Jump to content

Superleague TV audience figures through the roof.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

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 advertising industry is becoming 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. 

Thanks, I really appreciate the answer.

What I find interesting about this is that it may not have a particularly negative effect on our 'product' on Sky when it comes to advertising.

We assume that Rolex will prefer to advertise on Sky when they have golf on but in reality the brands like McDonalds, Tesco and Amazon will have just as big a budget for adverting and they know what type of demographic they are after and just because the product isn't particularly 'premium' it doesn't mean that the ability to reach that demographic effectively is any less valuable.  I would argue it is just as valuable to them as a Rolex would have to reach its demographic effectively and so our space on Sky can be just as in demand - just for the right advertisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, Dunbar said:

Thanks, I really appreciate the answer.

What I find interesting about this is that it may not have a particularly negative effect on our 'product' on Sky when it comes to advertising.

We assume that Rolex will prefer to advertise on Sky when they have golf on but in reality the brands like McDonalds, Tesco and Amazon will have just as big a budget for adverting and they know what type of demographic they are after and just because the product isn't particularly 'premium' it doesn't mean that the ability to reach that demographic effectively is any less valuable.  I would argue it is just as valuable to them as a Rolex would have to reach its demographic effectively and so our space on Sky can be just as in demand - just for the right advertisers.

The challenge comes when Sky looks at what content 'typically' hooks in the audiences that drive value there. So if you, for the sake of argument, had the profile that was of interest to the likes of Rolex and Mercedes-Benz, you'd still see ads for Rolex and Mercedes in the middle of RL content. 

But that's an isolated case, and Sky will still look at this in the macro level when it comes to deciding what sports rights they buy and what they're willing to pay. If on the whole, the consumers who tend to watch RL have a lower average ad value, then that factors into how they value RL content. 

I realise I'm heading towards boring marketing terminology here, but whilst you're right that Tesco or Amazon are bigger advertisers than Rolex and Mercedes, their target 'cost per impression' and 'cost per acquisition' will be much, much lower - partly because their margins are smaller and partly because other media (Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc) is incredibly cheap for the same sort of impact. Rolex and Mercedes will stomach a higher CPI/CPA because their margins are bigger and because the audiences that they want the attention of are harder and more expensive to reach. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, redjonn said:

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.

It's not something I know about tbh, but our use of YouTube and similar has been shocking as you say. Maybe with professional coverage and streaming ownership next year we will improve on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DC77 said:

And that's with a commendably decent turnout from Leeds

Mind you, on tonight's showing, you can see why the Rugby League public of Wigan are not rushing to the stadium to watch. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, redjonn said:

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.

The actual numbers can vary massively depending on the channel and the subject, but the "ballpark" figure for YouTube pre-roll ad revenue is around £6 per thousand views. You need a lot of content and a big audience to really make it work. 

RL doesn't lack for content, but it does lack the ability to capture it and build an audience with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The actual numbers can vary massively depending on the channel and the subject, but the "ballpark" figure for YouTube pre-roll ad revenue is around £6 per thousand views. You need a lot of content and a big audience to really make it work. 

RL doesn't lack for content, but it does lack the ability to capture it and build an audience with it. 

mmm I guess if SL had a Youtube type channel with the clubs sharing their output you may then get a reasonably extra revenue. From their build it up.  Of course have to negotiate good digital rights with Sky too add to the content.

When I go on Youtube I will always watch a clip or two of RL past and present, I guess RL doesn't collective or bother to find a way to monetise.

I know their is a SL web site but I never ever visit it.

 

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, redjonn said:

mmm I guess if SL had a Youtube type channel with the clubs sharing their output you may then get a reasonably extra revenue. From their build it up.  Of course have to negotiate good digital rights with Sky too add to the content.

When I go on Youtube I will always watch a clip or two of RL past and present, I guess RL doesn't collective or bother to find a way to monetise.

I know their is a SL web site but I never ever visit it.

