On Thursday, I enjoyed my birthday with cheap champagne, a trip to the rollercoasters and a Souths victory over Wests.
This was done by ignoring my better intuitions and taste buds, friends that insisted on scaring the life of me, and the wonders of the internet.
Outside of Australasia, you can pay £25/month for a WatchNRL pass – it gives you access to all eight games, and all the relevant talk shows.
Even in times of deep economic recession, I can say it is money well spent. I subscribed in the early post-lockdown days, as the NRL restarted to hales of safety-conscious, bandana-wearing indignation, and most people constituted going outside with certain death.
The only thing that continues to keep me anything resembling sane are liberal interpretation of the British government’s diktats, inordinate amounts of gin, and the stability of knowing the Bunnies will raise your hopes just enough to dash them in the coming weeks.
WatchNRL is especially useful when the televisual broadcaster over here, Sky Sports, declines to put even half the games on TV, instead preferring to show highlights of the 2017 Gloucester Cheese Roll or nasal-gazing Premier League stars from their lounges through Zoom.
The Bunnies sure do know how to disappoint. (Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
With the ever-expanding digitisation of our lives, from smartphones to fridges, toilets and performance enhancers (one day), and streaming services taking more and more sports rights, its not beyond the realms of possibility to suggest top-tier rugby league will eventually be broadcast domestically over the internet.
But would this be desirable or wise? I admit that I am not the most neutral of judges when it comes to such a debate.
Despite my thankfulness for NRL streaming, and the ironic fact that you’re reading this over the internet, I myself am not a fan of the increasing Anschluss of IT into every fabric of our lives: I may be one of the only people under 25 not to use social media and prefer my news from paper than randomers on the dark corners of the web. (Please feel free to comment below).
That said, even this relative Luddite appreciates the role that the internet can have.
Whilst fans are locked out by limited capacities, and personal incomes decimated by self-inflicted economic suicide, it makes some sense to allow fans of individual clubs to pay a one-off fee to watch their team for 80 minutes than fork out $$$ for a service that they won’t use most of the time.
It may allow the NRL to forego the middleman, keep the profit that the TV companies factor in for themselves, and reinvest it into the game instead of the televisual suits and faceless higher-ups.
There’s also a strain of thought that desires the transition away from terrestrial broadcasting to satiate the younger demographic that have shunned traditional TV for on-demand streaming.
As much as the old boys may not like to hear it, it is important for long-term stability to get the eyeballs of the yoof on what we have to offer.
Many of the same arguments against internet streaming were used against TV broadcasting back in ye olden days – when the French gave a gallic shrug and a firm ‘non’ to national TV coverage, for fear of damaging crowds, those domestic attendances have reduced into the contemporary irrelevancy it finds itself in today.
Whilst the game needs to adapt with the times, shifting entirely to an on-demand streaming service is fraught with danger. Like everything online, there’s a risk that the game falls into a self-perpetuating echo chamber that shuts out the wider community within which it exists.
Obviously, it won’t suddenly disappear out of the national conscience. But just as it took 20 years of plugging to finally produce a Victorian NRL player, if the game turns in on itself, catering only for its most hardened-on fans, it can hardly expect the rest of the country to follow it down the internet rabbit hole.
The link to the casual viewer, those not caught in the intrepid, self-defeating and churlish code wars, who may even be inspired to attend a game based on what they’ve seen on TV, aren’t going to fork out on a specialist subscription.
In direct contrast to everything the modern world stands for, the answer lies with some form of compromise.
If the TV companies are losing money, then a renegotiated smaller deal can be acceptable, as was seen in May this year. Perhaps if six of the eight games were shown via tele (some free-to-air), with two through a streaming service.
But I’m not Peter V’landys: I can’t pull off the smart-casual look, I still have most of my barnet, and most importantly I am not familiar with the inner workings of sports broadcasting negotiations.
The game must not give up on traditional TV, for it stands to lose links with the wider public and the casual viewer.
But if the right suitor comes along to complement existing coverage, it would be churlish to decline.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
I think you make great points. Content creation (and maybe bundling) is the role Private Equity will hopefully take. TV stations and streaming channels will be commoditised and capture a relatively small chunk of the value. The sports themselves don’t have the capability in this country, so I don’t see how else it will play.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
But there’s no money in it with 9’s business model. 9 makes it money by integrating ad revenue with sport. An additional steaming channel is a no brainer, but it’s cannibalising it’s own product to a degree. It costs nothing but it gains little. 9 likely loses on live sport content on a transactional basis as the ad revenue doesn’t cover the cost of the sport, but it brings in the punters who will stick around and watch the stuff they do make money off. This won’t happen with streaming. I wouldn’t want to have shares in PayTV or FTA.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
Are you responding to me? Weird, if so. PPV is not a subscription model - even if it has subscribers. Unless you want each game to be PPV.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
Sure it's cream - it’s a digital good with no marginal cost. But it’s only cream - it is slim pickings as the main meal. Or cake....
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Floyd Mayweather's bank account says you're wrong. He had 4.3 million pay-per-view customers for his 'fight' with Conor McGregor, and banked a $55m gate. His total PPV earnings are allegedly $1.6 billion.
mushi
Roar Guru
Advertising is a frictional cost of buyers meeting sellers. Technically anything cutting that us positive for everyone like lower bank transaction fees.
