Jump to content

Sky UK Expectations


RayCee

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've posted at length what I think will help drive value. I think club makeup is pretty minimal in its impact. History shows us this. 

Content (variety, quality and amouny) is more important. It was nonsense when people said London were critical, just as it was when they said it about Toronto, and now they say it about Catalans. These clubs may be crucial for the game for a myriad of reasons, but viewing figures don't really appear to be affected by them. And please, nobody come back with the Catalans game being high this year, otherwise we come to the conclusion that Salford are the most important club to Sky viewers by far.

Are we saying a Super League without Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC, Warrington and St Helens would sell as many subs and  rate as well?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The NRL do it. Look at the Dolphins expansion. That’s not about pins in a map imperialism, it’s about TV ratings. 

It'll provide 2 extra rounds and extra games. Probably the same people watching more games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder on what basis Sky lowered its latest TV deal to RL. Was it times are harder and we all have to tighten our belt? Or did they tell RL the sport isn’t worth the price anymore? If which teams are in SL.matters not a jot, then there are other reasons for the reduced deal.
 

I don’t know and maybe that’s commercially sensitive so they don’t publicly give a reason for the enlightenment of the great unwashed.

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Are we saying a Super League without Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC, Warrington and St Helens would sell as many subs and  rate as well?  

That's impossible to answer as that would happen over time and it would depend who replaced them. But we don't need to go to extremes to make silly points. 

Catalans v Hull KR being the highest rated regular game this year and Saints v Salford being the highest rated SL game ever shows that TV viewers aren't as entrenched in our events like the Good Friday Derby as us. 

Clearly those games are important, just not as important as we make out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It'll provide 2 extra rounds and extra games. Probably the same people watching more games. 

C’mon, Dave. We know the NRL rates very strongly in Brisbane. It’s a heartland with lots of fish. That’s why the 17th club is there, not Darwin or Perth. And when they expand to 18, New Zealand will be a front runner for the same reason: TV ratings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

C’mon, Dave. We know the NRL rates very strongly in Brisbane. It’s a heartland with lots of fish. That’s why the 17th club is there, not Darwin or Perth. And when they expand to 18, New Zealand will be a front runner for the same reason: TV ratings. 

Isn’t there such a thing as ‘overfishing’ though to use your analogy whereby a fishing stock gets dangerously overworked?

I’m not suggesting your premise is wrong though or that they’ve reached saturation point in Brisbane or Queensland in terms of the NRL at this time.

I can see the other point of view though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That's impossible to answer as that would happen over time and it would depend who replaced them. But we don't need to go to extremes to make silly points. 

Silly point or bleedin’ obvious?

Common sense ought to tell you that bigger the reach of Super League (ie it contains clubs with more followers than others), the more Sky subs are likely to be sold.

Maybe this is why the governing bodies are proposing 2x10, ie it casts a wider net? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

C’mon, Dave. We know the NRL rates very strongly in Brisbane. It’s a heartland with lots of fish. That’s why the 17th club is there, not Darwin or Perth. And when they expand to 18, New Zealand will be a front runner for the same reason: TV ratings. 

I get your point and yes, the Dolphins would have been the choice based in part at least on TV ratings. How would translate to the UK? Would a Newcastle side help TV ratings? Will Toulouse do so? I guess it’s hard to quantify.

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think while broadcasters to some degree will analyse the quality of what is on the pitch and there might be some argument to be made that club XXX and club YYY would bring similar dimensions of playing quality so why does it matter where they are from - it does matter in terms of sponsorship, advertising and promotion.

There’s simply more potential and upside to increase those if club XXX is from a more larger demographic that is more likely to watch and it has room to grow.  Media coverage of the product is also affected in the same way.

Ideally you get a balance between ability on the pitch and commercial exploitation off it.  Out of all the trajectories of clubs in our current setup then I guess Newcastle Thunder look best placed to combine both elements if they follow their development path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

C’mon, Dave. We know the NRL rates very strongly in Brisbane. It’s a heartland with lots of fish. That’s why the 17th club is there, not Darwin or Perth. And when they expand to 18, New Zealand will be a front runner for the same reason: TV ratings. 

If you look at the press releases they don't even mention tv. They do talk about player development and the investment the Dolphins. 

Let's say the Dolphins get 20k crowds, that's great but it ain't a game changer in terms of adding new fans to the TV viewer base. 

