yipyee Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Oxford said: Yet again this comes up and suggesting that arch rivals will be willing to share without there being a price is nonsense. Also no one has suggested the RFL go it alone and do this on here, that is why you look into the idea and involve as many partners who are not rivals as it takes to make it work. Yoonion does not just play in winter! That's another bit of false logic that always comes into play at times like this. Liking both is not a sound economic and market premise on which to make a decision! Any bedfellows need to have their interests and RL's interests at the forefront and that can't be true of a rival. Coke and Pepsi do not share adds even though it would be simpler or more economic or save time and energy! Coke and pepsi share supermarket isles, Union and league both share broadcasters and channels currently!! The beauty of sharing a channel is that union fans will be exposed to league. They may have their eyes opened!! (Union is a winter sport there is obvious crossover) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipw Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said: Yes, of course, a bad long term deal in my opinion too that was struck up in haste. I think if the RFL aren't considering making the Grand Final available on free to air as well as paywall next time around then Id seriously question their stewardship of the sport. Given that its guaranteed income, and the changes afoot in viewing habits, I am not sure it is as bad some people originally thought. Only required to make one available FTA, and they choose the CC final for that. And Im not even convinced they actually HAVE to anymore, I don't know if the 'protected' events thing is still implemented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayakman Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Just now, yipyee said: Coke and pepsi share supermarket isles, Union and league both share broadcasters and channels currently!! The beauty of sharing a channel is that union fans will be exposed to league. They may have their eyes opened!! (Union is a winter sport there is obvious crossover) This could be our chance to form a 5th Column! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 30, 2017 Author Share Posted June 30, 2017 1 hour ago, yipyee said: 1) Coke and pepsi share supermarket isles, 2) Union and league both share broadcasters and channels currently!! 3) The beauty of sharing a channel is that union fans will be exposed to league. They may have their eyes opened!! 4) (Union is a winter sport there is obvious crossover) 1) Yes they do but that has no bearing on the marketing/brand separateness. 2) Yes they do but as above and part of our problem not yoonion's is our brand identity and strength! 3) I do not think of yoonion fans as a great market area for RL I think we're looking for and at the undecided voters here. 4) K&C has the lions are showing right now with their dominant position media-wise the crossover is a burdensome one for TGG. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerrumonside ref Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 3 hours ago, philipw said: Given that its guaranteed income, and the changes afoot in viewing habits, I am not sure it is as bad some people originally thought. Only required to make one available FTA, and they choose the CC final for that. And Im not even convinced they actually HAVE to anymore, I don't know if the 'protected' events thing is still implemented The CC no longer the pinnacle of the sport in this country despite all the history and tradition. People bemoan the quality of RL sponsors in terms of prestige, yet seem happy to see the flagship competition be stuck behind a paywall in terms of live broadcasting. F1, RU and the ECB are questioning the wisdom of such a strategy - shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Oxford said: 1) Yes they do but that has no bearing on the marketing/brand separateness. 2) Yes they do but as above and part of our problem not yoonion's is our brand identity and strength! 3) I do not think of yoonion fans as a great market area for RL I think we're looking for and at the undecided voters here. 4) K&C has the lions are showing right now with their dominant position media-wise the crossover is a burdensome one for TGG. Advertising would look at viewing figures on the channel and be included to sponsor RL too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipw Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 43 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said: The CC no longer the pinnacle of the sport in this country despite all the history and tradition. People bemoan the quality of RL sponsors in terms of prestige, yet seem happy to see the flagship competition be stuck behind a paywall in terms of live broadcasting. F1, RU and the ECB are questioning the wisdom of such a strategy - shouldn't we? Im by no means arguing that it is; the GF is covered by Sky- given they wont allow regulate season games to be covered on FTA, they are unlikely to allow the showpiece event of the rights they pay for being on FTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerrumonside ref Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, philipw said: Im by no means arguing that it is; the GF is covered by Sky- given they wont allow regulate season games to be covered on FTA, they are unlikely to allow the showpiece event of the rights they pay for being on FTA My point would be that under the next broadcast deal we should be getting away from an exclusivity deal for our flagship competition (especially one behind a paywall) and move to multiple broadcasting partners. This would bring us into line with the thinking taking place in other professional sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipw Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 11 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said: My point would be that under the next broadcast deal we should be getting away from an exclusivity deal for our flagship competition (especially one behind a paywall) and move to multiple broadcasting partners. This would bring us into line with the thinking taking place in other professional sports. I think the next TV deal will bear minimal resemblance to the current one. TV viewing habits are changing i.e. streaming, tablet use etc, hence Sky starting to break up their packages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.