More rugby should be on Aussie free to air TV
Roar Guru By John Hanrahan, 5 Aug 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Channel Seven, Fox Sports, French rugby, Japanese rugby, Jonny Wilkinson, Rugby Union, Sonny Bill Williams, Super Rugby, Sydney Rugby
119 Have your say
It’s time for an Australian television channel to start showing French and Japanese rugby. With the enormous number of Aussie rugby and league stars playing in these competitions, interest in the games is growing daily.
Add to the Aussies the number of other international rugby stars playing in the French competition and Kiwis playing in the Japanese sides and you have a rich spread of interest and potential.
Wallabies, Super 14, All Blacks, Springboks, Irish, Argentinian, British and French stars are littered throughout the French competition.
A match like the Brumbies clash with Toulon featuring Sonny Bill Williams and Jonny Wilkinson, though a one-off, is another example of what we’re missing.
While rugby and other sporting fans can find information about their favourite footballers playing in these international leagues on websites, being able to watch the games is clearly what fans want.
The hits on websites like this one and other sporting sites carrying Rugby runs in to the tens of millions.
The addition of the matches from Europe and Japan would be just what the pay-tv operators, in particular, desperately want – more new subscribers.
And into that mix should be thrown either replays of Sydney Premier Rugby’s ABC-TV Match of the Day or, at the very least, a one hour’s highlights package.
The ABC telecast is on while 95 percent of rugby fans are either playing or attending hundreds of junior and senior games around the city. And ABC-TV news can’t even bring themselves to screen one moment’s highlights of the game in their 7pm. news sports round-up.
The first step would be for Fox Sports to do a trade-off with some of the highlights from their matches for the ABC footage.
Premier Rugby, featuring a host of Super 14 players, should then get multiple replays through the week at times that Rugby fans can actually watch it.
The first objection that would be raised would be the language barrier. Obviously the French and Japanese games are broadcast in the native tongues of both countries.
But these days, at the Seven Network and as other broadcasters have done, they’ve not bothered to spend the money to send their commentators to cover matches “live” but rather called them from the studios in Sydney.
And with the right up-to-date information (players, after all, have numbers on their backs) good commentators and producers who do their homework could call them games easily.
There might even be the facility to find an English speaking commentator in each country who could use one of the broadcast boxes to provide a “local” call, matched with the primary broadcaster’s vision.
Adding to rugby fans’ frustrations is the overwhelming volume of tedious league games being broadcast, with their girly scrums, repetition and predictability. And with overwrought commentary that often far exceeds the activities on the field.
Rugby fans, who want the big, explosive, dynamic action and unpredictability of a rugby match are becoming increasingly fed-up, particularly when they are aware of so many entertaining matches being played in Europe and Japan – but there is no opportunity at the moment to see them.
If Fox Sports won’t do it, Seven or Ten could show some initiative and get the rights to these games and build a new audience, with new sponsors and a new revenue stream.
However, it will take a combination of a television executive with some initiative and vision and a rugby fan base to make some “noise” by contacting the television stations and asking for these games.
Recommend this story.
August 5th 2009 @ 1:30pm
Dopey said | August 5th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Gatesy et al,
Television networks aren’t philanthropic organisations. They will show those programs that rate the best and therefore sell the most advertising and therefore generate the best return for their investors.
I don’t think anyone is denying that we would like to see more Rugby on TV (and particularly FTA) but the simple economic reality is that if it doesn’t sell they aint going to broadcast it.
So I think you are barking up the wrong tree – the best way to get rugby on TV is to increase demand for it. That’s the job of administrators, not the networks.
August 5th 2009 @ 1:32pm
hodgedoggie said | August 5th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Bring more rugby to Seven! I really wanna watch the Wallabies play and win
August 5th 2009 @ 3:01pm
Jack Dalton said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Dopey,
It’s not up to just the administrators. It’s up to the Rugby public, as the article says, making a noise about it…contacting Fox Sports and Seven, Ten and even Nine.
There’s over a million Rugby followers in Sydney alone. And more than 2 million nationally. But over the decades they’ve fallen silent, given up and stopped complaining and stopped buying papers like the Daily and Sunday Telegraph because they know there’s only occasionally good coverage.
