Why having all Super League Games is not a good idea

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I present it as a no-brainer only because I've studied the subject and the evidence is so compelling. It rarely is for most things, but it is in this case which is why I think it's interesting. 

Let's take a look at the NFL, as an interesting test. That's a sports marketplace where people pay billions for teams, and whilst TV revenues are a major part of their revenue structure unlike Premier League football the game receipts remain a critical part of their business model. They make 4 x the on-day revenue that Premier League clubs make per match. Those guys are relentlessly focused on revenue risk-mitigation. The NFL had a "blackout" policy for decades, where if a stadium pre-sales were <85% of capacity a match would not be live on TV in the local area, for all the reasons the OP described. They were true believers in the risk of cannibalisation.

In 2014 they were forced to pause blackouts by the risk of legal attack by the US competition authorities, who said they were operating a cartel. They agreed to not do it for one year. They've extended that ever since, because attendances didn't fall. On-day revenues have continued to rise. 

Why when asked did you present the PL as your first example? A comp that doesn't show every game live on UK TV. 

The NFL really is a bad comparison for almost every discussion we have on these boards. Sure there are things we can learn from every sport including US Football, but in 2014 NFL was in a completely different position to SL is now. 

The examples quoted are so distant from UK RL that it does make it difficult to accept it as relevant. 

We are playing in a market where we are trying to sell teams like Salford with 4 or 5k in the ground. 

I've yet to see a good comparison to UK RL on this. Maybe we could look at URC, but their games are tucked away on a really niche channel, we are talking about showing them all on the biggest sports channel in the UK and potentially the biggest channel in the UK. 

There is absolutely risk attached to this. Less money, all games on TV, if we take the attitude that this can't go wrong, we will absolutely balls it up. 

EDIT to reiterate that I think we will be fine and if we are good we can do really well here. For me it is the right thing to do. 

Edited January 17 by Dave T

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We are playing in a market where we are trying to sell teams like Salford with 4 or 5k in the ground. 

Salford's crowds, and seasons in which they made major finals. would be as they are regardless of whether they are on TV every week or not. Sky are not responsible for an apathetic area.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Salford's crowds, and seasons in which they made major finals. would be as they are regardless of whether they are on TV every week or not. Sky are not responsible for an apathetic area.

Well that's up for discussion. Maybe a club with an apathetic fan base will be far more at risk of reduced crowds if all games are on tv.

Similarly, every game being on tv when a team is losing week after week leaves a risk of fans not parting with cash to watch. 

When you are playing with such small numbers, the risk is higher imo. 

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well that's up for discussion. Maybe a club with an apathetic fan base will be far more at risk of reduced crowds if all games are on tv.

Similarly, every game being on tv when a team is losing week after week leaves a risk of fans not parting with cash to watch. 

When you are playing with such small numbers, the risk is higher imo. 

That last line of yours is key IMO.

[sam4731]

3 hours ago, Vambo said:

He might have got that right after all with the advent of social media?

How many parents would give there right arm to have their kids get off their device and watch a bit of telly with them? Yet how many of those same parents were told to switch the telly off and read a book as kids?

Social media seems scary because its the now, but compared to what will come in the future, it will seem tame. Humanity never deals with change until more change happens, hence why all the games being on TV seems scary now because they aren't already, probably scary to those who were just adjusting to games being on telly at all.

[Sports Prophet]

All models have their own Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and threats. To suggest there is no threat to televising every fixture is simply naive. 

I take OP as a well considered post from @THE RED ROOSTER. We have been presented reasonable grounds for any business to be concerned with, however, I am in the same boat as @Dave T, I consider the threats are outweighed by the opportunities the sport, the fans and the clubs can all gain by televising every fixture. It is really down to the stakeholders to ensure those opportunities are taken advantage of.

I believe the model is not ideal. I have long been an ambassador for no clashing fixtures, in turn increasing the amount of time in a week live RL can be consumed and in turn extending the hours in a week both live and post match media and social (digital and non-digital) media RL discussions which will exist.

Edited January 18 by Sports Prophet

[Hopie]

I am not optimistic about the future of the game, but then again there are a multitude of factors that combine to make that assessment. Having all games on TV is a risk, but also an opportunity, recent history suggests that those running the game are not that great at grasping opportunities, and more likely to make short term/insular decisions.

I'd suggest our core audience is less likely to go to a game on TV when they can watch it cheaper (or for free) at home, the average disposable income is on the low side, so the game struggles to attract sponsors, and the audience is precarious. Walk-ups and game by game ticket sales will likely drop off if it is more convenient and cheaper than going to the game in person. I'd suggest a good analogy is that many pubs are struggling to keep going, but supermarkets sell a lot of booze, so if the game is cheap/free on TV there needs to be more to going to grounds than the game.

