Super League Viewing Figs

[Dave T]

Week ending 25th Feb.

Premier League Darts: 74k (m.e), 16k (action), 34k (mix). Total 124k.

A couple of weeks earlier when the two sports went head to head:

Darts - 194k (Action and Main Event)

SL - 165k (Arena and Mix).

Pretty good for RL on the lesser channel.

The SL opening Friday game got c210k.

 

[Mattrhino]

1 hour ago, Southerner said:

I saw a recent clip of Eddie Hearn stating that both Darts and Boxing smash Rugby League for viewing figures - I thought League got better TV viewing figures? Did he mean attendances?

Must be talking out of his bottom. Does the Darts world champs get better viewing figures than the Challenge Cup or Internationals? I doubt it. Maybe if you add up the whole month of the world champs figures

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Must be talking out of his bottom. Does the Darts world champs get better viewing figures than the Challenge Cup or Internationals? I doubt it. Maybe if you add up the whole month of the world champs figures

He is obviously talking like-for-like.

But it is usually conveniently ignored that we have a fair bit of terrestrial coverage.

[milpool]

44 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Must be talking out of his bottom. Does the Darts world champs get better viewing figures than the Challenge Cup or Internationals? I doubt it. Maybe if you add up the whole month of the world champs figures

The darts final got 706,000 viewers on Sky Main Event, 352,000 on Arena and a further 26,000 on Mix according to BARB. Clearly those figures beat RL on the Sky platform, although I'm sure that the Challenge Cup final on terrestrial TV gets a bigger viewership.

 

[Cherry and White]

Week ending 04th March

Friday.  162k (Action & Mix)

[yipyee]

On 14/03/2018 at 10:28 PM, Dave T said:

Main Event is the new Sky Sports 1.

SL games are now shown on Sky Sports 8 effectively. Previously anything below Sky Sports 2 massively affected your figures.

Getting on Main Event as well as Arena (and hopefully Mix too) makes a big difference.

But why is that?

Previously sky sports one was a subscription main but now it's all a bit weird. Why would viewing figures be higher if not a simple reason as it's a default channel? I.e nothing better on so RL will do?

If RL was on main event and man u vs Liverpool on SSPL I would imagine RL would come second but this wouldnt happen in reality and RL would only be on maim event if nothing better (in sky's eyes) was on?

[Oxford]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:12 PM, Dave T said:

There would probably need to be a long term investment decision rather than a way to make a quid or two.

"There would probably need to be a long term investment decision  (the vision, the dream, the necessity aka Parky wet dream)) rather than a way to make a quid or two" (the reality, the day to day, TGG aka Parky fodder)

They were talking on that okay but cheap cheapo productions magazine programme The Golden Point and saying you may never get all SL clubs to agree but they have to be unified over long term strategies for them to work.

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, yipyee said:

But why is that?

Previously sky sports one was a subscription main but now it's all a bit weird. Why would viewing figures be higher if not a simple reason as it's a default channel? I.e nothing better on so RL will do?

If RL was on main event and man u vs Liverpool on SSPL I would imagine RL would come second but this wouldnt happen in reality and RL would only be on maim event if nothing better (in sky's eyes) was on?

The convenience factor is clearly a massive issue. There is obviously a segment of viewers who will generally float around the main channels, but that doesnt over-ride everything. 

I was called a channel snob for complaining that England WC games were on BBC2 instead of 1, but it makes a huge difference.

[Martyn Sadler]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The convenience factor is clearly a massive issue. There is obviously a segment of viewers who will generally float around the main channels, but that doesnt over-ride everything. 

I was called a channel snob for complaining that England WC games were on BBC2 instead of 1, but it makes a huge difference.

You are absolutely right that the channel on which a sport is broadcast is crucial and you have noted the difference between Main Event and the other channels in terms of audience size.

What is quite interesting, at least for me, is to reflect on the fact that the current RFL league structure is apparently part of the contract with Sky Sports.

And yet the current deal with Sky was signed when Sky had the old channel format of Sky Sports 1, etc.

The re-structuring of the Sky channels clearly seems to have damaged Rugby League's viewing figures and therefore the value of its future broadcasting rights. The contract clearly didn't specify anything about the structure of Sky Sports channels.

The contract therefore seems somewhat unequal.

And that's not to mention Sky's refusal to broadcast Championship matches.

[Toby Chopra]

33 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You are absolutely right that the channel on which a sport is broadcast is crucial and you have noted the difference between Main Event and the other channels in terms of audience size.

What is quite interesting, at least for me, is to reflect on the fact that the current RFL league structure is apparently part of the contract with Sky Sports.

And yet the current deal with Sky was signed when Sky had the old channel format of Sky Sports 1, etc.

The re-structuring of the Sky channels clearly seems to have damaged Rugby League's viewing figures and therefore the value of its future broadcasting rights. The contract clearly didn't specify anything about the structure of Sky Sports channels.

The contract therefore seems somewhat unequal.

And that's not to mention Sky's refusal to broadcast Championship matches.

I think we have to look at it over a whole season. During the winter months we don't get much play on Main Event because Sky always choose darts on a Thursday and Championship football on a Friday. But given that competition I don't think an average of 100k-125k is too bad, it just confirms what we always thought was the hardcore RL viewer base.