The Seven Network has a small, on the scale of things, investment in broadcasting the local Internationals…but do bugger all to enrich their investment for the network and fail to make it pay greater dividends by providing little or no other coverage.
The Rugby community, in terms of business and following, is not exactly short of money. With a bit of vision and promotion one of the networks could be doing extremely well by promoting its involvement with the second biggest code of football on the planet.
PayTv only has a 22% percent penetration in Australila. The “biggest” channel audiences on PayTV only get a few per cent of the audience (Seven and Nine in prime-time pull 25-27 rating points). With such limited penetration, it’s no wonder hundreds of thousands of Rugby fans head to pubs and clubs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth to watch in “out of home” venues.
It is about creating demand. So Rugby fans….get on the phone, start emailing, write letters, call sports talk back shows…contact the TV stations and ask for more Rugby…
Jack Dalton
August 5th 2009 @ 3:22pm
Sam Taulelei said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
One question, if Pay TV only has a 22% penetration in a potential subscriber market of over 15 million. And of that 22% a relatively small cut are rugby followers, where is the incentive for a FTA network to pick up rugby?
FTA network’s business models works against rugby. Rugby has not demonstrated in Australia that it is a high rating sport to broadcasters. It’s a niche sport and as such if it can’t command the consistent ratings that AFL and NRL generate then they can’t sell space to advertisers at a premium price. Without that revenue, they can’t cover the production costs or return a profit. Broadcasting deals for sport are normally for a medium term – 5 years minimum. If the bean counters can’t project what a network can earn over that period based on how rugby has rated in the past, can you blame them for not clamouring to obtain the rights for rugby.
It’s no good to petition and make a lot of noise to get rugby back on the airwaves. You’ve got to get more people to watch it each week, that’s the only demand that networks and advertisers understand and care about.
August 5th 2009 @ 3:35pm
Maxy said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Dopey,
If we following your thinking regarding how FTA use shows to grow ratings and increase advetising, then really they should stop broadcasting after 9.30pm. Honestly some of the current programmes FTA offer are terrible. Surely Rugby Union would have rated better than a show about overweight US people dancing to loose weight and ultimatly be crowned a winner. Regardless of the time slot its pretty poor.
Agreed networks do have a responsibilty to their sponsors, after all they pay the bills but, they also have a responibility to offer quality and diversity. I am not a League man myself, but do enjoy sports and will watch League for that reason. Sport is sport and as Australians we will always tune in to watch. A perfect example is the Stawell Gift, not a high profile sport but does really well on FTA. Why?? Becasue we love our sports. Someone took a chance on it years ago now look at it.
Jack is right we need to push this as a Rugby Community. Demand is there maybe we are just not yelling loud enough.
August 6th 2009 @ 12:37am
John Ryan said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Dreadful as a lot of the shows are on FTA and I have just about given up watching it,pretty well anything rates better than Rugby,7 in Perth put the Rugby Union on at it was 11 or 12 at night.
So they think that people don’t care, in Sydney put Rugby on FTA up against any NRL game and see who wins,you may not like it but that’s what the FTA channels look at
August 5th 2009 @ 3:42pm
Pippinu said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
When I first started reading this, I actually thought someone was tyring to be funny – but I gather from a few responses that it’s a serious suggestion.
It’s a new one – not a call for more Australian rugby on TV, no – a call to put Japanese rugby on TV.
Admittedly, if Hunt is playing over there, whenever his team is on, an additional 100 viewers might be attracted to it.
Someone made the comment that rugby is presently put on TV at time when people are playing it.
Folks – if that’s the problem – then you clearly don’t have a sound business case for any rugby to be shown on FTA TV (except maybe as a low cost/low ratings proposition for the ABC).
I’m not a media expert, for something to be on TV, general interest has to be a touch higher than, say, the interest in Korfball.
August 5th 2009 @ 4:02pm
Working Class Rugger said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
I would love too see more Rugby on Australian TV. And not only French and Japanese Rugby either. Therte is a whole world of product out there.
