Aaron Bower interviews IMG boss Matt Dwyer

[Futtocks]

There will be more interviews with him, but this is the first.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-imgs-matt-dwyer-discusses-super-league-capitalising-on-increased-exposure-and-marketing-superstars

[LeeF]

Some IMG “sceptics” would benefit from reading this and the follow up articles. 

[Copa]

The stats showing around a third of young soccer fans follow three teams or more is fascinating. They are following individual players regardless of what team they are in. It really shows the importance of having stories and profiles for players.

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

There will be more interviews with him, but this is the first.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-imgs-matt-dwyer-discusses-super-league-capitalising-on-increased-exposure-and-marketing-superstars

Thank God. An interview with a man who knows what he's doing, the steps on the road to success and what we need to first. So refreshing.

Those of us who work in marketing work with people like this every day, it's normal. But rugby league has never had marketing competence, or at least not since the eras of Oxley and Deakin. I've sat here for 25 years pulling my hair out. The product has always been great, but we need to get people to sample it and these days its stories and personalities that lead to that. Social media creates a generational opportunity for rugby league to bypass old media gatekeepers, and get right in front of people who are open to a new experience without the biases of the past. 

No more selling to the same, existing audience with an ever-increasing series of price discounts. 

[Dave T]

46 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Thank God. An interview with a man who knows what he's doing, the steps on the road to success and what we need to first. So refreshing.

Those of us who work in marketing work with people like this every day, it's normal. But rugby league has never had marketing competence, or at least not since the eras of Oxley and Deakin. I've sat here for 25 years pulling my hair out. The product has always been great, but we need to get people to sample it and these days its stories and personalities that lead to that. Social media creates a generational opportunity for rugby league to bypass old media gatekeepers, and get right in front of people who are open to a new experience without the biases of the past. 

No more selling to the same, existing audience with an ever-increasing series of price discounts. 

It is rather nice that for once we are talking about real change, rather than focusing on things like shot clocks or 7 tackle restarts thinking they are the most important changes we need. 

We'll see whether these new developments work for RL, but it's great that for once there is a genuine strategic plan here. 

I've often made the point that we need to walk with a swagger, and it feels like we are absolutely starting to do that. 

[LeytherRob]

Good interview and gotta say, love rugby league used to get quite a bit of stick but since but since Aaron Bower joined the quality of content is right up there in terms of the UK RL media scene. 

[Sports Prophet]

So good to hear from IMG. 

[Dave T]

the most pleasing aspect here, and what I was hoping when this was announced is that what we are seeing is night and day from what we have seen in the past. The hope was that this partnership would be transformational, and let's be honest, it really looks like it is so far. 

None of the above is an endorsement of every decision RLCom is making, or to say that it will be a roaring success, but for once we aren't just allowing things to pass us by or carrying on doing the same old thing. 

As is being acknowledged in most articles nowadays, the buzz and excitement is higher than for a few years, and clubs and fans do appear to be reacting positively. 

There was a real risk of this season launch being overshadowed by the grading piece and negativity around London, and whilst that isn't going away, the narrative has absolutely been controlled and turned round into a real positive. That is a good demonstration of us having experts at the table who know what they are doing in this space.

[Archie Gordon]

I am really looking forward to output being available and shared that it is at the level of what the the NRL/NRLW put out. 

[Chrispmartha]

Great interview, it also shows that the people moaning and fixating on the grading system were focused on the wrong thing IMO it was only a very small part of what IMG are going to do.

They are spot on about younger generations following players and not necessarily teams from their area

[redjonn]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Great interview, it also shows that the people moaning and fixating on the grading system were focused on the wrong thing IMO it was only a very small part of what IMG are going to do.

They are spot on about younger generations following players and not necessarily teams from their area

I found it interesting but as one that had comments regards the grading system I would not say I or others were not s fixated as your comment implies, it was a topic of much interest for sure.  That's not to say I and others were not keen to hear more of what has been happening from IMG. It is good to hear but maybe a little sooner and more would have been good. Then again maybe it was their and I hadn't seen it.

Interesting on younger generation and following players.  Although I and friends (older gen) have always been interested in more than one club for various reasons that peaked an interest and then no matter what players that interest has continued for many a year.   Would be interested to know what makes him so sure its players and not other aspects that cause the following of multiple clubs/teams.

[Barley Mow]

40 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Great interview, it also shows that the people moaning and fixating on the grading system were focused on the wrong thing IMO it was only a very small part of what IMG are going to do.

They are spot on about younger generations following players and not necessarily teams from their area

We always knew that the grading system was just part of what IMG were going to do, but it was the only thing to comment on at the time. I still think it is something to moan about.

