Play Nice 2019 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread

[Kwality]

The Grand Prix TV ratings locally were up:
Fox Sports has achieved record ratings for its telecast of the Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix while Network 10 saw an increase on its 2018 figures.
The pay television network reported an average 320,000 viewers for its race telecast and a peak of 514,000.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2019/03/18/record-agp-ratings-for-fox-sports-increase-for-network-10/

On free-to-air, 10 pulled in an average 964,000 viewers nationally (peak 1.14 million) according to Mediaweek.
Its five-city metro figure of 689,000 viewers reversed most of its losses from the year prior, and topped its timeslot across those markets.

Be interesting to get the international numbers.

 

[Our Game]

PVery healthy F1 GP figures for Fox being in HD is a big plus.

 

[Kwality]

PVery healthy F1 GP figures for Fox being in HD is a big plus.

Dont buy that, we fans would watch in b&w.
Both 10 & Fox did promote it well & no footy is the difference in the Aus #s IMHO.

 

[manicmagpie]

NRL considering relocating clubs

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/ca...ey-for-clubs-to-relocate-20190320-p515xg.html

The governing body has begun the process of formulating a strategy for the game’s future footprint, a process likely to take 12 months. The project will determine whether to add to the existing 16 teams or to relocate struggling Sydney franchises to new markets.

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg gave the strongest indication yet that Perth and Brisbane were in head office’s considerations during an appearance with Phil Gould on Nine’s 100% Footy program on Monday night.

 

[manicmagpie]

Murdoch press going with a different angle:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...s/news-story/8f5b0a28d2d1123c6197b12c98ff50a0

Non-paywall link

The ARL Commission’s plan to explore expansion has taken another significant twist after it emerged they were locked in discussions with club chairs that could ultimately leave them with unfettered power to demand the relocation of embattled sides.

It is also believed the ARL Commission would have more power to decide the owners of clubs should they be placed up for sale. Ultimately, it could mean the commission has the power to influence the relocation of a club through a sale between private owners.

Cronulla the club that seems most in the firing line.

 

[manicmagpie]

Missed this from a couple of days ago, but Super Rugby are to axe the Japanese Sunwolves team, with implications for struggling Australian teams.

Japanese cull causes anxiety

It is understood SANZAAR has resolved to jettison Japanese team the Sunwolves from Super Rugby, but the implications for the four Australian franchises could also be dire.

Not only are the clubs openly questioning the long-term strategy of cutting Japan at a time when it is becoming increasingly significant from a rugby economics perspective, but there is the more pressing matter that reducing Super Rugby to a 14-team competition could jeopardise the survival of all Australian clubs.

While it will mean a return to a round robin competition, with every team playing every other side — which does restore financial integrity to Super Rugby — it also means each franchise will play only 13 regular home games over a two-year period, seven one season, six the next.
That’s a crippling blow to clubs that are barely surviving on the current diet of eight home matches per season and eight away.

 

[Kwality]

Murdoch press going with a different angle:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...s/news-story/8f5b0a28d2d1123c6197b12c98ff50a0

Non-paywall link


Cronulla the club that seems most in the firing line.

Cant see the Sharks going anywhere :

no mention of the Cronulla Sharks windfall:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...l/news-story/784b8bc2fbe3ab645e05078b56c71519

The Cronulla Sharks have ensured their long-term NRL future after the club secured an incredible $40 million deal to fast-track property development cash.
The Daily Telegraph revealed the mammoth agreement, set to be announced shortly, which will see the club paid an immediate $9 million to address all their debts, their salary cap fine and an anticipated $3 million loss in 2019.

.... Later this year developers Capital Bluestone will also contribute $18 million into a future investments fund which should hand the club an estimated $1.5 million in income per year.

 

[Kwality]

Re: A-league ratings, I think what's hurt it this summer is Fox getting the cricket rights and putting all the emphasis in marketing and promotion into that. Inevitable that A-league would suffer when that used to be Fox Sports main summer showpiece.

But one of the main reasons imo Fox went after cricket so hard is because A-league just wasn't rating well enough to justify being Fox's main summer sports showcase.

When Fox lost the summer cricket rights & Oz open tennis in recent years it was a great opportunity for A-League to step up as a ratings strength for the network; instead the opposite happened.

Dont believe its cricket over soccer, Fox want new subscribers, everyone renewing, thats what the contra dollars in most sports TV deals is all about.
It can at first glance seem even contrary, e.g Nascar out, the Indy 500 live.

