Do Grand Final ratings justify expansion?
Roar Guru By Redb, 6 Oct 2010 Redb is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2010 AFL Grand Final, 2010 NRL grand final, AFL, AFL expansion, AFL grand final, NRL, NRL expansion, NRL grand final, television ratings
249 Have your say
Related coverage
- NRL Grand Final news
- AFL Grand Final news
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- NRL Grand Final 2011 news
- AFL Grand Final 2011 news
Darren Jolly of Collingwood celebrates a goal during the 2010 Toyota AFL Grand Final replay between the Collingwood Magpies and the St Kilda Saints at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
The AFL must be delighted with the television ratings generated in both Sydney and Brisbane from the replayed 2010 grand final. With two Victorian teams going head-to-head in the AFL and two NSW teams in the NRL, this removed the parochial factor that so often clouds the debate between AFL and NRL over grand final TV ratings.
In the five capital city ratings, the AFL averaged 2.69 million compared to the NRL’s 2.09 million. Much of the difference was made up in the AFL’s expansion states of NSW and QLD where the GF averaged 405,000 viewers in Sydney and 375,000 in Brisbane.
This is in stark contrast to the NRL which only managed 221,000 in Melbourne, 33,000 in Adelaide and 75,000 in Perth.
TV executives make their decisions on TV rights dollars based on the five capital city market. The regional TV ratings are secondary to the equation. In fact, regional TV ratings double count certain areas like the Gold Coast and often totally exclude areas such as regional WA and SA.
Do the above TV ratings quantify the benefits of expansion?
The AFL expanded before the NRL (apart from the failed SuperLeague experiment) and established teams in all five capital cities.
The presence of a team creates interest. When that team does well the TV ratings skyrocket, but it’s difficult to separate real interest from parochial interest.
The Melbourne TV ratings for the NRL in 2009 was a clear vase of parochial driven ratings, the same with the Swans in the AFL driving up past Sydney TV ratings.
It should be noted that even with Melbourne Storm in the NRL GF, the NRL ratings were approximately the same as the AFL with two Victorian teams. When the Sydney Swans appeared in the AFL GF, TV ratings nationally were by far the biggest achieved in the two codes ever.
The 2010 GF ratings in each code make the picture much clearer. The penetration of AFL is greater than the NRL nationally, due to expansion.
The NRL GF really struggled in its non-traditional markets despite its TV friendly timeslot of late Sunday afternoon.
In Melbourne, where a team exists and games such as State of Origin and Tests have been played, a niche market has been created but it was still almost only half of the Sydney ratings for the AFL GF.
In Perth, where the NRL is mooting a future team, and has a heavier influx of mining related expats from NSW/QLD, the game attracted 75,000. However, in Adelaide where the NRL has little presence other than a game or two a year, the ratings were a paltry 33,000.
Thus the case for the AFL expanding with second teams into NSW and QLD draws strength.
NSW and QLD represent approximately 55 per cent of the Australian population. By increasing the presence of Australian football in these states, this ensures at least one game a week is played. The AFL, therefore, continues to entrench itself into the sporting psyche and builds on the interest in those states.
The other advantage of expansion with two teams in each non-traditional market is the odds of one of them making the grand final doubles.
As we have seen with traditional markets, they will watch the grand final regardless of who is playing, but there is a much bigger parochial interest in non-traditional areas. Another argument for expansion.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
October 6th 2010 @ 6:14am
MVDave said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:14am | Report comment
AFL fan hubris…the GF ratings showed 1.5 m Victorians watched it and in the rest of the country (about 17 million people) 1.3 m watched. So outside of Victoria about 1 in 14 (less then 10% of the population) people bothered to watch? Not sure why you’re gloating about those figures…and this after the most extraordinary amout of media beat up leading to it. Perhaps the AFL should introduce a cooking show for half time…then they might crack the 3-4 million figure. All this with the Swans costing $10smillions over 30years and Brisbane Lions/Bears similar amounts over 20 years…looks like $100s of millions more needed to get the AFL ratings up in that 55% of the population.
October 6th 2010 @ 6:22am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:22am | Report comment
“Perhaps the AFL should introduce a cooking show for half time” – sounding a bit bitter mvDave.
Given much of the country actually congregates together to watch either of the Grand Finals the TV ratings probably don’t do the actual figure justice. Live sites, pubs, BBQ’s,etc dont count in the numbers so a straight and may I say simplistic analysis based on TV ratings less total population equation is inaccurate.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:16am
Kurt said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:16am | Report comment
How are the A-League ratings going this year Dave?