 

Its not too bad, they also show all the highlights from the games the following day - one reason i don't watch the SL show these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, redjonn said:

mmm I guess if SL had a Youtube type channel with the clubs sharing their output you may then get a reasonably extra revenue. From their build it up.  Of course have to negotiate good digital rights with Sky too add to the content.

When I go on Youtube I will always watch a clip or two of RL past and present, I guess RL doesn't collective or bother to find a way to monetise.

I know their is a SL web site but I never ever visit it.

 

TV rights is one issue when it comes to online content, and I believe that is a consideration in this new TV deal. Another is actually capturing that content - we don't film every game to the same quality and this means that we miss a lot of opportunities. Again, I think this is something that the new TV deal considers. 

But as with anything in RL land, a lot of it comes down to strategy and planning. You can't just shovel content onto YouTube and think that's job done. It all comes back to that audience question - who do SL, the clubs and the RFL want to reach and what do they want to achieve? As you've said yourself, if all they are doing with their YouTube channel is competing with The Super League Show, we're not exactly enhancing the value of our highlights rights. You need much more original, creative content on there - stuff that tells the story of our league, clubs and talent, in a way that the traditional broadcasters wouldn't.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

And that's with a commendably decent turnout from Leeds

Mind you, on tonight's showing, you can see why the Rugby League public of Wigan are not rushing to the stadium to watch. 

7,396 is awful, no wonder the tv deal is poor. all other sports are booming, all RL do is make excuses. other sports have not had covid cancellations anywhere near what RL have had. why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

That's exactly it. Sky don't sit there and say, oh ratings are up, we'll pay RL a bit more, games a bit boring, we'll cut the contract. They're a commercial organisation trying to make a profit, so they'll offer as little as they can. If there was competition from other broadcasters, they would increase their offer potentially up to the point where it stops making a profit. But there isn't anybody else bidding - it's a "here's what we'll pay, take it or leave it" situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Its not too bad, they also show all the highlights from the games the following day - one reason i don't watch the SL show these days.

It's abysmal. 

The Salford St Helens game still wasn't uploaded 48 hours later. There is no commentary, no caption showing the score. The coverage is absolute garbage. 

It USED to be good .... A number of years ago now, when they would do a little behind the scenes video on game day. This stopped about 8 or so years ago. The standard nowadays is miles behind that, and miles behind other sports too. 

They were producing this quality of content 7 years ago. At the time, it shaped up well against pretty much any sport, and made the SuperLeague look really good. Contrast it to the low budget garbage that comes out now. 

 

Edited by The Frying Scotsman
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

It's abysmal. 

The Salford St Helens game still wasn't uploaded 48 hours later. There is no commentary, no caption showing the score. The coverage is absolute garbage. 

It USED to be good .... A number of years ago now, when they would do a little behind the scenes video on game day. This stopped about 8 or so years ago. The standard nowadays is miles behind that, and miles behind other sports too. 

They were producing this quality of content 7 years ago. At the time, it shaped up well against pretty much any sport, and made the SuperLeague look really good. Contrast it to the low budget garbage that comes out now. 

 

Not often you are negative about SL and things in general kid.

You did, however, forget to have a go at England for the first time in ages ... maybe edit your comments or you won't be able to sleep...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/09/2021 at 06:02, Eddie said:

Hopefully it will be Toulouse next season, and they can play their game at a neutral venue in France on Magic weekend. 

I would have thought if people pay to go to Magic Round they are paying to see all the teams in the competition.

Saw an interesting graph here a while back which showed how throughout the year there is a steady decline in TV audiences, probably a reflection of how some teams supporters realise their team isn`t competitive and stop watching or who knows for whatever reasons, maybe they aren`t that committed fans to the sport in the first place.

But this leads me to something the graph revealed, by having regular `events`, we have ANZAC round, rivalries round, Magic round(one of yours), indigenous round amongst others there is a mini-spike in viewing associated with each event, naturally viewership continues its` decline after that, but does so off a slightly higher base. I`d be saving a Toulouse/Catalans game for a rivalries weekend rather than wasting it on Magic. 

