SKY's refusal to mention Rugby League worrying.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

I am sure I am not the only one who has received emails from SKY for SKY Sports

and watched adverts, started to thinking the are deliberating not marketing Rugby League.

 

Did we enter into a faustian pact?

[Futtocks]

With Super League, we entered into a subscription-viewing deal that allowed us to survive, but not thrive as other sports have done (like Football, Boxing, Golf, Darts, F1). Without that deal, though, things would have been far, far worse.

 

Until Sky have a credible rival for live RL rights (BT Sport, basically, in the current market), we won't be in that position unless we generate more income from outside our broadcasting deal.

 

And, as a staunchly non-trendy sport which rarely (if ever) gets gratuitous plugs in the national media from broadcasters and columnists who want to be on the current bandwagon (unlike, for instance, RU, MMA and American sports), that is a tough job.

 

We don't even get a temporary boost in publicity every 4 years, as other minority sports do from the Olympics.

[C H Calthrop]

I am sure I am not the only one who has received emails from SKY for SKY Sports

and watched adverts, started to thinking the are deliberating not marketing Rugby League.

 

Did we enter into a faustian pact?

They have a history of doing it, by definition it is deliberate the reason behind it however ???

[TheMancunianCandidate]

I am sure I am not the only one who has received emails from SKY for SKY Sports

and watched adverts, started to thinking the are deliberating not marketing Rugby League.

Did we enter into a faustian pact?

This annoys me too.

However, the answer is quite straightforward. SKY (as do most other brands) put a value on advertising such as images on the side of vans, TV trails and magazine placements etc and would charge sports for services such as this. The RFL don't and policy currently is that they won't, pay for it.

For example. For every £Million that a sport receives £x would be knocked off the fee that they receive in lieu of advertising provided. The RFL choose not to pay for it and simply take as much cash as they can.

That's the issue with having someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing in a senior role.

It's common practice. You'll often see delivery trucks with an image of one of their clients' products on the side of it. Even supermarkets charge brands whose products they stock, for in store promotions.

[Dave T]

On last month's Sky Sports ad, we were one of the five or six sports promoted.

This month we arent.

I have seen ads promoting the three games this weekend.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

This annoys me too.

However, the answer is quite straightforward. SKY (as do most other brands) put a value on advertising such as images on the side of vans, TV trails and magazine placements etc and would charge sports for services such as this. The RFL don't and policy currently is that they won't, pay for it.

For example. For every £Million that a sport receives £x would be knocked off the fee that they receive in lieu of advertising provided. The RFL choose not to pay for it and simply take as much cash as they can.

That's the issue with having someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing in a senior role.

It's common practice. You'll often see delivery trucks with an image of one of their clients' products on the side of it. Even supermarkets charge brands whose products they stock, for in store promotions.

 

Thanks that's useful information.  To me it we seem sensible to take a small percentage of the money they give us and let them spend it on advertising us through sky.  When our value goes up with sponsors and them we get them money more than back.

 

SKY and BBC are the main media providers (arguably all of it) we are not on the top table with either of them.

 

A weak position with one is surely a weak position with the other.

[Southerner]

The lack of Rugby League coverage on SkySports news (in particular) is frustrating and unnacceptable. For instance they did cover the story of Peacock comeback, however the story was so poor from SkySports - it was so short and sweet. I feel other sports would've had views from pundits / fans etc and a lot more analysis and oppinion. I don't know whether this is partially the fault of the RFL who don't seem to promote the game very well. 

[Futtocks]

Thanks that's useful information.  To me it we seem sensible to take a small percentage of the money they give us and let them spend it on advertising us through sky.  When our value goes up with sponsors and them we get them money more than back.

 

SKY and BBC are the main media providers (arguably all of it) we are not on the top table with either of them.

 

A weak position with one is surely a weak position with the other.

Where would we siphon off the cash for the advertisements? From the clubs' allocation or from the RFL's share? I doubt the former would stand for it, and the latter have plenty of other things to do with their portion, even if another club doesn't need rescuing in the near future.

[Futtocks]

The lack of Rugby League coverage on SkySports news (in particular) is frustrating and unnacceptable. For instance they did cover the story of Peacock comeback, however the story was so poor from SkySports - it was so short and sweet. I feel other sports would've had views from pundits / fans etc and a lot more analysis and oppinion. I don't know whether this is partially the fault of the RFL who don't seem to promote the game very well. 