October 6th 2010 @ 6:36am
M1tch said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:36am | Report comment
The ratings for the Swans were ordinary, hey even I watched the GF
October 6th 2010 @ 6:53am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Mitch,
Yes the Swan ratings have dropped over the past 2 years, so it is interesting that the GF did not see any fall off, in fact it is robust. The Swans ratings were also for a team that has matured somewhat and has reinvented itself towards the end of the season.
What do you think of the premise of the article? Can we you see the point re when a team exists compared to not in non tradtional markets and how far ahead the AFL is on the NRL due to expansion.
It is also pertinent to point out that NSW/QLD offer greater ratings riches than Vic/SA/WA given the population difference. The ratigns in quantum for NSW and QLD were higher than the tradtional AFL states of WA and SA. The move to expand into NSW and QLD not a bad call on the AFL’s behalf. WA and SA wont offer the same riches as they are much smaller markets.
October 6th 2010 @ 11:33am
Whites said | October 6th 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Here is the add revenue figures for the first 6 months of this year.
Metropolitan
Sydney -$514,143,049
Melbourne-$387,713,179
Brisbane-$235,370,035
Adelaide-$109,795,900
Perth-$145,669,616
TOTAL-$1,392,691,779
Regional
New South Wales-$187,020,165
Victoria-$64,828,066
Queensland-$102,813,645
South Australia-$15,257,145
West Australia-$21,778,321
Northern Territory / Tasmania-$37,239,884
TOTAL-$428,937,226
So regional NSW and QLD are as big a market as WA and SA combined.
http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/PR14_Advertising_revenue_for_commercial_television_networks_-_Jan-Jun_2010.pdf
October 7th 2010 @ 10:40am
Fez's are cool said | October 7th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
This also highlights why many RL fans believe the game is undervalued. If all the money is in NSW and Qld, why does the dominant code get less?
I think the AFL definately benefits from having a presence in all the OzTam cities. This is something the NRL desperately needs to address.
The only real difference from last year to this in the NRL grand final viewership is the drop in Victoria – obviously because of the Storm being there last year, and the Salary cap drama leaving a bad taste in Melbourne. Time heals all wounds. Just look at the NRL in Sydney for proof.
October 6th 2010 @ 6:55am
Dan Dresden said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Putting aside that codes pick and choose what ratings figures to boast about, unless the AFL plans on having a grand final every week, then it would be a wasted effort.
Let’s ask Ch 7 and 10 how they feel about Sydney’s and Brisbane’s interest levels in AFL.The loss in advertising $ they have copped in this current AFL deal tells us all we need to know.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:17am
Kurt said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Any figures Dan?
October 6th 2010 @ 7:21am
Dan Dresden said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Figures on what? I said to ask 7 and 10. Coming in last in the Sydney and Brisbane ratings week after week tells you all you need to know. Do you seriously think the tv networks can charge their optimum adveritisng $ during those AFL matches? There’s enough newspaper stories about over the past few years to confirm my point.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:45am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Dan,
For one when the Lions were winning the Brisbane ratings were fairly good for first half of the season. Both the Swans and lions ratings are muddied somewhat from the dual broadcast on Foxtel and many internet posters forget to add OneHD ratings.
The Lions and Swans ratings are deliberately talked down by those with vested interests, the GF ratings show there is a market for AFL in those places.
As for newspaper columnists – you are kidding. try hard Roy Masters
October 6th 2010 @ 9:10am
Kurt said | October 6th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
OK, so your argument is that I should contact channels 7 & 10 directly to discuss their advertising revenue streams. Fair enough, glad we cleared that up.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:27am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Dan,
Rarely do we get a snapshot that encapsulates as close as possible the true or potential audience for the codes like we have with 2010 Grand Finals. Like for like two Melb AFL teams from the original VFL and two Syd NRL teams from the original NSWRL. (albeit one merged)
The premise of the article is that as the AFL has expanded first to all 5 capital cities it is able to achieve greater viewership in non tradtional areas.
In the contrary re Ch 7, it would have surprised them to see the Sydney and Brisbane numbers and provides the AFL with a handy negotation point about the potential of its new NSW and QLD teams .
October 6th 2010 @ 3:22pm
BJW said | October 6th 2010 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Speaking from recent experience, Channel 7 doesn’t feel strongly about the AFL outside of Victoria. And they schedule it accordingly.
