Can IMG make Rugby League into a more successful sport?

[Dave T]

We also need to look past IMG being a consultant. That is a negative portrayal of what they do. 

A lot will depend on the terms agreed, but IMG are a huge company under their Endeavor umbrella and they actually deliver stuff, not just views. For example IMG have delivered Premier League Productions for over 15 years now and have just renewed their deal. 

From the little we know so far, this doesn't look like a consultancy, they are providing actual services. 

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Not at all, I think other posters may be playing the game of projecting great riches, which they know will attract the ultra optimists, and get them smiley's and thumbs up for it, but I am doing "realism".  

Looking at Martin Sadlers view he is sceptical about consultants (he will remember times long ago Consultants tried and failed) and very realistic about the issues we have. He notes that after all these years Superleague has been our flagship competition, only four clubs have won it. One of those clubs last won it i.e. Bradford 2005  have since collapsed. Leeds name features strongly and they may rise again but as we stand it's looking a bit like Scottish Soccer and the Rangers-Celtic thing.  Not sure they ever fell for IMG or their like.

Superleague is a two horse race and given failings at Wire and Leeds it looks like it may stay that way. It was never meant to be so. The plan was a salary capped league and a resultant even contest but we are nearly back to the malaise of the late 1980's and 1990's when Wigan hogged the competition and IIRC crowds at most of the other clubs were pretty poor. Maybe IMG will come in and recommend a proper contest with even teams, but why bother with their view when Mr. Sadler has already provided that core analysis for free.

I’m not sure “Super League is a two horse race”. Saints are top, with Wigan second and Catalans third, at present. Saints have beaten and lost to both Wigan and Catalans this year and Catalans have beaten Wigan, who are above them. 

Of the many, many things I’d like IMG to introduce or at least bang the drum of a lot more is the games themselves. Saints v Wigan is massive anyway but it’s the current Super League Grand Final winners vs the current Challenge Cup holders and this game likely has a large say on where the League Leaders Shield will go at the end of the year. The build up to any week, let alone Magic and let alone a week that has games of the magnitude of this (Wakefield v Toulouse and Cas v Leeds too) is pitiful. 

As a sport, we tend to focus and turn things into a negative (the amount of Super League winners compared to those who have played in a final and how many different cup finalists we’ve had over the past nine finals) without ever really talking our game and it’s clubs and fixtures up. 

 

[Oxford]

19 minutes ago, Jughead said:

As a sport, we tend to focus and turn things into a negative (the amount of Super League winners compared to those who have played in a final and how many different cup finalists we’ve had over the past nine finals) without ever really talking our game and it’s clubs and fixtures up. 

The importance of what we leave out to suit our argument sometimes beggars belief.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

I’m not sure “Super League is a two horse race”. Saints are top, with Wigan second and Catalans third, at present. Saints have beaten and lost to both Wigan and Catalans this year and Catalans have beaten Wigan, who are above them. 

Of the many, many things I’d like IMG to introduce or at least bang the drum of a lot more is the games themselves. Saints v Wigan is massive anyway but it’s the current Super League Grand Final winners vs the current Challenge Cup holders and this game likely has a large say on where the League Leaders Shield will go at the end of the year. The build up to any week, let alone Magic and let alone a week that has games of the magnitude of this (Wakefield v Toulouse and Cas v Leeds too) is pitiful. 

As a sport, we tend to focus and turn things into a negative (the amount of Super League winners compared to those who have played in a final and how many different cup finalists we’ve had over the past nine finals) without ever really talking our game and it’s clubs and fixtures up. 

 

I agree. There isn't any kind of narrative attached to teams. I think we (along with Sky, BBC, Premier and C4) could be a little more provocative with the presentation of our teams and games and then battles they have. 

We tend to just putbthe game there - without selling the narrative. 

I think this reflects on the league table, I don't know whether others do this, but I almost ignore the league table, I'm not actually sure who is sitting where in the top 3, yet this weekend at Magic feels like it should be a key game in that battle for the first spot. I love the Grand Final, but I dont think we need to go fully NFL with the lack of real importance on the ladders. 

I do think there is an argument for spicing up some of the rivalries, telling the stories better. 

As you say, the battle at the top and bottom has real stories there. What about that 6th spot, who is chasing that? 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dave T

[Jughead]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree. There isn't any kind of narrative attached to teams. I think we (along with Sky, BBC, Premier and C4) could be a little more provocative with the presentation of our teams and games and then battles they have. 

We tend to just putbthe game there - without selling the narrative. 