While season tickets may be unaffected this year, they are more likely be impacted next season once the all on TV model has shown what it offers and prices are available. I have no idea how much it will cost to watch all my teams games on TV this year, I'd expect it to be set up this time next year, and knowing RL pricing strategy, available at a discount!

 

 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

All models have their own Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and threats. To suggest there is no threat to televising every fixture is simply naive. 

I take OP as a well considered post from @THE RED ROOSTER. We have been presented reasonable grounds for any business to be concerned with, however, I am in the same boat as @Dave T, I consider the threats are outweighed by the opportunities the sport, the fans and the clubs can all gain by televising every fixture. It is really down to the stakeholders to ensure those opportunities are taken advantage of.

I believe the model is not ideal. I have long been an ambassador for no clashing fixtures, in turn increasing the amount of time in a week live RL can be consumed and in turn extending the hours in a week both live and post match media and social (digital and non-digital) media RL discussions which will exist.

My main concern (I quite like the multi-match Friday evenings), is that if we just keep doing what we currently do, but televise every game, then I can see the potential for reduced crowds. I've already called out a couple of scenarios, but let's be honest, plenty of people moan about the televised games and the quality, even when we show top 2 picks. We will now be going down to 5th and 6th choice. My personal view is that I enjoy most games and plenty of the 'lesser' games are gems, but don't underestimate the negativity of the fan base. We'll now be televising weaker teams and games every week. 

I think it's important that we take actions to not only mitigate the threat, but to capitalise on the opportunity. We need to make people feel that being there is better than watching at home. Things like offering great food and drink options, entertainment, use of big screen, promotion and marketing to give context to the game. We need to think about how we capitalise on the certainty of fixtures, which have maybe been an issue in the past. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

. 

I take OP as a well considered post from @THE RED ROOSTER @Dave T

I believe the model is not ideal. I have long been an ambassador for no clashing fixtures, in turn increasing the amount of time in a week live RL can be consumed and in turn extending the hours in a week both live and post match media and social (digital and non-digital) media RL discussions which will exist.

On this point, whilst I can see the point and can understand why people want unique match clots, but I do like the Friday night setup. 

I think on a weekend, if we have a match on Thurs, Fri, Sat x 2 and one Sunday, that's a decent spread. I hated the weekends when it was all over by 10pm on a Friday

[Omott91]

19 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

When I read comments on TRL decrying genuine concerns expressed by fans about the impact on the game from the new SKY deal. I thought to myself lets give them a voice on TRL

Attendances will suffer

Straightforward economics here, we remain in a cost of living crisis, so if your a family that does pay the SKY sports package it makes economic sense to watch on TV rather than go to the game. In my case to watch London Broncos involves a two hour journey which costs £ 25.50 then you add on the match ticket £ 20, plus any food and Drink so you do not get much change out of £ 50. Even if there are no programmes to buy . So if I can watch for free there is £ 50 off the household bill and even if fans were charged £ 10 per ticket for streatming, I am still quids in. In addition clubs lose out on concession sales and merchandising becuause fewer people are coming.

Equally why go on away trips , for example Hull FC v London Broncos would be £ 98.40 for me plus match ticket £ 20 (Zone 5) excluding Food and Drink so £ 130 vs £ 0 staying at home. Now my case is an extreme example, but I am sure fans west of the Pennines will face a similar economic choice and vice versa.

The audience will drop for the main game on SKY

If you watch Rugby League on SKY you are already part of a niche paid subscription audience. By allowing the viewer to skip the main game and instead watch his / her team you depress the SKY audience figures. To give two examples - Friday 16th February you have - Leeds v Salford (main), Leigh v Huddersfield and St Helens v London No prizes for which one I am going to watch. But then when you get Friday 1st March and you have Wigan v Huddersfield (main), St Helens v Leigh and Warrington V Castleford. The Warrington or St Helens game is to my eyes the better game. So you end up with a lower audience figure for the main game.

Wither the Championship and non Super League Rugby ?

When I used to go up and watch the Broncos on for a weekend you would get a RL game on Friday a game on Saturday and a game on Sunday - Two nights in a trvelodge (or B&B) then back on the Sunday night.. Back in those days it could include a championship game on the Sunday depending on where I was. Now again I am an extreme example, but there are plenty of "Bloodnuts" in the M62 area who would go and watch their Super League side on Thursday / Friday and then a championship game. But will they do so if its a bit cold and wet outside and they have a live Super League option ?

