TV Deal to conclude end of June

[The 4 of Us]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

I find the idea that a sport which has a small/medium but committed audience and brings in good regular viewing figures is of no value very odd.

Especially when live sport is one of the best mediums for TV ads, as people tend not to watch on record.

Someone should have told yawnion to stick with sky through thick and thin.

It does have value. Just not quite as much as some would like. Land Rover sponsor other sports for a reason. Part of the IMG gig is to expand the demographics. Not necessarily just more but different eyes.

[tonyXIII]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

(trimmed)

I don't think it will be sorted soon and agree that this current urgency is the result of essentially p**sing away a decade stagnating with sod all to show for it.

Well said, Tommy.

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

While it's all doom and gloom here, tv figures for Superleague are pretty good. I don't think things will be quite as bad as many are expecting 

Whilst obviously a positive it counts for absolutely nothing if no one else is interested and no one else wants to compete with Sky. Sky can literally then offer whatever they feel like. That has been Super League's problem since its inception.

[David Shepherd]

6 minutes ago, Leonard said:

I find the idea that a sport which has a small/medium but committed audience and brings in good regular viewing figures is of no value very odd.

Especially when live sport is one of the best mediums for TV ads, as people tend not to watch on record.

Someone should have told yawnion to stick with sky through thick and thin.

The advertising industry is London centric.  I doubt they even think we can afford TVs ooop t'north.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

I find the idea that a sport which has a small/medium but committed audience and brings in good regular viewing figures is of no value very odd.

Especially when live sport is one of the best mediums for TV ads, as people tend not to watch on record.

Someone should have told yawnion to stick with sky through thick and thin.

Its not of no value of course.

The problems in the value of our TV rights I suspect are multi faceted.

1. Perceptions. Whilst the sport has a solid committed following, the following is perceived as being low to low middle income. Its also considered, by a range of metrics, to be quite uniform and not very diverse. So again the reach is narrow. There are easier and perhaps more cost effective ways to reach that audience, that also encompass a broader spectrum of society. Likewise the value of that audience means some brands aren't interested.

All of this is perception.

2. Actually selling ourselves. Obviously RL's tv audience isn't all poor people in the M62 corridor, but we don't do much to help change those perceptions as described above. It was always said that the South was a strong area for Sky TV viewers of SL games, yet we don't seem to push that as a positive.

Sky is still the best partner to have, but we need to change our relationship with them from one of total dependence to less dependent than that. They are always going to be the biggest number in our TV deals, but they shouldn’t be the only "big number", especially if they only broadcast between a third and a half of our games.

[tonyXIII]

13 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

A fact that won't be lost on Sky.  They really have got us by the short and curlies. Take what you're given or we walk.

So let them walk.

In fact, tell them to persist off. You can't negotiate with blackmailers. If our income falls, then we just have to cut our cloth according to our means. Money is important, but I value my soul a lot higher.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The really rather depressing thing in all this is that ultimately we are at the mercy of Sky. SL is our only asset that makes real money. We have completely failed to do anything with any of our other assets, in particular we have absolutely blown the chance to make money from the international game. 

We are now getting what we deserve as a worldwide sport. 

Jesus Dave.....your feeling cheery today!

I'm.more hopeful.....get the streaming for other events up and running 

I've bought both Out League SL games so far....plenty of others would too 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, mrfranco said:

Was not aware that was a thing (not that I'd be interested, but each to their own) - what it raises the question of is what it looks like in that sport and whether that would translate to RL - so does the RU version cover all non-TV games in a season for £100? How many games a week is that? And what quality are they filmed to? Something like the BBC red button games? Or more like Sky games? Does it come with commentary? 

Yep £100 a year,£5 a game or £7 a round for non BT games 

Standard with commentary same as Our League...more than enough 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not of no value of course.

The problems in the value of our TV rights I suspect are multi faceted.

1. Perceptions. Whilst the sport has a solid committed following, the following is perceived as being low to low middle income. Its also considered, by a range of metrics, to be quite uniform and not very diverse. So again the reach is narrow. There are easier and perhaps more cost effective ways to reach that audience, that also encompass a broader spectrum of society. Likewise the value of that audience means some brands aren't interested.

All of this is perception.

2. Actually selling ourselves. Obviously RL's tv audience isn't all poor people in the M62 corridor, but we don't do much to help change those perceptions as described above. It was always said that the South was a strong area for Sky TV viewers of SL games, yet we don't seem to push that as a positive.

Sky is still the best partner to have, but we need to change our relationship with them from one of total dependence to less dependent than that. They are always going to be the biggest number in our TV deals, but they shouldn’t be the only "big number", especially if they only broadcast between a third and a half of our games.

Wouldn't SKY have a good idea who is watching and where ....probably with the address of those watching 

They should be able to see people watching from down south and affluent areas up north .....

Edited June 8, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

The advertising industry is London centric.  I doubt they even think we can afford TVs ooop t'north.

I get that - but at this rate I wonder why Sky pay anything.

After all - there are no bidders so why not offer a CH4 deal of exposure but no fees?

I think this is a mindset peculiar to RL.

[Guest]

Just now, Leonard said:

I get that - but at this rate I wonder why Sky pay anything.

After all - there are no bidders so why not offer a CH4 deal of exposure but no fees?

I think this is a mindset peculiar to RL.

