RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Number 16]

10 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I`ll be a `secret` Samoan for the evening that`s for sure. Definitely no black face though, just in case I run into a real Samoan.

But Samoans aren't 'black'. You've been listening to too much drivel spouted by 'Diversity Managers'.

[tommyace]

Atmosphere should be great 95% of the crowd will be on Samoa side . 

[bamfordsbeans]

Just be happy to become an established top half performer in the Championship.

Edited November 17, 2022 by bamfordsbeans
delete

[RP London]

14 hours ago, meast said:

Is that why there is no train station in Leopard-land then?

I'm pretty sure (but happy to be corrected) that the Romans didnt build the train network.... I know Monty Python listed a lot of things, but dont think that was amongst them.

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

There is no bait. This tournament had a major aim of increasing crowds substantially. 

They have reduced the crowds so have changed the KPI. 

have they changed the KPI or just the narrative and "spin"... the KPI is for him to be judged by those "above him".. lets not get KPI and PR mixed up here... nothing wrong with talking a good game while being rollocked in the office, its what i would expect. This is much better than "64k will be at Old Trafford, not good, really bad, so sorry" in the run up to a world cup final. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its entirely possible to think a final that brings in 3x more revenue than 2013 is a good thing, but that it being roughly 10k down on that 2013 attendance is a bad thing too (especially in the wider context of this mens world cup' attendances).

Ticket revenues weren't ever mentioned by the organisers as a major target of this world cup until ticket prices started to be blamed for poor attendances. Attendances were originally all they were talking about and increased revenues were taken as a given.

Yup, hence my post yesterday. 

They are changing a poor performance into a good one by looking at a different KPI. 

Of course increased revenue is a great thing, although Dutton is cute in everything he says even about this (remember the whole break even distraction?). But it won't disguise that this was meant to be a record breaking world cup, the biggest crowds ever. 

Im not sure whether even including wheelchair and women's tournaments can break the record now, which would be a blow to their celebratory press release. 

But we now have a position where not a single mens match has sold out this tournament. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

have they changed the KPI or just the narrative and "spin"... the KPI is for him to be judged by those "above him".. lets not get KPI and PR mixed up here... nothing wrong with talking a good game while being rollocked in the office, its what i would expect. This is much better than "64k will be at Old Trafford, not good, really bad, so sorry" in the run up to a world cup final. 

Yeah I call out its spin. By change the KPI, I mean they talk about a different on, not that they have adjusted it. 

They have been using the revenue point all tournament to justify poor crowds. 

The obvious way to spin is not to proudly  highlight that they have fleeced everyone on price, but to highlight that this will be a huge crowd for a final like this and it'll be a great event. It'll be over 20k up on 2017.

Justifying it by explaining that they won't sell out but they'll make loads of money is a bit crass tbh. It's not great spin. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Dave T

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its entirely possible to think a final that brings in 3x more revenue than 2013 is a good thing, but that it being roughly 10k down on that 2013 attendance is a bad thing too (especially in the wider context of this mens world cup' attendances).

64,000+ will be a good attendance for a finals day without England. Like a lot of this World Cup, it will be decent rather than inspiring and emphasise that we've had a "ho hum, okay" tournament.

As for revenue ... it's now all meaningless until we get the stories next year that the RFL - with reserves of about 5p and an operating profit of a few quid - is now in a bit of a hole.

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not massively interested in a conversation on why lower crowds can be justified. 

This world cup has been a disaster on crowds. 

yes it has..

whilst not defending that we also need to look into why (justification).. i've lived most of my working life working on projects around processes and improvement, to do so (surely the aim, how do we make the next one better and the next) you must identify why. without that you cannot move forward. You also need to look at positives so that you can balance that. Therefore people look at the "justifications", there is nothing you can do now, its happened, we need to make sure we dont make the same mistakes again (like putting a double header on in warrington but hey ho).. cost of living crises (not much you can do about that), stadiums used and location (that MUST be looked at and fixed for the next one), Pricing structures, poor website experiences, marketing etc etc etc. 