Alternatively though I suppose you could always put Cats up against whoever they beat to win the CC a few years back if you did have such a thing as rivalry round. Any way just thought I`d mention it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I would have thought if people pay to go to Magic Round they are paying to see all the teams in the competition.

Saw an interesting graph here a while back which showed how throughout the year there is a steady decline in TV audiences, probably a reflection of how some teams supporters realise their team isn`t competitive and stop watching or who knows for whatever reasons, maybe they aren`t that committed fans to the sport in the first place.

But this leads me to something the graph revealed, by having regular `events`, we have ANZAC round, rivalries round, Magic round(one of yours), indigenous round amongst others there is a mini-spike in viewing associated with each event, naturally viewership continues its` decline after that, but does so off a slightly higher base. I`d be saving a Toulouse/Catalans game for a rivalries weekend rather than wasting it on Magic. 

Alternatively though I suppose you could always put Cats up against whoever they beat to win the CC a few years back if you did have such a thing as rivalry round. Any way just thought I`d mention it.

 

I definitely think that UK Rugby League should be looking for more events during the regular season.  As you say, they generate interest and they are likely to catch the attention of the wider public more than regular season games.  That attention could be held for several weeks and then another event can start the process over.

Having said that, every year we have plenty of people on here saying its time to scrap the Magic weekend despite the fact it gives us the 3rd and 4th best attendances of the year and more media coverage than regular season games. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I would have thought if people pay to go to Magic Round they are paying to see all the teams in the competition.

Saw an interesting graph here a while back which showed how throughout the year there is a steady decline in TV audiences, probably a reflection of how some teams supporters realise their team isn`t competitive and stop watching or who knows for whatever reasons, maybe they aren`t that committed fans to the sport in the first place.

But this leads me to something the graph revealed, by having regular `events`, we have ANZAC round, rivalries round, Magic round(one of yours), indigenous round amongst others there is a mini-spike in viewing associated with each event, naturally viewership continues its` decline after that, but does so off a slightly higher base. I`d be saving a Toulouse/Catalans game for a rivalries weekend rather than wasting it on Magic. 

Alternatively though I suppose you could always put Cats up against whoever they beat to win the CC a few years back if you did have such a thing as rivalry round. Any way just thought I`d mention it.

 

One of the main reasons for decline in tv viewing figures in the UK is seasonality. Summer months see viewing figures decline dramatically, particularly on Sky Sports. I expect a large part is that we are probably linked to the football crowds who aren't around on Sky Sports for that period. 

But it doesn't change the overall point, whatever the figures are, we can be doing stuff to make them better every week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I definitely think that UK Rugby League should be looking for more events during the regular season.  As you say, they generate interest and they are likely to catch the attention of the wider public more than regular season games.  That attention could be held for several weeks and then another event can start the process over.

Having said that, every year we have plenty of people on here saying its time to scrap the Magic weekend despite the fact it gives us the 3rd and 4th best attendances of the year and more media coverage than regular season games. 

They also say people can’t afford it etc, without considering that working class people pack football grounds out in some places. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, devils'advocate time.... say that there was a much larger presence on youtube....

1. What's the point?

2. What is the objective?

3. How will that objective be achieved?

Is the idea to attract new viewers who will become fans (TV or spectators)?

If so, how will these be attracted to youtube? 

  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably mentioned elsewhere but Sky have been showing a fair amount of RL on their Mix channel, which many people can access for free. Might this have affected the figures?

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Probably mentioned elsewhere but Sky have been showing a fair amount of RL on their Mix channel, which many people can access for free. Might this have affected the figures?

The figures aren't very good for Mix tbh. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JohnM said:

so, devils'advocate time.... say that there was a much larger presence on youtube....

1. What's the point?

2. What is the objective?

3. How will that objective be achieved?

Is the idea to attract new viewers who will become fans (TV or spectators)?

If so, how will these be attracted to youtube? 

The point is to build interest, awareness, relevance and salience for RL and Super League. 

