Damien Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 24 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Cool. I agree with the sentiment, just took it personally. No need to edit it, it's all good. Only a dummy wouldn't have realised it was a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Funkhouser Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 8 hours ago, Dunbar said: I am no cheerleader for the BBC but we have seen the Challenge Cup final broadcast live on the BBC for the last 60 years. That is a decent amount of exposure to showcase our sport. If over those 60 years we have arrived at a point where the final now attracts 1.3 million viewers then I am not blaming the BBC. Without getting into a debate about the whys and wherefores of why its fallen off a cliff but the AVERAGE viewing figure for any RL game on the BBC was 3.1 million in 1993 and the cumulative audience for the year 31 million (2.5m and and 49.1m for 1995 (World Cup )). (source: O'Keefe - shura.shu.ac.uk/3161) Unfortunately , for various reasons, we are never going to see audiences like that ever again and NONE of it is at all attributable to the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 23 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said: Without getting into a debate about the whys and wherefores of why its fallen off a cliff but the AVERAGE viewing figure for any RL game on the BBC was 3.1 million in 1993 and the cumulative audience for the year 31 million (2.5m and and 49.1m for 1995 (World Cup )). (source: O'Keefe - shura.shu.ac.uk/3161) Unfortunately , for various reasons, we are never going to see audiences like that ever again and NONE of it is at all attributable to the BBC. I think that's debateable. If the BBC had put half the effort promoting RL that they have In promoting Women's Football generally (not just the World Cup) then I'm sure their audience would be higher. It's not just the sport and news programmes that promote it. Woman's Hour regularly has items on it. there was an item last night on Look North about women's football in Yorkshire in the past. And on local radio. If we could get anything like that sort of promotion we're be quids in. But to be fair the last RLWC in this country got plenty of promotion from the BEEB, how do figures for that compare? “Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.” Clement Attlee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kevin Sinfield Posted June 28, 2019 Author Share Posted June 28, 2019 What figure do you think we would achieve if England reach the World Cup Final in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Just now, Sir Kevin Sinfield said: What figure do you think we would achieve if England reach the World Cup Final in this country? It would depend how many beyond RL circles were actually made aware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 11 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said: What figure do you think we would achieve if England reach the World Cup Final in this country? 10 minutes ago, Damien said: It would depend how many beyond RL circles were actually made aware of it. I think the coverage in 2021 will be similar to the womens football one this year. Something like 15 games live on BBC and the rest on red button or online. With a good wind behind us, packed grounds and a couple of good wins, there is no reason why we couldn't be challenging for the 7m kind of numbers. Maybe more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, Trojan said: But to be fair the last RLWC in this country got plenty of promotion from the BEEB, how do figures for that compare? http://www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-world-news/article/1487/review-reveals-extent-of-rugby The peak viewing figure of the 2013 world cup was 2.8 million for the climax of the England - NZ semi final. This game was the fifth Saturday afternoon in a row that England were shown live on BBC 1. I'm not sure we could have asked for much more build up. Without getting into the merits of women's football, I think we've got to knock on the head the idea that the BBC go out of their way to underplay rugby league. Politically, it's the complete opposite. They'd love to be able to get good audiences of viewers in the North because it helps them defend accusations of London bias etc. They show all the football they can afford, have dozens of full time staff in the north, hell they run BBC Sport out of Salford. The sad truth is we just don't deliver the audiences to justify huge investment and its not their job to build us from scratch. We have to put together a product that slowly draws more people in from beyond the existing RL viewers, then broadcasters will give us a second look. I have to say, although there's obviously a big financial risk to it, we need to find a way to get Superleague games like tonight onto terrestrial TV, it came across brilliantly and thats the best we can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said: http://www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-world-news/article/1487/review-reveals-extent-of-rugby The peak viewing figure of the 2013 world cup was 2.8 million for the climax of the England - NZ semi final. This game was the fifth Saturday afternoon in a row that England were shown live on BBC 1. I'm not sure we could have asked for much more build up. Without getting into the merits of women's football, I think we've got to knock on the head the idea that the BBC go out of their way to underplay rugby league. Politically, it's the complete opposite. They'd love to be able to get good audiences of viewers in the North because it helps them defend accusations of London bias etc. They show all the football they can afford, have dozens of full time staff in the north, hell they run BBC Sport out of Salford. The sad truth is we just don't deliver the audiences to justify huge investment and its not their job to build us from scratch. We have to put together a product that slowly draws more people in from beyond the existing RL viewers, then broadcasters will give us a second look. I have to say, although there's obviously a big financial risk to it, we need to find a way to get Superleague games like tonight onto terrestrial TV, it came across brilliantly and thats the best we can offer. Isn't that not the argument though, in that they are actively building up other sports from scratch or a small base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Damien said: Isn't that not the argument though, in that they are actively building up other sports from scratch or a small base. The BBC aren't building up women's football from scratch, if that's what you mean. There are literally millions