You also MUST look at the profitability (not the turnover.. definitely not the turnover, turnover is vanity and affected by inflation etc). This can then justify some of the decisions. IF it is more profitable then the pricing can be justified on pure financial terms. However, then look at "is it good for the game" to have smaller crowds etc. Will the TV companies now come back, has this damaged the next world cup in terms of reputation etc. 

You cannot see one thing in isolation, you must also look around it so that we can see whether this World Cup has actually helped the game etc. 

personally I would agree it has been a disaster of crowds, I dont think it has enhanced the reputation and I worry about the next one over here.. However, if it turns a bigger profit that can be invested in the international game as a whole which can then help to build up towards the next one then maybe, just maybe things will turn out ok.. the one bonus of not having an international presences or a massive terrestrial TV presence is that when the next one comes around it may well be another blank canvas to work on with the population. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

I`ll be a `secret` Samoan for the evening that`s for sure. Definitely no black face though, just in case I run into a real Samoan.

without wanting to derail this thread, I feel that I just need to point out that whether there was a chance you would run into anybody or not there is no time where "black face" or "blacking up" is acceptable.. The fact you even mention it is a bit of a worry..

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

yes it has..

whilst not defending that we also need to look into why (justification).. i've lived most of my working life working on projects around processes and improvement, to do so (surely the aim, how do we make the next one better and the next) you must identify why. without that you cannot move forward. You also need to look at positives so that you can balance that. Therefore people look at the "justifications", there is nothing you can do now, its happened, we need to make sure we dont make the same mistakes again (like putting a double header on in warrington but hey ho).. cost of living crises (not much you can do about that), stadiums used and location (that MUST be looked at and fixed for the next one), Pricing structures, poor website experiences, marketing etc etc etc. 

You also MUST look at the profitability (not the turnover.. definitely not the turnover, turnover is vanity and affected by inflation etc). This can then justify some of the decisions. IF it is more profitable then the pricing can be justified on pure financial terms. However, then look at "is it good for the game" to have smaller crowds etc. Will the TV companies now come back, has this damaged the next world cup in terms of reputation etc. 

You cannot see one thing in isolation, you must also look around it so that we can see whether this World Cup has actually helped the game etc. 

personally I would agree it has been a disaster of crowds, I dont think it has enhanced the reputation and I worry about the next one over here.. However, if it turns a bigger profit that can be invested in the international game as a whole which can then help to build up towards the next one then maybe, just maybe things will turn out ok.. the one bonus of not having an international presences or a massive terrestrial TV presence is that when the next one comes around it may well be another blank canvas to work on with the population. 

The one thing that we absolutely know though, is that attendance forecasts have been missed. Therefore we can guarantee that income targets from ticket sales has been missed. 

The ticket prices are not new, they weren't set in isolation - we were to deliver crowd growth at higher prices - so however we try and spin now we have missed income targets. 

I really hope (and expect) that this tournament will make a lot of money for IRL depending on how its been structured, and there is a lot to love about it, but when anyone talks about profitability and revenues positively, it should be remembered that they are lower than they were aiming for too. 

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah I call out its spin. By change the KPI, I mean they talk about a different on, not that they have adjusted it. 

They have been using the revenue point all tournament to justify poor crowds. 

The obvious way to spin is not to proudly  highlight that they have fleeced everyone on price, but to highlight that this will be a huge crowd for a final like this and it'll be a great event. It'll be over 20k up on 2017.

Justifying it by explaining that they won't sell out but they'll make loads of money is a bit crass tbh. It's not great spin. 

I don't mind it personally. I think the spin that it is making more money than the last time is fine, don't find it crass etc. 

I hope he gets hauled over the coals for a really poorly attended world cup, I really do, but I think we are now nit picking into things. He should be in all sorts of hot water for some of the ###### he peddled at the beginning on sell outs that were utter falsehoods (I'm careful not to call it lies due to the abject nature of the website and maybe, just maybe, the information he was given was what was false and it wasn't deliberate from him but someone was peddling a myth). The horrific experience of the website, the #### up on double tickets for matches which at least meant some seats could not be sold the full extent of which may be minor may be major but I dont think we'll ever find out. Not understanding all of this in advance and reacting with the tickets (even though we all bemoan discounting there are ways and means of "rewarding" that can work). 