I am however pretty happy with everything else that we now see that IMG seem to be doing.

[Chrispmartha]

For clarity, my post sounded harsh reading it back, I think my point was more that there was a lot of people questioning IMGs involvement based on the grading system alone, the stuff they are doing now is starting to show the true value of getting experts on board.

[zylya]

I'm excited to see how this additional profile translates in the next couple of years - as someone involved in a community club outside of the heartlands, I'm also hoping that the extra attention and availability (BBC, streaming etc) of top flight Rugby League will also help generate interest in people playing the sport across the country, both kids and adults. A rising tide lifting all boats scenario.

[marklaspalmas]

IMG were rightly criticised for the mess that is their grading system. It's biased, flawed, divisive and unhelpful.

IMG are rightly praised for their work on digital platforms, social media output, marketing and promotion ideas.

The big question for me, given the fact that all the good stuff was desperately needed and is their area of expertise, why didn't they do all that first and give all clubs a couple of years to respond before categorising everyone onto the Haves and the Have Nots?

[Martyn Sadler]

21 hours ago, Futtocks said:

There will be more interviews with him, but this is the first.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-imgs-matt-dwyer-discusses-super-league-capitalising-on-increased-exposure-and-marketing-superstars

“If you’re a rugby league fan, it’s never been this good,” says Matt Dwyer.

I don't think you could argue with that point if you want to see as many games as possible on television, either on mainstream channels or on the new streaming service.

In business terms, it's an example of a company trying to raise its turnover by generating more income from its existing customer base.

That isn't necessarily a faulty strategy, but it only has limited scope.

“Every sport is trying to get on the BBC, I promise you – and we’ve done it. It’s prime free-to-air exposure. They all want it, and rugby league has it," adds Dwyer.

“It will take a while for the exposure to translate into more fans, which translates into growing the sport, but that’s the basis of what we want to do. The scale of exposure we have now versus last – or any – season is unprecedented for this sport. The amount of other sports that would love to have the exposure we’re having moving forward is.. well, all of them, except football."

That may well be true, but the question facing IMG and Rugby League more generally is precisely how to attract those new fans, which is crucial for the game but which he isn't yet in a position to clarify.

There will be ten Super League matches this season broadcast on BBC channels at varying times and on various channels, including BBC 3.

The problem with last year's Channel 4's coverage was that it was too intermittent to generate a significant following and the BBC's coverage could be similar and Rugby League could once again look like a filler rather than a major part of the broadcaster's sports output.

How will the BBC promote its Rugby League coverage?

Whatever contract has been signed, for no money apparently, I hope it includes some clauses about the degree of promotional support the BBC will give its Rugby League coverage. Otherwise it will have limited value.

The problem for Rugby League is the decline in broadcast income from £40 million per year to £21.5 million per year under the current contract.

At a recent meeting with Sky, the RFL was told to get its act together to generate more eyeballs for its coverage if that decline is to be reversed. What will be the impact of the new streaming service in that regard?

The Chairman of one leading club told me this week that he expects his club to lose £2 million in 2024 and more in 2025, when the new rules about how many games players can play take effect, necessitating larger squads.

In the meantime we are paying IMG £440,000 per year for the benefit of their advice.

I hope we are getting value for money, although I'm not quite as sanguine as some of the more optimistic sorts on this thread.

For me, the jury is still out.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

IMG were rightly criticised for the mess that is their grading system. It's biased, flawed, divisive and unhelpful.

IMG are rightly praised for their work on digital platforms, social media output, marketing and promotion ideas.

The big question for me, given the fact that all the good stuff was desperately needed and is their area of expertise, why didn't they do all that first and give all clubs a couple of years to respond before categorising everyone onto the Haves and the Have Nots?

The grading was always going to be the first thing they tackled because they needed to make sure they have the best equipped clubs to move the game forward.

I get that it’s controversial though and obviously is going to cause controversy 

[Chrispmartha]

30 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

“If you’re a rugby league fan, it’s never been this good,” says Matt Dwyer.

I don't think you could argue with that point if you want to see as many games as possible on television, either on mainstream channels or on the new streaming service.

In business terms, it's an example of a company trying to raise its turnover by generating more income from its existing customer base.

That isn't necessarily a faulty strategy, but it only has limited scope.

“Every sport is trying to get on the BBC, I promise you – and we’ve done it. It’s prime free-to-air exposure. They all want it, and rugby league has it," adds Dwyer.