I think this reflects on the league table, I don't know whether others do this, but I almost ignore the league table, I'm not actually sure who is sitting where in the top 3, yet this weekend at Magic feels like it should be a key game in that battle for the first spot. I love the Grand Final, but I dont think we need to go fully NFL with the lack of real importance on the ladders. 

I do think there is an argument for spicing up some of the rivalries, telling the stories better. 

As you say, the battle at the top and bottom has real stories there. What about that 6th spot, who is chasing that? 

I looked during the writing of my last post, Leeds’ chances of 6th could possibly become very slim if they lose and Hull win but otherwise, I wasn’t really sure what order the clubs from 4th-8th were in or whether there was much riding on the games this particular weekend. 

The narrative simply isn’t there and there’s very little buildup throughout the week to any rounds, let alone a round like this that has a couple of derbies and a big game at the bottom. 

 

[Oxford]

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

The narrative simply isn’t there

When you have no magazine programme on the main  TV partner and a secondary Partner who hides theirs away it's little wonder there's no narrative or excitement building.

Then there is the idea that some games, because of who's involved are the only ones worth looking forward to.

As a Leaguie I can enjoy Saints v Warriors but I'm mostly invested in the game as a neutral unless one of them is playing SRD the following week and then I'm a cheerleader for each of them to knock seven bells out of each other.

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Oxford

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there is a real challenge around monetising the game in France. I don't think there are any guarantees that we will be able to tap into millions of Euro for rights and sponsorship there. 

I think we are miles off having any kind of effective French/European strategy though, so imho we are making a difficult job almost impossible.

Toulouse has been utterly underwhelming, and whilst we can bicker about scheduling, they just haven't done a good job, some things within their control, some outside, but for something that should have been very exciting and an opportunity to start to change things, it has limped along. Its the same with London Broncos when they were last in. 

We need to think carefully about whether this is how we want it to be or whether we think there is a better approach. But in reality, better approach will lead to controversial topics such as if and how P&R is done, how expansion teams are funded, what support they should be given etc. 

I do think Catalans have been in SL for more than long enough now for us to see that commercial benefits are limited with them in SL, so if we are wanting to focus on commercial income, some things will need to be done differently, because with the current approach, I suggest we will just continue to bumble along and having to pay for channels to show our comp. 

We may need to take a gamble, but a gamble needs some basis in reality, the wild claims of attracting huge TV deals from Europe or North America need to be tempered - and in the flip side we need to start judging expansion on far wider remits than whether a millionaire can get a good team together, it's about increasing the fanbase, sponsors, player pool, media coverage, perception, international standards etc. 

P&R is already on the table. I just don't think they want to say it yet nor do a lot of fans want to accept that it isn't sustainable. A club can't build sustainably with the threat of relegation looming over them. London is the biggest market in Europe and we don't have a good team there. That's always going to hurt any potential TV deal.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

P&R is already on the table. I just don't think they want to say it yet nor do a lot of fans want to accept that it isn't sustainable. A club can't build sustainably with the threat of relegation looming over them. London is the biggest market in Europe and we don't have a good team there. That's always going to hurt any potential TV deal.

Yeah I think they could land in a few different places on it though. I'd be surprised if it remains in its current form. 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, NW10LDN said:

P&R is already on the table. I just don't think they want to say it yet nor do a lot of fans want to accept that it isn't sustainable. A club can't build sustainably with the threat of relegation looming over them. London is the biggest market in Europe and we don't have a good team there. That's always going to hurt any potential TV deal.

I think it will be maintained between the two SL divisions and everyone else will be joining the Dodo.

This is what downsizing of the dummies, by the dummies, for the dimmies looks like.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I think it will be maintained between the two SL divisions and everyone else will be joining the Dodo.

This is what downsizing of the dummies, by the dummies, for the dimmies looks like.

Not a fan of two divisions of 10 though. And I don't think it can be based on promotion or relegation in one year. P/R should be maintained between the Championship and League 1. Let clubs put a good business case together to join the SL.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, NW10LDN said:

Not a fan of two divisions of 10 though. And I don't think it can be based on promotion or relegation in one year. P/R should be maintained between the Championship and League 1. Let clubs put a good business case together to join the SL.

I have said what I think of this and why it's given house room is beyond me. I think there should be movement between the Championship and SL but P&R has proven well it does harm than good.

Your other point is where we diffe, a sound business plan is largely a bunch of nonsense and lies wrapped in a glossy format. And that's me being polite.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Oxford

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I have said what I think of this and why it's given house room is beyond me. I think there should be movement between the Chapionship and SL but P&R has proven well it does harm than good.

Your other point is where we diffe, a sound business plan is largely a bunch of nonsense and lies wrapped in a glossy format. And that's me being polite.