A lot of people have very firmly-held beliefs on exactly what and how much the RFL do to publicise our game. But do we actually know?

 

Are they busting a gut but pushing against a locked door? Or are they doing next to nothing? Most online theorists plump for the latter, which is understandable when you see the majority of their posts... but is it justified?

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

Where would we siphon off the cash for the advertisements? From the clubs' allocation or from the RFL's share? I doubt the former would stand for it, and the latter have plenty of other things to do with their portion, even if another club doesn't need rescuing in the near future.

 

At the moment I think we are in downward spiral.  Spending all the money on players is leading to less sponsorship.

 

We are going to end up with the Pound Land Challenge Cup if we are not careful.

[Futtocks]

At the moment I think we are in downward spiral.  Spending all the money on players is leading to less sponsorship.

 

We are going to end up with the Pound Land Challenge Cup if we are not careful.

So, how would we make the clubs give up a small percentage of thir Sky money for adverts? If a majority of them put their foot down, I don't think the RFL could make them do it.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

So, how would we make the clubs give up a small percentage of thir Sky money for adverts? If a majority of them put their foot down, I don't think the RFL could make them do it.

 

You need to get forward thinking chairmen to understand why you are doing it.

 

They can work with you, rather than against you.  Getting buy in from Super League clubs on how Super League is marketed would probably help.

 

Things are best done incrementally with aims. You can promise a sponsor more reach if they cover the difference you are now spending on SKY marketing.

 

You are unlikely to get a Blue Chip sponsor if the 'Really Wonderful Bank Super League' does not appear on SKY adverts.

[Kris]

Where you have a sport that gets people watching irrespective of the advertising why pay to advertise it

 

BT Sports will look at the packages sold on the back of RL and the number of people watching regularly and would be dumb not to consider buying the sport 

 

I think we are dumb not starting our own channels and selling the content on to the BBC and SKY - obvious way to go

Secondary rights across the US are what makes the most money not the headline figures for separate deals which tend to be aspirational in nature shall we say

 

It all seems a bit odd but to be fair as noted above no Sky probably no game so we need to be thankful for that at least

 

I would pay the NRL negotiators good money to sell our product - proper marketing is what is needed

 

And a proper expansion plan with rights and sponsorship - that's the only way to progress now - then Sky might pay us what we are worth compared to the income they get from certain other sports, which seem to sell the dream of future profit and simply don't deliver

[Futtocks]

The NRL negotiators are used to playing off several potential - and very eager - broadcasters against each other. They don't need to sell the sport, just finagle the best deal out of all their suitors.

 

They might fall flat on their faces (and damage their valuable reputations) trying to sell RL in a territory where the mainstream media attitude ranges from indifferent to rabidly hostile.

[Dave T]

The NRL negotiators are used to playing off several potential - and very eager - broadcasters against each other. They don't need to sell the sport, just finagle the best deal out of all their suitors.

They might fall flat on their faces (and damage their valuable reputations) trying to sell RL in a territory where the mainstream media attitude ranges from indifferent to rabidly hostile.

the NRL hardly got a cracking deal with their overseas rights, in fact using img just like SL have in the past.

For all the criticism the RFL get, we hire in plenty of people from bigger and 'better run' sports (including the nrl) and we are still not happy.

I suspect the NRL negotiators would be shocked to find one bidder saying take it or leave it.

I can also imagine the fan reaction to Thursday or Monday games, or guaranteeing a certain team set kick offs for tb - say Wigan or Leeds.

[Southerner]

A lot of people have very firmly-held beliefs on exactly what and how much the RFL do to publicise our game. But do we actually know?

Are they busting a gut but pushing against a locked door? Or are they doing next to nothing? Most online theorists plump for the latter, which is understandable when you see the majority of their posts... but is it justified?

This is a very good question and one that I don't know the answer too. I imagine the RFL doesn't have a huge media department and that might affect they're ability to take advantage of certain opportunities.

However I saw one of the rugby league sports journalists tweet that he was receiving 20-1 stories from union to league... Considering we're at the business end of the season this shouldn't be the case.

The story about Peacock should've been big but instead the sport has let it drift away.

