of marginal value to the newspapers but you've got some space to fill and if they've got a choice between earning some brownie points with the RFU or the RFL i doubt they have to think very long about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old adage is that the people get what the people want, people who buy the mail don't want to read about RL, its simple, you think those football/RU etc fans who pick up the MOS to find out that its been suddenly replaced with wall to wall RL are going buy it again? its supply and demand, the readership want to read about things that interested and like it or not more people who buy the mail want to know about the football/RU etc, than they do about RL, you getting your knickers in the twist sending a complaint ain't going to give the publishers some sort of epiphany that they must get interested in RL. They'll get interested in RL if there readership demand it but I can't see that happening anytime soon. 

 

I am not after wall to wall coverage to the detriment / replacement of other sports (although that would be nice), just simple recognition would be a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no way does club RU warrant the coverage it gets in most papers and especially the broadsheets. So why does it get such big coverage? Forget the international angle, I am specifically talking about the club game, whose gates are not *that* much bigger than SL.

Football typically gets about 70% club RU gets about 10% more like 20% during it's european competition which is similar for most other sports.10-15% seems about right. It is market driven and nobody has shown any evidence it is not. To illustrate this look at what happened regarding the "Daily Telegraph Camapaign" for better RL coverage. The last 12 online articles have generated just 1 comment between them as the dpmestic season's climax approaches followed by the biggest world cup in history. Based on that it is less popular to the readership of the Daily Telegraph than UFC and Squash.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football typically gets about 70% club RU gets about 10% more like 20% during it's european competition which is similar for most other sports.10-15% seems about right. It is market driven and nobody has shown any evidence it is not. To illustrate this look at what happened regarding the "Daily Telegraph Camapaign" for better RL coverage. The last 12 online articles have generated just 1 comment between them as the dpmestic season's climax approaches followed by the biggest world cup in history. Based on that it is less popular to the readership of the Daily Telegraph than UFC and Squash.  

I think one of the things that has happened is that Rugby League fans have more or less given up on the national press and other media. They rely on the internet and LPL etc., because they are sick of the shoddy treatment we get from the national papers, radio and TV.

 

So, in a way, it's our fault, but if it wasn't for the years of (mostly) indifference and (occasionally) malice from the London-based press, they'd all be selling more papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football typically gets about 70% club RU gets about 10% more like 20% during it's european competition which is similar for most otherwise sports.10-15% seems about right. It is market driven and nobody has shown any evidence it is not. To illustrate this look at what happened regarding the "Daily Telegraph Camapaign" for better RL coverage. The last 12 online articles have generated just 1 comment between them as the dpmestic season's climax approaches followed by the biggest world cup in history. Based on that it is less popular to the readership of the Daily Telegraph than UFC and Squash.

Yes, I can't dispute that. But IMO its chicken and egg. People become accustomed to there being no RL in the Telegraph over the years and just don't bother going there.

I did used to comment on the articles but invariably found it hijacked by union trolls just looking for a squabble so eventually sacked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football typically gets about 70% club RU gets about 10% more like 20% during it's european competition which is similar for most other sports.10-15% seems about right. It is market driven and nobody has shown any evidence it is not. To illustrate this look at what happened regarding the "Daily Telegraph Camapaign" for better RL coverage. The last 12 online articles have generated just 1 comment between them as the dpmestic season's climax approaches followed by the biggest world cup in history. Based on that it is less popular to the readership of the Daily Telegraph than UFC and Squash.  

 

For the opening round of the Aviva Premiership there was an aggregate crowd of 112k (boosted by a larger Twickenham crowd) plus vieiwing figs for 2 live matches of 198k. 

So 310k were interested in watching the RU club opening round.

 

For the opening round of the Super League there was an aggregate crowd of 64k, plus viewing figures of 284k.

 

Across the written media which of these two opening rounds do you think attracted the most coverage? Now there will be many reasons, but general interest is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not after wall to wall coverage to the detriment / replacement of other sports (although that would be nice), just simple recognition would be a start.

This is an important distinction. Anytime you complain people jump up and say 'soccer etc are more popular'....which is true except that whilst RL may not be the most popular around, it certainly warrants more than zero coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only need to look at the Daily Mail website sports section to tell you everything you need to know about their paper edition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem can only be solved by getting RL supporting Sports Section editors of the big papers. This in itself is tricky because the current sports editors probably despise RL if they are from a posh background or will have no interest from a football background, and thus any young journalist wanting to cover RL will get his CV chucked in the bin. Its likely that the younger journalists will have to sneak in through the back door via also doing football/cricket etc

Can the RFL not sponsor budding sports journalists thru Uni?

 

The amound of people willing and available and qualified to write about the sport is not the problem - believe me! In fact the number of people qualified to write about any sport will never be a problem, it's the fact that journalism is on it's backside and nobody is willing to pay anyone, certainly not for RL coverage. The problem is at the top, not the bottom and I don't think that's going to be fixed ever if I'm honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017