In the summer months however, there's going to be a a number of weeks where we get a clear run on M.E., and we'll get some totals way in excess of what we got under the old channel structure. If we can carry some of those extra viewers through to the business end of the season, and then into the following year, that's probably as good as strategy as any other for growing the  audience. If BT Sport outbid Sky next time round, our figures would plummet in the short term. If we insisted on terrestrial coverage, the SKY money would plummet. There's no magic bullet unfortunately.   

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm sure in an interview with Neville Smith sometime last year he explicitly stated sky had no influence on the format/structure of the competition. 

Yep, he did say that, and tbh, I think people twist this argument a bit to suit their own agenda (referring to the likes of Gary H as opposed to Martyn here!). I suspect Sky want a certain amount of games/rounds, but would guess they aren't too fussed exactly how those games are cut - as long as they always have access to the big games etc. they should be easy to manage.

Even the talk about the million pound game, as you have highlighted, last year's game had low figures as it wasn;t a particularly gripping event, but a Championship Grand Final for promotion or a 1st v last for promotion game would have the same effect.

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You are absolutely right that the channel on which a sport is broadcast is crucial and you have noted the difference between Main Event and the other channels in terms of audience size.

What is quite interesting, at least for me, is to reflect on the fact that the current RFL league structure is apparently part of the contract with Sky Sports.

And yet the current deal with Sky was signed when Sky had the old channel format of Sky Sports 1, etc.

The re-structuring of the Sky channels clearly seems to have damaged Rugby League's viewing figures and therefore the value of its future broadcasting rights. The contract clearly didn't specify anything about the structure of Sky Sports channels.

The contract therefore seems somewhat unequal.

And that's not to mention Sky's refusal to broadcast Championship matches.

I suspect the value piece isn't solely linked to the number of viewers though. Sky have a stated aim of having more choice and having something for every person in every household - for me that helps us somewhat as I think the Arena and Action channels have some value in the 'providing variety' category. Rugby League plays a major part of that, particularly now that they have just added the NRL coverage for 5 years - imho that suggests RL is a major part of this channel offering. 

I agree with the unequal contract point though - in that SKy have made a decision which could be seen to have reduced our visibility, and I think we actually have some bargaining power here. I think conversations around SKy offering up more visibility through FTA channels (see RU and Channel 5), or demanding increased presence on Main Event and Mix, or right down to the basics of coughing up more money, as we may be helping Sky hit their objectives, but they are hampering ours as a game, and there should absolutely be a premium for that.

Where Sky have been canny here though is that in reality, the Super League deal was worth c£145m over the 5 years IIRC - the rest were for things like cup coverage, Sky TRY, and Championships rights. I could see a situation where they increase the Super League rights offer to £170ish, keep their 90 games a year, cut free the Championship and sack off Sky Try and both Super League and Sky are winners. I suppose at that time we would see whether the Championship has value elsewhere.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm sure in an interview with Neville Smith sometime last year he explicitly stated sky had no influence on the format/structure of the competition. 

I suspect he meant that Sky had not proposed the current format, which had been presented to them by the RFL.

But once the format was established it was written into the contract, so it can't be changed without Sky's agreement.

How easy it would be to secure such an agreement is a moot point.

[Dave T]

This was the quote with Neville Smith (courtesy of LoveRugbyLeague):

“We’ve seen two great Million Pound games. We bought into it, we promote it, we’re happy with what were getting from it.

“There’s probably one or two tweaks that can be made but those are game issues not ours. We don’t instruct or influence how the game is structured. They put this together and I think we’ve had some fantastic competition in the Qualifying 8s.

“The Million Pound game it causes a stir, it causes some controversy but the reality is if the game wants promotion and relegation then that’s its choice and therefore somewhere and somehow someone’s going to get relegated.

“We don’t apply pressure [to the RFL] either way, we don’t say you’ve got to have that if you use those games for something different. We embrace that and get on with that but I have a suspicion they want to continue with it.”

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure that would be the case. I haven't seen the contract obviously but there are reasons why sky wouldn't want the exact nature of the contract written in to it (what if they wanted it changing for instance) I think it more likely that there is a broad renegotiation clause if there is a substantial change which would leave SL in a much stronger position to do what they wanted if they were confident they could get equal or greater funds from sky or someone else. 

I think it could be very true that in practice we need to get sky's agreement and need them to be keen on the change without that being a contracted term where we are unable to do it without their say so

The club owners have only seen the contract quite recently, but they tell me the current structure is specified within it.

And of course you would expect the contract to explicitly state the number of games that will be played in the competition.

Neville's comment suggest, however, that Sky would be open to some tweaks in the structure, although I suspect only relatively minor ones.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The club owners have only seen the contract quite recently, but they tell me the current structure is specified within it.

And of course you would expect the contract to explicitly state the number of games that will be played in the competition.

Neville's comment suggest, however, that Sky would be open to some tweaks in the structure, although I suspect only relatively minor ones.