All absolute tosh and all needs to be heavily scrutinised, but i'm not sure this set of tweets etc is particularly bad.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I don't mind it personally. I think the spin that it is making more money than the last time is fine, don't find it crass etc. 

I hope he gets hauled over the coals for a really poorly attended world cup, I really do, but I think we are now nit picking into things. He should be in all sorts of hot water for some of the ###### he peddled at the beginning on sell outs that were utter falsehoods (I'm careful not to call it lies due to the abject nature of the website and maybe, just maybe, the information he was given was what was false and it wasn't deliberate from him but someone was peddling a myth). The horrific experience of the website, the #### up on double tickets for matches which at least meant some seats could not be sold the full extent of which may be minor may be major but I dont think we'll ever find out. Not understanding all of this in advance and reacting with the tickets (even though we all bemoan discounting there are ways and means of "rewarding" that can work). 

All absolute tosh and all needs to be heavily scrutinised, but i'm not sure this set of tweets etc is particularly bad.

I think there are a couple of different things here. 

One is whether you are comfortable with spin and context. 

The other is whether you think it's a good performance. 

Obviously the spin is to make people believe the 2nd point. 

It all becomes a little like Super 8s, crowds were down, but TV income and viewing figures (more games) up for the sport.

[Jacob565]

For me the World Cup has bought into sharp focus how little the game has grown in 10 years. I don’t have an easy answer but to me at the very least surely pricing should have been cheaper and free tickets handed out to schools etc. The Scotland rugby team for years dumped cheap tickets on schools to cover up the fact that they couldn’t sell out Murrayfield.

[The Rocket]

9 minutes ago, RP London said:

without wanting to derail this thread, I feel that I just need to point out that whether there was a chance you would run into anybody or not there is no time where "black face" or "blacking up" is acceptable.. The fact you even mention it is a bit of a worry..

Never done it, never seen anyone do it in Oz in my whole life. In fact the only people I have ever seen do it has been foreign politicians having done it in their younger days being reported on the news.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Jacob565 said:

For me the World Cup has bought into sharp focus how little the game has grown in 10 years. I don’t have an easy answer but to me at the very least surely pricing should have been cheaper and free tickets handed out to schools etc. The Scotland rugby team for years dumped cheap tickets on schools to cover up the fact that they couldn’t sell out Murrayfield.

There have been plenty free tickets knocking around to be fair, although the crowd make-up at many mens games didn't look particularly youthful. 

I think we've tried to go from being Home Bargains in 2013, to John Lewis in 2022 - without actually changing inything in those 9 years. 

We literally just changed price. 

[Guest]

I personally would take more money in the game - assuming it is a decent increase - over crowds. Which I think I have said before.

The international game is broke and if this funds some use when the next WC probably won't be here for 11 years, then that is good with me. The main thing holding back the game, imho, is money.

Of course you can then flex the no. of tickets sold v price to maximise revenue model all day and that is a fair argument.

[Jacob565]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There have been plenty free tickets knocking around to be fair, although the crowd make-up at many mens games didn't look particularly youthful. 

I think we've tried to go from being Home Bargains in 2013, to John Lewis in 2022 - without actually changing inything in those 9 years. 

We literally just changed price. 

Yep agreed. It’s the strange mentality of ‘if we build it they will come’ as a marketing strategy. I do think they convinced themselves that it would be like the commonwealth games, Womens footy etc where people wanted to be part of the experience: fear of missing out.

[Guest]

Just now, Jacob565 said:

Yep agreed. It’s the strange mentality of ‘if we build it they will come’ as a marketing strategy. I do think they convinced themselves that it would be like the commonwealth games, Womens footy etc where people wanted to be part of the experience: fear of missing out.

That is a fair point. When I am out with the dog and chatting to people - the number of people who simply have no awareness that RL is a thing is amazing.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Jacob565 said:

Yep agreed. It’s the strange mentality of ‘if we build it they will come’ as a marketing strategy. I do think they convinced themselves that it would be like the commonwealth games, Womens footy etc where people wanted to be part of the experience: fear of missing out.