I'll add in that we now have more TV coverage than ever.

Every WC game on BBC, BBC, Viaplay, SKY, CH4, Our League, other smaller operators like Sportsman

And our income from TV is at its lowest by a mile.

That takes some doing.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Wouldn't SKY have a good idea who is watching and where ....probably with the address of those watching 

They should be able to see people watching from down south and affluent areas up north .....

They would, but its also in there interests to pay as little as possible.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They would, but its also in there interests to pay as little as possible.

We know that a good chunk of viewers are not M62 and are based in the South as well.

[crashmon]

The bottom line is ..... Does the RFL have the balls to walk away from sky?  and can the SL clubs take a short term shortfall owing to this (say next 2-3 years)?

Beacuse this comes down to sky saying we will give you say 17M, and you will accept it as if we walk you will have nothing........

Can the RFL say we are walking, as longer term we will be better off, and we don't need your insulting money offer anyway?

If the RFL cannot say the above then this thread really does not matter.... Sky decides how much they will give us, and we will yes sir can I have another

 

[David Shepherd]

37 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Wouldn't SKY have a good idea who is watching and where ....probably with the address of those watching 

They should be able to see people watching from down south and affluent areas up north .....

They definitely will for those viewers on SkyGlass and SkyStream.  Probably not so easy for those watching via a dish.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Where teams finish won't matter when it comes to criteria. Criteria is criteria. That would be my preference but I'm happy with 14 teams regardless anyway 

But this season has nothing to do with criteria the Championship winners are going up, and considering we are discussing the format for next season hence my suggestion of the two GF.

But I am in agree with Padge and others who are doubtful that with the number of players required to furnish two extra teams we do not gave the resources required to elevate them above the bottom two places.

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Leonard said:

It won't be £20m, it will be £18m by the time SL have bottled it.

Fine choice of words 'Bottled It' if those who do the negotiating on behalf of Sky get a reduction I would call that good buisness on their part.

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

We know that a good chunk of viewers are not M62 and are based in the South as well.

You know, so how big a chunk are you talking about?

No guessing mind.

and why was I confused with my  last post.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

You know, so how big a chunk are you talking about?

No guessing mind.

and why was I confused with my  last post.

I have heard on podcasts that it is about half - I'm not going to dig out the podcast from a few years back.

I used the confused emoji because I found the post confusing.

[crashmon]

I don't think sky care where the potential viewers are, as most people who subscribe for RL, probably subscribe for something else. (For instance, I subscribe to Sky sports but not for RL as I don't watch SL, I subscribe for the Golf and UK Basketball coverage, also Cricket in the summer)....

So I would estimate 90%+ subscribers to sky wouls still probably subscribe if they stopped showing RL, as most of them would be subscribed for Football or other sports as well.

Its more if you are looking at somebody like C4 which depends on advertising revenue where the demographic of who watches will come into play

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Leonard said:

Not sure recent figures, and there is always spin, but from 2021:

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/2325/super-league-pulls-in-record-viewing-figures

The Betfred Super League Play-Offs kick-off tonight (23 September) on the back of record regular season TV audiences. The competition continues to grow in popularity with Sky Sports viewers with both aggregate and average audiences rising and the average audience for 2021 being the highest in the last six years sitting at over 150,000.

And Magic has just done very well.

So the idea the sport has declined for viewers seems odd - an you can throw in CH4 figures.

 

I think this shows that Sky aren't really bothered about whether we get 150k or 175k, that's more an issue for us as a sport. 

But Sky have little competition and are tightening their belt, so can give us £15m and we'd take it in reality. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, crashmon said:

I don't think sky care where the potential viewers are, as most people who subscribe for RL, probably subscribe for something else. (For instance, I subscribe to Sky sports but not for RL as I don't watch SL, I subscribe for the Golf and UK Basketball coverage, also Cricket in the summer)....

So I would estimate 90%+ subscribers to sky wouls still probably subscribe if they stopped showing RL, as most of them would be subscribed for Football or other sports as well.

Its more if you are looking at somebody like C4 which depends on advertising revenue where the demographic of who watches will come into play

I assume demographics are relevant for advertisers. Sky don't just make money from subscribers. 

[Guest]

Just now, Dave T said:

I think this shows that Sky aren't really bothered about whether we get 150k or 175k, that's more an issue for us as a sport. 

But Sky have little competition and are tightening their belt, so can give us £15m and we'd take it in reality. 

Which is why we are getting to the point where we might as well walk. 

imho.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Which is why we are getting to the point where we might as well walk. 

imho.

Again, it's a bit of a failure. We haven't set ourselves up to remove reliance on them. 

I do think one of the problems we have now is that Sky have shown they are happy to lose content. A few years back the idea of them losing RU and WWE was unthinkable. 

There is a very real chance of us becoming even more niche without them, and they know it. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

They would, but its also in there interests to pay as little as possible.

I think the trouble is that in Sky's eyes SL seems to be in a sweet spot for them. No one else is interested, so no competition driving up rights, and all they have to do is pay enough to keep it as a full time competition and remotely attractive enough to keep the current Rugby League subscriber base buying Sky. Paying extra than they need for a better product, when they don't need to, becomes diminishing returns. Indeed SL becoming too successful could interest competition and be counter productive for them.

Its a all round ###### situation for the game to be in.