RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

When you break the TV figures doen though, it's mostly the same people who always watch RL watching multiple games, these aggregate figures are always very misleading, whichever sport tries it. 

And it was mostly the same people who cared - perhaps with a small addition of some newbies who were attracted to the wheelchair and women's. But it didn't cut through beyond that. 

So 2.5m people watching England v Samoa last week is nobody caring? I don't agree. And it is far more than the average super league viewership or attendance.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

So what? There is a cross code forum for this.

The superbowl gets more than Bristol Bears.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

There is no evidence for that. 

We were staging games in towns and wider areas that attract a lot more fans than these games did. 

In 2013 we got bigger crowds than usual at most grounds. 

To drive the numbers substantially, we didn't need to have huge increases per game. We needed the likes of Wire, Saints and Leigh to become 10k games minimum, or stage those games elsewhere that would do so. 

There is no evidence in the slightest that we pretty much maxed out our crowds. 

You may be right, but I did say with lower or give away prices or massive discount vouchers we may have increased crowds. Although my main point stands with regard to numbers of people interested currently. That is until we increase interest in the sport their is a ceiling that is not huge.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

So 2.5m people watching England v Samoa last week is nobody caring? I don't agree. And it is far more than the average super league viewership or attendance.

Yes it is good and a success. Key is how many of that will translate to either attending games or watching club games in future or taking part in the sport. As for the sport to benefit we need to translate it to the club game or participation.

I can easily see it benefitting the women's, pdrl and wheel chair. Not sure about our current main revenue earner, namely SL.

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, redjonn said:

You may be right, but I did say with lower or give away prices or massive discount vouchers we may have increased crowds. Although my main point stands with regard to numbers of people interested currently. That is until we increase interest in the sport their is a ceiling that is not huge.

I suppose my challenge is that we don't know that. We have no evidence that says we have hit a ceiling. 

There is no reason to believe that 2013 was our peak. Even though we sold cheap tickets back then, we also had a pretty damaged/immature brand. 

Who'd have thought we could get 24k vs Ireland, or 43k v Samoa, or 67k versus NZ. 

I'd argue there is a lot of growth to be had there, even with the limited groundwork we've done. Nothing suggests we have a ceiling anywhere near where we are. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

So 2.5m people watching England v Samoa last week is nobody caring? I don't agree. And it is far more than the average super league viewership or attendance.

I also don't buy that it is just the same people watching. There is no evidence to tell us that. Of course 30m people haven't watched, but it will be substantially more than 2.5m.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

The fact the deal is not to just pay the IRL any profit and to ignore a guaranteed fee is an odd one to me.

I can see that making sense in a competitive bid environment, for example bidding for tests or one dayers (there are about 8 grounds for potentially for 5/6 tests), but with a limited option of really one country each cycle (GB and then Australia - accepting France now in the mix) - it just seems a method to potentially screw the holder who in our case can't afford it and the NRL had to cover a shortfall last time.

Seems a very unnecessary process. That or the IRL writes off any shortfall and really all they get is the profit anyway - so why not just do that?

It is more weasel words claiming no profit and struggled to break even. 

Anybody reading that would see this tournament as a resounding failure. 

Missed attendance targets massively and no profit made. What is he playing at with these interviews?

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose my challenge is that we don't know that. We have no evidence that says we have hit a ceiling. 

There is no reason to believe that 2013 was our peak. Even though we sold cheap tickets back then, we also had a pretty damaged/immature brand. 

Who'd have thought we could get 24k vs Ireland, or 43k v Samoa, or 67k versus NZ. 

I'd argue there is a lot of growth to be had there, even with the limited groundwork we've done. Nothing suggests we have a ceiling anywhere near where we are. 

At the premium prices charged the level of attendance showed the ceiling.

2013 at much lower prices showed the ceiling at the prices charged.

I don't think in the last 10 years their is evidence we have grown - with regard to mens game.

So currently we know roughly the ceiling at low and premium prices. That is until we further grow spectator interest.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, redjonn said:

At the premium prices charged the level of attendance showed the ceiling.

2013 at much lower prices showed the ceiling at the prices charged.

I don't think in the last 10 years their is evidence we have grown - with regard to mens game.

So currently we know roughly the ceiling at low and premium prices. That is until we further grow spectator interest.

I disagree. To hit the ceiling everything will have had to have been optimal. 

Tournaments grow all the time. I'd be surprised if we nailed the ceiling in 2013. 

But, it'll be a while u til we get the opportunity to find out by trying again, so it can only be opinions for now! 