I'm convinced that some people involved with rugby league think that 574,865 people turned up to the Euros this year because the FA put it on and people like football.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Leonard said:

That is a fair point. When I am out with the dog and chatting to people - the number of people who simply have no awareness that RL is a thing is amazing.

I think it shows the amount of work we still have to do to get into the wider consciousness. 

The BBC coverage has been outstanding, but the numbers are still remaining stubbornly within our limits (2.4m peak for the semi was lower than the Kiwi semi final at Wembley last time). 

As good as the C4 coverage has been the numbers are relatively modest - we do have to think about how we are going to grow our awareness of the product - and that doesnt have to mean that everyone knows about us, but I met with my manager from Edinburgh this week and I brought up the tournament and he had no idea there was an RLWC. 

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Jacob565 said:

Yep agreed. It’s the strange mentality of ‘if we build it they will come’ as a marketing strategy. I do think they convinced themselves that it would be like the commonwealth games, Womens footy etc where people wanted to be part of the experience: fear of missing out.

It was, imho, the biggest mistake they made around marketing of the event. It was absolutely positioned from a fomo angle. 

All the talk was about games are selling out, get your tickets now, they also had ads telling us it was once in a lifetime stuff. 

Unfortunately neither of those ads hit the mark - firstly, existing fans know it's BS, we get very few sellout in RL, and if they are about to sellout, they are signposted. So that scarcity isn't created just by saying it, you actually need a sellout. We got none in the men's. 

Secondly, once in a lifetime doesn't work, when most people have memories of a tournament just 9 years ago, in many of the same grounds in the same towns, involving some of the same players. I also just don't see how those messages are going to work for an event like Lebanon and Ireland at Leigh. 

The whole positioning is off. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it shows the amount of work we still have to do to get into the wider consciousness. 

The BBC coverage has been outstanding, but the numbers are still remaining stubbornly within our limits (2.4m peak for the semi was lower than the Kiwi semi final at Wembley last time). 

As good as the C4 coverage has been the numbers are relatively modest - we do have to think about how we are going to grow our awareness of the product - and that doesnt have to mean that everyone knows about us, but I met with my manager from Edinburgh this week and I brought up the tournament and he had no idea there was an RLWC. 

Yes - I either get "I think I have heard of that" or "I don't like it - it is just repetitive" or simply blankness there is something different to Rugby. For a lot of non-natives I work with, they think RU is Rugby.

That will be tougher darn sarf - as there is just zero media coverage, so why would they know anything about RL? Putting aside there is basically little to nothing for them to watch locally. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Leonard

[RP London]

52 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The one thing that we absolutely know though, is that attendance forecasts have been missed. Therefore we can guarantee that income targets from ticket sales has been missed. 

The ticket prices are not new, they weren't set in isolation - we were to deliver crowd growth at higher prices - so however we try and spin now we have missed income targets. 

I really hope (and expect) that this tournament will make a lot of money for IRL depending on how its been structured, and there is a lot to love about it, but when anyone talks about profitability and revenues positively, it should be remembered that they are lower than they were aiming for too. 

While i agree I think those targets need to be looked at in the context of the general world we live in too.. while you are right there needs to be a bigger dive into why people werent buying and that is really important IMHO becuase sadly there were so many things that have gone wrong that we really do need to know why.. stadiums, locations, cost of living, pricing, webiste journeys (how many sales dropped during the journey) etc etc before we batter Dutton too hard some of that is out of his control.. lets remember some stadia changed due to Australia pulling out last year as did some timings. Cost of living couldnt be helped but could pricing have matched it, if not why not etc.. 

Its not been as good as we hoped, its not necessarily a disaster but we HAVE TO learn some big lessons from it.

[RP London]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there are a couple of different things here. 

One is whether you are comfortable with spin and context. 

The other is whether you think it's a good performance. 

Obviously the spin is to make people believe the 2nd point. 

It all becomes a little like Super 8s, crowds were down, but TV income and viewing figures (more games) up for the sport.

Don't disagree, I don't mind a bit of spin when its pretty "harmless" (as in not really hurting anyone) and I think that's the case here. I also don't think its necessarily a bad thing to portray this as a success to the "outside world".. its better than saying "this world cup has been a disaster". 

As long as internally this isn't what they are thinking..