TV Deal to conclude end of June

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Why? TV simply hasn't seen live audiences collapse at all Harry. With all due respect that is an argument that was proven wrong for every sport since the 60s and 70s.

We didn't have every game televised Tommy, a fan of any SL club will be able to watch every league game their team plays in now without having to go to any ground home or away.

[JM2010]

5000 subscribers paying £100 per year works out at £500 000. This plus any money for terrestrial tv deal as well as the added exposure and potential sponsorship doesn’t make the deal any worse than the previous one

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, N2022 said:

You might be making a good first point there. Not entirely dissimilar to the county championship (4-day games) in cricket, which now gets pretty poor turnouts at most grounds. Post about the competition's declining popularity on forums and perhaps suggest reform is needed and you'll get replies pointing out there is now a decent following on the counties' YouTube streams. This is probably true but doesn't bring people's money to the county grounds' bars or make for a particularly exciting atmosphere for those who do bother to go in person. And in cricket the grounds are at least fuller for shorter format games, which wouldn't be the case for RL. Scheduling, ticketing structure would need thought.

Im not sure 4 day cricket matches are a great comparison, I would say there's more to declining crowds than TV coverage. Cricket has had an issue with the original long form game for a while (bar test matches) that's why 20/20 and Hundred were born.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We didn't have every game televised Tommy, a fan of any SL club will be able to watch every league game their team plays in now without having to go to any ground home or away.

They will be able to watch it at home but not for free!

Do televised games now drastically affect the crowds? Has channel 4 affected the crowds negatively?

The point about more coverage is it opens you up to a larger audience not a smaller one.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They will be able to watch it at home but not for free!

Do televised games now drastically affect the crowds? Has channel 4 affected the crowds negatively?

The point about more coverage is it opens you up to a larger audience not a smaller one.

I've actually been doing a little bit of reading up on 'does TV affect crowds' today and, not entirely surprisingly, the answer is, "Not really, at least not in a bad way, but it's a bit complicated."

The general rule is that if something feels like it's a big game then the presence of TV is likely to have a positive impact on the crowd. If, however, it is an annoyance - an example given in one report was non Premier League soccer on a Monday evening - then the presence of TV can have (not definitely will have) a downward pull on the crowd.

Overall though, and you can argue about cause and effect here, visible TV coverage is associated with in-person crowds mostly being higher and a more positive perception of the game/event.

(What I haven't looked at but which might suit the mood of this board at times is: do low in-person crowds affect perception/viewers of televised events?)

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I've actually been doing a little bit of reading up on 'does TV affect crowds' today and, not entirely surprisingly, the answer is, "Not really, at least not in a bad way, but it's a bit complicated."

The general rule is that if something feels like it's a big game then the presence of TV is likely to have a positive impact on the crowd. If, however, it is an annoyance - an example given in one report was non Premier League soccer on a Monday evening - then the presence of TV can have (not definitely will have) a downward pull on the crowd.

Overall though, and you can argue about cause and effect here, visible TV coverage is associated with in-person crowds mostly being higher and a more positive perception of the game/event.

(What I haven't looked at but which might suit the mood of this board at times is: do low in-person crowds affect perception/viewers of televised events?)

Personally a game now that's on TV feels like a much bigger event when you are actually in the ground - the big screen, replays, VR all add to the sense of the game being an event.

I much prefer going to televised games than non televised games.

I appreciate that might  get less and less when it's the norm.

[Chrispmartha]

Also the game being viewed by more people can in turn increase levels of sponsorship, we might even see more clubs have blue chip sponsors both on advertising boards and on kit.

 

[Hopie]

I think you have to look at the demographics of your audience. The Challenge cup and Play off crowds struggle compared to Super league regular rounds because we mainly sell season tickets, you could argue one way that selling a OurLeague subscriptions might increase income compared to the current one price per game model

But I suspect it is more likely to go the other way, instead of a group of friends buying several walk-up tickets and a few overpriced pints in the stadium, they could just buy one streaming ticket and a bunch of cans from the supermarket and still have more time and money left to do something else.

