24 Years of AFL Revenue, Distributions, TPP, Broadcast $, Members, Crowds, Participation and TV est

[NoobPie]

Provide them? the networks own the ratings company.

I reckon they will end up at least on par with 15/16....the wookie could correct me but I would think the afl would have provided to them all ratings whether public or otherwise

 

[NoobPie]

Relative doesn't really cut it. If the AFL is to get a good deal next time around, then it's the absolute numbers that matter.

Viewers --> Advertisers --> Networks --> AFL

It's not a straight line formula, but there is a very strong correlation between how the money flow goes between these, so if viewers are dropping (or more correctly, the money advertisers get from viewers) then the AFL will get less money regardless of what is happening in other sports.

This isn't necessarily true. Certainly historically the rights value has gone up far higher than the ratings have

 

[telsor]

This isn't necessarily true. Certainly historically the rights value has gone up far higher than the ratings have

Yeah, but as I said, it's not ratings exactly, it's the money advertisers get from those viewers (or think they can get). It's why ratings get broken down by demographics...If ratings dropped overall, but rose for groups with high disposable income, advertisers could well see that as a win.

 

[NoobPie]

Yeah, but as I said, it's not ratings exactly, it's the money advertisers get from those viewers (or think they can get). It's why ratings get broken down by demographics...If ratings dropped overall, but rose for groups with high disposable income, advertisers could well see that as a win.

Also things like subscriptions for pay TV....pretty sure the channel 7 rights for the AFL are only ~$150M a year which is a little over a third.

Another factor is that big sports have been able to increasingly extract a premium because it is a "product" that is overwhelmingly better consumed live...and the big question mark is whether digital could result in a greater value per viewer given possibilities of targeted advertising...

Strategically, I think the AFL could be in at least as good a position if its tv rights value stagnated but the NRL's fell significantly than if they both went up again proportionally.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Also things like subscriptions for pay TV....pretty sure the channel 7 rights for the AFL are only ~$150M a year which is a little over a third.
Another factor is that big sports have been able to increasingly extract a premium because it is a "product" that is overwhelmingly better consumed live...and the big question mark is whether digital could result in a greater value per viewer given possibilities of targeted advertising...
Strategically, I think the AFL could be in at least as good a position if its tv rights value STAGNATED [?] but the NRL's fell significantly than if they both went up again proportionally.

My understanding is that networks understand they may not recoup significant net amounts from advertisers, cf what they paid for the Rights & broadcasting costs.
Networks value the "halo effect" ie a strong AFL coverage can "brand/create loyalty" for the TV network, & have very positive ratings benefits for their OTHER TV programs. The end of an AFL broadcast will also increase the ratings leading directly into Ch.7's News program; viewers are " comfortable" with Ch.7 after watching AFL matches, & will be more inclined to be a Ch.7 watcher for its other programs during the week...at least that is the theory.

Not sure about your last comment, re strategic advantages for the AFL. I think the AFL should seek real (ie above inflation) increases in its Rights' monies, so it can fund its various initiatives & programs.
The NRL is by far its biggest competitor -but not the only one. The AFL is now, also, competing directly against all the other women's sports for athletic female players.
The AFL, as it has publicly stated a few weeks ago, wisely wants the AFLW to be a comp. employing 600+ full time players. It will need significant additional funds for this -probably $40,000,000+ pa in total for female players' wages alone!
It is crucial to continue increasing the ratings figures AND Rights monies (& more Thurs. & Mon. night/early Sun. evening prime time games?).

 

[Rabman]

I would like to see a Queens birthday eve game on a Sunday night between Adelaide and West Coast. Would get strong ratings in both Adelaide and Perth, Adelaide hosting the game with the public holiday on the Monday still allowing a strong attendance, 6:40pm start Adelaide time, think that's 4:40pm in Perth, co-inside with the news in both states.

 

[NoobPie]

I would like to see a Queens birthday eve game on a Sunday night between Adelaide and West Coast. Would get strong ratings in both Adelaide and Perth, Adelaide hosting the game with the public holiday on the Monday still allowing a strong attendance, 6:40pm start Adelaide time, think that's 4:40pm in Perth, co-inside with the news in both states.

Sunday night before queens birthday....why isn't this happening already!

I'd prefer to see a showdown / derby....these should be showcased nationally but the way tv rights are structured means we never see them on fta outside of the home state

 

[Rabman]

Sunday night before queens birthday....why isn't this happening already!

I'd prefer to see a showdown / derby....these should be showcased nationally but the way tv rights are structured means we never see them on fta outside of the home state

Last season our game against west coast in round 23 rated 198,000 in Adelaide, 157,000 in Perth plus 259,000 on Fox. 614,000 for a Sunday twilight is excellent, put that on a later starting time those ratings could be even bigger.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The_Wookie I'm not sure if this is the best thread for this but after a discussion last week about GC and GWS extra distributions I tried to reconcile the info in the AFL annual reports to the two clubs' annual report. If there is a better thread feel fee to move it to there.

In 2017 Annual Report the AFL changed method the way they reported distributions. That's why I have put Other B so as to be consistent since 2011 GC got a distribution.

 

[Gigantor]

^ is that saying that the additional distribution to the Suns and Giants in 2017 was less than $1 mill for each?

 

[NoobPie]

^ is that saying that the additional distribution to the Suns and Giants in 2017 was less than $1 mill for each?

It is saying that in 2017 what the Giants and Suns reported in their annual reports as "AFL distributions" was slightly less than what the AFL annual report explicitly itemised was provided to them.

In previous years the opposite was true and it is likely these monies were captured under "new markets" expenditure or some other expenditure category in the AFL AR.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

^ is that saying that the additional distribution to the Suns and Giants in 2017 was less than $1 mill for each?

Timing issues. One set of books says it's been provided for but not all paid in cash, other set of books only records cash received.

Add up the 2 lines with the bolded in yellow amounts for 6 years and there isn't much difference.

 

[Freomaniac]

well you wonder how much has changed now