Sky UK Expectations

[Man of Kent]

5 hours ago, The Rocket said:

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.

Sky will know the data, ie how many of its subscribers watch rugby league and where they live. 

I just think with a 40% cut in the TV deal, it is worth exploring how to increase the value of Super League to Sky by growing the audience. 

The NRL is increasing the value of its TV rights with more content via a new club located in an area that pulls in strong ratings - for advertisers, pay TV etc. 

We can’t emulate that precisely, but we can look at whether the structure aligns with the commercial interest of broadcasters (and in turn the sport’s commercial interest).

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

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.

You clearly aren't following the discussion then as nobody has claimed it is the same 200k. In fact the quoted numbers of 450k for the Salford Grand Final proves that isn't the case. 

But the numbers are the numbers, and we get a stubbornly consistent 150 to 200k.

[The Rocket]

On 23/10/2021 at 19:38, Dave T said:

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. 

Everytime V`landy`s mentioned -and he did a lot - creating " rusted on " supporters he is referring to turning  the casual, occasional and non-viewer in the Dolphins catchment area into regular NRL viewers.

In an area of 1 million this could easily add another couple of hundred thousand viewers to the number of people who already view League regularly in that area.

11 hours 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. 

This is where I think you are wrong. 

It`s all about perceptions. As long as Super League keeps coming back to clubs based around the M62 the perception will remain that it is a small-time competition and it will struggle to increase on that 200k you keep mentioning.

It would be great if you can increase the spectacle, presentation or whatever you called it, but as long as it is perceived as being small-time it will struggle to attract outside viewers in serious numbers.

London probably wasn`t successful for long enough to gain traction. Okay Catalans you said have some poor numbers, tough when you can`t count the viewers they would add on the other side of the channel, but they did give you your two biggest games all year. Hopefully they are a sound long-term investment that will one day bring in a TV contract, one more likely now with Toulouse in.

But in today`s day age of globalisation people don`t want to watch mickey mouse competitions -  they want names and they want glamour. Dressing up old Rugby League clubs however much you try, and they don`t have the money any way, isn`t going to fool anyone.

Do you honestly think the NRL would have the viewing figures it has today if it was still 12 teams based in and around Sydney. Having teams outside the core not only has them watching their own team but watching other teams as well.

[Dave T]

43 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Everytime V`landy`s mentioned -and he did a lot - creating " rusted on " supporters he is referring to turning  the casual, occasional and non-viewer in the Dolphins catchment area into regular NRL viewers.

In an area of 1 million this could easily add another couple of hundred thousand viewers to the number of people who already view League regularly in that area.

This is where I think you are wrong. 

It`s all about perceptions. As long as Super League keeps coming back to clubs based around the M62 the perception will remain that it is a small-time competition and it will struggle to increase on that 200k you keep mentioning.

It would be great if you can increase the spectacle, presentation or whatever you called it, but as long as it is perceived as being small-time it will struggle to attract outside viewers in serious numbers.

London probably wasn`t successful for long enough to gain traction. Okay Catalans you said have some poor numbers, tough when you can`t count the viewers they would add on the other side of the channel, but they did give you your two biggest games all year. Hopefully they are a sound long-term investment that will one day bring in a TV contract, one more likely now with Toulouse in.

But in today`s day age of globalisation people don`t want to watch mickey mouse competitions -  they want names and they want glamour. Dressing up old Rugby League clubs however much you try, and they don`t have the money any way, isn`t going to fool anyone.

Do you honestly think the NRL would have the viewing figures it has today if it was still 12 teams based in and around Sydney. Having teams outside the core not only has them watching their own team but watching other teams as well.

On the Dolphins - I accept yiu will have far greater knowledge on this one, I have casually observed from afar. My understanding is that there is demand for another RL club in Brisbane - that suggests that many of these fans will already be watching, so we need to be careful overstating benefits. The direct and immediate benefit is 16 more games to be shown, straight away millions more viewers, an extra 2 weeks content and the advertisers that come with that. 

On the second part of the post, I'll backtrack a bit and try to clarify - I'm not saying there is no impact depending on which clubs are in - but what you refer to about the NRL is proper growth as a comp - bigger crowds, bigger footprint, more investors etc. Of course if you could have 12 super clubs in SL you'd like to think you'd have more money in there, more fans, better players - all that adds to a better TV spectacle. 

What I refer to is this micro-managing of the comp to try and tap into new TV fans. That won't happen. If we replace Wakefield with somebody else then somebody else becomes that loser with small crowds and they become less attractive to TV. 

The focus should absolutely be on making your comp as strong as possible, but that isn't done by debating whether Fev or Leigh are better for the comp. 

Similarly, we need to avoid bold claims like adding London in will boost viewing figures. Evidence shows it doesn't happen. 

RU Premiership is a perfect example tbh. They have grown their crowds hugely, but their viewing figures are as average as ever, generally lower than SL's - despite having a bigger footprint, bigger crowds, better organisations etc. 

Focus on making your comp the biggest and best it can be - for me that should involve expansion teams, but we are in a situation where we can't pump millions into that. TV viewing deals haven't been increasing in line with viewing figures over the last 3 decades, there is far more at play. We could stay at 200k viewers and add value to the TV deal. 

[glemiln]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

We can’t emulate that precisely, but we can look at whether the structure aligns with the commercial interest of broadcasters (and in turn the sport’s commercial interest).

“Rugby is the latest sport to take the digital billions”.  From the Independent.  Rugby Union’s premier Autumn Nations series, starting next week, snapped up by Amazon Prime Video for £20m, as live sport has helped them drive UK subscriptions beyond 11 million. Netflix, 213 million subscribers, is considering a bid for Formula One.   DAZN has bought up elusive rights to Matchroom boxing bouts and recently outbid Sky Italia, offering £2.1bn to show Serie A football.  As the article points out, benefits for fans used to a single Sky ports package is less obvious.  BT is in talks with DAZN about selling its sports arm, with rights to 52 Premier League matches/season.

 

 

 

 

 

[Man of Kent]

14 minutes ago, glemiln said:

“Rugby is the latest sport to take the digital billions”.  From the Independent.  Rugby Union’s premier Autumn Nations series, starting next week, snapped up by Amazon Prime Video for £20m, as live sport has helped them drive UK subscriptions beyond 11 million. Netflix, 213 million subscribers, is considering a bid for Formula One.   DAZN has bought up elusive rights to Matchroom boxing bouts and recently outbid Sky Italia, offering £2.1bn to show Serie A football.  As the article points out, benefits for fans used to a single Sky ports package is less obvious.  BT is in talks with DAZN about selling its sports arm, with rights to 52 Premier League matches/season.

Don’t worry, our Sky ratings are the highest since 2015. Everything is super

[DC77]

11 hours ago, RayCee said:

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.

I think one improvement would be ensuring the PTB is fast (penalising any players slowly getting off the man in possession) so you get more disorganised defences, thus better attacking opportunites. It can get very samey with players slowly rolling of their opponent (one by one), taking long enough to allow the defensive line to get organised, and then the same process starts again with the next batch of players slowly getting off the man in possession one by one. It’s suffocating for attacking play, and it’s attacking play that ultimately makes the headlines, and makes the stars. 

Being risk averse (in terms of changing rules) is a much bigger risk than doing nothing at all. As a spectacle RU has destroyed itself with the transformation in player physique with the game now 80 minutes of attrition, so there is an opportunity for RL to garner viewers who have ditched the other code, but it has become more attritional itself. Even hardcore RL fans are voting with their feet with Wigan’s attendances down,  and many put that down to the style of play. So if devoted fans are put off by it, what chance casual viewers won’t be?