A major gripe of your typical Australian rugby fan is the lack of free-to-air coverage. Even Test matches have been seemingly recently downgraded and within recent history have been given delayed starts when a better option was available to the broadcasters.
The first problem rugby has is of course its ratings. Changing these may be a slow and complex task and increasing the popularity of the game has been discussed at length.
Let’s just assume that the ratings are what they are and move forward with where they are currently at.
The next part of the equation is how do free-to-air stations, with these assumed ‘fixed’ ratings, earn enough from the broadcast to be able to justify, firstly showing as many matches as possible live but more crucially, bidding greater amounts for the right to do so?
There can be no real debate that increased TV revenue is good for the game, all things remaining equal.
The FTA stations, most recently Channels 10 and 9, have made efforts to increase their returns on their investment through greater advertising. This has come in the form of cutting to ad breaks after a point is scored and the ball gets returned to half way and also once scrums were called.
Initially there was a few problems with the scrum ads, particularly with Channel 9. Their low commitment to the game shone through when they seemingly were unable to tell when a scrum had been called and regularly waited too long to cut to the ad.
This resulted in the broadcast often returning too late after the scrum had been cleared and potentially crucial play was missed. It must be said however that this has improved with practice as well as moving to a network that is actually somewhat interested in the game.
Similar improvement has has not been found for the post-points ad though which almost every time seems to go for 5 to 15 seconds longer than it takes them to restart play.
What happens is we more often than not return to the action with the ball already having been kicked off and are left to try and figure out or guess what we have missed.
Other codes, notably AFL and rugby league have regular breaks of reliable time periods which naturally allow broadcasters to insert ads without missing any of the on-field action however rugby currently does not have a reliable stoppage to allow this.
For example, balls are kicked out of play at least in comparable amounts to rugby league but the time it takes to form a lineout does not allow an ad to be screened.
Ideally a FTA broadcast should provide coverage of the full match and all the action within to its viewers however there is clearly a benefit to the game if broadcasters are able to increase the return they get on the broadcast and hence the amount they are willing to pay.
So what’s the solution? How far are we willing to go to accommodate the networks? Should we guarantee a stoppage of one minute and 30s after points are scored to fit a full ad in?
Do the networks need to make greater efforts to provide picture in picture or overlay ads so we can still see the action while the ad is playing (and ads can be included when much smaller breaks are available, for example at lineouts)?
Maximising our FTA TV revenue would obviously benefit everyone with a stake in the game, but what are we then willing to pay for free live rugby?
Personally I would say the above points are fairly reasonable accommodations to make. Another alternative could be to ask advertisers to create shorter ads specifically for the rugby telecast but does rugby have the kind of clout to entice advertisers who are willing to do this?
All these options are certainly less extreme than something like a delayed telecast that Ch9 uses for the bulk of its rugby league coverage to allow them to insert ads at will.
Judging by the recent coverage the alternative seems to be that they will screen the ads regardless and if we miss some action then so be it. This is certainly a much less desirable option than getting a mutually agreeable solution to allow reasonable insertion of ads in between the on game action. Even if we initially feel a little dirty for doing so.
Martyn50
Roar Rookie
Johnno. You must be referring to Rugby. Cricket is all on Pay TV. Premier League soccer also on Pay TV. Interest is dropping in the UK because the sport is not available to the common Joe, unless he/she pays for it. Good thing about Australian sport coverage is the Elite sports and test match cricket are on FTA TV
Bakkies
Guest
''But because it now has to I suspect the disparity between the popularity of the FTA codes and Rugby has grown over the time FOX has existed.'' Rugby has grown significantly in Australia since Foxsports started funding the game by allowing the ARU to keep their best players in Australia; set up pro sides in the ACT, Vic and WA which has grown the interest levels and player base in those 3 areas; guarantee that every game featuring an Australia side will be on live tv. Without Foxsports and this investment from News Corp the ARU would have to either privatise teams or start culling. I suggest you think about the days when high level Rugby was mainly consigned to NSW and Qld with drip feeding from the ACT, tests were only played in Sydney and Brisbane, the ARU had no money and unions were run by amateurs.
