RL on Channel 4

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

24 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Average viewing of 200k,  peak of 300k.  Not good,  over the year will make it clear about marketability of certain teams and probably reveal what many wont like, that casuals audiences need recognisable cities they know from other sports  (London,  Newcastle,  etc).

 

For comparison Leeds got an average audience of 531,000 with a peak of 750,000 watching the final few moments of the game. I say Leeds got as both sides were playing Warrington, so the only difference is one game featured Leeds and the other Wakefield. That’s a 62% decrease in average viewing figures and a 60% decrease in peak viewing figures. Excuses like it was sunny, or Six Nations was on (it didn’t even clash) won’t cut it, they are a nonsense.

Channel 4 need to get as many games between the household recognisable names as they can, they need to pick as many fixtures as possible between 2 of the follow sides Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Hull, Catalans.

[Scubby]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The numbers look disappointing, and whilst the game turned out great (for non-Wire fans) it probably wasn't a big draw, with a low key build up and plenty of rivalry and nice weather. 

But this is the business C4 are in, they will understand fluctuations in viewing figures and seasonal trends, so we don't need to panic, I think looking over the full year will tell them a lot. 

But it's disappointing for the game that we can get higher on Sky. 

Premier Sports will go the same way with its viewing figures as C4. Lunchtime and Monday night are niche viewing slots so will be hit and miss depending on teams involved and significance of the games.

Both will do okay over the course of the year.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Scubby

[redjonn]

We seem to acknowledge a) that Rugby League is not top of mind of the general sport interested. Plus b) that some teams are not well known enough to be attractive to a TV audience.

Given a) why should non RL fans be any more aware of say a Saints then a Wakefield. Particular the older fan whom may be aware of a club like Wakefield history as well as any other.

Surely its about how the sport and individual clubs are promoted with regard to attracting viewers rather than relying on some innate knowledge.  

For existing RL fans then its about the entertainment value that either club offers over and above doing something else.

 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Average viewing of 200k,  peak of 300k.  Not good,  over the year will make it clear about marketability of certain teams and probably reveal what many wont like, that casuals audiences need recognisable cities they know from other sports  (London,  Newcastle,  etc).

 

Is that a fact, or just your assumption? Do you think London Broncos v Sheffield Eagles would draw bigger tv viewing figures that Saints v Wigan? 
 

As someone said above, the game clashed with the six nations and it was nice weather outside, I doubt if it being Wakefield instead of Leeds made much difference. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

For comparison Leeds got an average audience of 531,000 with a peak of 750,000 watching the final few moments of the game. I say Leeds got as both sides were playing Warrington, so the only difference is one game featured Leeds and the other Wakefield. That’s a 62% decrease in average viewing figures and a 60% decrease in peak viewing figures. Excuses like it was sunny, or Six Nations was on (it didn’t even clash) won’t cut it, they are a nonsense.

Channel 4 need to get as many games between the household recognisable names as they can, they need to pick as many fixtures as possible between 2 of the follow sides Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Hull, Catalans.

Why not go the whole hog and have a six team SL, the rest are clearly worthless. In fact as soon as Leeds’ attendances drop below 10k (before the end of this season probably) they can be kicked out and Hull KR or Cas brought in; they are forward thinking clubs who unlike Leeds are growing their crowds instead of haemorrhaging them. 

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Why not go the whole hog and have a six team SL, the rest are clearly worthless. In fact as soon as Leeds’ attendances drop below 10k (before the end of this season probably) they can be kicked out and Hull KR or Cas brought in; they are forward thinking clubs who unlike Leeds are growing their crowds instead of haemorrhaging them. 

RL is a sport that can hook a load of casual viewers if it doesn't clash with anything. That has always been the case when cup ties got 2-3 million on Grandstand. The game didn't lose those viewers, those viewers over time just had more choice in their leisure time.