First Friday night AFL final, Geelong v Saints, got delayed in Canberra to follow Better Homes and Gardens AND THEN The Vicar of Dibley Xmas Special (repeat.. wtf?). Following Friday night final also got delayed.
Can’t say i was happy about it. Ended up streaming the games online… so yeah, TV audience may not be great outside of Victoria but then considering they don’t play a lot of the games live (or even with a reasonable delay that doesn’t result in the telecast going over to the next day) can’t say I am surprised!
October 6th 2010 @ 6:34pm
JamesP said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
BJW – in that case, Chennel 7 doesn’t feel strongly about the AFL in Victoria too…given that almost every Friday night game this year was on a 1 hour delay into Melbourne…
October 6th 2010 @ 7:15am
Brendan said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:15am | Report comment
If it’s a true like for like comparison can you tell me if both games were broadcast live Accross the country?
October 6th 2010 @ 7:21am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
The NRL GF was live into Melbourne, dont know about Adelaide or Perth.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:01am
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
it was definitely scheduled as live across the country, yes….
October 6th 2010 @ 9:06am
Whites said | October 6th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Both games were live nationwide. The only difference was the broadcast time. It is often commented that the NRL GF benefits by having the Sunday twilight slot while the AFL GF has the “deadzone” of Saturday afternoon. While it is true more people overall are watching TV on Sunday evenings it also means there is more competition. The highest rating show at the same time as the AFL GF had no more then 300,000 viewers nationwide whereas at the same time as the NRL GF 1,473,000 watched channel 7 news.
October 6th 2010 @ 11:39am
DB said | October 6th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Perhaps the NRL should hold its GF at 3 o’clock in the morning when competitions at it lowest
October 6th 2010 @ 11:47am
Whites said | October 6th 2010 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Good point. That is exactly what I’m saying. That would also be a good time for all the viewers in europe and africa.
October 6th 2010 @ 11:49am
slickwilly said | October 6th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
its called the rebecca maddern phenomenon
October 6th 2010 @ 11:50am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Late Sunday afternoon is a very good TV time, your just making excuses. The NRL deliberately moved the telecast later to take advantage of the better TV time. At one stage it was on at 7pm.
October 6th 2010 @ 12:29pm
Ian said | October 6th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
FYI, TV Network interest (Channel Nine here) moved the Grand Final to 7pm.
There was a push to move the finals back to mid afternoon a couple of years ago, and the media barons relented to a 5.30pm kick off.
@Whites makes a good point re competition or lack off. Why nine would bother showing the NRL pre match so called entertainment then baulk at showing the presentation later is probably a good example of this.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:16am
sheek said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Redb,
Australia is so far advanced from where it was say 15 years ago. If you travelled around Australia in 1995 & asked someone what they though of the footy (say in regular season), they might first ask you which footy were you referring to?
Although where you were would give you a clue as to which code they were likely to discuss. Anyway, fast forward to 2010, & many Aussie sporting fans can hold a discussion across all 4 footy codes.
The fact that many Aussies have some idea about each of the 4 major football codes must represent some small plus for the argument of expansion.
In any case, it’s often argued if you don’t have a national presence (representation in the big 5 cities) in your code, you aren’t in the race. I certainly adhere to this philosophy with rugby union.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:22am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Sheek,
Agree, we even drink each others beer.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:23am
Dan Dresden said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:23am | Report comment
It’s more an argument for the rise of the internet, pay tv and national media programs, rather than what individual codes have done themselves to grow awareness nationally. There was no Roar in 1995.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:24am
mds1970 said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Ratings overall haven’t been great this year, but the grand final numbers were good.
The ratings in Sydney, as expected, was a smaller audience share than anywhere else. But, due to population size, the total number of viewers attracted was higher than the number of viewers in Adelaide and Perth, cities that host two teams. On that indication, Sydney could easily host a second team.
Of course there’s more to it than the ratings from two games that neither Sydney team plays in.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:30am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Thats right mds1970, given the higher ratings for the AFL GF in Sydney than either Perth or Adelaide for a neutral GF, there is potential.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:42am
Neutral Fan said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Redb
One factor to consider for the AFL Grand Final ratings in Brisbane and Sydney due to them having a team for over 20 years interest for that code would increase thus the increase in ratings during AFL grand finals. Due to failed expansion in Perth and Adelaide naturally the ratings would be lowered since there no presence there at all in regards to league.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:49am
Brendan said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Plus they have around the year free to air coverage which effectively acts as advertising for its product. NRL isnt marketed anywhere near the same level nationally and should be happy considering the lacklustre effort that channel 9 produces.