[Toby Chopra]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I also don't buy that it is just the same people watching. There is no evidence to tell us that. Of course 30m people haven't watched, but it will be substantially more than 2.5m.

Genuine question Dave: why do you think substantially more than 2.5m watched? 

The mens peak is 2.5m, which is the limit we've hit for CC finals and mens internationals for a decade or more.

So that tells me in this tournament it's a pretty fixed audience that's turning on the mens games, not a different million or so each time. 

And even if we say half the womens/wheelchair audience is new people - which is optimistic - that only gets us to 3-3.5m. 

Which feels about right, as anecdotaly it doesnt feel like the country connected with the tournaments more than that. It didn't become watercooler chat as far as I can see, even though free on TV. 

Which for me is more disappointing than the ticket debacle, as at least there there's lots we could have done better. 

[Archie Gordon]

16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Genuine question Dave: why do you think substantially more than 2.5m watched? 

The mens peak is 2.5m, which is the limit we've hit for CC finals and mens internationals for a decade or more.

So that tells me in this tournament it's a pretty fixed audience that's turning on the mens games, not a different million or so each time. 

And even if we say half the womens/wheelchair audience is new people - which is optimistic - that only gets us to 3-3.5m. 

Which feels about right, as anecdotaly it doesnt feel like the country connected with the tournaments more than that. It didn't become watercooler chat as far as I can see, even though free on TV. 

Which for me is more disappointing than the ticket debacle, as at least there there's lots we could have done better. 

I think this is about right.

It's made me think that the model of every England game on Saturday afternoon isn't the best. To break through, we really need an England game on BBC1 at 7.30.

[Toby Chopra]

20 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think this is about right.

It's made me think that the model of every England game on Saturday afternoon isn't the best. To break through, we really need an England game on BBC1 at 7.30.

Prime time would be great, but I'm not sure we've demonstrated we'd do it justice yet. 

I think the current timings would have been ok if the tournament had built momentum, but it seemed to go a bit flat after the opening week.

I suppose the obvious thing there is all the blowouts, where even the England games went backwards after week one.

I don't like meddling with the format, but I suppose it's something we have to look at along with everything else. 

[gingerjon]

49 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The mens peak is 2.5m, which is the limit we've hit for CC finals and mens internationals for a decade or more.

The highest peak for a Challenge Cup final in the past twenty years has been 1.4m.

[bamfordsbeans]

The biggest frustration is we are probably going to have to wait a minimum of 11 years to rectify these mistakes and most likely without the government money we received this time.

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

Genuine question Dave: why do you think substantially more than 2.5m watched? 

The mens peak is 2.5m, which is the limit we've hit for CC finals and mens internationals for a decade or more.

So that tells me in this tournament it's a pretty fixed audience that's turning on the mens games, not a different million or so each time. 

And even if we say half the womens/wheelchair audience is new people - which is optimistic - that only gets us to 3-3.5m. 

Which feels about right, as anecdotaly it doesnt feel like the country connected with the tournaments more than that. It didn't become watercooler chat as far as I can see, even though free on TV. 

Which for me is more disappointing than the ticket debacle, as at least there there's lots we could have done better. 

It's just not the way things work. Wire get around 10k, but there will be plenty turnover of different people within that. I expect there is a proportion of different people dependent on time slots etc. There will also be different people attracted to different events. 

The 1.2m peak for the women won't just nicely slot within the 2.5m that watched the semi. 

I don't necessarily think it'll be 10-15m or owt like that, but I dont believe it'll nicely peak at 2.5m and everyone slots into that. I think that's more likely in subscription models. 

[Toby Chopra]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The highest peak for a Challenge Cup final in the past twenty years has been 1.4m.

Thanks. 

Am I right that the 2013 semi peaked at 2.8m, and the climax to the kiwi series in 2018 was around 2.2m?

If so it shows that we can activate another million or so for major internationals. But we already knew that. 

My contention is that 2.5-3m is the pool for watching mens RL and most of the mens audiences came from that, not, for example, 6-7m watching a random game or two. 

Womens/wheelchair probably has added another half million unique viewers. 

None of that is to be sniffed at, it shows the sport's base - in its widest definition - is stable and engaged. There's an audience to move forward with, if we can deliver meaningful content for it. 

I'd just hoped blanket TV coverage would give us more - a women's football-style tipping point. But perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part. Union thought 2015 would be that moment for them and it incontrovertibly wasn't. 