The are thousands of things for families to do on a Saturday lunchtime. Even I forgot the game was on and missed the kick off, 12.30pm creeps up on you. It is a pub slot as opposed to a home viewing slot. Saturday lunchtime is the busiest part of the weekend for many. C4 obviously saw an opportunity to boost its viewing figures at the time and it has probably worked. Four in a bed at 1pm probably gets around 50k.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Scubby

[DI Keith Fowler]

22 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is that a fact, or just your assumption? Do you think London Broncos v Sheffield Eagles would draw bigger tv viewing figures that Saints v Wigan? 
 

As someone said above, the game clashed with the six nations and it was nice weather outside, I doubt if it being Wakefield instead of Leeds made much difference. 

I think this played a part, with Wales Italy being on an hour later all the chain pubs in the UK will have turned over to it as part of corporate diktat, in an attempt to sell Guinness to auld alkies and confused football fans in provincial Nando's towns. 

[Eddie]

21 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think this played a part, with Wales Italy being on an hour later all the chain pubs in the UK will have turned over to it as part of corporate diktat, in an attempt to sell Guinness to auld alkies and confused football fans in provincial Nando's towns. 

Yeah so many people I know with zero interest in rugby will go out for the six nations becaise it’s some sort of event, and then not give a toss about the game itself or even watch it. Basically going to the boozer because they know it’ll be busy and a laugh. If we had a proper international calendar we could have a small slice of that pie. 

[RBKnight]

Maybe casual sports fans with Sky, having seen Leeds so many times, are just assuming that all teams must be as bad as them, and are turning off....

Perhaps we could get a separate contract with the Comedy Channel for future Rhinos fixtures. 

[Mark S]

It was the warmest day of the year so far, people will have taken advantage of that. 

[jannerboyuk]

7 hours ago, Scubby said:

RL is a sport that can hook a load of casual viewers if it doesn't clash with anything. That has always been the case when cup ties got 2-3 million on Grandstand. The game didn't lose those viewers, those viewers over time just had more choice in their leisure time.

The are thousands of things for families to do on a Saturday lunchtime. Even I forgot the game was on and missed the kick off, 12.30pm creeps up on you. It is a pub slot as opposed to a home viewing slot. Saturday lunchtime is the busiest part of the weekend for many. C4 obviously saw an opportunity to boost its viewing figures at the time and it has probably worked. Four in a bed at 1pm probably gets around 50k.

I think is the key point, audience share is as important as absolute numbers.

[RL Sonja]

Chalk another one up for making massive generalisations about something based on mere scraps of data. Review it at the end of the year not three games in. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

20 hours ago, Eddie said:

Is that a fact, or just your assumption? Do you think London Broncos v Sheffield Eagles would draw bigger tv viewing figures that Saints v Wigan? 
 

As someone said above, the game clashed with the six nations and it was nice weather outside, I doubt if it being Wakefield instead of Leeds made much difference. 

The game didn’t actually clash with the Six Nations which started after this game, that’s a terrible excuse. As for the sunny weather excuse, let’s just hope we don’t get any more of that for the rest of the season.

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, RL Sonja said:

Chalk another one up for making massive generalisations about something based on mere scraps of data. Review it at the end of the year not three games in. 

Three games is a third of the offer.

[theswanmcr]

As expected we can gone from hyperbole of Channel 4 being the saviour of RL and we should ditch Sky from the first week figures… to the fact we should only show half the league as no one in the right mind will watch the likes of Wire v Trinity.

Truth as ever will be somewhere in the middle and be clearer at the end of the season.

[Tommygilf]

Its chicken and egg to some extent. Ch4 is as much about growing the exposure of the game as a whole as the clubs themselves.

To do the former, the game needs to put its biggest and best followed clubs forward. Hence the opening two games being what they were. 

However to do the latter, it also needs to include clubs that aren't as popular or well known generally in the coverage too. The hope being that eventually it won't matter as much if its Wakefield or Salford rather than Leeds or Saints because the base level of interest in all clubs will be higher anyway to compensate. 