Its fair to say that in 20 years time the afl will have even more viewers… Congrats. I hope all codes do. Where are we racing to again???
October 6th 2010 @ 7:54am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Ch 9 in Melbourne promoted the crap out of the NRL GF, notably during the AFL footy show. Ch 9 and Sunday night are long time bedfellows in Melbourne. No excuses.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:19am
Ian said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Redb
Brendan was refering to the ongoing free to air coverage which acts as effective advertising throughout the year. No such free to air coverage exists for the rugby league outside of NSW and QLD.
As for Channel Nine, their true colours came out after the rude switch to the news following the final whistle, where the news went straight to coverage of Collingwoods celebrations before other news. Even the Sport put the AFL and cycling ahead of showing a limited (<1min) presentation and match wrapup.
Channel Nine did not promote the crap out of the NRL GF. The footy show as broadcast in Victoria, is one big advertisment for the local code.
Lets not forget the Sixty Minutes puff piece about growth in South Africa. Maybe if we believe the AFL blinkered Channel Nine then Aussie rules should expand there first before world domination?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:52am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
rant alert.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:28pm
Kermit is a frog said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Ian -
you DO realise do you not that the AFL included a fairly hefty ‘contra’ component in its contracts to ensure broadcasting and promotion on ‘FTA’ (‘free to air’ isn’t so ‘free’ for the AFL).
If the NRL does not insert clauses, then, why should Ch.9 do anything beyond what they deem appropriate?
And the ch.9 switch to the news was in part was it not because they’d gone 15 mins overtime. At least they didn’t switch right on 7pm and cut the last 15 mins of the game, they’d done that with the cricket and most of us missed seeing Warnies hat-trick!!
October 7th 2010 @ 7:59am
Ian said | October 7th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Kermit
The NRL, News and at the time of signing the last rugby league rights, Channel Nine were all hopelessly compromised by self interest and cross media ownership.
Channel Nine and FOX got the rugby league rights for a song and as such have never fully valued the potential.
There was no real commitment by Ch9 to promote the game down south and the legislative environment allows for hoarding.
Interesting to see in the last couple of weeks, Channel Seven playing the rugby league show “Contorversy Corner” Live into Melbourne on their second channel. Why Ch9 can’t do this for the NRL shows (Footy show and Sunday Roast) speaks volumes for their commitment.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:04am
Mister Football said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:04am | Report comment
The figures are impresseive, no matter which way you look at it, and you’d rather be going into expansion on the back of such figures than not.
One quirk in the figures I noticed the other day is the comparison of the first GF to the replay.
The viewing figures dropped off in the traditional aussie rules cities for the replay, but increased in Sydney and Brisbane, and for the latter, it was a significant increase.
All that aside, the AFL has been planning on having one game per week in Qld and NSW for 15 years now, they’ll soon have it, and there is no doubt that the game will benefit from such a strategy in every way conceivable.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:53am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:53am | Report comment
I put the drop in traditional markets down to the Collingwood factor and one sided game after half time.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:48pm
bilbo said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
I think it is more to do with the promotion that the replayed GF received north of the Murray. There was definitely more AFL stories in the media in the week before the replay than in the week before the first grand final – mainly negative surrounding the lack of extra time, but some positive, regarding the game as a revenue generator etc.
The extra publicity worked, because more people knew about it and more people tuned in – an increase of 100K in brisbane and 40K in Sydney – but down by 200K in Melbourne.
If you want to make a better comparison, Redb, I would look at the figures of the first GF. That would be a lot more accurate way to look at both when considering expansion – there are too many variables with a replayed GF.
And if you want to make a better comparison, I would also include regionals (regional NSW/Qld = SA, WA, the NRL GF had a part regional team in St George Illawarra). I would also probably mention that the Swans have a 28 year history, and the Lions/Bears have a 23 year history; as opposed to the Storm who have a 12 year history. Perhaps you should look at figures from 1995 to see an accurate comparison of Sydney’s interest in AFL to Melbourne’s interest in the NRL?
October 7th 2010 @ 6:22am
Redb said | October 7th 2010 @ 6:22am | Report comment
Bilbo,
Re the first AFL Grand Final, you have to remember these are ‘average’ ratings and for the AFL with its longer game the average will always be a it lower for a 3 hour game compared to a 2 hour game. This is why the GF presentation program often out rates the GF game telecast itself.
In relation to the first AFL GF in Sydney, the average TV ratings for the last quarter topped 520,000, not bad at all.