Extra games will bring the extra few hundred k on fox though - that is what Fox are paying for. Any of the expansion teams would have done that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RayCee said:

I wonder on what basis Sky lowered its latest TV deal to RL. Was it times are harder and we all have to tighten our belt? Or did they tell RL the sport isn’t worth the price anymore? If which teams are in SL.matters not a jot, then there are other reasons for the reduced deal.
 

I don’t know and maybe that’s commercially sensitive so they don’t publicly give a reason for the ienlightenment of us, the great unwashed.

Its in line with both an overall trend in reducing values (ignore the premier league) and puts us in line with Scottish Premiership Football who like us are regionally based with a broader interest and some one off big draw games. 

There is a certain attitude aspect to this. Super League needs to ensure the atmosphere around it is positive and frankly it hasn't been during the negotiation period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Silly point or bleedin’ obvious?

Common sense ought to tell you that bigger the reach of Super League (ie it contains clubs with more followers than others), the more Sky subs are likely to be sold.

Maybe this is why the governing bodies are proposing 2x10, ie it casts a wider net? 

But if those clubs weren't in SL there would be other clubs! That's why it's silly. 

Bradford have gone - no impact. 

Hull weren't in SL at the start - no impact. 

We are scraping around talking about club a getting 5k versus club b getting 10k. That is small time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK, the only way the identity of a new club affects ratings is whether that new club has the ability - quickly - to become competitive with the top 8, or just becomes another yoyo club that loses more games than it wins. 

If the latter, it very quickly becomes a drag on the product, and its appeal to TV. 

Geographical location has *some* impact on this, but only in the sense that it may provide some opportunity to generate strong matchday revenues to fund a competitive team. Either by effectively tapping a new, big market (say Toronto), or reviving a dormant fanbase (maybe Bradford or Fev). 

But tbh those factors are usually more complex than people make out, and success will depend on whether the club has substantial funding to embark on a multi year plan. 

You only have to look at the Dolphins bid to see that - they're absolutely loaded and can fund themselves at competitiveNRL  level for 5 years while taking very little out. This was clearly the winning factor for the NRL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

The NRL do it. Look at the Dolphins expansion. That’s not about pins in a map imperialism, it’s about TV ratings. 

We should be really careful fishing where there are dolphins. I'm told that they get tangled in the nets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I don't think those Bradford and Hull statements are true. 

Super League is better for having Hull FC in, they have brought a lot to the table. So a definite impact.

Bradford going down the tubes has resulted in those big games against Leeds, Wigan and Saints (which were great both on TV and in person) not existing now. That's absolutely an impact - and not a good one. 

If you mean it's not the end of the world, I'd agree with you. But those respective things have definitely made an impact.

To be clear, my no impact point is purely on TV viewing figures. And I mean material impacts. Some of the Wigan v Saints Derby numbers are modest despite us seeing it as a national event! 

And those Bradford Grand Finals all rated worse than the Salford Grand Final. Its a bigger thing than individual clubs. 

I think I clarified in another post that the benefits of certain clubs etc. being in are there for the game as a whole, but on the narrow topic of sky viewing figures, nah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Fair enough but I still aren't that convinced that it's so unimportant and irrelevant who is on Sky. Many pubs in Bradford for example, used to have the Bulls games on and by default, the other games tended to be shown on a weekend. This was directly because people got into the habit of watching the games (including non Bradford games). This was a lot of eyes from a lot of casual/non RL fans that just aren't there anymore. 

I'm not saying this to argue that Bradford are special, just that it is an illustration of how who is in SL can definitely affect viewing figures. But I accept it's not scientific proof. 

But presumably that was when Bradford were good, and Sky wanted to show them and locals were happy to take a passing interest, even if not regular attenders. 

I don't think anyone doubts that a financially solvent Bulls that could fund a team good enough to challenge for the playoffs would be an asset for SL, and one that would enhance the TV product. There are two or three other heartland teams we could substitute in here too. 

It's just that until those conditions are met - and in Bradford's case I truly hope we one day get there - including them won't be more attractive to Sky than we have now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Johnoco said:

The point being that if a big city has a successful side, they are more likely to attract more viewers than a small place. Not to say the smaller town is worthless or anything, just the way it is. 

This is so obvious it shouldn’t need stating!