Have the A-League club owners got control of their comp yet? Having the FFA running a sausage sizzle would be disastrous, & they'd be too egotistical to whip down to Bunnings to see why.

 

[Colonial]

Have the A-League club owners got control of their comp yet? Having the FFA running a sausage sizzle would be disastrous, & they'd be too egotistical to whip down to Bunnings to see why.

Hopeful for next season and they are organising the conditions etc. But I doubt it.

Probably the 20/21 season.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Kwality]

How long will it take for the flagellating AFL cheerleaders to start posting 2019 seasons AFL crowds & ratings in this non AFL titled thread?

I for one hope the mods relocate such nonsense to relevant / appropriate AFL site: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2019-afl-crowds-ratings-thread

Yes, a pre emptive strike ...

 

[The_Wookie]

How long will it take for the flagellating AFL cheerleaders to start posting 2019 seasons AFL crowds & ratings in this non AFL titled thread?

I for one hope the mods relocate such nonsense to relevant / appropriate AFL site: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2019-afl-crowds-ratings-thread

Yes, a pre emptive strike ...

If its a comparison with something I dont really care.

 

[Kwality]

If its a comparison with something I dont really care.

Thats long been your position, just suggest you pay close attention to the usual suspects, tends to be 'a pile on', e.g those, not you, who post 5 capital city comparisons when we all know they ignore the 4th largest TV market.
No argument in it as a AFL measure but when it gets to comparisons with the NRL, you adjust the numbers to better reflect the markets, the raw numbers are misleading, not that it worries the flagellating cheerleader set.

 

[NoobPie]

Thats long been your position, just suggest you pay close attention to the usual suspects, tends to be 'a pile on', e.g those, not you, who post 5 capital city comparisons when we all know they ignore the 4th largest TV market.
No argument in it as a AFL measure but when it gets to comparisons with the NRL, you adjust the numbers to better reflect the markets, the raw numbers are misleading, not that it worries the flagellating cheerleader set.

Wow, talk about a pre-emptive dummy spit!

Did you not think you might be encouraging comparisons that upset you?

 

[NoobPie]

NRL ratings last night (Roosters v Rabbitohs) compared to the match against the AFL season launch last year (Storm v Cowboys

Metro (Sydney and Brisbane only): 411K (AFL got 475K in Melbourne sustained across the hour longer AFL game) - 3% down on last years 423K
Foxtel: 230K - 12% down on last years 258K


https://forums.mediaspy.org/t/thursday-21-march-2019/8367

https://forums.mediaspy.org/t/thursday-22-march-2018/4447/2

 

[abcde12345]

Thats long been your position, just suggest you pay close attention to the usual suspects, tends to be 'a pile on', e.g those, not you, who post 5 capital city comparisons when we all know they ignore the 4th largest TV market.
No argument in it as a AFL measure but when it gets to comparisons with the NRL, you adjust the numbers to better reflect the markets, the raw numbers are misleading, not that it worries the flagellating cheerleader set.

Regional figures are an important factor. As of the most recent release I can find (HY ended June 16), the regional market was the second largest market (almost 10% ahead of Melbourne) (src).

HOWEVER, there are some other considerations that come up in all of this.

First of all is the issue of double counting. I referenced against the Regional TAM and OZTAM postcode lists to check these figures (Regional TAM) (OZTAM). There are significantly more double ups in the QLD and NNSW markets than in any other markets. I have then used ABS 2016 census figures to find the population and household numbers that these postcodes account for. The double ups are as follows:

Market	Population	Households	Region Population (Regional TAM)	Region Households (Regional TAM)	Double-up Percentage (Population)	Double-up Percentage (Households)
NNSW	694,681	300,973	2,201,200	904,900	31.6%	33.3%
QLD	299,104	132,514	1,866,100	791,000	16.0%	16.8%
VIC	38,998	16,585	1,202,100	522,800	3.2%	3.2%

No other regions had any double up present. Please note: Regional TAM does not consider SA or NT at all.

NNSW is so significant as it counts the Gold Coast and some Northern Rivers suburbs which are also counted in the metro figures. Likewise with QLD and the North Coast. This clearly muddies the waters around regional figures significantly.

In addition to this, regional figures can be difficult to actually get a hold of, and a breakdown of these figures is even more difficult to find. If these were accurately and consistently available, we could at least discount NNSW, QLD and VIC figures by the relevant percentage to get a more accurate representation.