What is the alternative to a sound business plan then?

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

When you have no magazine programme on the main  TV partner and a secondary Partner who hides theirs away it's little wonder there's no narrative or excitement building.

Then there is the idea that some games, because of who's involved are the only ones worth looking forward to.

As a Leaguie I can enjoy Saints v Warriors but I'm mostly invested in the game as a neutral unless one of them is playing SRD the following week and then I'm a cheerleader for each of them to knock seven bells out of each other.

 

This just smacks of excuses to me. 

The clubs employ media and PR professionals who are paid to tell these stories and make them something that the media can't ignore.

The clubs also have their own channels - their digital and social media presences - to tell these stories and probably reach a bigger audience than any "Boots 'n' All" style show might do. 

Looking down the list of fixtures this weekend, there are all sorts of stories you could focus on and tell easily, quickly and in a way that's compelling for the social media generation: 

• Alex Mellor looking to prove his old coach wrong 
• Zak Hardaker wearing the Leeds colours against Castleford once again
• Hull's new recruits potentially making their debuts in the Hull derby
• Danny McGuire's "baptism of fire" for his coaching debut
• Relegation four-pointer with Toulouse and Wakefield
• Toulouse defying the odds after a chaotic start to the season
• St Helens looking for revenge for the CC semi
• Magic has seen plenty of dramatic drop goals (Jacob Miller, Kruse Leeming come to mind); have some of the players talking through what went through their minds when they hit game-winners. It's dead easy, snackable social media content.  

Those I came up with in five minutes and whilst some of them might sound a bit cliche and press conference-y, there's you can use them as hooks to really push a narrative. There's no reason why a team of 12 media and marketing professionals couldn't come up with some compelling social media content to set and own that narrative, and expecting Sky to do that for us is both naive and lazy. 

I personally don't buy the whole "media bias" thing but even if we entertain it and accept it's a thing, that's not really an excuse for the game not to use the tools that it does have to circumvent that challenge. We have to accept that there are fewer RL journalists out there now, that clicks are the name of the game and that attention spans are short - the people doing the PR in RL have to make it easy and worthwhile for the media to talk about us, and that does mean doing an awful lot of the work for them. 

[Jughead]

Wakefield v Toulouse - huge game for both, could put some breathing space between Wakefield and Toulouse if Wakefield win, the cat is amongst the pigeons again if Toulouse win. 

Saints v Wigan - Derby. Super League champions v Challenge Cup holders. Battle for the league leaders shield. 

Leeds v Cas - Leeds could go within a point of the play-offs, Cas could take a massive leap towards confirming that they’ll be in the play-offs. 

Huddersfield v Salford - Huddersfield could go within a point of Catalans, Salford currently one of four teams separated by three points for the battle for the play-offs. 

Catalans v Warrington - Catalans could get themselves back into the top two (I assume that means something in the play-offs) and possibly within two points of both above them, Warrington could be safe with a win (it’s a hard sell, I know). 

Hull v KR - Derby. Separated by two points for the battle for the play-offs. 

I’ve literally just looked at the BBC website and the table. Now, we really don’t make as big a song and dance about qualifying for the play-offs as we probably should, especially this year when there’s a few teams who are all of a similar standing who could get into the six. Why? Also, the battle for the top and the league leaders shield could see 25% of the competition in with a shout of winning it come Sunday night and there’s a real chance that Wakefield’s 20+ year status could be at threat if the new boys Toulouse win. 

All of the above is an easy sell in terms of drumming up interest and intrigue with the right people behind it doing that. 

[Oxford]

35 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This just smacks of excuses to me. 

I'm not sure why you say this, our two partners fail lamentably to create a narrative.

Having your own outlets is like thinking the RL media available can somehow change attitudes and widen the game's appeal to everyone else.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, NW10LDN said:

What is the alternative to a sound business plan then?

Well there are plans some of which don't involve the word business or sound in them.

I did write loads more here which I'm afraid you'll have too take my word for, but it was too long and over complicated.

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

20 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I'm not sure why you say this, our two partners fail lamentably to create a narrative.

Having your own outlets is like thinking the RL media available can somehow change attitudes and widen the game's appeal to everyone else.

I say it because it's RLs job to create the narrative - not Sky's or C4. They aren't our PR agency - in fact, they pay RL to create content for them.

And I say that not just because those partners won't set the narrative, but because RL should WANT to set the narrative - it should WANT to control the editorial line, the image and the agenda, rather than outsourcing the responsibility and letting the media do it their way. It's why so many other sports have brought their media production in-house. 