Rob Doyle
Guest
I am an Aussie , but those NZ commentators are so much better than what we are served up here in Australia . Have some good ones in the UK as well . Totally agree with you statement that there is a lot of opinions and whinning . Kearns problem is that he has a big ego that gets in the way and he is not funny . Clarke is just so boring , just gives dull statistics and continually states the bleeding obvious . Martin always saying where the ball should go or what a player must do ...... he is better off calling Rugby League . Kafer not too bad and Tim Horan is quite good and getting better every year .
soapit`
Guest
i think my second point applies well to nz. not as much sports competition for viewers
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Why do you think it was added to the FTA regime, RUGBY? It's almost certainly because it wasn't perceived as needing a hand-out because theoretically it can pay its way. But because it now has to I suspect the disparity between the popularity of the FTA codes and Rugby has grown over the time FOX has existed. Now there are plenty of reasons for this, but one simple one is the fact that it's in FOX's interest to not bother to grow the game...whereas advertisers if they could be convinced may well want to be part of the movement :P
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
I note you're a South African (probably) I guess it's alright for those who have access (cough) to the diamonds etc, but those countries which have had to labour a bit harder to get their money out of the earth would understand the importance of free lunches. You don;t get them all the time and you get them less these days but there's little wrong with them in principle.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
You say it like it's a complete/inevitable paradigm-shift? I'll tell you why that's not going to happen anywhere near as quickly as you think it will. Actually it's the reason why sport's free to air in Australia in the first place: phantom spectators. If the world's economy was ruled by genuine participation/user-pays then we'd all be involved in stock exchange investments...prob even 8 year old kids, like futurists were predicting would happen in Japan in the 70s I believe it was. Instead we have people who make decisions for us, who assume we feel things the way they do/want to feel things the way they do if they had money/went to private schools to get their degrees at wherever. And one of the classic examples is the sporting speculation landscape, where people who think they feel what other people feel give us a lot of stuff as you say we don't particularly want. But by the token of them doing this they get us what we actually want...good content on our tellies to watch, a contest of idea(ls)) which while it may not suit us economically like a truly tailor-made approach would: costing us more than we can shake a stick at, it has a very high cultural relevance: ie we're paying an arm and a leg to be part of a community. But then again you probably agree with Margaret Thatcher that there's no such thing as community etc.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah that TV timeout thing is just a joke! But the thing is Americans (if they care about it) don't kick up any kind of fuss. Now in our society these days that doesn't happen a lot either, but it used to. I don;t think 'the people' ever exercised their frustration...maybe it was sold to them as a way to keep out the Reds or something ;) But to be honest (and this is one thing my dad doesn't grasp about American Football though he likes all other codes) the forward pass + down + distance = one play per 40 seconds on average actually needs breaks to make it tactically sound You just wouldn't be able to call such complex plays (even if the players organised it all) without time to pull back the intellectual delay (the lag between reaction and pro-activity) in games which is larger partly because players are conditioned into it, but partly because of the high level of specialisation.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah but it's not really that simple. Rugby League and Australian Football (particularly) are popular in their given areas not simply because they are more entertaining, but also because their club plays against someone's club who maybe you don't like. Rugby only does meaningfully well when the players play a fantastic game...Rugby League and Australian Football the players have to perenially lose like Melbourne FC or the Sharks until recently before the support is pulled. But then you have other clubs doing well enough for long enough so you never get the problem that Rugby has...too few teams in the right places to get the right kind of credit for effort (potentially) like QLD and the BRU in old days. This means talent has nowhere really to go, which means it often goes elsewhere (though some do wait in the wings) meaning the others get not just the talent, but take away your chance of using that talent, a kind of sporting capitalism.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah but I suspect a super successful Wallabies team would no longer cut it anymore Allanthus. Instead you need a definiable dream/vision for the future. The A-league (kinda) now has this. The NRL may well have regained there's and starting off with a lot more they would have had to have been idiots to have blown it. The AFL were the ones who raised the stakes of the game...which is interesting as most knowledgeable commentators have said that they stand to gain (and perhaps lose in terms of if things in the code wars start reversing) the most from the increasing marginalisation of the Southern Rugby code.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Ian I wonder if it's also because Rugby League is seen by the powers that be as close enough to Rugby Union (as Soccer gets a slightly better deal). I mean most people who aren't fans of either confuse the two and so it may be mistakenly perceived as helping out largely one code twice. If that were true then maybe that's why the AFL get's so much more leeway...less overall if you count both Rugbies together, but more than Rugby League by some way!