YouTube allows us to build interest - most RL content is hidden behind a paywall and the stuff that isn't is not always easy to find. Digital media allows us to break through those paywalls and build interest with target audiences. 

It allows us to build awareness. We often talk about RL being a well-kept secret and not having "stars", despite having a good product, incredible talent and characters. With the right content and distribution, we can build that awareness. 

It allows us to build relevance with target audiences and show them that we have something to offer. We can use the technology that social media provides to target content at audiences that will have a propensity to like what we have to offer. 

It allows us to build salience - the idea that when people see a rugby ball, they think rugby league. This is admittedly the toughest nut to crack, but it's about owning our own product. We complain when rugby union gets attention for things like Jonny May's corner flag dive in the Six Nations when Tommy Makinson and Tom Johnstone do it every week - that's a lack of salience. 

What's the objective? To build an audience. When we build an audience, we can charge advertisers to get access to it - it's the model that the media has worked on for centuries. And when the sport addresses those issues above, it has an audience that is more engaged so that, even if they aren't clicking through the turnstiles, they're watching, sharing, engaging with and aware of RL. We can use those audiences and those social media platforms to drive increased TV viewership (here's an example of how the NBA did it). That can only be beneficial for our attempts to sell tickets to live events, approach would-be audiences and would be media partners. 

How do we do it? Elstone and Lee Hicken had the right mindset when they talked about the sport becoming a media property in its own right. We do it through content and understanding the sort of content that the game's target audience wants. 

Why YouTube and social media? Because that's where audiences are. They're not watching TV, they're not buying League Express, they're on social media, YouTube, Twitch, Tinder - lots of other places that RL isn't. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, all of that, as I expected but thanks. Still playing devil's advocate, it all a waste if no one new actually finds out about it. People who are not already involved don't just go to YouTube and look for rugby league content. So how do we get them to do that?

  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Indeed, all of that, as I expected but thanks. Still playing devil's advocate, it all a waste if no one new actually finds out about it. People who are not already involved don't just go to YouTube and look for rugby league content. So how do we get them to do that?

That debate ("what if nobody sees it?") is true of any marketing activity. 

Break it down into three parts:

A - What is the audience RL/SL/the clubs want to reach?

B - What content is going to resonate with them?

C - What medium helps you get B to A?

YouTube may not be the right platform for that - it might be another or it may be, more likely, a combination of many. Then you work on the push and pull levels to get that content seen. 

The "pull" bit is getting the content and the creative right. If the content is good enough, people who find it will share it, talk about it, they'll watch it, like it, subscribe to it and the algorithms that power all of these platforms will recognise that and give it greater prominence who share the same sort of traits as the people who were watching, liking and sharing it before. 

Then you have the "push" bit - how is the sport promoting that content over its owned channels (eg, club websites, email databases, pitch side advertising, etc) earned channels (PR and media relations) and paid channels (eg, using the platform's own promotional tools to find audiences that are likely to engage with it). 

For example, there is evidence that there is a correlation between people who watch rugby league and those who watch the NFL and other contact sports. YouTube allows publishers to target and promote their content to people who have watched certain genres of content (and YouTube wants to keep people on its platform, so tries to predict what you might like), so one example could be that the RFL/SL targets some of its RL content to those people relatively cheaply (in some cases around 2p per view). You can also target certain keyword searches - something like "trick play" for example, and then promote a video of a Rangi Chase-esque flick pass. There are lots of ways to use the social media sites' own data and promotional tools to attract the audience you want. 

It's not something that is necessarily easy, fast or cheap to do properly, but it is the cost of reaching some audiences - particularly the younger ones that RL needs to reach. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/09/2021 at 16:09, whatmichaelsays said:

The actual numbers can vary massively depending on the channel and the subject, but the "ballpark" figure for YouTube pre-roll ad revenue is around £6 per thousand views. You need a lot of content and a big audience to really make it work. 

RL doesn't lack for content, but it does lack the ability to capture it and build an audience with it. 

For YouTube, is that £6 per thousand, per ad, per video?  i.e 2 ads, 2000 views (clicks?) = £24?

 

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...