Jump to content

Superleague TV audience figures through the roof.


Recommended Posts

Further to the discussion that has taken place on this thread regarding TV viewing figures, what does everyone think about the actual live attendance at the game tonight in what was a crucial end of season knock out game?   Let me here state that I'm not on a wind-up mission. Personally I was gutted to see stands sparsely populated.

Edited by Hello
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Catalans viewing figures means people want to watch the Les Dracs, give them a rival everybody hates, do you have a Manly ? put them up against them.

 

We do, yeah. Featherstone Rovers. Fortunately they are not in the Super League though, and hopefully never will be. 

Les Dracs would be a popular "2nd team" for quite a lot of SuperLeague supporters I would guess.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gingerjon said:

For the third time and I will keep saying it BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST RUGBY LEAGUE but virtually all sports are seeing virtually all their deals take a hit.

We do need to understand why RL has dropped by c40% though. I'm not aware od other sports seeing that decrease. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

We do need to understand why RL has dropped by c40% though. I'm not aware od other sports seeing that decrease. 

Maybe because even though these TV viewers are ‘through the roof’ for rugby league, the ratings/subscriptions to Sky doesn’t justify paying £40m a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hello said:

Further to the discussion that has taken place on this thread regarding TV viewing figures, what does everyone think about the actual live attendance at the game tonight in what was a crucial end of season knock out game?   Let me here state that I'm not on a wind-up mission. Personally I was gutted to see stands sparsely populated.

What was the actual live attendance?

Catalans Dragons' home playoff semi-final will be a sell-out according to club commercial manager Christophe Levy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AB90 said:

Maybe because even though these TV viewers are ‘through the roof’ for rugby league, the ratings/subscriptions to Sky doesn’t justify paying £40m a year.

The "Through the Roof" part is a P-Take of the NRL title of the same name.

Saying that its great to see strong viewing figures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AB90 said:

Maybe because even though these TV viewers are ‘through the roof’ for rugby league, the ratings/subscriptions to Sky doesn’t justify paying £40m a year.

That may be the case, but they paid £40m per year previously and have now decided not to pay that this time for a reason. 

I think there are plenty of reasons, the world has changed, I think it's clear there was a premium on the last deal, but I think ultimately we got such a substantial drop because we are in a week position to negotiate. Let's be honest, Sky could probably have gone to £20m and we'd have had to take it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That may be the case, but they paid £40m per year previously and have now decided not to pay that this time for a reason. 

I think there are plenty of reasons, the world has changed, I think it's clear there was a premium on the last deal, but I think ultimately we got such a substantial drop because we are in a week position to negotiate. Let's be honest, Sky could probably have gone to £20m and we'd have had to take it. 

We would have taken even less and that is the problem. Sky will probably point to advertising rates they can command in the programmes amongst other things. There is a clear difference in the advertising demographic for Golf and RU compared with RL and that has been a constant struggle in negotiations regardless of broadcaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That may be the case, but they paid £40m per year previously and have now decided not to pay that this time for a reason. 

I think there are plenty of reasons, the world has changed, I think it's clear there was a premium on the last deal, but I think ultimately we got such a substantial drop because we are in a week position to negotiate. Let's be honest, Sky could probably have gone to £20m and we'd have had to take it. 

I know others think differently but I have always been very much of the opinion that Rugby League has to take whatever Sky offers because they have no other alternative and there is no real competition. That's weak as but its what it boils down to.

Yes people may talk about streaming and mythical interest from BT Sport or a new player like Amazon but the cold hard fact is that time and time again Sky are the only bidders. In that market, as you say, whatever Sky offers we have to take. The only time we saw the sport play hard ball Sky there were no other offers and Sky actually dropped their next bid and paid less. If we can get the secondary FTA deal, along with the digital, then this reduced bid may have huge, and probably unintended, positives for the sport that it would have never had the cajones to pull off itself.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Scubby said:

We would have taken even less and that is the problem. Sky will probably point to advertising rates they can command in the programmes amongst other things. There is a clear difference in the advertising demographic for Golf and RU compared with RL and that has been a constant struggle in negotiations regardless of broadcaster.

A lot of advertisers simply buy blocks of ad time rather than handpicking the programmes they will be advertised in - and RL is good for that as they provide numbers for Sky to be able to sell.

One of the areas we are weak though is that we don't tend to bring our own sponsors along. 

However what I would say is that the ads on BT Sport are appalling at times, including during RU shows - they just don't have the pull that Sky does.

I would hazard a guess that the financial benefits for RU and RL for Sky/BT are probably quite similar, maybe some variances but not millions of quid - but the difference is that RL is in a weak negotiation position so can be bought on the cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hello said:

Further to the discussion that has taken place on this thread regarding TV viewing figures, what does everyone think about the actual live attendance at the game tonight in what was a crucial end of season knock out game?   Let me here state that I'm not on a wind-up mission. Personally I was gutted to see stands sparsely populated.