Optimistically you could say this will attract income from those who can't go to the games, but will that be more than you lose from those who could go, but watching on streaming is cheaper and more convenient. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Hopie

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

This is a good point, and one thing I'd say here is that OurLeague was launched in 2017, and while I think the strategy has been muddled (to be kind) - it is one of those instances where we have stuck with it and I think it could potentially develop into something decent at some stage if they get really clear on what its purpose is. 

6 years down the line, we are showing the odd PPV SL game, we've had lower league games, we've had England games. And now we may see regular SL games. That is actually growth and progression for an RL initiative.

Yes I'd keep the OurLeague branding because we have got 6 years of brand equity and some user habits, but port it to a more effective tech platform

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yes I'd keep the OurLeague branding because we have got 6 years of brand equity and some user habits, but port it to a more effective tech platform

I might argue that the OurLeague brand equity is pretty low, people that use it don't have a positive word to say about it - changing the name, brand and platform might actually make more people sign up because they can see it isn't the rubbish platform that OurLeague is associated with?

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, N2022 said:

What sports? Boxing one-off events? Tennis and golf similar for the moneyed classes? Football is everywhere on TV but attendances are relatively resilient through scale and actually it's probably participation rather than live crowds that has declined for a range of reasons.

Union and perhaps cricket would be the best points of comparison. Union can sustain decent crowds at Prem level (but not below) as it largely sits in more affluent areas and top clubs are more widely distributed than RL which is trying to support a dozen or more elite teams across a relatively narrow geographical band with several bases in lower income towns. Domestic cricket has had to adapt to keep people coming to grounds with shorter formats bringing in most crowds. The 100 is very affordable and adds something new with women's game also on the bill.

Economy and society have changed and will continue to, and I think it's naive to assume RL would be immune to such an effect.

Quite, none of those have seen crowds collapse because they've had more televised content.

[Tommygilf]

52 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We didn't have every game televised Tommy, a fan of any SL club will be able to watch every league game their team plays in now without having to go to any ground home or away.

In which case they would be paying for it anyway?

If the only way to follow a team is to be in attendance at every game, you're going to have a very limited audience. 

Do you think the BBC local radio coverage similarly impacts attendances?

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, tiffers said:

How many young people have been leaving RL towns in the last 20 years to go to university and are now scattered all across the UK? Those people in decades gone by would've had little choice but to stay in those towns and therefore RL stayed in their life as a staple. Now they aren't. A lot of these people are your target audience for TV / streaming services. They have moved away, earning good money in other places and have the disposable cash to spend.

Pick me pick me…  

I fall into this bracket. Streaming games will be massively beneficial to me as there’s very little opportunity for me to get to a live game -  even on a weekend as I work away from home during the week. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

31 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I might argue that the OurLeague brand equity is pretty low, people that use it don't have a positive word to say about it - changing the name, brand and platform might actually make more people sign up because they can see it isn't the rubbish platform that OurLeague is associated with?

Maybe. To be honest it's a bit of a coin toss. From a comms perspective, it'd be easier to use the same name. If the app was improved (by it being a different app with the same name!) I think the perception of the brand would change quite quickly. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Maybe. To be honest it's a bit of a coin toss. From a comms perspective, it'd be easier to use the same name. If the app was improved (by it being a different app with the same name!) I think the perception of the brand would change quite quickly. 

TO be honest even if they change the name and branding I think they ill have to market it as a 'rebrand' anyway rather than a new app, I would have thought that would mean they automatically see the existing subscribers.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

TO be honest even if they change the name and branding I think they ill have to market it as a 'rebrand' anyway rather than a new app, I would have thought that would mean they automatically see the existing subscribers.

I think you're more marketing the product development, with new features and utility, rather than thinking of it as a re-brand.

I always argue for brand retention, unless you're in a 'Ratner' reputation situation (or maybe the name doesn't pass the Ronseal test), so you can invest time and money on the product and the comms plan rather than getting distracted by unpicking all existing assets and having to communicate a new identity. Lots of marketing teams think a new name means a new start, but in my experience its the product, the customer experience and the promotion that counts.  

