Increased Sky Viewing Figures

[Damien]

Nice to see a very healthy increase in Sky viewing figures. Maybe the game wasn't in crisis at all and maybe the approach the game was taking with IMG was working after all:

 

 

[Damien]

Of course none of this suits the narrative that has been peddled by certain people in the game.

[RigbyLuger]

Can't believe it because of the "Law of the Unknown Source" of course!

[Chrispmartha]

Who'd have thought if you listen to a Sports Marketing consultancy that you've employed it might pay off!

the game in crisis narrative has been created to fit an agenda.

[Ethereal]

I'd be curious for more detail on where the stats came from and how they're calculated.

 

43% in a year is, a lot.

[OriginalMrC]

Wow Nigel Wood take a bow son 

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Nice to see a very healthy increase in Sky viewing figures. Maybe the game wasn't in crisis at all and maybe the approach the game was taking with IMG was working after all:

 

 

Simple question, what in the IMG criteria has improved the on-field performance and got half of the division fighting for the top 6 places and being very competitive, I would say that has put more eyes on the TV wouldn't you?

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simple question, what in the IMG criteria has improved the on-field performance and got half of the division fighting for the top 6 places and being very competitive, I would say that has put more eyes on the TV wouldn't you?

the increase in Social media and marketing the clubs have been forced to do has obviously made an impact.

Your question isn't simple and also doesn't really make any sense, there will always be half the division (or more) fighting for top six places in a 12 team league.

 

What it also show's Harry is that you don't need an exciting scrap at the bottom to increase TV viewers, ib fact it seems the opposite is happening.

Edited August 11, 2025 by Chrispmartha

[17 stone giant]

A 43% increase is brilliant. Sky will surely have to pay more next time as a result.

[JM2010]

I wonder if these increased figures will lead to an increased tv deal. If the figures are strong again next season then surely a decent offer should be put on the table by Sky

[Futtocks]

More uptake of the SL+ and Sky streams after the launch year will have something to do with it. Make all the games available and people will watch more of them.

Edited August 11, 2025 by Futtocks

[whatmichaelsays]

But what have IMG done for us lately? 

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I wonder if these increased figures will lead to an increased tv deal. If the figures are strong again next season then surely a decent offer should be put on the table by Sky

Depends who’s negotiating it. 

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Eddie said:

Depends who’s negotiating it. 

Big Nige, backed up by Degsy and Andrew Mazey surely

[whatmichaelsays]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simple question, what in the IMG criteria has improved the on-field performance and got half of the division fighting for the top 6 places and being very competitive, I would say that has put more eyes on the TV wouldn't you?

Is the race for this year's play-offs any more remarkable than previous years? I'm not sure it is. You'd have to say that the top three - and probably the top five - all look fairly comfortable and then it's a shoot-out between Hull and Wakefield. 

I think the bigger factor is that our top SL games are starting to look like games that your casual viewer is actually drawn into watching. We've got fuller stadiums, much better matchday presentation and the scheduling, whilst not perfect, has been much better in avoiding clashes. 

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But what have IMG done for us lately? 

While it’s easy to say it must be IMG, I’d be interested to see evidence for what has driven this increase rather than just assuming that it’s them. Having different teams competing at the top has freshened things up and may be a factor also, which isn’t down to IMG it’s down to Hull KR and Leigh’s owners and staff. 

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Eddie said:

While it’s easy to say it must be IMG, I’d be interested to see evidence for what has driven this increase rather than just assuming that it’s them. Having different teams competing at the top has freshened things up and may be a factor also, which isn’t down to IMG it’s down to Hull KR and Leigh’s owners and staff. 

To be fair I don't think it's all down to IMG, but metrics across media have all been up since they came on board, it's not a coincidence.

[whatmichaelsays]

Just now, Eddie said:

While it’s easy to say it must be IMG, I’d be interested to see evidence for what has driven this increase rather than just assuming that it’s them. Having different teams competing at the top has freshened things up and may be a factor also, which isn’t down to IMG it’s down to Hull KR and Leigh’s owners and staff. 

For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting it's all down to them. Correlation is not causation, but I would make the argument that a lot of the things that IMG has asked clubs to prioritise are big factors in making our product more attractive to TV audiences. Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

the increase in Social media and marketing the clubs have been forced to do has obviously made an impact.

Your question isn't simple and also doesn't really make any sense, there will always be half the division (or more) fighting for top six places in a 12 team league.

 

What it also show's Harry is that you don't need an exciting scrap at the bottom to increase TV viewers, ib fact it seems the opposite is happening.

So answer thd question as the on-field performance improved? And if you answer yes tell me what criteria has improved that?

Lastly, quite easy to comment on something that is not there, I will answer like you do and twist the question, you don't know that if we still had exciting scraps at the bottom, that the viewing figure's would not be increased even further? It has been quoted that Sky like the jeopardy aspect of SL, when in relation to this present contract did IMG effectively scrap it, so let's see what happens in the next contract negotiations, the 'new regime' as people like to call them have recognised this and don't be surprised if P&R is brought back into play in whatever form it takes.

[Odsal Outlaw]

If I read it correctly the average match audience is up. Initially I wondered if they just meant absolute numbers but if it’s per match that’s fantastic and I do think in part due to the much better presentation of the game digitally and on tv vs 2-3 years ago 

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So answer thd question as the on-field performance improved? And if you answer yes tell me what criteria has improved that?

Lastly, quite easy to comment on something that is not there, I will answer like you do and twist the question, you don't know that if we still had exciting scraps at the bottom, that the viewing figure's would not be increased even further? It has been quoted that Sky like the jeopardy aspect of SL, when in relation to this present contract did IMG effectively scrap it, so let's see what happens in the next contract negotiations, the 'new regime' as people like to call them have recognised this and don't be surprised if P&R is brought back into play in whatever form it takes.

Has on field performance improved? As I said your question made zero sense.

What are you measuring it against? I wouldn't say that the games have been all that more exciting, they have been presented better and look better on TV yes.

Who's said Sky like the Jeopardym there certainly wouldn't be any jeopardy this season anyway.

And nothing that Nigel Wood and some of the Clubs decide to do would surprise me Harry.

Putting Two/Three unprepared teams in SL in 20226 then announcing P&R is back in that season would be pretty much par for the course for RL - as there seems to be zero forward planning.

 

[Tommygilf]

I don't get the argument that saying the on field is worse and has less at stake yet nothing IMG have done (ie primarily off field focus) has had any impact in such an impressive increase.

[Whippet13]

Anyone know whether Baz and Tez have been on 43% less this season?

 

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting it's all down to them. Correlation is not causation, but I would make the argument that a lot of the things that IMG has asked clubs to prioritise are big factors in making our product more attractive to TV audiences. Nothing exists in a vacuum. 

Please Michael advice me, and tell me as a TV viewer what are the things that IMG has asked the clubs to prioritise on which has made the match more attractive to entice me to switch on? 

I am honestly at a loss with that statement, when I watch the game as a viewer none of the peripherals which I may or may not be able to see remotely grab my attention, like electronic advertising, TV gantry, comfy director seats, big screen etc, none of these as far as I can see makes the product more attractive to TV audience's.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Anyone know whether Baz and Tez have been on 43% less this season?

 

Terry will be on 100% less next season