Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:11 am  

You can't say that Sky is underpaying RL based purely on volume of audience, because volume really doesn't tell advertisers and broadcasters very much at all. What the sport needs to do is actually look hard at what it offers to Sky, what more it could offer and how it goes about trying to attract more of the sorts of audiences that advertisers want to reach.

I think that you have put words into my mouth or tried to read my mind (which is dangerous).

Do you think that RL should be trying to change the demographic of it's cor supporter base, in order to try and please Sky.
One may have thought that they would like to have a diverse range of sport's within their portfolio, in order to attract as wide a spectrum of viewers as possible.
Your typical RL supporter may eat pizza/McDonald's and spend their cash at Betfred but, even they have a value to Sky and their ilk.
It's not all about Rolex watches and long haul flights.

ITV are happy to show the X factor and Corrie and who do you think their market is ?

[Wildthing]

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:22 am  

DGM wrote:

Who else would you be referring to? You're not exactly a genius writing an indecipherable code are you? Anyway, good to see an "official" mod posting to try and antagonise posters and adding nothing to the conversation, no wonder RLfans is struggling.

Feel free to apply to Site Admin to Officially Moderate this 'struggling' site.
You do enjoy criticising the Moderating process, maybe you should come on board and sort it, no?

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:26 am  

bramleyrhino wrote: I've said this on a previous discussion, but it's not simply a case of demanding more from Sky because we think that we deserve more, or because we think that they can afford more. It's about looking at what value we really offer Sky. According to this, an "average" SL game in 2015 generated 299,300 viewers. However, advertisers and broadcasters don't simply look at the volume, they look at the segmentation and the profile of the audience. Broadcasters (both incumbent and prospective) will try to determine how much of that audience makes their purchasing decision on the basis of RL content (so how much Sky could lose, or BT gain) and how easily it can sell that audience to advertisers. Advertisers will look at the (for want of a better word) "quality" of the audience. We're a sport predominantly watched by what marketing people call C2DE (it's an out-dated model - most advertisers use MOSAIC profiling but I won't get into that) - the same sort of audience that watches Premier League darts. These are audiences with generally less purchasing power and so advertisers are going to be less likely to want to pay to reach those audiences, and those that are will only be prepared to pay so much to reach them. It's why Aviva is prepared to pay £5m a year to sponsor RU's Premiership, yet Betfred is only prepared to pay £900,000 a year for the Super League. And this problem is only going to get worse for RL. Sky is already trialling programmatic TV advertising, where advertisers can send advertisments to individual households based on their demographic profile (and eventually, factors such as their internet search history), and that will allow advertisers to become even more selective about the people they reach and the content they sandwich themselves between. At the moment, advertisers mass-media buy - it is how broadcasters fill their slots, but as more targeted advertising takes off, advertisers can divert their budgets away from mass-media buying and pay more to direct it straight to audiences that arer most likely to purchase. That could hurt RL quite significantly if broadcasters see how much (or little) advertisers are prepared to pay to reach RL-watching audiences. You can't say that Sky is underpaying RL based purely on volume of audience, because volume really doesn't tell advertisers and broadcasters very much at all. What the sport needs to do is actually look hard at what it offers to Sky, what more it could offer and how it goes about trying to attract more of the sorts of audiences that advertisers want to reach. Rugby League at its best is a fantastic spectacle that should appeal to those that like sport right across the social spectrum - irrespective of the origins of the game. We are seeing signs of that with 8,000 crowds in Toronto. That's why I keep saying Sky is wrong to go in the opposite direction and "dumb down" the product with commentators like O'Connor. It's in Sky's own hands to push the game up market in the way it is presented and with "posher," more intelligent commentators. That way it can start pushing out the social boundaries of who buys into and become advocates for the game. RL in the UK will always have it's core, traditional audience but there is no reason why the appeal cannot be extended if things are done the right way. Like Soccer really. Traditionalists might not like it, but someone with a high profile Union background joining the Sky RL commentary team would give the process a quick kick start. All depends on who would be up for it. But its why I've previously suggested possibilities like Will Greenwood, Brian Moore, Wilkinson, Dallaglio etc