You then use the various levers you have (including the media/press) to tell that story - to people both in and out of the usual circles. 

How many non-RL fans do you honestly think would watch an RL magazine show on Sky?

[Oxford]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I say it because it's RLs job to create the narrative - not Sky's or C4. They aren't our PR agency - in fact, they pay RL to create content for them.

And I say that not just because those partners won't set the narrative, but because RL should WANT to set the narrative - it should WANT to control the editorial line, the image and the agenda, rather than outsourcing the responsibility and letting the media do it their way. It's why so many other sports have brought their media production in-house. 

You then use the various levers you have (including the media/press) to tell that story - to people both in and out of the usual circles. 

How many non-RL fans do you honestly think would watch an RL magazine show on Sky?

So you think football creates it's own narrative, not the media?

And in answer to your last point,  none, because there isn't one.

Yes there is some argument for SL control of media output about the game and that would be the NRL as a model. The problem as always is the economic difference between the two.

[HawkMan]

23 minutes ago, Oxford said:

So you think football creates it's own narrative, not the media?

And in answer to your last point,  none, because there isn't one.

Yes there is some argument for SL control of media output about the game and that would be the NRL as a model. The problem as always is the economic difference between the two.

There is some truth in what you say, the media plays a part for sure in football's success,  but it has to , particularly Sky. Without football Sky sports is stuffed, it drives subscriptions,  but Sky doesn't create football's narrative from nothing. It picks up on the game's huge popularity and eats up every thing it can get to feed its viewers. Currently Sky are going massive on the Women's Euros despite not having rights to it. Will they do that for the RLWC? Probably not.

If Sky started going big on RL stories and devoted airtime as much as football then majority of viewers would probably switch off.

RL has to make itself relevant to more people,  across the country to get more magazine type shows.

It's easy to see what sports matter to Sky, the ones with dedicated channels,  football ,F1, Golf and Cricket,  anything else is filler, except during the NFL season, popular that, for some reason!

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I say it because it's RLs job to create the narrative - not Sky's or C4. They aren't our PR agency - in fact, they pay RL to create content for them.

And I say that not just because those partners won't set the narrative, but because RL should WANT to set the narrative - it should WANT to control the editorial line, the image and the agenda, rather than outsourcing the responsibility and letting the media do it their way. It's why so many other sports have brought their media production in-house. 

I've agreed with everything you've said so far, but I dont wholly agree with this point. 

Of course RL should be creating the narrative, but it is also part of your broadcasting partners role to sell the product. But they aren't going to take that on without your input. 

Your last line is interesting - because its not one I recognise - whilst some broadcasting may have been brought in house, I don't think it's as many as is made out - but the BBC will heavily promote Wimbledon on their terms, Sky and BT will do the same for football etc. Whilst there will be content created selling stories from the game, in reality the real eyeballs are on the live events which have agendas set by broadcasting partners. An example of this being apparent is the way RL (and other sports) are covered quite differently across broadcasters.

Of course none of that is to suggest that we shouldn't be setting the agenda and driving the narrative. None of it is an excuse to sit sulking and claim partners are not interested. 

[Dave T]

I'm with Virgin Media and Magic Weekend was featured on their email today, including this infographic:

 

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1600899772607102977

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dave T

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm with Virgin Media and Magic Weekend was featured on their email today, including this infographic:

 

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1600899772607102977

 

Those certainly are some numbers.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Those certainly are some numbers.

Such memorable facts like "1 - the first Mw in July" Ace. 

Infographics are not really known for their interest I suppose, and it's nice that we featured on this email. 

But as highlighted, little to really sell it. Apart from the Saints v Wigan Derby fact there is nothing about the actual matches. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Dave T

[whatmichaelsays]

9 hours ago, Oxford said:

So you think football creates it's own narrative, not the media?

And in answer to your last point,  none, because there isn't one.

Yes there is some argument for SL control of media output about the game and that would be the NRL as a model. The problem as always is the economic difference between the two.

 

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

I've agreed with everything you've said so far, but I dont wholly agree with this point. 

Of course RL should be creating the narrative, but it is also part of your broadcasting partners role to sell the product. But they aren't going to take that on without your input. 

Your last line is interesting - because its not one I recognise - whilst some broadcasting may have been brought in house, I don't think it's as many as is made out - but the BBC will heavily promote Wimbledon on their terms, Sky and BT will do the same for football etc. Whilst there will be content created selling stories from the game, in reality the real eyeballs are on the live events which have agendas set by broadcasting partners. An example of this being apparent is the way RL (and other sports) are covered quite differently across broadcasters.

