AFL CEO unsure of grand final timing

Thinking outside the square, if the grand final was held in Perth it could start at say 5pm local time which would give the East coast night time viewing from 7pm their time. It would be great for the TV network's ratings; but the losers would be the roughly 40k less spectators at the smaller stadium. Also perhaps for that year the planned public holiday could be transferred from Victoria to WA since Friday's grand final parade would also need to be in Perth too.

actually no - the AFL isn't about maximising profits - but, are about optimising profits. There is a difference. Were the AFL interested in maximising profits then grand final tickets would be more expensive - more around the rates scalpers can take on them. Were the AFL interested in maximising profits then more than likely these discussions would have been rendered obsolete years ago - like when the NRL moved the GF (because that code is far more about maximising profits - or, at least was when owned by multinational media corporations!!). The AFL ain't perfect but generally does an okay job of balancing fiscal responsibility with other responsibilities. Last year there was a stuff up around ticketing in particular - and it looks like that will be simplified again this year and greater effort put into match day enjoyment by the fans who ATTEND matches. This is the issue then around the GF - as - it might impact the capacity of young kids to attend (but - how many get to these days anyway??). However, it's Sat night and not Sunday. It will likelyimprove the ratings numbers and - socially - instead of lunch time BBQ's we'll have evening BBQ's.

A night GF will be too late - by the time it comes - for North who was robbed in 1998 cos we had to play a day game full stop, but, in hot windy conditions against the Crows. We'd played and won about 12 straight in night matches only to rock up on GF day instead of night. So - to me, it creates the most 'even' playing field of removing the threat of late Sept/early Oct hot daytime conditions giving a 'climatic' home ground advantage to a team from interstate!!! (okay - tongue on so firmly planted in cheek as this is a sore point for me after 1994 finals series when Haw whinged that playing North at night at the 'G was a home game to North (who'd finished higher anyway) and so the game was scheduled for day at Waverley while Geel v Doggies got the Sat night at the 'G).

Read my comments at the bottom of this thread. I'm guessing it placed it there due to the length of the response. It's also awaiting moderation due to the mods having to check the links are not porno related I'm suspecting :) As mentioned, I am happy to provide any evidence you ask for.

Your right TomC. I pride myself on being able to back all my arguments with sound logic. If someone is not convinced by this then I am happy to provide evidence. Since you have asked for this evidence, I am happy to provide it to you. I believe I have made a compelling argument as to what the product actually is: the SuperBowl - not American Football. I made reference to Gillons' comments which reinforce this, but just for you here is a link to his press conference: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-chief-gillon-mclachlan-open-to-idea-of-twilight-or-night-grand-final-20150217-13h74z.html Now if you don't accept this then I suspect it is more ego than anything at this stage. Despite this I will now refer to these comments made by you: "The product is more well known, therefore it is better – what absolute rubbish!" As I tried explaining to you it is very possible for a product to become better the more well known it becomes. I gave you an example from my own experience on how watching the AFL GF in Sydney is a lesser experience than watching it in Melbourne - thus the product isn't as good. This also occurs with the SuperBowl. However, the main difference being it's popularity has reached 'critical mass' in the States and as a result it has become the biggest sporting event in their calendar year. Now I'm sure you have heard of the Bandwagon affect? It is a basic principle taught to most people in first year marketing. Read the following to learn about it and also it's affect in relation to the SuperBowl: http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/a-marketer-learn-super-bowl/239493/ I'm not going to explain the Bandwagon effect any further, it's pretty self explanatory and again highlights the point I'm making. Lets move onto the 'networking' effect. The telephone. Yep, the network effect has been around since the early 1900's. Read this to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect The more telephones owned the more valuable the telephone becomes to each owner? Why is that TomC? Well It's simple, the more people on the network means more people you can communicate with. The product as a result becomes BETTER! Lets look closer to our generation. Read this: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3971/3207 This talks about a similar phenomenon in Facebook. It started out as simple social-networking site between university students and proliferated world wide from there. Once the networking affect reached 'critical mass' the Bandwagon effect kicked in. The product in Facebook all of a sudden became infinitely better precisely because MORE people knew about it. Although not the birth of social-networking, it certainly will be remembered as the product which made it mainstream. One final thing for you to read if you can be bothered. This link critiques a paper written back in 1950, which holds very true today. It discusses the psychological affects of these three factors when it comes to marketing: Bandwagon, snob and Veblen effects. http://www.123helpme.com/bandwagon-snob-and-veblen-effects-view.asp?id=160250 You are way out of your depth in this conversation, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have on the topic - providing you ask politely. :)

In Melbourne they were down 12%. They would've been down nationally were it not for Port fans and the Adelaide Oval.