We don’t have the facts about precisely who buys Sky Sports subs for what reasons but common sense tells you it does matter somewhat who is in Super League for pay TV. 

As an aside, the Premier League and their Sky TV deal came into being through the ‘Big Five’. Take those clubs out of the Premier League and ratings would still be strong - clubs will take their place - but there would undoubtedly be a hit on subs, ratings and the value of TV rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What drives modern TV figures is hype, over hype and nonsense. The product has little to do with it.

Pot Noodles sell in vast numbers not because it is gourmet food but because they spend millions on ensuring people think it is.

 

 

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Padge said:

What drives modern TV figures is hype, over hype and nonsense. The product has little to do with it.

Pot Noodles sell in vast numbers not because it is gourmet food but because they spend millions on ensuring people think it is.

In NZ we are always being reminded in advertising and through supportive media how good RU is. Yet when Sky NZ rang me and offered a free channel for a month the guy on the phone was trying to talk me into taking the dedicated RU channel but I declined and took something else. For me at least the product has everything to do with it.
I don’t know what Pot Noodles are but that must be an amazing advertising campaign to make people think it’s gourmet food. Perhaps that advertising company could be used at the next Sky TV deal. 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

This is so obvious it shouldn’t need stating!

We don’t have the facts about precisely who buys Sky Sports subs for what reasons but common sense tells you it does matter somewhat who is in Super League for pay TV. 

As an aside, the Premier League and their Sky TV deal came into being through the ‘Big Five’. Take those clubs out of the Premier League and ratings would still be strong - clubs will take their place - but there would undoubtedly be a hit on subs, ratings and the value of TV rights.

No combinations so far has varied the ratings materially. Not Bradford with huge crowds, not a decent London, not Toronto. 

We are piddling about with tactical solutions thinking an extra 3 or 4k fans at Hull KR over Leigh will make a difference. 

Bradford left SL, other clubs became the stronger clubs and the 200k watch them instead. 

The Premier League didn't used to have Man City in, now they are a draw. 

Of course there will be variances, but they are minor. The evidence is there in viewing figures, we don't need to create hypothesis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

This is so obvious it shouldn’t need stating!

We don’t have the facts about precisely who buys Sky Sports subs for what reasons but common sense tells you it does matter somewhat who is in Super League for pay TV. 

As an aside, the Premier League and their Sky TV deal came into being through the ‘Big Five’. Take those clubs out of the Premier League and ratings would still be strong - clubs will take their place - but there would undoubtedly be a hit on subs, ratings and the value of TV rights.

No combinations so far has varied the ratings materially. Not Bradford with huge crowds, not a decent London, not Toronto. 

We are piddling about with tactical solutions thinking an extra 3 or 4k fans at Hull KR over Leigh will make a difference. 

Bradford left SL, other clubs became the stronger clubs and the 200k watch them instead. 

The Premier League didn't used to have Man City in, now they are a draw. 

Of course there will be variances, but they are minor. The evidence is there in viewing figures, we don't need to create hypothesis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No combinations so far has varied the ratings materially. Not Bradford with huge crowds, not a decent London, not Toronto. 

We are piddling about with tactical solutions thinking an extra 3 or 4k fans at Hull KR over Leigh will make a difference. 

Bradford left SL, other clubs became the stronger clubs and the 200k watch them instead. 

The Premier League didn't used to have Man City in, now they are a draw. 

Of course there will be variances, but they are minor. The evidence is there in viewing figures, we don't need to create hypothesis.

 

The club mix, distribution and fan profile is the sponsor driver. The sponsor take up and willingness to pay is a big TV deal financial driver.

 

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

In NZ we are always being reminded in advertising and through supportive media how good RU is. Yet when Sky NZ rang me and offered a free channel for a month the guy on the phone was trying to talk me into taking the dedicated RU channel but I declined and took something else. For me at least the product has everything to do with it.
I don’t know what Pot Noodles are but that must be an amazing advertising campaign to make people think it’s gourmet food. Perhaps that advertising company could be used at the next Sky TV deal. 

Professionalism has destroyed much of RU. It’s unrecognisable from the sport I grew up watching. The best description I’ve heard on the change of player physique that has largely ruined the game as a spectacle is by Jonathan Liew

17 minutes in:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode/786569

Rugby union players “no longer look human”. Busy downing whey protein from their early teens they now look like “weird mutant creatures that are 80% neck”....the game is now “transformers colliding, where the skill”?