“It will take a while for the exposure to translate into more fans, which translates into growing the sport, but that’s the basis of what we want to do. The scale of exposure we have now versus last – or any – season is unprecedented for this sport. The amount of other sports that would love to have the exposure we’re having moving forward is.. well, all of them, except football."

That may well be true, but the question facing IMG and Rugby League more generally is precisely how to attract those new fans, which is crucial for the game but which he isn't yet in a position to clarify.

There will be ten Super League matches this season broadcast on BBC channels at varying times and on various channels, including BBC 3.

The problem with last year's Channel 4's coverage was that it was too intermittent to generate a significant following and the BBC's coverage could be similar and Rugby League could once again look like a filler rather than a major part of the broadcaster's sports output.

How will the BBC promote its Rugby League coverage?

Whatever contract has been signed, for no money apparently, I hope it includes some clauses about the degree of promotional support the BBC will give its Rugby League coverage. Otherwise it will have limited value.

The problem for Rugby League is the decline in broadcast income from £40 million per year to £21.5 million per year under the current contract.

At a recent meeting with Sky, the RFL was told to get its act together to generate more eyeballs for its coverage if that decline is to be reversed. What will be the impact of the new streaming service in that regard?

The Chairman of one leading club told me this week that he expects his club to lose £2 million in 2024 and more in 2025, when the new rules about how many games players can play take effect, necessitating larger squads.

In the meantime we are paying IMG £440,000 per year for the benefit of their advice.

I hope we are getting value for money, although I'm not quite as sanguine as some of the more optimistic sorts on this thread.

For me, the jury is still out.

Didn’t the BBC ‘outbid’ channel 4?

I think the point of the new deal is that the RFL were able to ise the Sky broadcast games elsewhere hence BBC and SL+. This means there will be more eyeballs on the game than ever before, the RFL and importantly the clubs need to have the nouse to moneytise that.where has the 440,000 figure come from?

[Archie Gordon]

21-man squads being named yesterday and today, I believe. Super League social media channels not interested in pointing me to them? Really poor.

[marklaspalmas]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

The grading was always going to be the first thing they tackled because they needed to make sure they have the best equipped clubs to move the game forward.

I get that it’s controversial though and obviously is going to cause controversy 

I disagree.

It's controversial because it's wrong. Their algorithms for assessment are wrong.You don't pick your "best" clubs. You set up systems, explain new methods, impose them, fine tune them and the top clubs will become apparent.

Much less conflict, confusion, controversy.

If they had done absolutely nothing with grading whatsoever, Wakey would replace London in 2025 anyway and that's what they wanted.

 

[Worzel]

45 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

“If you’re a rugby league fan, it’s never been this good,” says Matt Dwyer.

I don't think you could argue with that point if you want to see as many games as possible on television, either on mainstream channels or on the new streaming service.

In business terms, it's an example of a company trying to raise its turnover by generating more income from its existing customer base.

That isn't necessarily a faulty strategy, but it only has limited scope.

“Every sport is trying to get on the BBC, I promise you – and we’ve done it. It’s prime free-to-air exposure. They all want it, and rugby league has it," adds Dwyer.

“It will take a while for the exposure to translate into more fans, which translates into growing the sport, but that’s the basis of what we want to do. The scale of exposure we have now versus last – or any – season is unprecedented for this sport. The amount of other sports that would love to have the exposure we’re having moving forward is.. well, all of them, except football."

That may well be true, but the question facing IMG and Rugby League more generally is precisely how to attract those new fans, which is crucial for the game but which he isn't yet in a position to clarify.

There will be ten Super League matches this season broadcast on BBC channels at varying times and on various channels, including BBC 3.

The problem with last year's Channel 4's coverage was that it was too intermittent to generate a significant following and the BBC's coverage could be similar and Rugby League could once again look like a filler rather than a major part of the broadcaster's sports output.

How will the BBC promote its Rugby League coverage?

Whatever contract has been signed, for no money apparently, I hope it includes some clauses about the degree of promotional support the BBC will give its Rugby League coverage. Otherwise it will have limited value.

The problem for Rugby League is the decline in broadcast income from £40 million per year to £21.5 million per year under the current contract.

At a recent meeting with Sky, the RFL was told to get its act together to generate more eyeballs for its coverage if that decline is to be reversed. What will be the impact of the new streaming service in that regard?

The Chairman of one leading club told me this week that he expects his club to lose £2 million in 2024 and more in 2025, when the new rules about how many games players can play take effect, necessitating larger squads.

In the meantime we are paying IMG £440,000 per year for the benefit of their advice.

I hope we are getting value for money, although I'm not quite as sanguine as some of the more optimistic sorts on this thread.

For me, the jury is still out.

