RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, Dave T said:

There is no solution for this tournament. The strategy has been set and been implemented. They are not changing it. We'll get the results we get now. And that will be lower attendances than 2013. We just need to crack on. 

 

But why? 

There was a year delay in staging this tournament and at the time of launch with Prince Harry, pretty big publicity. There was also a hell of a lot of coverage when it was delayed last year. In short, it had a lot of things going for it in order to deliver full stadiums,  or close at least. 

I'd mostly drifted away from RL but was drawn into it by the prospect of a good WC (which it is on the pitch) played in front of good crowds consisting of a good percentage of new fans. Perhaps I should have known better! I'll still enjoy the games but am so disappointed to see RL once again not reach its own targets. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

29 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

And how long do we go on just saying "there are challenges to filling the stadiums" without actually doing anything about it? Because we could be having this same conversation anytime in the last few decades and probably will be doing so at the 2033 WC. 

Maybe what I suggested is a load of bobbins, ok. But the alternative seems to be arguing about devaluing a tournament that is already being devalued by poor attendances. So something needs to change sometime. But it probably won't. 

Is it being devalued by low attendances, and does the additional money made justify any “devaluing”? I have really enjoyed pretty much every game, with the crowd side annoying me on only 2 occasions - the 2 Kiwi games. I expect the average sports watcher is far less bothered than we are. 

Moreover, if HMG is underwriting this, to what extent has money above all else been a driving factor? I wonder whether they have said “if we are guaranteeing this, we expect you to maximise revenue”. I went to Bristol in 2013,  and was thrilled by the match and the atmosphere, but they had pretty much given away the vast majority of those tickets. From what I saw the money I paid for 9 Wigan QF tickets would have bought 100 tickets for that game. 

[N2022]

40 minutes ago, Yakstorm said:

Anyone have any idea how England v Greece is tracking at Sheffield?

Not sure on figures, but think it was still showing as Medium availability yesterday and best available for category D - as I recall - put you directly behind the posts suggesting they haven't shifted many in that bracket (other blocks for that price were high up near corner flags). Similarly, I think Cat C best available was a good block for that colour coding suggesting that batch was far from selling out, and why would it if people have worked out that they can buy a cheap seat and move to a seat with better visibility? Still some on for £102 though apparently...

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Is it being devalued by low attendances, and does the additional money made justify any “devaluing”? I have really enjoyed pretty much every game, with the crowd side annoying me on only 2 occasions - the 2 Kiwi games. I expect the average sports watcher is far less bothered than we are. 

Moreover, if HMG is underwriting this, to what extent has money above all else been a driving factor? I wonder whether they have said “if we are guaranteeing this, we expect you to maximise revenue”. I went to Bristol in 2013,  and was thrilled by the match and the atmosphere, but they had pretty much given away the vast majority of those tickets. From what I saw the money I paid for 9 Wigan QF tickets would have bought 100 tickets for that game. 

I think each game could have done with a few thousand to five thousand more at each and, in my mind, that could have been achieved with a mixture of clearer marketing for each game, a little bit more investment in either FOMO event bits or community engagement, and, lastly, prices that weren't quite so eye watering for the games. (Leaving aside whether 4-5 could have been shifted away from the very overgamed areas.)

There is absolutely no need to blast freebies left, right and centre. That would have increased costs for no gain whatsoever. Filling the grounds by any means necessary was not, and should not be, a target.

[N2022]

One thing that might have helped is making for a little more interaction between the players and the public. I don't know to what extent they've got out into schools, clubs etc. but around the games there's very little of it. At St James Park, we happened to be sat just in front of the Italy squad and I encouraged my son to go over and ask them to sign his programme - they all did so and were great with him, had a bit of a chat about rugby, posed for pictures with him, reflected really well on them. Much more like what he gets at the cricket, but it wasn't something organisers had thought up. After the game, the Eng players came over to our stand to see their families, but the stewards didn't seem to allow fans from upper stand to move down for any interaction around that. Presumably safety call, but the crowds were leaving quick enough that it needn't have been unmanageable or risked a crush.