October 8th 2010 @ 1:48pm
bilbo said | October 8th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Whats your point? The average being lower doesnt make a difference as far as Im concerned – werent you saying earlier that a 3 hour game is better for viewers?
My point was that, if you want to compare and contrast for the purpose of making a point regarding expansion, that you should use the first game. The second game was an incredibly rare event, receiving unprecedented hype and promotion – this will not happen again any time soon. I understand, Red, that you are a massive AFL fan, and in order to make your point that expansion is warranted you used the larger of the two figures (from the second game). However, I dont think this is reflective of the interest in the game – if this many people were interested, how come they didnt tune in first week?
400K in Sydney is good, and 300 in Brisbane is also good, however you would really want to be looking at double that, considering the amount of promotion the channels provide the game with up here. AFL has been in Sydney for 28years, and in Brisbane for 23.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:05am
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Red, great figures, no doubt, I just hope this doesn’t descend into the usual code ratings argument….
October 6th 2010 @ 8:27am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Brett,
That’s for others to guard against. I have not made any subjective comments about which game is better or worse, just provided the facts on the ratings and then framed an argument that expansion has assisted the AFL.
There are other angles.
For example: do the grand final ratings justify expansion in the face of a diluted talent pool? How do fans of original teams starved of success feel about seeing draft picks and concessions going to the expansion clubs to justify those ratings?
October 6th 2010 @ 10:06am
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
and I’ve got no issues with that, Redb, and in fact, I probably even largely agree with your points. But you know full well that the code wars can spring from anywhere…
October 6th 2010 @ 8:07am
The Link said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:07am | Report comment
No surprises there RedB, NRL rates poorly on those states where it no longer has an elite presence, Perth is a must for expansion for TV rights to re-establish the nieche.
RL lost 10-15 years of momentum from 1995 and is still playing catchup.
How were the NZ ratings for both games?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:16am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:16am | Report comment
The Link,
You said: “NRL rates poorly on those states where it no longer has an elite presence”
and then : “How were the NZ ratings for both games?”
This is a contradication? Do you know why?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:24am
Ian said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Redb
Perhaps you can explain the contradiction and tell us why?
For your information, Rugby League does not an enjoy elite presence in New Zealand. Rugby Union is still the dominant force across the ditch.
The AFL Grand Final was shown into NZ though at a very TV friendly timeslot. How’d it rate against the NRL GF?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:30am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Ian,
Does the NRL have a team in the NZ marketplace yes or no?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:40am
Ian said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
The New Zealand Warriors are competing in an Australian National Competition not a New Zealand one so to answer your question, no.
The Warriors did not make the GF so would fit your analogy of the “parochial factor that so often clouds the debate between AFL and NRL over grand final TV ratings.”
AFL has been shown in New Zealand regually since the late 1990′s and apparently has a strong following with the “Hawks”.
New Zealand rugby league coverage is limited to subscription TV, yet unlike Australia, it is possible to watch every game live and uninterrupted. Also unlike Australia, no anti siphoning legislation exists there so every game of different codes are shown on merit, rather than the contorted and corrupt marketplace we have here.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:44am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Ian,
the Warriors are in the NRL. They have a team which made the finals this year. They are engaged somewhat due to that team.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:54am
Ian said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I think your contraditing your article here. I’m sure teams outside of Victoria played in the AFL final series so the same arguement holds – your words “parochial factor that so often clouds the debate between AFL and NRL over grand final TV ratings.”
Do we negate NSW or QLD AFL figures because they had a team in the finals?
Whilst no team existed outside of NSW / QLD or NZ in the NRL finals, the earlist any fan could follow the NRL was still near or after midnight thanks to the hoarding by Channel Nine. The AFL could be seen live or very near live across Australia. Hardly a good comparision.
October 7th 2010 @ 2:01pm
djfrobinson said | October 7th 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Redb
NRL TV viewing stats for New Zealand was about 200 000 for the grand final, the figure was roughly the same for the Warriors game.
Ian – I’m a kiwi, who are the hawks?
October 10th 2010 @ 12:12pm
Ian said | October 10th 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
djfrobinson
As a kiwi you should know, the “Hawks” are the NZ AFL team.
All AFLNZ teams from U/16 to senior level are officially known as the NZ Hawks from 2010
Obviously making an impression across the ditch and with Redb’s conclusion out of this article, then Aussie Rules will be a top sport there very soon.
October 10th 2010 @ 9:58pm
djfrobinson said | October 10th 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Hay Ian
That surprises me because i’ve asked around most of my friends. I asked the question, have you ever heard of a AFL team called the hawks.