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah and because of that sports like Rugby and Soccer will always struggle because in no part of Australia are they the main code thus no advertiser is willing to put financial pressure on maintaining the public good...it's rather funny now we seem to need the private sector to shout what was once public sector. But conversely you've now got two codes of football on FTA very regularly in Sydney even when not enough real people (as opposed to phantom statistics) are willing to pay for it!
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah but over in NZ almost a half of the relevant demographic own a SKY TV account....not sure how many of those have the sports package which you have to pay more for ;) The biggest difference is in Australia you're actually big enough to not really need pay-TV for sport, and this is made even more secure by the NRL and the AFL going to war with each other which effectively buys Sydney (anyway) the most variety in the whole world (probably) for sports FTA viewing. The States has a good deal if you're not in the 'blackout' zone for a given match as well.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
I bet the video ref was waiting for 2138's invention of the time machine to send back the details carefully calculated by the smartest computer in the world next to the recently assassinated SKYNET ;)
Danoz
Guest
Would rugby in Oz benefit more from afternoon games? If prime time is so competitive, and the TV networks want to cram in as many ads as possible which impacts the viewing of the game, and if you want it covered on FTA, why play the games in the same prime time slots? Internationals, may be a bit more difficult, as there is lots of revenue to be made selling within prime time slots so that oversea audiences can watch the game at a meaningful time, but S15 and club games dont need to be played in the evening. If you want to increase the popularity of the game, its not a case of turning it into a try fest, its making it more accessible. Lower ticket prices, put the games on in the afternoon so families can go and watch, and put them on in stadiums that are easy to reach. Build that and the TV coverage will follow. The ads battle is always going to be hard to win in Aust. I remember growing up, every 5 mins there was 5 mins of ads. Its what people have been brought up with, so whilst they may not like it, its what they are used to. And whilst you dont pay anything for FTA, there is not much ground to stand on, they are providing a free service, so they will indicate it costs money to do that and to make money they need to sell advertisements. What the public should be doing is petitioning for there to be a standards department of the quality of ads. Every time i come home to visit, I cringe at Australian TV ads, its like stepping back into the 80's the quality of them. YOu will soon find that not every Tom Dick and Harry can afford to put some crappy add on tv then, so maybe there might be less? a long shot :-)
Chivas
Guest
Yeah agree with your point, but they can be boorish one eyed know it alls too. I'm not sure the grass is so much greener where ever you go. Would be nice to be able to get commentary on the game rather than wild opinions and whining. I think all commentators do it, because winning is key not an interesting game like so many punters suggest.
bjt
How is try-less, penalty ridden rugby anything but boring?
Rob Doyle
Guest
I love listening to all of the NZ commentators , they never overplay their hand . Their commentary is well timed and to the point . Not always trying for cheap laughs or trying to predict what is going to happen next or where the ball should go . I think Clarke , Kearns and Martin are turning their commentary into a version of Channel 9 Footy Show or Hadley and Co. calling Rugby League . Populist claptrap !
Bakkies
Guest
The Foxsports commentators have an advantage in that they are generally commentating towards a Rugby audience whereas on FTA you have a lot of new and casual supporters that need explanations on top of the usual punditry. Foxsports probably over do it with the colour commentary but it is necessary, however I agree they can't rely on Kafer to provide proper analysis. FTA being dumbed down on Ch7 is why Gordon Bray lost his way as a commentator and pundit as his audience was much wider. Some of his useless facts about players might have worked on the ABC and Channel 10 when he was in his prime as a commentator in the amateur days speaking to a true Rugby audience but on Channel 7 it just didn't work. In those days it was handy to have some background info on some players particularly living in Australia before the days of Foxtel and the Internet. Wasn't really impressed with his work as a studio commentator on ESPN for its Six Nations coverage from the bits that I saw. His background knowledge and Rugby analysis has gone downhill. I don't know if it came from the fact that he was largely redundant for a few years.
Rob Doyle
Guest
Would like to expand discussion on TV coverage . Surely it's not just me that finds Fox Commentators the worst of their kind anywhere in the Rugby World . Clarke Kearns and Martin are the main culprits . Easy to predict what they will say in most parts of the game , not in the least bit funny , lack insight and try way too hard to be entertaining rather than just add their commentary to the game . Discuss .