At Eng v Fra there seemed to be lots more young families but the fan zone had a queue and was it really more than just a ticket-only open-air bar showing the earlier game? So instead families were looking around toy shops and pet shops on the retail park to fill time where there could have been rugby challenges or a chance to meet some players. I'm trying not to be critical, as this side of it isn't often any better at every sport I go too, but this is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to market the sport here ...

[The Masked Poster]

Please, if you can't read what I actually suggested, don't bother replying to it. I did not for one second suggest "blasting freebies left right and centre". 

In fact I'll STFU as the majority clearly don't think poor crowds are a big deal. Let's see if the wider public agree and see if the game grows on the back of this tournament. 

 

[Spidey]

20 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Please, if you can't read what I actually suggested, don't bother replying to it. I did not for one second suggest "blasting freebies left right and centre". 

In fact I'll STFU as the majority clearly don't think poor crowds are a big deal. Let's see if the wider public agree and see if the game grows on the back of this tournament. 

 

How will you measure if the game grows?  In my head there will be a number of factors, crowds in the future will not be the only measure

[Exiled Wiganer]

43 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think each game could have done with a few thousand to five thousand more at each and, in my mind, that could have been achieved with a mixture of clearer marketing for each game, a little bit more investment in either FOMO event bits or community engagement, and, lastly, prices that weren't quite so eye watering for the games. (Leaving aside whether 4-5 could have been shifted away from the very overgamed areas.)

There is absolutely no need to blast freebies left, right and centre. That would have increased costs for no gain whatsoever. Filling the grounds by any means necessary was not, and should not be, a target.

I am not arguing that there it would have been great to see more people there, but on the cost/free ticket factor, I was throwing other factors in the mix: in particular my experience that I could have got 100 tickets in 2013 for the cost of 9 (far from top price) Wigan tickets this time round. Which I think is directly relevant to the spectator figures/income debate. 

I would also highlight 2 things which should be considered when saying what additional things they could have done: first, they lost lots of excellent people last year, and second, they are putting on 3 World Cups this time. So, if, say, they get record crowds for the other 2 World Cups, can they argue the tournament has been a success? 

That’s not to exonerate them from doing poorly things they have set out to do. 

[N2022]

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

How will you measure if the game grows?  In my head there will be a number of factors, crowds in the future will not be the only measure

Surely some combination of future crowds, TV numbers and participation numbers / rates / profile are how you measure it, but it's probably quite difficult to gauge.

One thing I do wonder thinking about the current competition is how many different and / or new people are watching the game (whether at the grounds or on TV). The averages being small is much more serious if the same people are being counted again and again and they are for the most part already spectators / players, which may be the case - although obviously I hope not.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I would also highlight 2 things which should be considered when saying what additional things they could have done: first, they lost lots of excellent people last year, and second, they are putting on 3 World Cups this time. So, if, say, they get record crowds for the other 2 World Cups, can they argue the tournament has been a success? 

Yup - there is a clear split between before and after the postponement in terms of the quality and spark of the work. I suspect a lot of that is down to trying to do more with less people and less money.

I suspect we will see *a lot* about how the other tournaments are successful - and they probably will be the most successful tournaments they've had. I cannot forgive starting the women's tournament at 2.30pm on a working Tuesday and then playing the final as a curtain raiser though. That is not acceptable in 2022.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yup - there is a clear split between before and after the postponement in terms of the quality and spark of the work. I suspect a lot of that is down to trying to do more with less people and less money.

I suspect we will see *a lot* about how the other tournaments are successful - and they probably will be the most successful tournaments they've had. I cannot forgive starting the women's tournament at 2.30pm on a working Tuesday and then playing the final as a curtain raiser though. That is not acceptable in 2022.

Agreed. I was really hoping to take my daughter to some of the women's tournament. But I don't think the tournament is important enough to take her off school for it, and I won't be taking her along for a double header in Wigan in November. It really is an unfriendly schedule for what you would hope to be a young audience.

[N2022]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yup - there is a clear split between before and after the postponement in terms of the quality and spark of the work. I suspect a lot of that is down to trying to do more with less people and less money.

I suspect we will see *a lot* about how the other tournaments are successful - and they probably will be the most successful tournaments they've had. I cannot forgive starting the women's tournament at 2.30pm on a working Tuesday and then playing the final as a curtain raiser though. That is not acceptable in 2022.