Adam Bagnall
Roar Guru
Streaming such as via Kayo will dominate the landscape from now on, as the traditional model of FTA tv is dead. However there is still a place for it for elderly people who don't have internet or those in country areas where internet isnt as good. For me it's all about streaming and online. Haven't purchased a paper in at least 5 years, haven't watched free to air since the 2019 GF.
Paul
Roar Guru
First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your piece, Tom. You have a writing style that's both funny and educational, which makes it a pleasurable read. In term of the streaming debate, surely it's just another one of the pantheon of media options we have available now? Years ago, when there was only one or two matches broadcast on TV per week, many of us had our ears tuned into the wireless, listening to the dulcet tones of Frank Hyde saying "it's high enough, it's long enough....". Fast forward a few decades and we can watch league through all manner of media, BUT we still have audio only broadcast and these still have a very faithful following. Ditto for actual newspapers. In saying that, I'd have been in huge trouble trying to watch the finals last year in SE Asia because the local TV had wall to wall soccer. Thankfully there were a few smart bar owners who invested the AUD $199 ( not sure why you're paying 25 quid a month?), so I got to watch the games. More importantly, I watched with a bunch of mates in full pubs, which is the next best thing to being at a game, IMO. Streaming is here to stay. It will find its niche in the broadcast market, but I doubt greatly it will dominate, certainly not in my lifetime.
mushi
Roar Guru
Definitely will have to have the capacity to bundle, but that's kind of just like being part of a sports network anyway. The big question will be content creation, will there be content creation companies that buy the rights to then sell into bundles and benefit from the scale and specific expertise, or will it be part of the NRL. If the strategy is to do it in house then they are best off not bundling at first capturing the excess margin as the market transitions to bundling and using that to build the infrastructure to produce content. To be fair they could have already done this but relied on the market not changing.... In the end there will likely be less money overall for sports, particularly geographically niche ones, but then Sports is just going through the same valuation cycle that other media has done. We just lagged music, broadcasting and movies by a decade or so due to the live nature.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
"The truth is that media companies pay more for sport than what it’s worth" and that price is known and budgeted for. You can't run a sport if you don't know how many subscribers you are going to have at any point in time, and how long they stick around for. For the time being many sports will run a subscription only service in areas outside of their main market, and that money is cream.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Weird. You list 4 or 5 reasons why streaming is A Good Thing but no specific reason why FTA shouldn't be given the boot.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
This is something I'm very passioniate about, being someone who doesn't care for the 'classical feel' and the way things 'used to be' so I'll certainly chime in here. Online streaming is the way of the future. Even if its not through a speciality service, services like 9now offer the exact same thing as free to air, and its online streaming. This sort of platform unlocks so much more for viewers. When the NRL wakes up, they'll see specialty apps are the way to go. NBA, NFL, NHL and even the WWE all have specialty services, cutting out the middle man. mINvest in the platform and it will 100% make more money than the current deals, and will appeal to more viewers, as well as the younger crowd. For the NRL to prosper in todays day and age, they need to move away from relying on terrestrial TV and embrace the internet for what it is, a major sharing platform for information and content.
Tony
Roar Guru
Tom, I personally welcome any article that manages to use both Gloucester Cheese Roll and anschluss in the argument. 25 quid per month (my keyboard doesn't have the pound sign) may be a tad expensive when compared to media available in Australia like Kayo, but I guess it's better than nothing. Ultimately, how we watch sport and everything else will depend on how we, the unwashed masses, take accept and adapt to the never ending upward spiral of technological advancement. I ready for it.
Nat
Roar Rookie
This is a weird article. Is it nostalgia for the sake of it and ignoring every commercial reality that allows you to stream 8 games a week from the other side of the world.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
The business model of streaming can’t generate the money Pay TV, or even FTA, can. Don’t get me wrong, PTV and FTV may not survive, but specialist sport streaming won’t cover the costs, unless the players all take a big pay cut. The truth is that media companies pay more for sport than what it’s worth. That is, they lose money on the sport by itself but make it by bundling it with other content. If you had a streaming service with only premium sport, you’d go broke fast. Optus does soccer but they make their money from phone contracts. Amazon is doing it but they bundle it with.... well, everything. Netflix don’t do it and never will. The good news is Fox Sports will soon be dead. For those interested, here is a great blog post that’s been around for years; however I don’t think most of the journalists that write about this subject have seen it, which is why many of them simply don’t get it. https://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-buyers
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I've always loved my newspapers and still do but the idea that it's in any way sensible to have a newspaper like the old Saturday edition of the SMH whereby you take at least half of the sections and throw them in the bin straight away was never going to last when we have an alternative like the internet. The ''rivers of gold'' flowing from the advertisers was great as long as you weren't an advertiser.
andrew
Roar Rookie
Under 25 and not on social media, well Tom I'm over 25 and also not on social media. The Roar is my form of social media and being with Telstra i can watch NRL games on my phone for free. The digital world is forever ,evolving, can't imagine what it would be like in 10, 20 or 50 years .