The jury will always be out for those among us who are naturally resistant to progressives

Rugby League's media rights values have declined to their appallingly low levels as a result of the past 20 years' administrative incompetence, whilst a load of distinctly average people from West Yorkshire fiddled as Rome burned, with a succession of amateurish re-structures that didn't address the core issue. We have to make the product more attractive, and seen by more people, in order to reverse that decline. That wasn't happening pre-IMG. At least this way we have a chance of turning things around. Without it, we were on a path to part-time rugby league and a fate similar to that of the French game in the end in the long term.

If people can't see what we've got from £440k in services from IMG already, then I'd politely suggest they've no idea how much this sort of stuff costs. There was a time when clubs would blow that on a couple of expensive Aussie imports. The sport gets far better value from spending it on this.  

 

 

[Worzel]

13 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I disagree.

It's controversial because it's wrong. Their algorithms for assessment are wrong.You don't pick your "best" clubs. You set up systems, explain new methods, impose them, fine tune them and the top clubs will become apparent.

Much less conflict, confusion, controversy.

If they had done absolutely nothing with grading whatsoever, Wakey would replace London in 2025 anyway and that's what they wanted.

 

I'm pretty sure that with a free hand IMG would have wanted to move to a closed league of 12 immediately, and only added new teams when the funds were there to do so. "Rugby league people" resisted that, which is why the gradings came in as a compromise. This is just IMG boiling the frog, more slowly getting to the same end-goal. 

Clubs now know what they need to do in order to progress to an A-grade. In the old days what they needed to do was persuade the local used car dealer magnate to blow £500k on extra wages than some other club's random benefactor, in order to buy the Championsship title. For all its flaws, this is better than that. 

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

21-man squads being named yesterday and today, I believe. Super League social media channels not interested in pointing me to them? Really poor.

That’s what club channels are for, surely?

I’d expect to see starting teams and the like but not details of the larger groups until the play offs.

[gingerjon]

57 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

“If you’re a rugby league fan, it’s never been this good,” says Matt Dwyer.

I don't think you could argue with that point if you want to see as many games as possible on television, either on mainstream channels or on the new streaming service.

In business terms, it's an example of a company trying to raise its turnover by generating more income from its existing customer base.

That isn't necessarily a faulty strategy, but it only has limited scope.

“Every sport is trying to get on the BBC, I promise you – and we’ve done it. It’s prime free-to-air exposure. They all want it, and rugby league has it," adds Dwyer.

“It will take a while for the exposure to translate into more fans, which translates into growing the sport, but that’s the basis of what we want to do. The scale of exposure we have now versus last – or any – season is unprecedented for this sport. The amount of other sports that would love to have the exposure we’re having moving forward is.. well, all of them, except football."

That may well be true, but the question facing IMG and Rugby League more generally is precisely how to attract those new fans, which is crucial for the game but which he isn't yet in a position to clarify.

There will be ten Super League matches this season broadcast on BBC channels at varying times and on various channels, including BBC 3.

The problem with last year's Channel 4's coverage was that it was too intermittent to generate a significant following and the BBC's coverage could be similar and Rugby League could once again look like a filler rather than a major part of the broadcaster's sports output.

How will the BBC promote its Rugby League coverage?

Whatever contract has been signed, for no money apparently, I hope it includes some clauses about the degree of promotional support the BBC will give its Rugby League coverage. Otherwise it will have limited value.

The problem for Rugby League is the decline in broadcast income from £40 million per year to £21.5 million per year under the current contract.

At a recent meeting with Sky, the RFL was told to get its act together to generate more eyeballs for its coverage if that decline is to be reversed. What will be the impact of the new streaming service in that regard?

The Chairman of one leading club told me this week that he expects his club to lose £2 million in 2024 and more in 2025, when the new rules about how many games players can play take effect, necessitating larger squads.

In the meantime we are paying IMG £440,000 per year for the benefit of their advice.

I hope we are getting value for money, although I'm not quite as sanguine as some of the more optimistic sorts on this thread.

For me, the jury is still out.

You’d have written this post regardless of what the situation was at the start of this season.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

IMG were rightly criticised for the mess that is their grading system. It's biased, flawed, divisive and unhelpful.

IMG are rightly praised for their work on digital platforms, social media output, marketing and promotion ideas.

The big question for me, given the fact that all the good stuff was desperately needed and is their area of expertise, why didn't they do all that first and give all clubs a couple of years to respond before categorising everyone onto the Haves and the Have Nots?

They literally did give the clubs a couple of years.

A year (maybe more?) warning of indicative grading and then a further year before real grading.