Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Posted
21 hours ago, Dave T said:

As a sport we just seem really closed and unfriendly. Even as a fan, it can be difficult to read about the sport in the form of any interesting articles. Personally, I don't really find player features or interviews that interesting, but I think if journos are being denied access that feels poor.

I wonder whether clubs have just gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of believing they need to control all aspects of this - let's be honest, there is a good chance of getting some controversial views depending on the journo (but then maybe that would be interesting to read!) and I expect clubs want to create this content themselves and drive traffic to them, but that feels a little small-time thinking.

I do think as a sport we should be all about transparency and honesty - it would make a refreshing change to some other sports, but right from the top we just don't seem to hear from the leaders let alone the players. 

All that said, and I have no reason to doubt RdlR, but he mentions that Sky are frustrated, yet we do seem to see plenty of our players on Sky, on SSN, the pre-match programs (of which their are more than ever), we see extensive post-match stuff - it certainly doesn't come across that the players are kept out of sight.

I think another aspect to this is that clubs simply want to expand their own content output because they see that as a revenue stream. The Leeds YouTube channel these days is much more active than it once was, and a lot of that content now carries its own sponsorship - that's great that clubs are doing that, but the danger is that is becomes an either/or endeavour, when it should be both - in-house content AND media relations. 

The Spirit of the Rhinos looks like a really good piece of content - a real "look behind the curtain" style series that somewhat defies the "clubs want to control the narrative and protect their image" suggestion. But unless you're a Rhinos season-ticket holder, it's locked away behind a £30 paywall. That's where we get this slightly wrong. 

  • Like 1
Posted

I think one of the key issues is the rise of punditry. In fact it is so bad that MOTD (for example) is unwatchable because there's more punditry that football.

Throw in the way sport is owned, managed and funded and it thus become remote to fans, local journalists and niche publications. And where football leads, other sports follow. 

I also think that Sky's coverage of RL was heading down the route of being over critical of the game, fortunately that seems to have been stopped. 

This mix is maybe where the frustration is but I'm glad leading clubs recognise the need to stop the rot.

 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

I think one of the key issues is the rise of punditry. In fact it is so bad that MOTD (for example) is unwatchable because there's more punditry that football.

Throw in the way sport is owned, managed and funded and it thus become remote to fans, local journalists and niche publications. And where football leads, other sports follow. 

I also think that Sky's coverage of RL was heading down the route of being over critical of the game, fortunately that seems to have been stopped. 

This mix is maybe where the frustration is but I'm glad leading clubs recognise the need to stop the rot.

 

Isn't part of the problem with MOTD that the BBC's cut-price contract allows it to show only so much in the way of highlights?

Edited by Hopping Mad
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hopping Mad said:

Isn't part of the problem with MOTD that the BBC's cut-price contract allows it to show only so much in the way of highlights?

I think it's less to do with that, and more to do with the highlights now being available online before MOTD airs them. 

Beforehand, MOTD was the first place you could see Saturday football on TV. Now, the content is available at 6-ish pm online, on mobile and even available live on [cough] other sources [cough]. That has pushed MOTD down a route of having to have more punditry and insight to try and differentiate itself.  

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think it's less to do with that, and more to do with the highlights now being available online before MOTD airs them. 

Beforehand, MOTD was the first place you could see Saturday football on TV. Now, the content is available at 6-ish pm online, on mobile and even available live on [cough] other sources [cough]. That has pushed MOTD down a route of having to have more punditry and insight to try and differentiate itself.  

They really are restricted to a specific number of minutes.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

They really are restricted to a specific number of minutes.

The length of highlights as stated by Gary Lineker in the Mirror is maximum of 12 minutes per game.

MOTD is still a neat package of highlights especially for fans who can't afford paywall TV. Some pundits grate on me , others I like, Shearer, Micah Richards and Danny Murphy are informative.

Edited by HawkMan
Posted

if any of the clubs are looking for a representative to raise their profile, without risking letting their own players speak to the press, I heard Rachel Zegler is freeing up some time. 

Posted

I’d like to see more RL players on tv shows and podcasts. 
I enjoy watching the Overlap and would love to see someone like Adrian Morley or Sam Burgess as a guest. Roy Keane is a big RL fan so it could work well

Posted
9 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I’d like to see more RL players on tv shows and podcasts. 
I enjoy watching the Overlap and would love to see someone like Adrian Morley or Sam Burgess as a guest. Roy Keane is a big RL fan so it could work well

Good point.  They'd need media training .....and in some cases (Shaun Edwards is a good example even though he's yesterday's man) subtitles.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

The funny thing about getting players on podcasts is that the Super League had it's own, and had too many episodes with non-players. Would I prefer to hear from a current star or Karl Fitzpatrick?

Posted (edited)

Breaking through....to a new audience. It could be argued that the rest is just preaching to the converted.

To break through into the national consciousness in a drive for recognition of our sport, it seems to me we must get into the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent (still going?) and the Guardian (just about  hanging in there), The Mail, The Mirror etc...

This morning, Adrian Chiles, has a guest on his show, some Welsh RU player, talking about the sick nations.  Can you imagine that happening with any current  RL player prior to a test series in the UK, or prior to the Vegas venture? That would be breaking through.

Edited by JohnM
Posted
On 05/12/2024 at 10:19, JohnM said:

Breaking through....to a new audience. It could be argued that the rest is just preaching to the converted.

To break through into the national consciousness in a drive for recognition of our sport, it seems to me we must get into the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent (still going?) and the Guardian (just about  hanging in there), The Mail, The Mirror etc...

This morning, Adrian Chiles, has a guest on his show, some Welsh RU player, talking about the sick nations.  Can you imagine that happening with any current  RL player prior to a test series in the UK, or prior to the Vegas venture? That would be breaking through.

I think getting into the Times, Telegraph etc may be evidence that the sport has broken through into the national consciousness but there's no way it would be the cause of it. They don't drive interest (they may have done a long time ago) but they do react to it (but only to the extent that it's something relevant to their readers).

The comment about The Overlap is a valid one as Stick to Football is a podcast that gets millions of views on youtube and has featured quite a few non-football guests (even non-sporting guests in the case of Ricky Gervais). Podcasts and TV shows are the way to increase the profile of players but clubs are too afraid of players saying the wrong thing to allow that to happen even if there was an opportunity.

  • Like 1
Posted

Quite so. I'm not familiar with the podcasts and YouTube channel you mention and feel that podcast etc that promote/involve our sport,  may just  secure current fans and attract lapsed fans.

To get new ones, it may be that guerrilla marketing has some sort role, where we pop up in the least expected places, may be advertising or featuring in or being endorsed in and by the channels and podcasts from other sports. 

In any case, we have to up our own game when in comes to  turning matches into events. 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.