[Futtocks]

This is a very good question and one that I don't know the answer too. I imagine the RFL doesn't have a huge media department and that might affect they're ability to take advantage of certain opportunities.

However I saw one of the rugby league sports journalists tweet that he was receiving 20-1 stories from union to league... Considering we're at the business end of the season this shouldn't be the case.

The story about Peacock should've been big but instead the sport has let it drift away.

I don't know the answer either. However, a lot of people who also don't know the answer really believe that they do, and that's where a lot of the whingeing stems from.

 

As for volume, it seems like every non-story from the other code gets at least half a page, while major (positive) news from RL sometimes fails to get a single column inch. One sport is pushing against an open door, one against a locked one.

 

The Peacock story? Some outlets reported it, presumably based (in most cases) on a press release from HKR or the RFL. But we can't force journalists and editors to make a big splash out of it, so perhaps blaming the sport is blaming the wrong people.

[TheMancunianCandidate]

Thanks that's useful information. To me it we seem sensible to take a small percentage of the money they give us and let them spend it on advertising us through sky. When our value goes up with sponsors and them we get them money more than back.

SKY and BBC are the main media providers (arguably all of it) we are not on the top table with either of them.

A weak position with one is surely a weak position with the other.

To you and I that's sensible way to grow a business; Investing some surplus to grow whilst still being able to enjoy the fruits of your labours. But to a bean counter that way is simply unthinkable.

A simple way of solving a problem like this would be to use a portion of sponsorship revenue to pay for the extra ad's making sure that the sponsor is given prominent placement. But the problem is that SL chairman get a say in what happens to the revenue and don't want to pay for the ads and we end up back at the same place...

[Celtic Rooster]

I'm not worried in the least - I would love to see exactly who has what if Sky pulled out. It wouldn't affect my team at all as our players pay us to play.

[St Reatham]

However I saw one of the rugby league sports journalists tweet that he was receiving 20-1 stories from union to league... Considering we're at the business end of the season this shouldn't be the case.

The story about Peacock should've been big but instead the sport has let it drift away.

I believe Chris Irvine tweeted that. If it's true, surely there's a huge missed opportunity?

[The Future is League]

This is a very good question and one that I don't know the answer too. I imagine the RFL doesn't have a huge media department and that might affect they're ability to take advantage of certain opportunities.

However I saw one of the rugby league sports journalists tweet that he was receiving 20-1 stories from union to league... Considering we're at the business end of the season this shouldn't be the case.

The story about Peacock should've been big but instead the sport has let it drift away.

Communications is not one of the RFL's strong points i think we can can all agree.

I suspect that they have nobody at Red Hall capable of sending positive Rugby League stories to the media.

[Mark S]

It's fair to say that the current board's aim is to maintain the status quo, securing their jobs and nice salaries. Growing any business usually means a change at the top at some point as skills sets and requirements change. Unfortunately unless someone made a serious play for a change the game will go backwards.

[The Future is League]

It's fair to say that the current board's aim is to maintain the status quo, securing their jobs and nice salaries. Growing any business usually means a change at the top at some point as skills sets and requirements change. Unfortunately unless someone made a serious play for a change the game will go backwards.

The game is going backwards in my opinion, and all the RFL are doing to me is moving the deckchairs on a sinking ship.

There is less media coverage than there was 30 years ago and there are more media outlets than ever.

[Mark S]

The game is going backwards in my opinion, and all the RFL are doing to me is moving the deckchairs on a sinking ship.

There is less media coverage than there was 30 years ago and there are more media outlets than ever.

I have said it before on another thread but they need to get a couple of players out in the media. My Mrs doesn't often comment on famous men but she has a thing for Jon Wilkin, the RFL need to get him on TV as much as possible, he is a natural infront of a camera. Sinfield is also good from a more thinking mans rugby player point of view.

The RFL should get an agency in to help get Sinfield and Wilkin out there, maybe Simms as well, he seems comfortable in front of the camera, although the wide open shirt look needs sorting out.

[Gates1]

The RFL should get an agency in to help get Sinfield and Wilkin out there, maybe Simms as well, he seems comfortable in front of the camera, although the wide open shirt look needs sorting out.

Add Dom Manfredi to that list, the lads gold in front of the camera. A natural -Charismatic and insightful.