Jump to content

BBC website


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

I'm not disagreeing about where we are as a sport, but women's football gets far lower attendances, and there's stories about netball appearing more frequently. Why is that?

It is a World Cup year for both sports, and the BBC has the live rights for the football and has the secondary rights for the netball. In addition both England teams are successful and have realistic chances of winning their World Cups, so naturally the BBC want to raise the profile of the sports.Two members of the Neville family are coaches of the England teams, Phil in soccer and Tracey in netball. Imagine the story of both sides are successful - the brother and sister who led England to World Cup glory within weeks of each other.

Also some big stories recently, in the last few weeks there have been record crowds and sponsorship for women's football, plus Chelsea getting to the Champions League semi and Man Utd getting promoted. In netball, the amazing Serena Guthrie has returned to England after playing in Australia, basically netball's equivalent of James Graham.

www.twitter.com/flyingking2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

I'm not disagreeing about where we are as a sport, but women's football gets far lower attendances, and there's stories about netball appearing more frequently. Why is that?

Women's football promotion has everything to do with pushing women in sport as a whole by the media. It just so happens that football is the biggest sport, so they try and leverage that. But I'm certain it doesn't justify the coverage. The Guardian has often even gone to lengths of using football club names in headings without specifying it's talking about women in an effort to get clicks from people randomly thinking it's talking about the men.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that amount of coverage is necessarily a problem although I would like to see a few more articles appearing on more topics than just short match reports. Television coverage has increased over the last few years. More challenge Cup games are on now due to streaming and the draw is broadcast as well. I liked the presentation of the venues announcement for the world cup and the BBC have the rights to all world cup games. That is certainly a good thing because you would think the BBC will really like to talk about the wheelchair game and really promote disability sports. There's certainly been more England games on in the last few years as well and they are covered well enough and given the respect they deserve. Thank god they didn't have the rights to that France game in Leigh last year though! What I will say though is I really do think the quality of the articles on the website need to improve. The few articles there are that aren't match reports always seem quite patronising to me. The tone that is used is like rugby league is this new thing and they are explaining what it is and exactly how it works. Anyway, just my thoughts, I'm thankful the BBC cover the sport at all and it isn't all on sky cos then people really wouldn't be exposed to it at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't see that much difference between BBC and Sky RL "home" web page.

I much prefer going to the BBC web than Sky,  less adverts getting in the way and the BBC one loads quicker - maybe thats my browser.

On the Sky home page I don't see much other sport coverage than soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

I'm not disagreeing about where we are as a sport, but women's football gets far lower attendances, and there's stories about netball appearing more frequently. Why is that?

Because attendances don´t necessarily mean more people read the articles.  TV viewing figures for women´s international football are comparable to Rugby League, so I think it´s believable that the web traffic is similar as well.  

I´d also note that all of this is based on our own perception of the relative number and visibility of articles, we´re all biased in favour of rugby league, so it´s likely we would perceive there to be less articles even if there were the same amount.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people genuinely want to help the game,just occassionally visit the BBC Sport rugby league pages and more importantly,when there is an oppourtunity to pass comment on an artlicle,leave a brief message,if only to say I agree or I dont !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, flyingking said:

It is a World Cup year for both sports, and the BBC has the live rights for the football and has the secondary rights for the netball. In addition both England teams are successful and have realistic chances of winning their World Cups, so naturally the BBC want to raise the profile of the sports.Two members of the Neville family are coaches of the England teams, Phil in soccer and Tracey in netball. Imagine the story of both sides are successful - the brother and sister who led England to World Cup glory within weeks of each other.

Also some big stories recently, in the last few weeks there have been record crowds and sponsorship for women's football, plus Chelsea getting to the Champions League semi and Man Utd getting promoted. In netball, the amazing Serena Guthrie has returned to England after playing in Australia, basically netball's equivalent of James Graham.

England have no chance at all of winning these two cups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/04/2019 at 11:07, whatmichaelsays said:

Lots of predictable digs at the BBC in this thread but the bigger question is this:

What has RL actually done to deserve being on the BBC Sport front page?

Just putting on games in front of 80,000 people over Easter doesn't cut it. That's no story. 

RL gets the coverage it deserves. 

 

Huh???  Just what have any of the useless pointless people who troll onto The One Show ever done to deserve the coverage that they get? And that's just before I really get started.

Our rugby league deserves more than we get from the BBC and its 5 billion pounds a year - which just goes to its massively incompetent and massively overpaid 'talent'.

BBC luvvies are happy to sneer at Murdoch but he is the only one splashing the cash our way. And SKY can at least list a team sheet properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

It's not just for northerners 

You and I know that, but from what other posters have said the game is widely perceived in the UK as a small northern sport for northerners, to the extent that Brits outside its heartland think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2019 at 08:09, frank said:

England have no chance at all of winning these two cups.

You are either a wind up merchant or totally ignorant about sport.

In the last FIFA Women's World Cup England only lost their semifinal to Japan by a deflected last minute goal and beat Germany in the third place play off.

In netball, England are the current Commonwealth Games champions and have recorded two victories each against both Australia and New Zealand within the last year.

www.twitter.com/flyingking2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Our rugby league deserves more than we get from the BBC and its 5 billion pounds a year

Let's put the "whataboutism" aside for a second.... How do you quantify that we "deserve more"? 