Absolutely agree with the Tuesday early afternoon point - even if they'd brought it forward into this week it would at least have been half-term for most schools so maybe some scope for better attendance.

Out of interest, if not as part of a double-bill where / when would be your preference for the women's final? My worry would be that if England aren't involved it might attract so few that the crowd would be embarrassingly small, even in a very modest stadium - and again I'll state that my hope would be much better for them than that but I am airing a potential reality we'd rather avoid.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Please, if you can't read what I actually suggested, don't bother replying to it. I did not for one second suggest "blasting freebies left right and centre". 

In fact I'll STFU as the majority clearly don't think poor crowds are a big deal. Let's see if the wider public agree and see if the game grows on the back of this tournament. 

 

You are on a 97 page thread (so far) on attendances - where the vast majority of posts are critical of the level of attendances and the fact that we will see fewer fans than 2013, despite 5 more events, and we will miss every attendance target we set (1m, then 750k, then 570k, then 458k...).

But the tournament will be fine financially - it could have been spectacular, instead it's been ok, but that doesn't mean we need to go scattering free tickets around at this stage. 

That's the point many disagree with. There is a hell of a lot of positives with this WC, it is what it is now, we carry on trying to sell tickets for the remaining games and make what we can. 

[N2022]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed. I was really hoping to take my daughter to some of the women's tournament. But I don't think the tournament is important enough to take her off school for it, and I won't be taking her along for a double header in Wigan in November. It really is an unfriendly schedule for what you would hope to be a young audience.

Yes, and haven't they chosen York for one midweek matchday? Can see that one being poorly attended as fans from Hull and W Yorks can't make it across easily for the start times. Really, York could have got one of the less enticing Doncaster or NW men's games to spread that tournament a bit better...

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, N2022 said:

Absolutely agree with the Tuesday early afternoon point - even if they'd brought it forward into this week it would at least have been half-term for most schools so maybe some scope for better attendance.

Out of interest, if not as part of a double-bill where / when would be your preference for the women's final? My worry would be that if England aren't involved it might attract so few that the crowd would be embarrassingly small, even in a very modest stadium - and again I'll state that my hope would be much better for them than that but I am airing a potential reality we'd rather avoid.

Yes, I think part of it - but only part of it - is probably because everyone assumed an Australia - New Zealand final (and I can't now remember if the tournament is fixed so it can't be that).

I'd probably have gone with a different day at a Halliwell Jones sized stadium - although probably on the Yorkshire side given the men's final is in Manchester. I think you'd get 5,000 minimum regardless of who was in it (and I'd even probably go with @GUBRATSbasically one price ticket idea for it). More if England were there and more again if you put some effort into community promotion.

BBC would definitely cover it - nobody is going to say right now they'd be averse to showing women's sport given the complaint is that they show too much women's sport - and it would all be a lot more positive.

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

How will you measure if the game grows?  In my head there will be a number of factors, crowds in the future will not be the only measure

Players and interest outside of the usual suspects would be one. Growth of crowds in Newcastle maybe? Clubs springing up in Middlesbrough? Some actual signs that people (not existing RL fans) have engaged with the game and are showing an interest. This could be looking out for the next England game or actually starting to play. 

These are the things that grow sports. There was virtually no football in Sweden before Scottish workers went there for instance. These things have to start somewhere. 

[The Masked Poster]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You are on a 97 page thread (so far) on attendances - where the vast majority of posts are critical of the level of attendances and the fact that we will see fewer fans than 2013, despite 5 more events, and we will miss every attendance target we set (1m, then 750k, then 570k, then 458k...).

But the tournament will be fine financially - it could have been spectacular, instead it's been ok, but that doesn't mean we need to go scattering free tickets around at this stage. 

That's the point many disagree with. There is a hell of a lot of positives with this WC, it is what it is now, we carry on trying to sell tickets for the remaining games and make what we can. 

But how many times are RL fans going to shrug and say "it is what it is"? Seems to be the standard response rather than asking questions about why we ended up with poor crowds after a lot of decent publicity and holding someone to account. Instead they will just say "at least it made £X". When in reality it should be making £X + X. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

But how many times are RL fans going to shrug and say "it is what it is"? Seems to be the standard response rather than asking questions about why we ended up with poor crowds after a lot of decent publicity and holding someone to account. Instead they will just say "at least it made £X". When in reality it should be making £X + X. 