Evidently as the viewing figures suggest, that isn't going to be a straightforward compromise to balance. It appears that after the opening couple of fixtures, the strategy has shifted to pair a "big team" with one of those who are less popular. Its a reasonable strategy, but clearly as we've seen with Warrington v Wakefield, if the latent interest in the "big team" is not actually that "big" and interest for the game generally is low, then it will be hard for the numbers to carry in the face of stronger competition for attention.

I do think we may 'risk' learning quite publicly how off the radar and niche RL following has become in so many places and why Sky reduced its payment to £25million p.a.. As long as we take the positives to learn from that and look to grow then it will be a good experience.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its chicken and egg to some extent. Ch4 is as much about growing the exposure of the game as a whole as the clubs themselves.

To do the former, the game needs to put its biggest and best followed clubs forward. Hence the opening two games being what they were. 

However to do the latter, it also needs to include clubs that aren't as popular or well known generally in the coverage too. The hope being that eventually it won't matter as much if its Wakefield or Salford rather than Leeds or Saints because the base level of interest in all clubs will be higher anyway to compensate. 

Evidently as the viewing figures suggest, that isn't going to be a straightforward compromise to balance. It appears that after the opening couple of fixtures, the strategy has shifted to pair a "big team" with one of those who are less popular. Its a reasonable strategy, but clearly as we've seen with Warrington v Wakefield, if the latent interest in the "big team" is not actually that "big" and interest for the game generally is low, then it will be hard for the numbers to carry in the face of stronger competition for attention.

I do think we may 'risk' learning quite publicly how off the radar and niche RL following has become in so many places and why Sky reduced its payment to £25million p.a.. As long as we take the positives to learn from that and look to grow then it will be a good experience.

I think the analysis will be really interesting at the end of the year on all of this. One thing we appear to have learnt in recent years is that RL appears to be a decent enough secondary sport that people are happy to watch in decent numbers, but doesn't necessarily have a huge hardcore - and I think that makes sense, our footprint is relatively small. 

But I think we can overstate the importance of teams, Sky figures and the BBC haven't particularly demonstrated that, and even some 'big' games can fall foul of low viewing numbers. 

Scheduling and promotion appears to be really important for RL, maybe more so than other sports. 

Let's look at the disadvantages this last game had versus the first two:

1. Lack of two 'top' teams (no disrespect to Wakey but the narrative is they may fight relegation - this game was like Spurs v Brighton rather than the first two which were like Spurs v Man United). As it turns out, it was a cracker. 

2. Lack of major promotion - the noise around that opener was massive. C4 will know they didn't put the same promotion around this latest game. 

3. Lack of continuity. Hull v Saints followed up the heavily promoted opener and benefited from that. This game was a little out of the blue. 

But C4 are also learning here. I expect there will be bigger numbers throughout the year and the playoffs could be great, they are the ones I am really interested in. 

But it's all good so far, let's see how we go over the next few months. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the analysis will be really interesting at the end of the year on all of this. One thing we appear to have learnt in recent years is that RL appears to be a decent enough secondary sport that people are happy to watch in decent numbers, but doesn't necessarily have a huge hardcore - and I think that makes sense, our footprint is relatively small. 

But I think we can overstate the importance of teams, Sky figures and the BBC haven't particularly demonstrated that, and even some 'big' games can fall foul of low viewing numbers. 

Scheduling and promotion appears to be really important for RL, maybe more so than other sports. 

Let's look at the disadvantages this last game had versus the first two:

1. Lack of two 'top' teams (no disrespect to Wakey but the narrative is they may fight relegation - this game was like Spurs v Brighton rather than the first two which were like Spurs v Man United). As it turns out, it was a cracker. 

2. Lack of major promotion - the noise around that opener was massive. C4 will know they didn't put the same promotion around this latest game. 

3. Lack of continuity. Hull v Saints followed up the heavily promoted opener and benefited from that. This game was a little out of the blue. 

