RL Publicity Hugely Important

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, RMBJ said:

 

You said terrestial TV channels. 

You also appear to think short news reports of RL count as better publicity than the actual live broadcast of a match!

Yes, I was referring to media coverage on terrestrial tv (when that was the only media... I.e. no satellite or cable) and print media. My point was about the volume of media coverage when these two were the main sources. It it pretty obvious when read back and the context of the conversation. 

And no, I made no mention of the value of the actual broadcasting of the games. You brought that up, not me.

[RMBJ]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I was referring to media coverage on terrestrial tv (when that was the only media... I.e. no satellite or cable) and print media. My point was about the volume of media coverage when these two were the main sources. It it pretty obvious when read back and the context of the conversation. 

And no, I made no mention of the value of the actual broadcasting of the games. You brought that up, not me.

 

I mentioned it because I regard 2 hours of Challenege Cup RL coverage going out on a Saturday at 3pm on BBC1 nationally as real publicity. I would consider it odd to exclude it as publicity. 

[headtackle]

11 minutes ago, M j M said:

Source for your viewer figures please.

And does anyone have any actual figures for how many games of Rugby League the BBC showed in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s? Because I suspect it was less than people would have us believe.

I was around in the 70s and 80s and remember the BBC showing loads of RL

John Player Trophy - pre Xmas tournament game evry 2 weeks through to the final
Challenge Cup - all rounds to final
Lancashire & Yorkshire Cups - memory fails me but seem to remember it being on
Premiership - rounds + final
Australian tour games - All tests + Wigan game + mid week tour games shown on the Wednesday night midweek sports programme

In the North we had highlights programmes as well. Elton Welsby and Scrumdown

There was no real competition and fewer channels. No live football shown on Saturdays then and if on RL was up against horse racing (ITV 7) and Big Daddy & Giant Haystacks wrestling.

More awareness of our game then. Even casual observers could name the big name players which I am not sure they can do now 

 

 

 

 

[RMBJ]

1 minute ago, headtackle said:

I was around in the 70s and 80s and remember the BBC showing loads of RL

John Player Trophy - pre Xmas tournament game evry 2 weeks through to the final
Challenge Cup - all rounds to final
Lancashire & Yorkshire Cups - memory fails me but seem to remember it being on
Premiership - rounds + final
Australian tour games - All tests + Wigan game + mid week tour games shown on the Wednesday night midweek sports programme

In the North we had highlights programmes as well. Elton Welsby and Scrumdown

There was no real competition and fewer channels. No live football shown on Saturdays then and if on RL was up against horse racing (ITV 7) and Big Daddy & Giant Haystacks wrestling.

More awareness of our game then. Even casual observers could name the big name players which I am not sure they can do now 

 Thank you. 

[headtackle]

4 hours ago, RMBJ said:

 Thank you. 

And lest we forget the midweek BBC2 Floodlit Trophy

[DC77]

14 hours ago, Dunbar said:

For me that article says the opposite.

It says minority sports have seen a perceived decline in television coverage in the post-Grandstand era. Yet we have 4 live games of Rugby League this week to enjoy.

They list sports such as rowing, cycling, ice hockey, field hockey, canoeing, taekwondo and amateur boxing. And I would say these sports don't get nearly as much coverage as us.... maybe with the exception of cycling with their big events.

I’d agree those sports generally don’t get as much as RL, but the ones in bold do have those peaks at the Olympics when Brits are competing for medals. I watched the 2016 women’s hockey final...penalty shootout was pretty amazing. One of the players, Sam Quek, has since got presenting gigs out of it. 

 

13 hours ago, Dunbar said:

That could certainly have been the case. Maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the media coverage and not the actual broadcasting of the sport itself.

I think you are both right on this. There is certainly more RL coverage now, problem is there’s more coverage of everything, so, proportionally there is now less RL coverage than previously.

Two hours coverage (Grandstand) per week over four channels had a much bigger platform than say 15 hours coverage per week over hundreds of channels. More options means less concentrated exposure. Everything is more thinly spread.

Just to take this outside of RL, the same applies to a discussion I had on a similar subject before. “Stars” are not as big now as they were say 25 years ago. They can’t be. There are far more famous people now as there is so much more content to be filled (hundreds of channels, online etc....upload videos in your bedroom you can become a “star”). Talent shows taking over music (cheers Cowell), reality shows galore, possessing a modicum of talent (or often no talent) you can become a “star”. With so many more famous people now fame is less concentrated like it was previously. Princess Diana, or the Spice Girls, that level of fame we won’t see again. Either of them appearing on the front of the newspaper as they often did, or Spice Girls on Top of the Pops, with far fewer media outlets (thus fewer stars competing for headlines) they got a much bigger slice of the media pie. 

[Angelic Cynic]

21 hours ago, Dunbar said:

For me that article says the opposite.

It says minority sports have seen a perceived decline in television coverage in the post-Grandstand era. Yet we have 4 live games of Rugby League this week to enjoy.

They list sports such as rowing, cycling, ice hockey, field hockey, canoeing, taekwondo and amateur boxing. And I would say these sports don't get nearly as much coverage as us.... maybe with the exception of cycling with their big events.

  I'm guessing that it is outside of the Pay TV Subscription way for the viewer.

  I've looked at the websites of the named companies.They cover a variety of events and sports.

  Lots of coveraqe of the participants and the backgrounds involved - rather than just coverage of the sporting contest alone.