To your second question Rick- yes, that is what I'm saying. If you look at my other posts you'll see my point- that every Australian save for the odd North Queensland farmer has already heard of the game, and the opinions on the game are hardly going to be changed by playing the Grand Final at night. Nobody follows NFL just because the Super Bowl is played at a certain time, they follow it because they like the nature of the sport (Which frankly, I don't- helmets, shoulder pads and long pants just take away the tough-guy image for me. Not to mention the constant interchanging of the entire team and the breaks every 30 seconds while the referee radios information to god-knows-who). To your first question- I thought we had established that all the extra revenue would have to go into players' salaries. Given that the players are overwhelmingly opposed to a night Grand Final, they will expect nothing less in return for this.

I'm not sure fans are thrilled about matches broadcast at 4.40pm, nor midweek night games. It seems as though these innovations are targeted purely at TV. But you're right that the AFL could go further with these or other strategies. What do you mean about Seven on a Friday night, though?

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, there seemed to be a reaction against the new ticketing model.

I'm reading a lot of 'I have a lot of evidence! Heaps!' and no actual evidence. Is that witty enough?

Crowds were up last year

"But you can see my point- that any financial benefits of a night Grand Final are very limited in a practical sense." I don't see your logic. Are you saying the extra revenue gained can't be used in a very constructive way outside of the salary cap? Are you saying the extra million odd viewers wouldn't be of benefit when trying to promote the game of Aussie Rules in our own country?

"Don’t get my going on equity though andy. It is a different discussion and I’m not a firm believer in total equalisation anyway." I agree with you that equalization has its limits and don't want to go further on that here. But you can see my point- that any financial benefits of a night Grand Final are very limited in a practical sense.

Has the AFL maximised broadcast revenue at the expense of fans? AFL fans are very well catered for in terms of live footy. Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney get all the games for their teams on FTA live. Seven had to take a hit to their revenue in doing Friday night games live. If it wanted to, the AFL could be less fan friendly and actually make more revenue from TV broadcasting.

TomC "I absolutely understand what the product is. It’s the sport, and the elements around the sport that make it distinctive, not the elements that make it the same as everything else." No you don't. I'm going to give you one guess who recently said these exact words: "The thing the US generally does is understand that they are there to provide entertainment and service to its supporters." That was Gillon and he made specific reference in this press conference how the GF in his view should be about entertaining the crowd. This was his line straight after: "Every part of that game [Super Bowl] is directed at ensuring that their supporters enjoy their day out and enjoy the television product" The product is the SuperBowl, not American Football. You still fail to differentiate the two and I'm not going to bother explaining this further. The product (SuperBowl) is an entertainment package and as such the more people getting involved generally enhances the product. It does not mean the game of American Football itself is any better though - again a distinction you fail to realise. Have you ever been to a pub in Sydney to watch the AFL GF? I have and as a general rule it stinks compared to Melbourne. Why? Because there are not as many people interested in it and therefore the atmosphere is severely lacking. Does this make the game of AFL any better or worse? No. Does it make the entertainment experience of watching it in Sydney any less? Yes and it's precisely why you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should do a short marketing course, because I could bombard you with so much research it would make your head spin as to how wrong you are. This conversation is beyond your capability of understanding, so I would just walk away from it before you 'embarrass' yourself further. Feel free though to end with some witty comment to save face as I'm done with this convo.

Everything you said follows from that line. I didn't ignore everything else you said. I just dismissed it because it's all part of your simplistic world view that exposure equals money equals power. And I was quite right to do so. I absolutely understand what the product is. It's the sport, and the elements around the sport that make it distinctive, not the elements that make it the same as everything else. The bells and whistles might attract extra eyeballs but rarely do they build a sustainable relationship with the customers. That's what you don't understand and haven't addressed.

and why are we talking about changing the GF time again? Just messing with you - I think I have made my point :)

Andy The money from the TV rights go directly to the AFL who then distribute it back to the clubs. Now the salary cap will go up as a result of this and 'yes' the Bulldogs can and will use these extra funds. Why? Because they have to pay 92 per cent (I think it's still this amount) of the salary cap irrespective of what it is. Don't get my going on equity though andy. It is a different discussion and I'm not a firm believer in total equalisation anyway.

Last years fixture debacle is a good example. The AFL tried introducing Sunday night matches to please the TV networks and the fans stopped coming as a result.

Largely because the US is a major player on the world stage. So anything that happens there (politics etc) can have repurcussions around the world. Also yes. TV, films, music etc from the US are all very popular. The Superbowl does generate interest (if only for the novelty factor), but that's about it. However the only reason I'm still talking about it now is because of the talk about changing the grand final to a twilight/ night match. If no one were suggesting we change the grand final time I probably wouldn't give the Super Bowl a second thought.