I then had to explain what AFL was, and I’m going to assume that the hawks are a AFL team.
Among my friends at home the sport is unknown and thus no one cares.
October 11th 2010 @ 5:12am
Jerome said | October 11th 2010 @ 5:12am | Report comment
I am from NZ. Who are the Hawks? Never heard of anybody watching AFL in NZ. Union is the most prominent sport but it feels as if things are chainging with the younger demographic where soccer and league are alot more popular than they have historically been.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:43am
The Link said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
No contradiction at all, it was a genuine question. Apples with apples comparison includes NZ if you’re talking ratings and TV ROI from expansion. It could actually highlight an opportunity for the AFL!!
October 6th 2010 @ 8:51am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I’m afraid it is Link, you acknowledge that not having a team impacts on the local marketplace/interest.
October 6th 2010 @ 6:44pm
JamesP said | October 6th 2010 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
I stopped reading after this:
Redb: Does the NRL have a team in the NZ marketplace?
And Ian said No…and then tried to explain it!?
October 6th 2010 @ 8:30am
beaver fever said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Any ratings in NZ for the AFL GF would be an absolute bonus, feel free to hunt them down.
October 6th 2010 @ 8:44am
The Link said | October 6th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Any ratings in WA and SA for the NRL GF are an absolute bonus.
October 6th 2010 @ 9:11am
The Link said | October 6th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
RedB, that’s prescisley why NZ is relevant.
October 6th 2010 @ 9:40am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
The Link,
NZ are not included in the 5 capital city TV ratings which impact on TV rights for the codes. Its a bit of misdirection becuase the age old argument over who has the biggest TV ratings in Australia has a clear winner and that is due to greater expansion.
Clearly NZ TV ratings arent worth that much if past rights deals are anything to go by. I also don’t see even Roy Masters quoting NZ TV ratings to justify his codes dollar grab on TV rights.
October 6th 2010 @ 9:54am
The Link said | October 6th 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
From memory NZ rights are worth somewhere around 12m a year, 60-70m over the 5 years.
Pretty sure Roy has trotted that out at some stage.
Biggest GF ratings no question goes to the AFL, but there’s 70m reasons not to ignore NZ.
October 6th 2010 @ 7:54pm
bilbo said | October 6th 2010 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Agree with Link and beaver – the inclusion of adelaide, perth and NZ is irrelevant in this discussion. NZ is very relevant in relation to the value of the NRL rights, and Perth, Adelaide are very relevant to the AFL rights, but not vice versa.
October 10th 2010 @ 10:24pm
jimbo said | October 10th 2010 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
7.1 Million Australians watched the Italy v Socceroos game at 2am in the morning [Roy Morgan Research] and that was consistent right around Australia.
It will be a very long time before Aussie Rules gets TV ratings like that for its once a year [or twice a year] showpiece.
TV ratings for the Swans in Sydney this year were woeful and the worst in over 10 years.
There is no money in Aussie Rules in Sydney or Brisbane, just the AFL’s blind determination to “expand the game into NSW and Qld”.
And oh yeah. lets not forget the extra money for their TV rights . . .
October 6th 2010 @ 10:02am
Whites said | October 6th 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Most watched on SKY Sport 2
1.NRL: 197,190 (7:25pm – 9:15pm)
2.NRL Under 20: 125,000 (4:05pm – 5:50pm)
3.NRL Under 20 PostGame: 116,750 (5:50pm – 6:05pm)
4.NRL Pre Game: 112,600 (6:30pm – 7:25pm)
5.NRL Post Game: 68,320 (9:15pm – 9:50pm)
The AFL GF was on Sky Sports from 5.00pm local time. This was Sky Sports 1 on Saturday-
Most watched on SKY Sport 1
1.ITM Cup Rugby: 111,220 (7:30pm – 9:15pm)
2.ITM Cup Rugby Post Game: 83,440 (7:10pm – 7:25pm)
3.ITM Cup Rugby: 77,880 (5:25pm – 7:10pm)
4.ITM Cup Rugby Post Game: 75,910 (9:15pm – 9:25pm)
5.ITM Cup Rugby: 44,800 (2:30pm – 4:30pm)
There were no other ratings so you would have to assume it had less than 44,800 viewers.
throng.co.nz
October 6th 2010 @ 10:06am
Redb said | October 6th 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
All the NZ argument is doing apart from deflection is reinforcing the point about having a team to create interest.