RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Tommygilf]

I think there's good and bad in what has been covered over the past couple of pages on TV viewing figures good or bad vs attendances etc. 

Personally I think this tournament has struggled to break out because it hasn't felt like a tournament for the nation; particularly the mens tournament. It has felt like a tournament for Rugby League fans, with some helpful additions in other places. Whilst it has been on the BBC, and that is great, it's physical accessibility and engagement opportunities for a lot of people has been poor.

Even in Leeds, which has delivered 3 of the highest attendances in this world cup (amd the 3 highest for non England games iirc), its still not been an overtly obvious fact that the world cup is going on in the city. No banners, marquees, fanzones or such like, at least that I have noticed. For a tournament that did a lot of professional talking, there are still clear opportunities to improve.

Thank god for the Wheelchair and womens tournaments!

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think there's good and bad in what has been covered over the past couple of pages on TV viewing figures good or bad vs attendances etc. 

Personally I think this tournament has struggled to break out because it hasn't felt like a tournament for the nation; particularly the mens tournament. It has felt like a tournament for Rugby League fans, with some helpful additions in other places. Whilst it has been on the BBC, and that is great, it's physical accessibility and engagement opportunities for a lot of people has been poor.

Even in Leeds, which has delivered 3 of the highest attendances in this world cup (amd the 3 highest for non England games iirc), its still not been an overtly obvious fact that the world cup is going on in the city. No banners, marquees, fanzones or such like, at least that I have noticed. For a tournament that did a lot of professional talking, there are still clear opportunities to improve.

Thank god for the Wheelchair and womens tournaments!

It hasn't felt like a premium event to attend, and even on TV, it has been clear that we've struggled to get crowds in. 

The actual events have often felt less prestigious than a regular super league game staged at those same grounds. 

Premium prices for a budget event ultimately.

[DiH68]

I wonder if the obsession about the number of people attending games is a very British thing?

I've been in Australia for several years now, and they don't care about numbers in the ground - it's all about numbers watching on TV. That's what drives sponsorships - you have people watching on TV, you have people to advertise to.

I'd hazard a guess that's because it's far harder as a sponsor to engage somebody who is at the game. People watching on TV will see your name over and over.

There have been games at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney which holds maybe 80,000-odd where there's only been 10k in attendance. Nobody cares! As long as the viewing figures stack up.

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, DiH68 said:

I wonder if the obsession about the number of people attending games is a very British thing?

I've been in Australia for several years now, and they don't care about numbers in the ground - it's all about numbers watching on TV. That's what drives sponsorships - you have people watching on TV, you have people to advertise to.

I'd hazard a guess that's because it's far harder as a sponsor to engage somebody who is at the game. People watching on TV will see your name over and over.

There have been games at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney which holds maybe 80,000-odd where there's only been 10k in attendance. Nobody cares! As long as the viewing figures stack up.

 

 

The NRL often has games where the crowd are rattling around in big stadiums.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, DiH68 said:

I wonder if the obsession about the number of people attending games is a very British thing?

I've been in Australia for several years now, and they don't care about numbers in the ground - it's all about numbers watching on TV. That's what drives sponsorships - you have people watching on TV, you have people to advertise to.

I'd hazard a guess that's because it's far harder as a sponsor to engage somebody who is at the game. People watching on TV will see your name over and over.

There have been games at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney which holds maybe 80,000-odd where there's only been 10k in attendance. Nobody cares! As long as the viewing figures stack up.

 

 

When you have a TV deal that dwarfs all other income, you can relax slightly about crowds. However, I would say that you are wrong in your assessment that nobody cares. The big sports very much care about crowds - and they work hard to fill their grounds. 

Let's be honest, Aussie RL is a bit of an outlier in being seemingly relaxed about crowd numbers. There is a risk that will come back to bite them on the bum at some stage.

[pahars]

22 minutes ago, DiH68 said:

I wonder if the obsession about the number of people attending games is a very British thing?

I've been in Australia for several years now, and they don't care about numbers in the ground - it's all about numbers watching on TV. That's what drives sponsorships - you have people watching on TV, you have people to advertise to.