of girls and women playing football now and the football authorities and pro clubs are chucking cumulatively tens of millions at it in the UK alone, beacause they see it as part of their brand. The BBC are just playing their part in it as you'd expect any national broadcaster to. They're certainly not taking the lead. Sky are a commercial broadcaster, but they're choosing to show Netball Superleague because its cheap to produce but delivers audiences in demographics they don't normally access. We've had over 100 years to build a audience and we've been a TV sport staple for as long as I've been alive (since the 70s) And we're just clinging on, with no real growth in audiences in decades. I just don't think we can complain that we've not been given a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 6 hours ago, gingerjon said: (2) It's more internationals we need It's more international teams we need , having a world cup with the same 3 teams in the semi's every time is the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said: The BBC aren't building up women's football from scratch, if that's what you mean. They are giving coverage and generating interest across multiple channels and platforms that women's football does not currently deserve based on attendances and general interest. They are helping fuel and drive the growth of women's football. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or whether it's just overdue positive discrimination but the BBC have long been shown to have an agenda when it comes to what it does and this is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 15 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: The BBC aren't building up women's football from scratch, if that's what you mean. There are literally millions of girls and women playing football now and the football authorities and pro clubs are chucking cumulatively tens of millions at it in the UK alone, beacause they see it as part of their brand. The BBC are just playing their part in it as you'd expect any national broadcaster to. They're certainly not taking the lead. Sky are a commercial broadcaster, but they're choosing to show Netball Superleague because its cheap to produce but delivers audiences in demographics they don't normally access. We've had over 100 years to build a audience and we've been a TV sport staple for as long as I've been alive (since the 70s) And we're just clinging on, with no real growth in audiences in decades. I just don't think we can complain that we've not been given a shot. Obviously doing the deal with Murdoch in 1995 didn't do us any favours with the Beeb. I know the game was skint. I know it was a lot of money. But I still think for the long term health of the game it was a mistake. Cricket are regretting their Murdoch deal. Participation figures are down, basically they believe because it's no longer of free to air. The Beeb see RL as a Murdoch game. we're lucky to get the Super League Show. I can't speak for other local radio stations, but coverage on BBC Radio Leeds on Sunday afternoons is pathetic. And it didn't used to be. “Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.” Clement Attlee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 7 hours ago, TheConductor said: Love Island and Geordie Shore is popular too but doesn't make it quality viewing So we should aim to be quality but not popular? I mean, it explains a lot about how we market ourselves but I'd rather more people watched us TBH. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 How often is a live Super League game on Sky Sports Mix? Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 9 hours ago, Dave T said: I think the coverage in 2021 will be similar to the womens football one this year. Something like 15 games live on BBC and the rest on red button or online. With a good wind behind us, packed grounds and a couple of good wins, there is no reason why we couldn't be challenging for the 7m kind of numbers. Maybe more. The BBC gave us live coverage of the venue launch. I know because I watched it and it was very good. Visibility can be a bit double edged though as we are now discovering with the reality that one of the grounds won't now be built in time. I remember there being a lot of promotion - genuinely - for the 2000 RLWC on the BBC. It was one of the reasons why its crippling failure was so damaging to us. We failed in broad daylight. (Well, under gloomy skies and perpetual rain but ...) Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markos Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 To me, it doesn't really matter how much you put it on TV if you aren't driving new people or even the existing fan base to that channel at that time. The reason viewing figure are so high for the women's game is because of the coverage it has been given in the media, particularly on the BBC website, which is the website with one of if not the highest traffic in the world. it isn't being given coverage because of the viewing figure, this coverage started before the tournament, leading to high viewing figures. I don't have a problem with it, but if the argument is whether we can get the same viewing figure with the coverage RL currently gets then I can't see how anyone can think we would. References to having been on TV for 60 years representing RL being given a chance I don't get at all. What hapenned 5-10 years ago is no longer relevant let alone the other 50 odd years prior to that. Viewing habits are no longer such that 10's of millions will sit with a tv remote in hand and scour a small number of channels. To get an increase in viewing audience you have to find a way to get the message onto the things most people now spend more time looking at than their tv; the internet, social media etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, gingerjon said: The BBC gave us live coverage of the venue launch. I know because I watched it and it was very good. Visibility can be a bit double edged though as we are now discovering with the reality that one of the grounds won't now be built in time. I remember there being a lot of promotion - genuinely - for the 2000 RLWC on the BBC. It was one of the reasons why its crippling failure was so damaging to us. We failed in broad daylight. (Well, under gloomy skies and perpetual rain but ...) Yep, this was my point about packed grounds and good wins, we have to help ourselves. Put on our best show and that will play a big part of attracting viewing figures. The signs of the BBC covering our tournament well are positive. The criticism of the Womens World Cup is offside as far as I am concerned, it isnt just the BBC covering it, all the channels are, and they have a great portfolio