bramleyrhino wrote: I've said this on a previous discussion, but it's not simply a case of demanding more from Sky because we think that we deserve more, or because we think that they can afford more. It's about looking at what value we really offer Sky. According to this, an "average" SL game in 2015 generated 299,300 viewers. However, advertisers and broadcasters don't simply look at the volume, they look at the segmentation and the profile of the audience. Broadcasters (both incumbent and prospective) will try to determine how much of that audience makes their purchasing decision on the basis of RL content (so how much Sky could lose, or BT gain) and how easily it can sell that audience to advertisers. Advertisers will look at the (for want of a better word) "quality" of the audience. We're a sport predominantly watched by what marketing people call C2DE (it's an out-dated model - most advertisers use MOSAIC profiling but I won't get into that) - the same sort of audience that watches Premier League darts. These are audiences with generally less purchasing power and so advertisers are going to be less likely to want to pay to reach those audiences, and those that are will only be prepared to pay so much to reach them. It's why Aviva is prepared to pay £5m a year to sponsor RU's Premiership, yet Betfred is only prepared to pay £900,000 a year for the Super League. And this problem is only going to get worse for RL. Sky is already trialling programmatic TV advertising, where advertisers can send advertisments to individual households based on their demographic profile (and eventually, factors such as their internet search history), and that will allow advertisers to become even more selective about the people they reach and the content they sandwich themselves between. At the moment, advertisers mass-media buy - it is how broadcasters fill their slots, but as more targeted advertising takes off, advertisers can divert their budgets away from mass-media buying and pay more to direct it straight to audiences that arer most likely to purchase. That could hurt RL quite significantly if broadcasters see how much (or little) advertisers are prepared to pay to reach RL-watching audiences. You can't say that Sky is underpaying RL based purely on volume of audience, because volume really doesn't tell advertisers and broadcasters very much at all. What the sport needs to do is actually look hard at what it offers to Sky, what more it could offer and how it goes about trying to attract more of the sorts of audiences that advertisers want to reach. Rugby League at its best is a fantastic spectacle that should appeal to those that like sport right across the social spectrum - irrespective of the origins of the game. We are seeing signs of that with 8,000 crowds in Toronto. That's why I keep saying Sky is wrong to go in the opposite direction and "dumb down" the product with commentators like O'Connor. It's in Sky's own hands to push the game up market in the way it is presented and with "posher," more intelligent commentators. That way it can start pushing out the social boundaries of who buys into and become advocates for the game. RL in the UK will always have it's core, traditional audience but there is no reason why the appeal cannot be extended if things are done the right way. Like Soccer really. Traditionalists might not like it, but someone with a high profile Union background joining the Sky RL commentary team would give the process a quick kick start. All depends on who would be up for it. But its why I've previously suggested possibilities like Will Greenwood, Brian Moore, Wilkinson, Dallaglio etc

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:30 am  

I don't understand the link which you're trying to make between Sky TV, RL and advertisers.

If Sky was a free to air channel, and they were trying to recoup their outlay through advertising revenue, then fair enough.

However, it isn't, it is a subscription based service, where a RL fan has to pay a minimum of £18/month to access the appropriate Sky Sports channel.

Yes I know that we will all be subsidising the Premier League football, but Sky do pretty well out of their RL subscribers in terms of how much they bring in, compared to the amount they pay out, irrespective of any advertising.

Lets do the same basic maths as earlier, (exclusive of any advertising revenue/programme sponsorship they get too):

300000 RL subscribers at £18/mth for 12 mth = £65m per year

and yet they pay out just £36m per year for the RL rights

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:42 am  

Wildthing wrote:

Feel free to apply to Site Admin to Officially Moderate this 'struggling' site.
You do enjoy criticising the Moderating process, maybe you should come on board and sort it, no?

There isn't really a process to criticise is there? The listed moderator for the VT hasn't been online for 18months.

Even so, I'm hardly criticising a "process" am I, I'm criticising your efforts to try & wind up other posters.

[Wildthing]

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:42 am  

DGM wrote:

There isn't really a process to criticise is there? The listed moderator for the VT hasn't been online for 18months.