I'd hazard a guess that's because it's far harder as a sponsor to engage somebody who is at the game. People watching on TV will see your name over and over.

There have been games at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney which holds maybe 80,000-odd where there's only been 10k in attendance. Nobody cares! As long as the viewing figures stack up.

 

 

Isn’t it just an NRL/NSWRL thing? Historically they made a lot more money from people watching, drinking and gambling in the Leagues Club then they did from ticket sales. 

AFL which due to state legislation didn’t have gambling clubs seems a lot more focussed on crowds. 

 

[Man of Kent]

22 minutes ago, DiH68 said:

I wonder if the obsession about the number of people attending games is a very British thing?

I've been in Australia for several years now, and they don't care about numbers in the ground - it's all about numbers watching on TV. That's what drives sponsorships - you have people watching on TV, you have people to advertise to.

I'd hazard a guess that's because it's far harder as a sponsor to engage somebody who is at the game. People watching on TV will see your name over and over.

There have been games at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney which holds maybe 80,000-odd where there's only been 10k in attendance. Nobody cares! As long as the viewing figures stack up.

 

 

The UK RLWC21 audience is c.400k in the stands + c.30 million on TV. Then there's all the other countries showing the games + social media footage and related content on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc. etc. etc.

If we're talking about eyeballs, this tournament surely blows all previous World Cups out of the water.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

The UK RLWC21 audience is c.400k in the stands + c.30 million on TV. Then there's all the other countries showing the games + social media footage and related content on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc. etc. etc.

If we're talking about eyeballs, this tournament surely blows all previous World Cups out of the water.

Dutton has pretty much confirmed that the BBC aren't really paying us much. And our sponsorship portfolio is rather odd looking. If we can't monetise that 30m, then it is worthless. The next WC in France will be a really important one. Surely we aren't going to give away rights to the BBC and we should see more interest from UK sponsors based on these kind of numbers.

[redjonn]

3 hours 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!

no one has said that, just sensible to know reality and hence the starting point, then how to address the interest or whatever issue's

or instead we can always pretend and hence come up with simplistic idea's or reasons. Not exactly good marketing in its full spectrum as distinct from just thinking its about promotional activities only - I can also read more in others comments then what was written.

[Man of Kent]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Dutton has pretty much confirmed that the BBC aren't really paying us much. And our sponsorship portfolio is rather odd looking. If we can't monetise that 30m, then it is worthless. The next WC in France will be a really important one. Surely we aren't going to give away rights to the BBC and we should see more interest from UK sponsors based on these kind of numbers.

I'm sure IMG etc. will track the numbers - not just TV but social media - and come up with what ought to be a good story to tell. 

  

[Chrispmartha]

For anyone interested there are now some Cat A tickets available for tonight’s wheelchair Final!

got myself one

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It hasn't felt like a premium event to attend, and even on TV, it has been clear that we've struggled to get crowds in. 

The actual events have often felt less prestigious than a regular super league game staged at those same grounds. 

Premium prices for a budget event ultimately.

Agreed. 

I was originally concerned that we had a number of cities only hosting one event in the tournament - I felt it would make it hard to create any real buzz in a city where the games were effectively a circus that rolled into town for one night only (see Huddersfield (or "Kirklees"), Middlesborough, Coventry and London). My thinking was it was better to have fewer venues, hosting more games, and building the community buzz locally

That said, here hasn't really been much attempt to do that in cities where we have hosted multiple games. There's been no meaningful presence of the RLWC in the city centre - no fan activations, roadshows or fan parks, and I suspect that it has been similar in Hull, Newcastle, Warrington, Wigan/Leigh, and St Helens, which have also hosted multiple games. Given that local authorities have supported these hosting arrangements, would have it been prohibitively difficult or expensive to open up a fan experience in Millenium Square in Leeds on a weekend, or during the half-term holidays? Would "meet the players" events really have been that hard? 