Of course none of that is to suggest that we shouldn't be setting the agenda and driving the narrative. None of it is an excuse to sit sulking and claim partners are not interested. 

I've quoted both because I think they touch on the same points here, but I think it's worth clarifying Inmeant by "RL setting the narrative", because it doesn't necessarily mean that we move the entire RL broadcast production in-house, lock, stock and barrel (even though things have trended that way). 

Sky has an interest in promoting RL but only insofar as it suits their own commercial aims, not those of RL (even if the two may intersect). Even now, in the summer months, we're up against a lot of competition for limited media attention - the football transfer window, Wimbledon, RU internationals, England cricket, the Women's Euros - and those stories are much easier to tell and much easier to generate views and clicks with. With fewer and fewer dedicated RL journalists out there, we do have to find a way to make it both compelling and easy for the media to tell our story. 

That can be as simple as merely sign-posting the media towards the stories we want them to focus on, but it may also mean creating that content and handing it to them in a "ready to go" format. We can complain that Sky should be doing this but if we aren't, there's a point at which you have to decide to be self-sufficient. 

It could be as easy as giving the media greater access to our players - this is something that I know Brian Carney has complained about on the record before. We can't complain that Sky aren't talking about us if we're not prepared to let our 'story makers' talk to them any more than our minimum obligation requires us to (and this is probably why so much of our media coverage seems to focus on chairmen/owners, rather than players). The fact that many of our players struggle to come across well in interviews suggests a lack of investment in media training and again, that is a barrier to telling our story that we can't blame Sky for. 

It could be as simple as having a regular schmoozing lunches with the editorial teams at the main broadcast partners (BBC Sport is located in the heart of RL land these days), and keeping the gears of that relationship greased. How often are the RFL / RL clubs doing that? Because you can guarantee other sports are. 

It is also about making better use of the sport's owned channels and reflecting the fact that the media landscape has changed. 'Magazine' shows aren't really a thing any more in an age of on-demand, digital, snackable content, so complaining that they don't exist any more doesn't really make a lot of sense. 

Some posters complain about sports like competitions like women's football getting what they perceive as disporportionate levels of coverage, but those are the things that those sports are doing - they're making it easy for the media to tell the story. 

Yes, this all requires an investment but this is the cost of doing business and this is what marketing, media relations and PR looks like today. Hoping that Sky and C4 will do this for us is very much "wing and a prayer" type stuff. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

I've quoted both because I think they touch on the same points here, but I think it's worth clarifying Inmeant by "RL setting the narrative", because it doesn't necessarily mean that we move the entire RL broadcast production in-house, lock, stock and barrel (even though things have trended that way). 

Sky has an interest in promoting RL but only insofar as it suits their own commercial aims, not those of RL (even if the two may intersect). Even now, in the summer months, we're up against a lot of competition for limited media attention - the football transfer window, Wimbledon, RU internationals, England cricket, the Women's Euros - and those stories are much easier to tell and much easier to generate views and clicks with. With fewer and fewer dedicated RL journalists out there, we do have to find a way to make it both compelling and easy for the media to tell our story. 

That can be as simple as merely sign-posting the media towards the stories we want them to focus on, but it may also mean creating that content and handing it to them in a "ready to go" format. We can complain that Sky should be doing this but if we aren't, there's a point at which you have to decide to be self-sufficient. 

It could be as easy as giving the media greater access to our players - this is something that I know Brian Carney has complained about on the record before. We can't complain that Sky aren't talking about us if we're not prepared to let our 'story makers' talk to them any more than our minimum obligation requires us to (and this is probably why so much of our media coverage seems to focus on chairmen/owners, rather than players). The fact that many of our players struggle to come across well in interviews suggests a lack of investment in media training and again, that is a barrier to telling our story that we can't blame Sky for. 

It could be as simple as having a regular schmoozing lunches with the editorial teams at the main broadcast partners (BBC Sport is located in the heart of RL land these days), and keeping the gears of that relationship greased. How often are the RFL / RL clubs doing that? Because you can guarantee other sports are. 

It is also about making better use of the sport's owned channels and reflecting the fact that the media landscape has changed. 'Magazine' shows aren't really a thing any more in an age of on-demand, digital, snackable content, so complaining that they don't exist any more doesn't really make a lot of sense. 

Some posters complain about sports like competitions like women's football getting what they perceive as disporportionate levels of coverage, but those are the things that those sports are doing - they're making it easy for the media to tell the story. 

Yes, this all requires an investment but this is the cost of doing business and this is what marketing, media relations and PR looks like today. Hoping that Sky and C4 will do this for us is very much "wing and a prayer" type stuff. 

Agreed with all of that.