These factors make it rather difficult to get an accurate reflection of what the regional figures actually represent. What we do know, however, is that the methodology used to calculate regional figures is definitely weighted against the AFL. Significant double-ups in NRL strong regions (although at least Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are a lot more AFL friendly than most true regionals in QLD/NNSW), as well as non-counting of certain AFL strong markets definitely makes the regional figures somewhat dubious in a like-for-like comparison.

 

[kaypee]

Regional figures are an important factor. As of the most recent release I can find (HY ended June 16), the regional market was the second largest market (almost 10% ahead of Melbourne) (src).

HOWEVER, there are some other considerations that come up in all of this.

First of all is the issue of double counting. I referenced against the Regional TAM and OZTAM postcode lists to check these figures (Regional TAM) (OZTAM). There are significantly more double ups in the QLD and NNSW markets than in any other markets. I have then used ABS 2016 census figures to find the population and household numbers that these postcodes account for. The double ups are as follows:

Market	Population	Households	Region Population (Regional TAM)	Region Households (Regional TAM)	Double-up Percentage (Population)	Double-up Percentage (Households)
NNSW	694,681	300,973	2,201,200	904,900	31.6%	33.3%
QLD	299,104	132,514	1,866,100	791,000	16.0%	16.8%
VIC	38,998	16,585	1,202,100	522,800	3.2%	3.2%

No other regions had any double up present. Please note: Regional TAM does not consider SA or NT at all.

NNSW is so significant as it counts the Gold Coast and some Northern Rivers suburbs which are also counted in the metro figures. Likewise with QLD and the North Coast. This clearly muddies the waters around regional figures significantly.

In addition to this, regional figures can be difficult to actually get a hold of, and a breakdown of these figures is even more difficult to find. If these were accurately and consistently available, we could at least discount NNSW, QLD and VIC figures by the relevant percentage to get a more accurate representation.

These factors make it rather difficult to get an accurate reflection of what the regional figures actually represent. What we do know, however, is that the methodology used to calculate regional figures is definitely weighted against the AFL. Significant double-ups in NRL strong regions (although at least Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are a lot more AFL friendly than most true regionals in QLD/NNSW), as well as non-counting of certain AFL strong markets definitely makes the regional figures somewhat dubious in a like-for-like comparison.

 

[kaypee]

The fact is regional viewers are worth less than those in the metro markets. That’s not an assessment of the viewers, just a financial reality. Knock yourself dominating regional Australia, but that’s not how you make money. Have you seen the adverts on regional tv? Some of them are for local businesse. That’s nice, but metro tv is where the money is at.

 

[abcde12345]

The fact is regional viewers are worth less than those in the metro markets. That’s not an assessment of the viewers, just a financial reality. Knock yourself dominating regional Australia, but that’s not how you make money. Have you seen the adverts on regional tv? Some of them are for local businesse. That’s nice, but metro tv is where the money is at.

But this simply isn't true. The data is right here. From that, you can see the regional market is worth $389.5m for the 6 month period ended June 16 (most recent data I could find). For reference, the Melbourne market for this period was worth $355m - almost 10% less. This data was collected by KPMG through the compilation of information provided by the TV networks which was externally audited.

What I do agree with, is the "regional market" isn't really one market, but a tonne of diverse small markets, which makes the whole issue even more complicated. But at the end of the day, those figures are what was actually collected from advertisers, which clearly means that, as of that period, the combined regional market was worth more than the Melbourne market, and the regional NSW market was worth more than the Perth market.

 

[NoobPie]

But this simply isn't true. The data is right here. From that, you can see the regional market is worth $389.5m for the 6 month period ended June 16 (most recent data I could find). For reference, the Melbourne market for this period was worth $355m - almost 10% less. This data was collected by KPMG through the compilation of information provided by the TV networks which was externally audited.

What I do agree with, is the "regional market" isn't really one market, but a tonne of diverse small markets, which makes the whole issue even more complicated. But at the end of the day, those figures are what was actually collected from advertisers, which clearly means that, as of that period, the combined regional market was worth more than the Melbourne market, and the regional NSW market was worth more than the Perth market.

What was the value of the Sydney market? I've seen figures before of nearly double the value of the Melbourne market which makes me wonder what exactly the survey is measuring.

 

[kaypee]

But this simply isn't true. The data is right here. From that, you can see the regional market is worth $389.5m for the 6 month period ended June 16 (most recent data I could find). For reference, the Melbourne market for this period was worth $355m - almost 10% less. This data was collected by KPMG through the compilation of information provided by the TV networks which was externally audited.