I was at the Emirates last week - there was zero reason not only to get into the ground, but to get in the vicinity of the ground, any earlier than necessary. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Dutton has pretty much confirmed that the BBC aren't really paying us much. And our sponsorship portfolio is rather odd looking. If we can't monetise that 30m, then it is worthless. The next WC in France will be a really important one. Surely we aren't going to give away rights to the BBC and we should see more interest from UK sponsors based on these kind of numbers.

I think we could monetise - we are just run by incompetents.

The same as we probably get nothing for CH4 and Premier, despite providing value to the broadcasters.

Whilst the BBC has sunk money into production, they have achieved a lot of eyeballs and filled a lot of airtime out of this WC. 

It's almost as if we wait until the figures come in, which is too late, to then say it is worth something and upfront just bend over and take what we are given.

In a sport bereft of cash - £500k here or £1m there is a big deal.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

no one has said that, just sensible to know reality and hence the starting point, then how to address the interest or whatever issue's

or instead we can always pretend and hence come up with simplistic idea's or reasons. Not exactly good marketing in its full spectrum as distinct from just thinking its about promotional activities only - I can also read more in others comments then what was written.

You point blank said that insufficient people were interested anyway... on a post that was questioning how we can get more people interested and why more people aren't interested..  

You think you can read into what people are saying beyond what is written, you may say you didn't specifically say "why bother then" but that was absolutely 100% the tone of your post in response to a post about investigating "whys" to help come up with plans for change... 

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I'm sure IMG etc. will track the numbers - not just TV but social media - and come up with what ought to be a good story to tell. 

  

That's the hope. And I am genuinely optimistic about the future - but we should remember that IMG have been involved in the sport (when we were fully paying them) in the past. They have negotiated TV rights for us before, and they actually negotiated the 2017 RLWC rights and actually ended up in dispute with IRL.

Now, I do think this is different, because they have more control and more of a vested interest, but we shouldn't expect it to be without issue.

I suppose my point is, that we have had a great story for a long, long time. Our numbers have always been decent. In 2013 we had 14m RLWC viewers - it may have doubled this time, but that just correlates with more coverage. We didn't capitalise on 2013, we really have to this time.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Leonard said:

I think we could monetise - we are just run by incompetents.

The same as we probably get nothing for CH4 and Premier, despite providing value to the broadcasters.

Whilst the BBC has sunk money into production, they have achieved a lot of eyeballs and filled a lot of airtime out of this WC. 

It's almost as if we wait until the figures come in, which is too late, to then say it is worth something and upfront just bend over and take what we are given.

In a sport bereft of cash - £500k here or £1m there is a big deal.

As per my last post - we've had IMG negotiate for us before, we had them negotiate for 2017 RLWC too and we have had the NRL negotiate for internationals too. 

I'm not sure we are as bad as we think on TV negotiations, I think we are in a tricky/weak position. 

But, again, as per my last post, I am optimistic about the future in the new world, so let's see what the new RLCom can do.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As per my last post - we've had IMG negotiate for us before, we had them negotiate for 2017 RLWC too and we have had the NRL negotiate for internationals too. 

I'm not sure we are as bad as we think on TV negotiations, I think we are in a tricky/weak position. 

But, again, as per my last post, I am optimistic about the future in the new world, so let's see what the new RLCom can do.

It wouldn't surprise me if low rights valuations in the past beget low rights valuations in the future.

Along the lines of cheap tickets lead to cheap tickets.

We have always been bargain basement for TV rights which means broadcasters can always play that card.

Hopefully it changes.

[tiffers]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Dutton has pretty much confirmed that the BBC aren't really paying us much. And our sponsorship portfolio is rather odd looking. If we can't monetise that 30m, then it is worthless. The next WC in France will be a really important one. Surely we aren't going to give away rights to the BBC and we should see more interest from UK sponsors based on these kind of numbers.

The problem is we don't have an ongoing portfolio of international events to offer any sponsors. So, yes the world cup has been great for getting eye-balls on the current programme and that's great for the current list of sponsors. However, we have literally no vision of what autumn international RL is happening next year or the year after. So crudely, why would we see any more interest from sponsors when we haven't got anything to offer them.