But we have the BBC covering 12 games

Back in the days when there were only three TV channels Live TV exposure was essential. It's helpful today, but in a multi-channel world not a "game changer" because there are so many other options for younger people now and unlike Soccer, Cricket, Union etc the game itself is geographically restricted so if your "interested of Ipswich" where is your local professionl or semi-pro side?. If you live in Great Yarmouth, Wigan Warriors is as remote as the Dallas Cowboys.

The problem with internet messageboards is they are dominated by those who have a lot of time on their hands, but do not actually go to too may Rugby League games in person (as is the case with many Australian posters btw) so to them this is a boon. sit at home and become for example, a virtual St Helens Season Ticket Holder. But for my part, I do intend to see some London Broncos home games, the Challenge Cup, and will be back in Australia for round 2-4 of the NRL, in addition to hopefully getting to at least one end of season International now the RMT rail strikes are over.

Remember Adam Pearson's comments a day or so ago.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-fc-owner-adam-pearson-says-img-need-financial-help-to-revolutionise-rugby-league-4478452

So as with the postmasters, I hope I have given voice to those marginalised on social media voicing concerns about the long term future of Rugby League with with what some might argue is becoming over exposure - A case of be careful what you wish for ?

 

Time to join modern sport. 

[HawkMan]

Surely the acid test in all this is whether or not new people are attracted to the game. If all this TV choice results in the same fans watching,  but just more games, then that's fantastic for fans but not a game changer in the fortunes of the game ie expansion.

What will Sky do with this new TV deal presentationally? Will a magazine show like Boots n All return? Will they do a " Ref Watch" like in football on a Monday,  showing the controversial moments to engender new interest? Will they make a real effort to reach their general subscription base, showcasing the game and bigging it up, like women's football? Remember when the Lionesses won the Euros that was on FTA not Sky but the following season Sky were all over it, suddenly you couldn't watch 5 minutes of SSN without Sky showcasing their involvement. 

That's all fine, as it should be, but will they really try and project RL? If they just carry on with the same dreary build up, very little content other than more matches , trailers like the " Greatest Show On Earth " ads they had that did not include RL, then nowt much will change. The new coverage is great for the already initiated,  but Sky need to back it up with innovative presentation.

Edited January 18 by HawkMan

[JohnM]

24 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Surely the acid test in all this is whether or not new people are attracted to the game.

Exactly right in my opinion, and very much a forgotten point, provided of course that there isnt a corresponding reduction in the current fan base.  

[marklaspalmas]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 unique match clots

I know a few of them

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Exactly right in my opinion, and very much a forgotten point, provided of course that there isnt a corresponding reduction in the current fan base.  

I'm not sure that is the only measure (if we refer to people as attendees). Obviously it is an outcome we should be looking to drive, but if this leads to increased commercial income, better sponsorship, future tv deals, direct income streams, then it could be deemed a success (even if we did see a fall in paying species). 

[Worzel]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why when asked did you present the PL as your first example? A comp that doesn't show every game live on UK TV. 

The NFL really is a bad comparison for almost every discussion we have on these boards. Sure there are things we can learn from every sport including US Football, but in 2014 NFL was in a completely different position to SL is now. 

The examples quoted are so distant from UK RL that it does make it difficult to accept it as relevant. 

We are playing in a market where we are trying to sell teams like Salford with 4 or 5k in the ground. 

I've yet to see a good comparison to UK RL on this. Maybe we could look at URC, but their games are tucked away on a really niche channel, we are talking about showing them all on the biggest sports channel in the UK and potentially the biggest channel in the UK. 

There is absolutely risk attached to this. Less money, all games on TV, if we take the attitude that this can't go wrong, we will absolutely balls it up. 

EDIT to reiterate that I think we will be fine and if we are good we can do really well here. For me it is the right thing to do. 

More than 50% of Premier League games are televised live. You’re right it’s not 100%, but there’s not been a negative attendance impact in the move from 2% to 50% (hugely the reverse) so we can only go with the insight we have.

People tend not to do their research on minority sports, so it’s a limitation I admit. But we can only assess on the trends in the data that does exist eh. 

The existential challenge for rugby league is not the risk of cannibalising the present audience, it is the risk of not finding a new audience. Like you, I prefer to focus on solving the latter problem as a priority rather than worrying too much about the former. 

[RigbyLuger]

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

More than 50% of Premier League games are televised live. You’re right it’s not 100%, but there’s not been a negative attendance impact in the move from 2% to 50% (hugely the reverse) so we can only go with the insight we have.

And those who are desperate to watch one of the 50% that aren't can do so fairly easily, and they must be easy if my non-techy mate can do it!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think it's important that we take actions to not only mitigate the threat, but to capitalise on the opportunity. We need to make people feel that being there is better than watching at home. Things like offering great food and drink options, entertainment, use of big screen, promotion and marketing to give context to the game. We need to think about how we capitalise on the certainty of fixtures, which have maybe been an issue in the past. 