In terms Rugby PayTV ratings. Many have touted that it regularly draws low numbers. But take this into account. Foxtel has between 2 million to 3 million subscribers. Of those 40% are IQ subscribers. Foxtel doesn’t and I’ll repeat that doesn’t count IQ subscribers in their ratings figures due to the systems recording capability. However, Foxtel are able to record what is the most popular content on IQ boxes. And guess what. On 60% of all IQ’s nationwide Rugby is the number one recorded program. So for arguement sake. Say there are 2 million Foxtel subscribers, of those 800,000 have the IQ system. Of those with IQ 60% totalling 480,000 watch Rugby. All of a sudden the ratings aren’t that bad.
And IQ is a more expensive subscription hence Rugby’s value to PayTV.
August 6th 2009 @ 12:42am
John Ryan said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:42am | Report comment
I have IQ and I think that is about the most amusing thing I have heard,most people have IQ for the pleasure of recording shows on PAY when they clash,if you are feeling masochistic you can watch FTA and record your show on PAY,but I dont think for the vast majority its to record Rugby,I could be wrong but I dont think so.
August 7th 2009 @ 8:13pm
AndyRoo said | August 7th 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Actually I don’t watch a lot of rugby anymore but I used my IQ to record rugby. I would expect English soccer and Super 14 rugby (when played in South Africa) to be recorded quite often because of the timing. Never had much of a problem with programs clashing.
And it was fantastic during the Rugby WC
August 5th 2009 @ 4:11pm
True Tah said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
WCR
I was under the impression that the viewer figures for rugby are believed to have been understated for the past few years, and to be honest Im not sure if they include people watching in pubs.
The arguments that say Toyota Cup outrates the S14 and HAL are weak from the viewpoint that Toyota Cup is a subsidiary product, in that it picks up viewers who will be watching the NRL game later on. The S14 and HAL are both products capable of standing on their own too feet.
Personally I am not too happy about the incursion of PayTV into rugby, and in particular the sway it has over the scheduling of times…when was the last time we saw a game of Australian professional rugby played during the daytime??? Both the NRL and AFL have games on Sunday afternoons, as does the HAL…why cant rugby do the same? I dont buy the argument we need to appease European viewers, because from what I understand, SH rugby does not rate in Europe.
August 7th 2009 @ 1:34pm
macavity said | August 7th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
you are right, the fact that NRL NYC outrates S14 and HAL makes those comps look very weak.
August 5th 2009 @ 4:16pm
Tarpo said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
WCR, thanks for the wealth of info you provide, it would be interesting to see what the numbers are (cost) to have the rugby channel as part of the Foxtel stable.
August 5th 2009 @ 4:20pm
AndyS said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
More rugby should be shown FTA, but it is pointless if it is the same rugby – who in their right mind would watch a match stuffed with ads and missing restarts when they have the option of watching it without? The situation is notably different from, say, the AFL – in general, if FTA shows it, they have it exclusively.
But the argument is equally skewed by the way FTA has used rugby feed. There is no point saying it doesn’t rate if you show it after midnight and long after the game is over – that is the equivalent of taking the tyres off the car and then bitching about the fuel economy. Anyone who was keenly interested has already seen the match, on pay TV, at a mates or down the pub. Equally it is hardly a valid test of the appeal if they periodically decide to show it live, but then neglect to bother telling anyone (as has happened on at least two occasions I can think of in WA, occasions then cited by the station as a demonstration that the sport doesn’t rate).
But the key problem is that of a chicken and egg – if the appeal is low, it is because the game has never received much coverage outside the very occasional test match. It is the fundamental flaw in the idea of having less but higher profile matches – it is still just less compared to the constant bombardment of AFL and NRL. Any change to this situation – be it televising Super rugby or some other competition – will have to start small and try to build a following. It is never going to burst onto the screen as a break-out success, that sort of boat sailed a very long time ago. Building a support will now be a long hard process, and any sort of big money return from it is a dream for a long time. For mine, the best idea would be to generate a new product for exclusive FTA use, the success or failure of which would then not affect existing cash-flows (as opposed to, say, taking a reduced deal from pay TV to allow some Super rugby to go out FTA). But perhaps that is just me not being a big ticket gambler…