 

I think he’s summed up the why the sport is in freefall. There hasn’t been a household name in RU in over a decade and a half and that’s because it’s a much more physical, attritional game played by mammoth sized players in a now overcrowded field with space and line breaks at a premium. The last RUWC (and the one before that, and the one before that etc.), no big name has emerged from it. It’s nigh on impossible for an individual to stand out now as they get shut down. When the players looked “human” (to use Liew’s phrase) individuals had more space to attack and there was more onus on open, running play, which allowed a Campese to shine. He’s lucky he played in an era when a player like him had a platform to shine as he’d starve on the scraps players with any quality get served today.

Rugby league, while it hasn’t gone down the players “looking like mutants” route or “80% neck”, it’s still a much harder game for an attacker to shine as before. Those wide open spaces an Offiah and Hanley were afforded are no longer. Bigger, faster, stronger players, better defensive set ups, the wrestle, holding on in the tackle (and often it’s multiple players slowly getting off the man in possession one by one), it’s far far harder to make eye catching attacking plays today that made stars of the aforementioned players as well as Tuigamala, Robinson and co. It’s gone the opposite in football as players today play in far better surfaces than previous, and are afforded far more protection from referees, so you routinely see individuals shine....Salah lighting up the Premier League the latest one. Stunning play that he (and the others) are allowed to execute which instantly goes viral, elevating them as individuals and the sport as a whole. RL has the capacity to make stars if it afforded them the on field platform to do so, which it hasn’t done for donkey’s years. As a result there’s no face/household name (or poster boy) for the sport which the game could use in adverting etc. to promote the game in the media. 

Who could Sky use in a RL promo that the public would recognise and/or be a draw? The answer is no-one. That’s not because the talent isn’t there, it is, talent generally doesn’t alter that much from one generation to the next, the difference is the platform on the field is no longer there to make a star.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Rugby league, while it hasn’t gone down the players “looking like mutants” route or “80% neck”, it’s still a much harder game for an attacker to shine as before. Those wide open spaces an Offiah and Hanley were afforded are no longer. Bigger, faster, stronger players, better defensive set ups, the wrestle, holding on in the tackle (and often it’s multiple players slowly getting off the man in possession one by one), it’s far far harder to make eye catching attacking plays today that made stars of the aforementioned players as well as Tuigamala, Robinson and co. It’s gone the opposite in football as players today play in far better surfaces than previous, and are afforded far more protection from referees, so you routinely see individuals shine....Salah lighting up the Premier League the latest one. Stunning play that he (and the others) are allowed to execute which instantly goes viral, elevating them as individuals and the sport as a whole. RL has the capacity to make stars if it afforded them the on field platform to do so, which it hasn’t done for donkey’s years. As a result there’s no face/household name (or poster boy) for the sport which the game could use in adverting etc. to promote the game in the media. 

Who could Sky use in a RL promo that the public would recognise and/or be a draw? The answer is no-one. That’s not because the talent isn’t there, it is, talent generally doesn’t alter that much from one generation to the next, the difference is the platform on the field is no longer there to make a star.

The modern RL game is far away from the game I first used to play and watch. Rule changes have made the middle third prime real estate, which doesn't allow the stars to shine out wide to the same degree. I have thought of changes the game needs but any new rules seem to favour the status quo rather than taking any risk in opening up the game to create a more expansive spectacle. 

If TV deals are to be improved, something needs to be done but I think the modern world is more risk averse than it's been in a long time. I guess the more important money is, the more fear of doing something wrong and losing it.

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Right, so having established that Sky shows rugby league to help sell subscriptions to people who like rugby league, it follows - going back to the OP’s question - that who competes in Super League will have some bearing on the number of Sky Sports subs sold. 

How much, I don’t know. But I can have a damn good guess that Wigan & Leeds will shift more than Wakefield & Leigh. And Bradford more than, say, Featherstone. 

You`re right there Kenty, as some one else summed it up so well on another thread it`s all about scale and the ability to scale up.

And all this negative nonsense being spouted that it`s the same 200k watching Super League no matter which game I think is a nonsense. There`s probably more than double that figure who watch Rugby League, with a varying subset within that figure of between 150k - 200k watching any one game at a time.

And much more than that of course when they all tune in at the same time for a game that has significant attraction.

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.