For me this comes right back to the fundamentals of pinning down an international calendar. With or without the SH and NRL. If we want to build strategic partnerships and relationships to drive income over the long run, we need a product to work with in the first place.

[Guest]

Just now, tiffers said:

The problem is we don't have an ongoing portfolio of international events to offer any sponsors. So, yes the world cup has been great for getting eye-balls on the current programme and that's great for the current list of sponsors. However, we have literally no vision of what autumn international RL is happening next year or the year after. So crudely, why would we see any more interest from sponsors when we haven't got anything to offer them.

For me this comes right back to the fundamentals of pinning down an international calendar. With or without the SH and NRL. If we want to build strategic partnerships and relationships to drive income over the long run, we need a product to work with in the first place.

I thought a calendar was coming in from the IRL?

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Leonard said:

It wouldn't surprise me if low rights valuations in the past beget low rights valuations in the future.

Along the lines of cheap tickets lead to cheap tickets.

We have always been bargain basement for TV rights which means broadcasters can always play that card.

Hopefully it changes.

But that doesn't really work for any other sport tbh. They all start somewhere and then grow. 

RL in this country has made the decision to give rights cheaply to BBC, but then haven't done anything with the reach it gives us. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that doesn't really work for any other sport tbh. They all start somewhere and then grow. 

RL in this country has made the decision to give rights cheaply to BBC, but then haven't done anything with the reach it gives us. 

Quite - we have declined. We are one of the few sports to buck the broader trend.

That leads me to believe those in charge are incompetent.

There is literally RL and Speedway on the negative side.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Leonard

[tiffers]

25 minutes ago, Leonard said:

I thought a calendar was coming in from the IRL?

It's been coming for a long time though and keeps getting delayed and further delayed and further delayed. Obviously none of us are close enough to be able to make a commercial judgement on whether or not you hold your nerve again and wait (hope) for the calendar to be approved. Or you go it alone and make things happen yourself.

Albeit, sounds closer than before. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, tiffers said:

It's been coming for a long time though and keeps getting delayed and further delayed and further delayed. Obviously none of us are close enough to be able to make a commercial judgement on whether or not you hold your nerve again and wait (hope) for the calendar to be approved. Or you go it alone and make things happen yourself.

Albeit, sounds closer than before. I'll believe it when I see it.

So they are just waiting for the NRL to tell them the calendar then 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

When you have a TV deal that dwarfs all other income, you can relax slightly about crowds. However, I would say that you are wrong in your assessment that nobody cares. The big sports very much care about crowds - and they work hard to fill their grounds. 

Let's be honest, Aussie RL is a bit of an outlier in being seemingly relaxed about crowd numbers. There is a risk that will come back to bite them on the bum at some stage.

100% this

Having lived in Sydney for 4 years I can tell you the customer experience of watching Roosters 7k fans rattle around in the SFS, or even 20k for Souths in the even bigger Olympic Stadium, is seriously underwhelming. Compare that to attending an AFL game in Melbourne, which - despite the banal product on the field - is an entertainment experience with much more intensity

NRL clubs, at least in Sydney, have under-performed on attendances for years. We leave money on the table every week through not converting interested viewers into attendees. The membership numbers of AFL clubs dwarf NRL ones, and aside from gate and F&B revenue that translates into much better commercial performance from sponsorship and corporate entertainment. In Melbourne the AFL has a much higher-end market positioning as a result too. 

 

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

100% this

Having lived in Sydney for 4 years I can tell you the customer experience of watching Roosters 7k fans rattle around in the SFS, or even 20k for Souths in the even bigger Olympic Stadium, is seriously underwhelming. Compare that to attending an AFL game in Melbourne, which - despite the banal product on the field - is an entertainment experience with much more intensity

NRL clubs, at least in Sydney, have under-performed on attendances for years. We leave money on the table every week through not converting interested viewers into attendees. The membership numbers of AFL clubs dwarf NRL ones, and aside from gate and F&B revenue that translates into much better commercial performance from sponsorship and corporate entertainment. In Melbourne the AFL has a much higher-end market positioning as a result too. 

 

What do they do, that's so much better? Can we learn anything from them?