[phiggins]

16 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Maybe. To be honest it's a bit of a coin toss. From a comms perspective, it'd be easier to use the same name. If the app was improved (by it being a different app with the same name!) I think the perception of the brand would change quite quickly. 

Also, given the various technical challenges of upgrading to a new platform (content and user migration amongst them), throwing in a rebrand / redesign would be a move that was doomed to fail, particularly if up against any sort of challenging deadlines (start of season).

[Chrispmartha]

Fair points, although I’m more talking a  rebrand not a new name the branding is dated, like the app

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Fair points, although I’m more talking a  rebrand not a new name the branding is dated, like the app

Ah cool, yeah I'm down with that. On the same page. 

[N2022]

3 hours ago, TrueBull said:

There have been studies & questionnaires about this. 
Friday night games good for corporate, families with teens etc, less so for young families. Left the entire weekend for other events. 

Saturday 6pm was a slot used earlier in SL - that seemed ok for most people, could get to the game from other commitments (ie a 3pm football game) but was slap bang in the middle of the weekend so there were other restrictions . 

Sunday 3pm was the traditional slot, preferred by the older generation but limited corporate income. Sort of blocked you from doing much else with your Sunday. 
 

I quite liked the Sat 6pm slot as could be sat down with the family for a meal at 8pm afterwards. 

Yes, I appreciate that different audiences like different times, and that there's more money for cheap children's tickets, community youth sports camps from the corporate / hospitality stream. It just felt when we lived near Rhinos that only maybe a couple of SL games per season were ever daytime kick offs, and that prevented us attending more than once in a blue moon.

[N2022]

3 hours ago, tiffers said:

You make an excellent point re. changing economy and society. and I'll quote on the above line.

How many young people have been leaving RL towns in the last 20 years to go to university and are now scattered all across the UK? Those people in decades gone by would've had little choice but to stay in those towns and therefore RL stayed in their life as a staple. Now they aren't. A lot of these people are your target audience for TV / streaming services. They have moved away, earning good money in other places and have the disposable cash to spend.

Society is way more fluid than in decades gone by. People are more mobile (economically/geographically) than ever before and so if we don't cater to different audiences then people can only access a small proportion of content and money is being left on the table with a focus on small geographic areas that can physically go to the match.

Opening that up to significantly larger target audiences and charging a fee for the privilege makes logical sense to me.

Thanks for the reply. Fair points. I wasn't saying 'don't take a good tv deal', but just pointing out that someone's argument based on other sports and ignoring latest social context might not apply to RL in the present/future. 

I agree someone from a league town who's been to a few games as a youngster, maybe had players come into their school or attended a sports camp or tournament run by the club might feel an attachment, even after leaving for uni. But they'd probably need to be quite sports-keen and probably have Sky for other reasons. More likely they'd be active and open to engagement through TAG etc or event-goers and looking to go to an occasional game.

[N2022]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Im not sure 4 day cricket matches are a great comparison, I would say there's more to declining crowds than TV coverage. Cricket has had an issue with the original long form game for a while (bar test matches) that's why 20/20 and Hundred were born.

Agree with you about the causes in cricket being wider. My post was a reply to somebody wondering whether any decline in in-person attendance if fans prefer to watch from home would impact atmosphere. My observation, perhaps not well made, was that some cricket fans seem happy to point to streaming figures as evidence of CC popularity while it's clear that the in-person atmosphere / experience is not the same as it would be with more people going to games.

[Tommygilf]

Loop fixtures reported to stay for next year, with full reformatting of the League and Cup to take place together the following season

[N2022]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

They will be able to watch it at home but not for free!

Do televised games now drastically affect the crowds? Has channel 4 affected the crowds negatively?

The point about more coverage is it opens you up to a larger audience not a smaller one.

It opens you up to a larger audience, but those people may not convert into match-goers, particularly given the narrow geographical confines of RL in England. I grew up in the SouthWest, far from RL heartlands, enjoyed watching RL on TV in 80s as a kid but could never have attended in person. Union more accessible locally, and as I later moved to Thames Valley corridor, international Union fixtures at Twickenham and Cardiff became accessible. No such calendar in League to catch new fans.

[Tommygilf]