Everyone warned them even with their bad season their price policy.  It is unforgivable for what is supposed to be the climax of our season for clubs to charge that.  Its a game on a cold thursday night not on the season ticket.  You have to be offering kids in for nowt and selling it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A lot of advertisers simply buy blocks of ad time rather than handpicking the programmes they will be advertised in - and RL is good for that as they provide numbers for Sky to be able to sell.

One of the areas we are weak though is that we don't tend to bring our own sponsors along. 

However what I would say is that the ads on BT Sport are appalling at times, including during RU shows - they just don't have the pull that Sky does.

I would hazard a guess that the financial benefits for RU and RL for Sky/BT are probably quite similar, maybe some variances but not millions of quid - but the difference is that RL is in a weak negotiation position so can be bought on the cheap.

That's changing somewhat now with programmatic and addressable media technologies like Sky AdSmart, which allow advertisers to bid for ad placements on individual set-top boxes, rather than buy 'blocks' of media via an agency.

That technology does allow advertisers to advertise to individual households based on demographic data, such as postcode, previous search histories, previous purchasing histories, credit scores, MOSAIC profiling etc (and Sky has all of this data within it's ecosystem - it knows where you live, it credit checks you when you take a subscription, anyone can buy MOSAIC data and there's a good chance it is your ISP). There is a very good chance that at some point during half time in last night's game, you and I saw different adverts despite the fact that we were watching the same channel at exactly the same time. 

Technologies like that, which are becoming more widespread, do become an issue for RL if it can't engage audiences that advertisers want to pay a premium to reach. Yes, advertising revenue for Sky is a relatively small proportion of their overall revenue, but they aren't developing this tech for fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A lot of advertisers simply buy blocks of ad time rather than handpicking the programmes they will be advertised in - and RL is good for that as they provide numbers for Sky to be able to sell.

One of the areas we are weak though is that we don't tend to bring our own sponsors along. 

However what I would say is that the ads on BT Sport are appalling at times, including during RU shows - they just don't have the pull that Sky does.

I would hazard a guess that the financial benefits for RU and RL for Sky/BT are probably quite similar, maybe some variances but not millions of quid - but the difference is that RL is in a weak negotiation position so can be bought on the cheap.

It's the whole package, we can't accept the BetFred's, Mushy Peas, Stobart and AB Sundecks and hope to look as assured at the negotiating table as Golf (with it's KPMG, Rolex) and Union with its blah............ I got bored typing this and am supposed to be working on a tight deadline but you get my drift 😄 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It's the whole package, we can't accept the BetFred's, Mushy Peas, Stobart and AB Sundecks and hope to look as assured at the negotiating table as Golf (with it's KPMG, Rolex) and Union with its blah............ I got bored typing this and am supposed to be working on a tight deadline but you get my drift 😄 

But these brands (KPMG, Rolex etc.) are not the top spenders in the UK for advertising. In 2020 the list includes McDonald's, Amazon & Tesco.  These brands would have absolutely no issue with targeting the Rugby League demographic.

https://www.adbrands.net/uk/top-advertisers-in-the-uk.html

It may be true that viewers of Golf and Rugby Union have more disposable income than League fans on the whole but Sky will look at the biggest advertisers and try and get a piece of that pie and we would absolutely fit in with that strategy. 

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But these brands (KPMG, Rolex etc.) are not the top spenders in the UK for advertising. In 2020 the list includes McDonald's, Amazon & Tesco.  These brands would have absolutely no issue with targeting the Rugby League demographic.

https://www.adbrands.net/uk/top-advertisers-in-the-uk.html

It may be true that viewers of Golf and Rugby Union have more disposable income than League fans on the whole but Sky will look at the biggest advertisers and try and get a piece of that pie and we would absolutely fit in with that strategy. 

Non cigs, beer and betting brands that seem to target RL are often brands with a low budget looking to launch something or are small time in the UK looking to grow e.g. First Utility, Kingston Press, Engage Mutual Assurance. 

We probably serve that sponsorship well but often they sponsor RL because it is very cheap in comparison to other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

Non cigs, beer and betting brands that seem to target RL are often brands with a low budget looking to launch something or are small time in the UK looking to grow e.g. First Utility, Kingston Press, Engage Mutual Assurance. 

We probably serve that sponsorship well but often they sponsor RL because it is very cheap in comparison to other options.

I thought we were talking about TV advertising, not sponsorship. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I thought we were talking about TV advertising, not sponsorship. 