Yes, RL fans are well known for their relaxed, carefree attitude. 

[Cowardly Fan]

2 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

And how long do we go on just saying "there are challenges to filling the stadiums" without actually doing anything about it? Because we could be having this same conversation anytime in the last few decades and probably will be doing so at the 2033 WC. 

Maybe what I suggested is a load of bobbins, ok. But the alternative seems to be arguing about devaluing a tournament that is already being devalued by poor attendances. So something needs to change sometime. But it probably won't. 

Again this is a strawman argument. Noone is suggesting doing nothing & although I don't always agree with RFL approach they will have strategies to maximise attendance. The fact we don't have full capacity doesn't mean they are doing nothing.

We don't have a binary choice as you suggest. 

 

[Cowardly Fan]

2 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

But why? 

There was a year delay in staging this tournament and at the time of launch with Prince Harry, pretty big publicity. There was also a hell of a lot of coverage when it was delayed last year. In short, it had a lot of things going for it in order to deliver full stadiums,  or close at least.

The year delay was almost certainly a disadvantage, not that they had a choice.

Potentially increased costs due booking stadiums twice, increased uncertainty & lost sales, worse slot in sporting calendar with a football world cup just after.

 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, RL fans are well known for their relaxed, carefree attitude. 

Well its really zen in the Goose household... Ah, there's no point in fretting over the World Cup, people are getting themselves stressed over nothing, it doesn't really matter when you think about it does it? It is what it is and at least it will make whatever money it makes... I'm gonna go light some candles and meditate now... 

[The Masked Poster]

13 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

Again this is a strawman argument. Noone is suggesting doing nothing & although I don't always agree with RFL approach they will have strategies to maximise attendance. The fact we don't have full capacity doesn't mean they are doing nothing.

We don't have a binary choice as you suggest. 

 

It's not an argument at all, I'm not arguing about it, I'm expressing disappointment - yet again. I've watched RL for many years and always seen the rarely filled stadiums and felt sad that we couldn't maximise potential but I too thought "if we do X Y or X, next time will be different" except it never is.

If I'm speaking out of turn by being disappointed yet again, and everyone else is reasonably happy about the game and the future, I will concede the point and stop expecting anything else. 

Cheers. 

[The Masked Poster]

14 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

The year delay was almost certainly a disadvantage, not that they had a choice.

Potentially increased costs due booking stadiums twice, increased uncertainty & lost sales, worse slot in sporting calendar with a football world cup just after.

 

A year to further publicise the tournament, on the back of a huge amount of publicity when the delay was announced, was an opportunity to boost crowds.  Doing the old "not our fault" routine is getting thin. 

[Cowardly Fan]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

A year to further publicise the tournament, on the back of a huge amount of publicity when the delay was announced, was an opportunity to boost crowds.  Doing the old "not our fault" routine is getting thin. 

This is a clear case of bad publicity. More time to sell is a benefit generally, not if off the back of a cancellation. Not sure why you have the idea it's a positive

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

It's not an argument at all, I'm not arguing about it, I'm expressing disappointment - yet again. I've watched RL for many years and always seen the rarely filled stadiums and felt sad that we couldn't maximise potential but I too thought "if we do X Y or X, next time will be different" except it never is.

If I'm speaking out of turn by being disappointed yet again, and everyone else is reasonably happy about the game and the future, I will concede the point and stop expecting anything else. 

Cheers. 

You claimed we weren't doing anything, which is clearly wrong. 

'Speaking out of turn' is an odd reply. You're free to express your views & I'm free to tell you if I think it's nonsense, which I do in this case. 

[The Masked Poster]

8 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

This is a clear case of bad publicity. More time to sell is a benefit generally, not if off the back of a cancellation. Not sure why you have the idea it's a positive

You claimed we weren't doing anything, which is clearly wrong. 

'Speaking out of turn' is an odd reply. You're free to express your views & I'm free to tell you if I think it's nonsense, which I do in this case. 

Its nonsense to want RL to do better than it does? Constantly underachieving year after year? 

Ok bud, we'll leave it.