We need TV games to sell the live events. "As good as it is on TV, there's nothing like seeing it live." 

I think some are looking at this as a "watch it on TV instead" instead of a "now you've seen it on here, it's even better if you see it over there." It's up to us as a game to make those live events an even better experience than that of sitting at home.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Exactly right in my opinion, and very much a forgotten point, provided of course that there isnt a corresponding reduction in the current fan base.  

It's not just about attracting fans though, all of the commercial departments in every SL club should be using the extra exposure to try generate more sponsorship opportunities.

There will be more eyes on the game this season than there ever has been.

[JohnM]

Quite so, which is why it is vital to be able to show to potential adverstisers that the  approach is attracting new viewers, viewers who may at some point become fans.

I guess there is a huge industry selling advertising in these circumstances, something Sky do as a business in itself, I beleive. This may or may not be different to securing sponsors. 

Edited January 18 by JohnM

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Quite so, which is why it is vital to be able to show to potential adverstisers that the  appraoch is attarcting new viewers.

Even from a standing start it already will be.

Every SL club will have more viewers than they have before.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

More than 50% of Premier League games are televised live. You’re right it’s not 100%, but there’s not been a negative attendance impact in the move from 2% to 50% (hugely the reverse) so we can only go with the insight we have.

People tend not to do their research on minority sports, so it’s a limitation I admit. But we can only assess on the trends in the data that does exist eh. 

The existential challenge for rugby league is not the risk of cannibalising the present audience, it is the risk of not finding a new audience. Like you, I prefer to focus on solving the latter problem as a priority rather than worrying too much about the former. 

I think our case will be quite unique, and a decent case study in itself! 

[Worzel]

Just now, Dave T said:

I think our case will be quite unique, and a decent case study in itself! 

When you’re down to your last tenner, you might as well stick it all on a horse 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

We need TV games to sell the live events. "As good as it is on TV, there's nothing like seeing it live." 

I think some are looking at this as a "watch it on TV instead" instead of a "now you've seen it on here, it's even better if you see it over there." It's up to us as a game to make those live events an even better experience than that of sitting at home.

Yup. I've never managed to get along to a Hundred cricket game yet, but they do a great job of making it look great on tv. That's the kind of thing we need to tap into. How we present ourselves on tv is really important here. 

[Sports Prophet]

11 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Surely the acid test in all this is whether or not new people are attracted to the game. If all this TV choice results in the same fans watching,  but just more games, then that's fantastic for fans but not a game changer in the fortunes of the game ie expansion.

What will Sky do with this new TV deal presentationally? Will a magazine show like Boots n All return? Will they do a " Ref Watch" like in football on a Monday,  showing the controversial moments to engender new interest? Will they make a real effort to reach their general subscription base, showcasing the game and bigging it up, like women's football? Remember when the Lionesses won the Euros that was on FTA not Sky but the following season Sky were all over it, suddenly you couldn't watch 5 minutes of SSN without Sky showcasing their involvement. 

That's all fine, as it should be, but will they really try and project RL? If they just carry on with the same dreary build up, very little content other than more matches , trailers like the " Greatest Show On Earth " ads they had that did not include RL, then nowt much will change. The new coverage is great for the already initiated,  but Sky need to back it up with innovative presentation.

These are some other key items of this new tv deal which are not ideal. I anticipate all games will be available on red button catch up or something similar?

The red button deal primarily serves to increase the number of repeat viewers over the course of a weekend much more than increasing the number of individuals viewing over a weekend.

Regardless, a combined increase in matches watched live and via download will present a case for RL to have its own dedicated channel. I am not sure what the implications for Sky are to add another channel. I assume there is a licence paid for every channel operated, while red button exposure is a way around those fees. Between SL, Championship, NRL and lower tier Aus footy, there is definitely enough content to fill a schedule.

If fixtures cannot be aired in their own individual slots @Dave T, then I would prefer there were no more than two and they would be aired in a competitive slot and aired live by two seperate broadcasters. For example, two Friday night 8pm KOs, one on C4 and another on Sky. I think it is imperative the sport is played four days a week. Getting the Championship Match of the Week on terrestrial would be a big win in my opinion.

[dealwithit]

On 18/01/2024 at 02:05, StandOffHalf said:

I'd be perfectly happy with three games a round on TV - 2 on Sky and one on the Beeb.

I think having televised clashes is a bad idea. It scatters thinly the broadcasting 'talent' and lowers individual TV audiences.

Agreed. Definitely not the case in the NRL. Means RL fans more likely to casually tune in to watch a game not involving their team.