[For a change] I actually listen to a bit of what @Dave T says on stuff like this because I know he has worked in this type of space. Broadcasters are looking for what they can gain from TV deals and those that do show a large footprint and ambition/intent with their current sponsorship portfolio are obviously at a huge advantage. Big sponsors work harder, pay more and spread their message organically through their brands.

It is largely why beer and fags loved us in the 1980s and 1990s because we had high profile spots on the BBC, got great ratings and the sport was watched by beer guzzling, fag smoking types who loved their products. Those days are thankfully gone but RL is struggling to reinvent itself. There appears IMO a broad correlation between how RL has been treated historically by broadcast deals and how the Scottish Premier League soccer is. Maybe it is the regional element or something else but there does seem a pattern of "take it or leave it" from those offering deals.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That's changing somewhat now with programmatic and addressable media technologies like Sky AdSmart, which allow advertisers to bid for ad placements on individual set-top boxes, rather than buy 'blocks' of media via an agency.

That technology does allow advertisers to advertise to individual households based on demographic data, such as postcode, previous search histories, previous purchasing histories, credit scores, MOSAIC profiling etc (and Sky has all of this data within it's ecosystem - it knows where you live, it credit checks you when you take a subscription, anyone can buy MOSAIC data and there's a good chance it is your ISP). There is a very good chance that at some point during half time in last night's game, you and I saw different adverts despite the fact that we were watching the same channel at exactly the same time. 

Technologies like that, which are becoming more widespread, do become an issue for RL if it can't engage audiences that advertisers want to pay a premium to reach. Yes, advertising revenue for Sky is a relatively small proportion of their overall revenue, but they aren't developing this tech for fun. 

Whilst all that is true - the advertising we see on SL shows does not differ substantially from sports like football in reality. That obviously may change, but let's be honest - many of the ads are for gambling and relatively mainstream products that do work for the RL demographic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It's the whole package, we can't accept the BetFred's, Mushy Peas, Stobart and AB Sundecks and hope to look as assured at the negotiating table as Golf (with it's KPMG, Rolex) and Union with its blah............ I got bored typing this and am supposed to be working on a tight deadline but you get my drift 😄 

Yet people want us to be more 'Darts'. 

We don't need to be something we are not, Golf is its own thing - its unique, we are not getting to that place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst all that is true - the advertising we see on SL shows does not differ substantially from sports like football in reality. That obviously may change, but let's be honest - many of the ads are for gambling and relatively mainstream products that do work for the RL demographic. 

The advertising may not be different, but the price paid is likely to have some difference. 

As this sort of technology becomes more mainstream, advertisers will look TV advertising in the same bracket as they do a lot of digital media, where it's possible to reach a C2DE audience for less than £50 per thousand in the right circumstances. 

I don't think this sort of development is impacting the current TV deal, but it is something that is probably in the post at some point and I do think it's why Sky do invest heavily in sports like Golf and F1, which pull in those more valuable demographics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do tv companies charge more to advertisers whose products are more expensive?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst all that is true - the advertising we see on SL shows does not differ substantially from sports like football in reality. That obviously may change, but let's be honest - many of the ads are for gambling and relatively mainstream products that do work for the RL demographic. 

any idea about the worth of other type of adverts you get on seeing Sky video clips... every clip has an advert.   Something I think our game doesn't consider enough... would be better if clubs had their web site videos on You tube and take some of the advertising revenue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Do tv companies charge more to advertisers whose products are more expensive?

Yes and no - advertisers tend not to care who is advertising, but they do care what they're being paid for it - which is why they're moving towards digital ad models. 

Under more traditional models, the price for a a 30-second slot in the middle of Coronation Street, a quarter-page colour spread on page six of The Sun or a four week billboard rental at the side of the North Circular was pretty much "the price". Often agencies would buy those in bulk at a discount, sell them on to their clients and the difference was their fee. 

Now, digital tech has turned the advertising industry into much more of an auction (or rather, millions of auctions taking place every second). That billboard on the North Circular isn't a board where a man with a ladder and some wallpaper paste changes the ad every month - it's a 4k TV screen where time is sold remotely. It's the same with YouTube advertising, same with online display advertising and now, increasingly, the same with TV advertising. 

So the publications, instead of saying "our readers are typically [this demographic] and we have [this space] to offer", are now saying "We have some space to show an ad to Mr Dunbar, who lives in [postcode], has a MOSAIC profile of [this] and has recently shown an interest in [these things] - who wants to bid for it?". 

If you're a desirable consumer, that auction is going to be competitive and the companies that can have higher margins on their products, sell in higher volumes and/or have higher customer lifetime values can afford to "win" those auctions. If you're a less desirable consumer, the auctions are less competitive and the ad price is accordingly lower. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...