of sponsors. People can dismiss it as PC if they want, but the viewing figures are backing the view that top class womens sports is appealing to large numbers. But back to the 2021 WC, we cant just rely on the BBC, we should be working on Sky, ITV etc now to get them engaged in our internationals they don't hold rights to, in the same way these channels do for other sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 26 minutes ago, gingerjon said: The BBC gave us live coverage of the venue launch. I know because I watched it and it was very good. Visibility can be a bit double edged though as we are now discovering with the reality that one of the grounds won't now be built in time. I remember there being a lot of promotion - genuinely - for the 2000 RLWC on the BBC. It was one of the reasons why its crippling failure was so damaging to us. We failed in broad daylight. (Well, under gloomy skies and perpetual rain but ...) That was the really annoying thing about the 2000 RLWC. After 1995 everyone was expecting so much but the game as a whole was really in the doldrums and in a bit of a dark period. In 5 years it just felt like the game had gone backwards so badly. Around that time we had players defecting to RU, poor attendances, some strange international venues and poor attendances, the remnants of the Super League war and the mergers etc. Then the World Cup itself with the weather, train strikes. Everything that could go wrong did. Around that period was about the only time when I have been quite fearful for the future of the game. The coverage in 2000 was unprecedented but the tournament was a disaster and the worst on these shores. I remember preaching and telling everyone that would listen about the World Cup and telling friends to go to the opening match in Belfast. I didn't half cringe and genuinely felt embarrassed as what was to follow and that set the tone for everything there after. The Soldiers Song being played at Windsor Park, the home of Northern Ireland and Linfield Football, and echoing around the Loyalist area showed the planning, or lack of it, involved. If we had that coverage in 1995 or 2013 it would have been fantastic and a game changer. As it was it was an embarrassment all round and set the game back hugely. 2021 RLWC seems to be the best organised and best resourced World Cup so far with vastly increased coverage on 2013 so hopefully that can give us that coverage and will really let us make meaningful comparisons on where we stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moove Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 9 hours ago, Damien said: They are giving coverage and generating interest across multiple channels and platforms that women's football does not currently deserve based on attendances and general interest. They are helping fuel and drive the growth of women's football. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or whether it's just overdue positive discrimination but the BBC have long been shown to have an agenda when it comes to what it does and this is no different. What are the participation levels of Women's football in this country compared to RL? Attendances are not the only barometer of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, Moove said: What are the participation levels of Women's football in this country compared to RL? Attendances are not the only barometer of interest. Attendances are a major barometer. Again you can easily say that participation is being driven by TV coverage and I have certainly seen evidence of this at my local Football club which had barely any women's teams until recently. TV has fuelled participation. If the argument is all about participation then there should be wall to wall swimming on the BBC? There isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowardly Fan Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 8 minutes ago, Damien said: If the argument is all about participation then there should be wall to wall swimming on the BBC? There isn't. There is at the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moove Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Damien said: Attendances are a major barometer. Again you can easily say that participation is being driven by TV coverage and I have certainly seen evidence of this at my local Football club which had barely any women's teams until recently. TV has fuelled participation. If the argument is all about participation then there should be wall to wall swimming on the BBC? There isn't. Participation levels were at 2.6 million back in 2014, so I'd argue the coverage is more a belated response to that level of participation. 2.6 million is pretty impressive considering women's football was effectively banned until 1971. While attendances shouldn't be ignored they're not the main barometer of wider interest of joe public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluded pom? Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 31 minutes ago, Damien said: Attendances are a major barometer. Again you can easily say that participation is being driven by TV coverage and I have certainly seen evidence of this at my local Football club which had barely any women's teams until recently. TV has fuelled participation. If the argument is all about participation then there should be wall to wall swimming on the BBC? There isn't. Or fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kevin Sinfield Posted June 29, 2019 Author Share Posted June 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Damien said: 2021 RLWC seems to be the best organised and best resourced World Cup so far with vastly increased coverage on 2013 so hopefully that can give us that coverage and will really let us make meaningful comparisons on where we stand. A concern about the 2021 World Cup is the plan to move away from the Super Groups format, that was massively successful in 2013 and 2017. If Australia, New Zealand, England and Tonga are all in separate groups you can guarantee they will all win the group after trouncing teams left, right and centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluded pom? Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 23 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said: A concern about the 2021 World Cup is the plan to move away from the Super Groups format, that was massively successful in 2013 and 2017. If Australia, New Zealand, England and Tonga are all in separate groups you can guarantee they will all win the group after trouncing teams left, right and centre. A bit like this you mean? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_and_statistics_of_the_Rugby_World_Cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.