What I do agree with, is the "regional market" isn't really one market, but a tonne of diverse small markets, which makes the whole issue even more complicated. But at the end of the day, those figures are what was actually collected from advertisers, which clearly means that, as of that period, the combined regional market was worth more than the Melbourne market, and the regional NSW market was worth more than the Perth market.

But the point is every ad has to be targeted to that region, and that costs money. Bunnings/ maccas etc aren’t going to pay squillions because there is four franchises in Dubbo

 

[abcde12345]

What was the value of the Sydney market? I've seen figures before of nearly double the value of the Melbourne market which makes me wonder what exactly the survey is measuring.

Apologies if the hyperlinks don't come out clearly on here. LINK

The figures are compiled by KPMG from data supplied by each of the three major stations. It measures advertising revenue. The metro figures are externally audited. The Sydney figure is approx. $502m (37% of the total metro advertising $), while the Melbourne figure is approx. $355m (26% of the total metro advertising $).

 

[abcde12345]

But the point is every ad has to be targeted to that region, and that costs money. Bunnings/ maccas etc aren’t going to pay squillions because there is four franchises in Dubbo

Correct, but that's not what I'm saying happens either.

I am not exactly sure how each station sells their advertising slots. It would be one of two ways:

1. They sell to the regional area (NNSW, QLD etc). So although Maccas wouldn't be paying significant sums advertising into Dubbo with a population of 40,000, it would pay significant sums for the SNSW region (population 1.5m) or a reasonable sum for the Orange Dubbo Wagga Wagga region (population 422k). Rinse and repeat this for each relevant market and the figures add up.

2. They do sell to a specific area (ie your Dubbo example). But if this is so, although the figure will be relatively small for Dubbo, the figure would be rather large when you combine every different regional town which you can sell to separately.

I would suggest the first situation is more likely, as operating costs would be significantly lower, and there would be far less risk.

The fact of the matter is, during the 6 month period ending June 16, the networks made $390m from selling advertising slots in the regional markets, and only $355m in selling advertising slots in Melbourne. The data can be seen here: LINK. This trend is consistent back until 2006 where the data starts.

 

[Gigantor]

No one gives a damn about regional ratings, except for those trying to push regional ratings.

 

[abcde12345]

No one gives a damn about regional ratings, except for those trying to push regional ratings.

While that might be your opinion, it is clear that the people who matter (ie the advertisers) do if they're willing to put more advertising dollars into combined regionals than they are into Melbourne.

 

[Kwality]

Regional figures are an important factor. As of the most recent release I can find (HY ended June 16), the regional market was the second largest market (almost 10% ahead of Melbourne) (src).

HOWEVER, there are some other considerations that come up in all of this.

First of all is the issue of double counting. I referenced against the Regional TAM and OZTAM postcode lists to check these figures (Regional TAM) (OZTAM). There are significantly more double ups in the QLD and NNSW markets than in any other markets. I have then used ABS 2016 census figures to find the population and household numbers that these postcodes account for. The double ups are as follows:

Market	Population	Households	Region Population (Regional TAM)	Region Households (Regional TAM)	Double-up Percentage (Population)	Double-up Percentage (Households)
NNSW	694,681	300,973	2,201,200	904,900	31.6%	33.3%
QLD	299,104	132,514	1,866,100	791,000	16.0%	16.8%
VIC	38,998	16,585	1,202,100	522,800	3.2%	3.2%

No other regions had any double up present. Please note: Regional TAM does not consider SA or NT at all.

NNSW is so significant as it counts the Gold Coast and some Northern Rivers suburbs which are also counted in the metro figures. Likewise with QLD and the North Coast. This clearly muddies the waters around regional figures significantly.

In addition to this, regional figures can be difficult to actually get a hold of, and a breakdown of these figures is even more difficult to find. If these were accurately and consistently available, we could at least discount NNSW, QLD and VIC figures by the relevant percentage to get a more accurate representation.

These factors make it rather difficult to get an accurate reflection of what the regional figures actually represent. What we do know, however, is that the methodology used to calculate regional figures is definitely weighted against the AFL. Significant double-ups in NRL strong regions (although at least Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are a lot more AFL friendly than most true regionals in QLD/NNSW), as well as non-counting of certain AFL strong markets definitely makes the regional figures somewhat dubious in a like-for-like comparison.

Lets hope the AFL cheerleaders can stop flagellating long enough to understand, in some cases better understand the implications of this sector.

Surprised you didnt attribute a number of your conclusions, The raw numbers are what the TV industry base use when bidding for the media rights.