I don't see any reason why Sky wouldn't be up for covering a 10 team SL (for example) that still gave them the same number of games - as tbh, they would have more top clashes between the better teams. 

I suspect that radical structure change would be a rather easy sell tbh.

Of course, it is all guesswork, but I expect they aren't massively wed to covering Warrington v Halifax instead of Warrington versus Wigan for a 3rd time.

[yipyee]

On 16/03/2018 at 10:29 AM, Dave T said:

The convenience factor is clearly a massive issue. There is obviously a segment of viewers who will generally float around the main channels, but that doesnt over-ride everything. 

I was called a channel snob for complaining that England WC games were on BBC2 instead of 1, but it makes a huge difference.

Agreed about RL being on bbc1

My point above is when RL is on main event it means there isn't another larger sporting event on at the same time. It doesn't necessarily mean being on the main event channel is the single largest factor.

It would be interesting to compare figures of Thursday night games with and without Europa league football....

[Dave T]

57 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Agreed about RL being on bbc1

My point above is when RL is on main event it means there isn't another larger sporting event on at the same time. It doesn't necessarily mean being on the main event channel is the single largest factor.

It would be interesting to compare figures of Thursday night games with and without Europa league football....

On Thursday nights Darts and RL go head to head.

When RL gets the Main Event slot they will get more viewers, likewise for Darts. It is sometimes difficult to get all tge figs though as if you are outside of the top 10 we cant see them.

[Cherry and White]

Week ending 11th March

Thursday.  150 (main)

                      30 (arena)

Friday.         154 (arena)

Saturday       86 (arena)

       

[Dave T]

16 hours ago, yipyee said:

Agreed about RL being on bbc1

My point above is when RL is on main event it means there isn't another larger sporting event on at the same time. It doesn't necessarily mean being on the main event channel is the single largest factor.

It would be interesting to compare figures of Thursday night games with and without Europa league football....

This week demonstrates my point perfectly.

Week ending 18th Feb

Thursday Darts (Action and Main event) - 170k

Thursday Super League (Arena) - 125k

Week ending 11th March

Thursday Darts (Action) - 108k

Thursday Super League (Arena and Main Event) - 180k

 

Of course there are all sorts of variables that could be considered, but we did slightly better than darts over those two comparable weeks.

It's around a 50% uplift.

[Dave T]

14 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Its interesting to see that there is a big effect on the viewership when it goes on main event, and obviously a huge effect on the viewership of the arena/action channel when the game is main event but there is still a pretty solid (roughly) 50k or so who watch on arena/action even when the game is on main event. A good proportion of those you would assume are the one you would assume are subscribing to arena/action but not the rest of the sports channels. 

That looks a relatively healthy figure imo.

 

I dont know how sophisticated any of the Barb surveys are but I think in addition to the above there is the point that those watching on arena and action are the RL fans who perhaps want to see the build up etc.

With that in mind I find it odd that around 100k will watch on Arena if only on that channel, but 70k of them switch to Main Event when its on there.

[bobbruce]

On 20/03/2018 at 7:28 AM, Dave T said:

I dont know how sophisticated any of the Barb surveys are but I think in addition to the above there is the point that those watching on arena and action are the RL fans who perhaps want to see the build up etc.

With that in mind I find it odd that around 100k will watch on Arena if only on that channel, but 70k of them switch to Main Event when its on there.

If any thing like me they won’t deliberately switch to main event. It’s just when the adverts come on you switch over but when I go back I will start at 401 and then go up to the channel. If I get to 401 and the games on I’ll just leave it there. 

[Just Browny]

31 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If any thing like me they won’t deliberately switch to main event. It’s just when the adverts come on you switch over but when I go back I will start at 401 and then go up to the channel. If I get to 401 and the games on I’ll just leave it there. 

I watch through NowTV, and will just scroll left to right (so from ME through to Sky Sports 20 or whatever we are on), and always choose the first 'Live Super League' I see.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If any thing like me they won’t deliberately switch to main event. It’s just when the adverts come on you switch over but when I go back I will start at 401 and then go up to the channel. If I get to 401 and the games on I’ll just leave it there. 

 

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

I watch through NowTV, and will just scroll left to right (so from ME through to Sky Sports 20 or whatever we are on), and always choose the first 'Live Super League' I see.

I like to see the build up, and quite often Main Event doesn't have build up, so at 7pm on a Thursday I need to go to 408 for Arena as it isn't on Main Event. I just leave it on that. I suspect many will do the same, and it maybe doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have Main Event - I know I do but have never watched RL on Main Event.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure we have seen much of s build up to most games so far this season. Largely it had been 10 - 15 minutes or so and the games have been kicking of 15 mins earlier that they used to. 

It will be interesting to see if 'the golden point' sees more people watch on action/arena.

I usually watch on main event as there hasn't been much of a build up and it's the easiest to check first

Whilst they cut short some of the programmes when the production team were also covering the Oz games, there has generally been 15 minutes build up on Friday and 45 mins on Thursday which aren't always on Main Event from memory, and they do usually cut off right at the end to go to other events if anything is on.

I've certainly got out of the 401 habit now since they introduced Main Event, as you say will be interesting to see if Golden Point registers in the Barb numbers on its own.