But C4 are also learning here. I expect there will be bigger numbers throughout the year and the playoffs could be great, they are the ones I am really interested in. 

But it's all good so far, let's see how we go over the next few months. 

I agree with that assessment. I suppose as a sport we have to hope Ch4 see this as a collaboration and not a show that just underdelivers so to speak. The talk has been good but ultimately numbers are important.

I do think the ad hoc nature of ch4 fixtures will be an emerging problem the sport faces.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree with that assessment. I suppose as a sport we have to hope Ch4 see this as a collaboration and not a show that just underdelivers so to speak. The talk has been good but ultimately numbers are important.

I do think the ad hoc nature of ch4 fixtures will be an emerging problem the sport faces.

I think they will learn what level of promotion drives viewers, what teams drive viewers, whether playoffs are more important, would the cup be more valuable etc. Is regularity needed. 

It's all good. 

[Scubby]

51 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think they will learn what level of promotion drives viewers, what teams drive viewers, whether playoffs are more important, would the cup be more valuable etc. Is regularity needed. 

It's all good. 

Channel 4 having sporadic fixtures will make this really difficult to evaluate. It is not building habit and even I forgot Wire-Wakefield was on until it had kicked off.

Maybe it will get a couple of crunch fixtures further into the season which will give it a boost but Wigan-Salford some time in the future on a random Saturday lunchtime is hardly going to create a huge dent in viewing figures.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Scubby

[RigbyLuger]

Does the casual viewer of union on ITV know those teams better than the Super League one on C4? I doubt it.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Another observation, which might not necessarily affect primary viewing figures but could have had an impact - my series link on Sky doesn't seem to pick up RL on Channel 4? Is that the same for anybody else? If the irregularity of the games is causing this then I can certainly see how this could've added to why so many missed last week's game. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

There are probably 100,000  households whose decision to buy a subscription is based largley on RL 

There are about 100k households who view RL as a considerable factor. 

There are about 1-2m households who have an interest in the game 

Delicate balance. Growing the dedicated core and considerable factor will bring in £ from Sky.

Having some games on C4 will help, (and hopefully boost ticket sales) 

Great comparison is darts. Its average audiences are similar to RL (darts world championship excepted which is 4 times RL)- but its tv deal much smaller. Why? Hardly anyone subscribes to sky because of darts, but it's a considerable factor for some- hence it has value 

For RL key is to grow the number of fans who want to watch 1-2 games a week on tv/ in person. 

Realistic targets for SL 

Get extra 2k through door each match and that's roughly 26k * £20 which is £520k a club. Most SL clubs could grow by this. 

Get core tv up by 25k households or so. That probably gets you £6m extra from Sky 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Rugbyleaguesupporter

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Quite fascinating looking at barb info on who watches tv. 

Doesn't matter lots on one hand as advertising to Sky isn't very important compared to subscriptions, but in short rich people watch rugby union, cricket and F1 while poorer people watch football. 

Most of you will say, surprise, surprise but explains why RL not promoted very heavily, compared to let's say netball. 

Contrary to stereotype, richer people more likely to have Sky and pay Sky more than poorer people. Hence apart from football, Sky will promote f1 and cricket very heavily to boost brand. 

Numbers too small without a barb subscription for rugby to get split between whose watching Euro RU on C4 and whose watching SL on C4, but sadly 400k watching union probably gets more money in for C4 than 600k watching super league 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Rugbyleaguesupporter

[JonM]

On 25/03/2022 at 09:41, RigbyLuger said:

Does the casual viewer of union on ITV know those teams better than the Super League one on C4? I doubt it.

No, they don't. 

The average person in this country hasn't a clue that Wakefield is a smaller place than Warrington. Given Leeds anonymity/ overall low profile relative to just about every other UK city, I'd suggest that most people don't know that Leeds is a pretty big place either. I doubt the average punter knows much about any of our top flight teams or the places they represent. The idea that 60% of the audience for the first game decided not to watch a month later based on who was playing or the size of place they represent is laughable.