Is it because the BBC isn't catering to a huge latent demand for RL content? If so, why do you think that is? Is it because RL is such a huge driver of viewers, listeners and website clicks, only that the BBC can't see it? 

What has RL done in the last week that would merit any meaningful coverage? 

With respect, I think we get what we deserve. The sport just isn't relevant for a huge proportion of the country - it doesn't even register on their conscience. 

And that's not the fault of the BBC, it's not an establishment conspiracy, its the fault of the clubs and the sport's leading stakeholders for not marketing themselves properly and making themselves relevant. We have clubs that generate roughly the same average attendances as Tranmere Rovers and Grimsby Town - how often do they appear on the BBC front page?

The bottom line is that very few people in the UK really give a flying one about what David Fifita (probably one of the most prominent players that we have at the moment) thinks. Even fewer have got any idea who he is. 

The people on The One Show are there because they've got people working hard to make those people relevant to an audience. We supposedly have 12 professional clubs who all have media and PR people working for them - why aren't they doing the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/04/2019 at 11:35, RigbyLuger said:

I'm not disagreeing about where we are as a sport, but women's football gets far lower attendances, and there's stories about netball appearing more frequently. Why is that?

Advertising revenue. 

Womens sport attracts more female viewers and advertisers want to reach those audiences. Broadcasters are catering to that demand. It's why England Netball is sponsored by Vitality, Nike and RedBull - because those brands identify that Netball talks to audiences that are relevant to them. Those are all big advertisers, so Sky and BT are going to keep creating and promoting content that those advertisers want to pay to be around. 

RL is trying to reach the same types of audiences as football and rugby union, but we're a far inferior advertising platform to reach them on - we don't have the volume and we don't speak brilliantly to the more valuable demographics. That's why RU and football get big sponsorship deals, whilst RL gets mushy peas and online bookies (although probably not for much longer). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Let's put the "whataboutism" aside for a second.... How do you quantify that we "deserve more"? 

Is it because the BBC isn't catering to a huge latent demand for RL content? If so, why do you think that is? Is it because RL is such a huge driver of viewers, listeners and website clicks, only that the BBC can't see it? 

What has RL done in the last week that would merit any meaningful coverage? 

With respect, I think we get what we deserve. The sport just isn't relevant for a huge proportion of the country - it doesn't even register on their conscience. 

And that's not the fault of the BBC, it's not an establishment conspiracy, its the fault of the clubs and the sport's leading stakeholders for not marketing themselves properly and making themselves relevant. We have clubs that generate roughly the same average attendances as Tranmere Rovers and Grimsby Town - how often do they appear on the BBC front page?

The bottom line is that very few people in the UK really give a flying one about what David Fifita (probably one of the most prominent players that we have at the moment) thinks. Even fewer have got any idea who he is. 

The people on The One Show are there because they've got people working hard to make those people relevant to an audience. We supposedly have 12 professional clubs who all have media and PR people working for them - why aren't they doing the same. 

They are doing the same in fact more that is relevant... especially in the context of other sports ... But the BBC pays lip service to it. It gives a poor summary of the weeks games on its weekly services and at a poor time. It's web site is appalling. 

It's production of the challenge cup is good I think but there is little context and it does not pay the value it should... But of course it's undermines the rest of the game by it's other coverage.

The One Show is not professional.  It's crass. As is much of the BBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They are doing the same in fact more that is relevant... especially in the context of other sports ... But the BBC pays lip service to it. It gives a poor summary of the weeks games on its weekly services and at a poor time. It's web site is appalling. 

Like what? What is RL doing that justifies leading editors at BBC Sport or any other publisher / broadcaster to dedicate more air time or more column inches to us? What is RL doing that is so relevant to the wider public that it's deserving of more attention? What is RL doing that is so appealing to advertisers that commercial broadcasters are frankly stupid to ignore?

We've got lots of hyperbole here, but what about specifics? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2019 at 08:09, frank said:

England have no chance at all of winning these two cups.

7/1 4th favourites for the football, 2/1 2nd favourites for the netball.

They are more likely not to win of course, but 'no chance at all' is well wide of the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Let's put the "whataboutism" aside for a second.... How do you quantify that we "deserve more"? 

Is it because the BBC isn't catering to a huge latent demand for RL content? If so, why do you think that is? Is it because RL is such a huge driver of viewers, listeners and website clicks, only that the BBC can't see it? 

What has RL done in the last week that would merit any meaningful coverage? 

With respect, I think we get what we deserve. The sport just isn't relevant for a huge proportion of the country - it doesn't even register on their conscience. 

And that's not the fault of the BBC, it's not an establishment conspiracy, its the fault of the clubs and the sport's leading stakeholders for not marketing themselves properly and making themselves relevant. We have clubs that generate roughly the same average attendances as Tranmere Rovers and Grimsby Town - how often do they appear on the BBC front page?

The bottom line is that very few people in the UK really give a flying one about what David Fifita (probably one of the most prominent players that we have at the moment) thinks. Even fewer have got any idea who he is. 

The people on The One Show are there because they've got people working hard to make those people relevant to an audience. We supposedly have 12 professional clubs who all have media and PR people working for them - why aren't they doing the same. 

The root problem is, RL doesn't have a foundation for "marketing themselves properly and making themselves relevant".  When clubs in the so-called "Super League" get the same sort of crowds as Tranmere Rovers and Grimsby Town, there's no basis in the sport for creating that relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...