[Archie Gordon]

41 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Prime time would be great, but I'm not sure we've demonstrated we'd do it justice yet. 

...

Yes, that seems fair. Even so, I think the BBC2 Friday night slot - which we obtained a few times - is better than BBC1 Saturday pm. In hindsight, it would have been worth testing this theory with an ENG game.

If I were the RFL, I'd be looking at getting the BBC to try a CC QF/SF in that slot.

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's just not the way things work. Wire get around 10k, but there will be plenty turnover of different people within that. I expect there is a proportion of different people dependent on time slots etc. There will also be different people attracted to different events. 

The 1.2m peak for the women won't just nicely slot within the 2.5m that watched the semi. 

I don't necessarily think it'll be 10-15m or owt like that, but I dont believe it'll nicely peak at 2.5m and everyone slots into that. I think that's more likely in subscription models. 

Fair enough, I suppose it's just where that point is. My feeling is that it's closer to 3m, than say 6m, as switching on the TV is an easier choice to make than attending a game. Hopefully we'll get some accurate figures for "reach" at some point, given that's what Dutton says it was about. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Fair enough, I suppose it's just where that point is. My feeling is that it's closer to 3m, than say 6m, as switching on the TV is an easier choice to make than attending a game. Hopefully we'll get some accurate figures for "reach" at some point, given that's what Dutton says it was about. 

Yeah, it's a bit of a floating number, and we possibly will never know that. I wouldn't be surprised if its towards that lower end, so I do agree with the principle of the point you're making. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Dave T

[Toby Chopra]

18 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes, that seems fair. Even so, I think the BBC2 Friday night slot - which we obtained a few times - is better than BBC1 Saturday pm. In hindsight, it would have been worth testing this theory with an ENG game.

If I were the RFL, I'd be looking at getting the BBC to try a CC QF/SF in that slot.

I remember that a few years ago we did have a CC semi on Friday night on BBC2 - I can't remember the teams, I think one was Saints - but it was a cracking game, played under lights, and from memory it got 1.5m viewers, which seemed to please everyone. Not sure why it didn't return. 

EDIT: It was Leeds vs Saints in 2015, got 1.3m plus 11k crowd at Warrington which created a great atmosphere I remember. 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Toby Chopra
Addition

[RP London]

12 hours ago, redjonn said:

Let's not forget that insuffient people are interested no matter if all the things said on here are done. Maybe a few more maybe if we have very low prices, but not many more.

Thats the spirit.. what's the point bothering with trying to make everything better and promoting things... nothing has gone from semi popular to very popular before has it!

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

Thats the spirit.. what's the point bothering with trying to make everything better and promoting things... nothing has gone from semi popular to very popular before has it!

Glad its not just me. 

We went from 220k in 2008 to 458k in 2013. The previousnsemi final versus the Kiwis got 16k, and then suddenly we were at Wembley with 67k in. 

There is no evidence in the slightest that suggests we have hit our ceiling. Id say getting 420k or so with a poorly organised comp suggests our ceiling is some way higher than that. 

[RP London]

24 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I remember that a few years ago we did have a CC semi on Friday night on BBC2 - I can't remember the teams, I think one was Saints - but it was a cracking game, played under lights, and from memory it got 1.5m viewers, which seemed to please everyone. Not sure why it didn't return. 

According to Dave Woods in his bbc article today the semi had 2.4m watching on BBC... we have to work out how to rap into that properly, IMHO mid season internationals have to be one way as there are at least matches the next weekend but there is hope.. 

[Archie Gordon]

21 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I remember that a few years ago we did have a CC semi on Friday night on BBC2 - I can't remember the teams, I think one was Saints - but it was a cracking game, played under lights, and from memory it got 1.5m viewers, which seemed to please everyone. Not sure why it didn't return. 

EDIT: It was Leeds vs Saints in 2015, got 1.3m plus 11k crowd at Warrington which created a great atmosphere I remember. 

 

There we have it then. That is a decent CCF TV audience for a SF.

I imagine that switching the ENG RLWC QFs - or even SFs - around might have been a good thing. ENG on TV every Saturday pm makes some sense in terms of habit building but, on balance, I don't think it's the best way to build interest.

[RP London]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Glad its not just me. 

We went from 220k in 2008 to 458k in 2013. The previousnsemi final versus the Kiwis got 16k, and then suddenly we were at Wembley with 67k in. 

There is no evidence in the slightest that suggests we have hit our ceiling. Id say getting 420k or so with a poorly organised comp suggests our ceiling is some way higher than that. 

Totally agree..