Even so, I'm hardly criticising a "process" am I, I'm criticising your efforts to try & wind up other posters.

So that's a no then, I expected as much.
As you were ...

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:44 am  

Wildthing wrote:

So that's a no then, I expected as much.
As you were ...

Another well constructed and meaningful post - "as you were" indeed.

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:04 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote: You can't say that Sky is underpaying RL based purely on volume of audience, because volume really doesn't tell advertisers and broadcasters very much at all. What the sport needs to do is actually look hard at what it offers to Sky, what more it could offer and how it goes about trying to attract more of the sorts of audiences that advertisers want to reach. I think that you have put words into my mouth or tried to read my mind (which is dangerous). Do you think that RL should be trying to change the demographic of it's cor supporter base, in order to try and please Sky. One may have thought that they would like to have a diverse range of sport's within their portfolio, in order to attract as wide a spectrum of viewers as possible. Your typical RL supporter may eat pizza/McDonald's and spend their cash at Betfred but, even they have a value to Sky and their ilk. It's not all about Rolex watches and long haul flights. ITV are happy to show the X factor and Corrie and who do you think their market is ? I do think that RL needs to diversify it's audience. I'm not, by any stretch, suggesting that we completely abandon the sports' roots - that too would cause problems - but I do think we need to embrace new audiences to survive and to ensure that we're delivering more value to Sky (or any other broadcaster) and that we're delivering growth across the sport. Yes, it's not all about advertising premium products, but there is also no getting away from the fact advertisers are willing to pay more to reach premium audiences. Taking on your point about Corrie or X Factor, I'll clarify that when I said "volume tells you little", that is less of an issue when you're talking about very high volume, mass-market content (and RL isn't in that league). Brands will advertise on a 'volume' basis when they simply want to "get in front of as many people as possible" - that's why John Lewis' or Coca-Cola's Christmas ads always debut during X Factor - because its about creating brand buzz that then gets amplified across other media. There's only a handful of advertisers that can attribute any sort of significant budget purely to "brand noise". It's in Sky's own hands to push the game up market in the way it is presented and with "posher," more intelligent commentators. That way it can start pushing out the social boundaries of who buys into and become advocates for the game. RL in the UK will always have it's core, traditional audience but there is no reason why the appeal cannot be extended if things are done the right I think that's a fair point about how the game is presented and good Lord, the Sky presentation package is in dire need of refreshing. Those Cyborgs playing to what sounds like a crappy stock-music backing track make me cringe. But again, I think it's down to all parties to do what they're can to appeal to more diverse audiences. We still have clubs that offer very limited facilities in terms of premium seating, we still have grounds where we expect people to go to the toilet in a glorified out-house or where the corporate facilities are poor. We also have clubs and a governing body that are far, far too quick to start discounting tickets and send voucher codes to all and sundry. And we have clubs rarely trying to expand their catchment area. There is a huge commuter flow in to Leeds from wealthy areas such as Harrogate, Ilkley and Skipton - how are a club like Leeds engaging with those audiences? I don't understand the link which you're trying to make between Sky TV, RL and advertisers. If Sky was a free to air channel, and they were trying to recoup their outlay through advertising revenue, then fair enough. However, it isn't, it is a subscription based service, where a RL fan has to pay a minimum of £18/month to access the appropriate Sky Sports channel. Yes I know that we will all be subsidising the Premier League football, but Sky do pretty well out of their RL subscribers in terms of how much they bring in, compared to the amount they pay out, irrespective of any advertising. Lets do the same basic maths as earlier, (exclusive of any advertising revenue/programme sponsorship they get too): 300000 RL subscribers at £18/mth for 12 mth = £65m per year and yet they pay out just £36m per year for the RL rights Firstly, don't be ridiculous in thinking that Sky doesn't care about advertising revenue. Sky AdSmart is currently one of it's biggest R&D projects right now. Where on earth are you getting a 300,000 figure from? That's probably more than the entire weekly average gate at SL, Champ and L1 games combined. You can't assume that the 300,000 watching on Sky equates to 300,000 subscribers - it's probably closer to 100k households. And you can't assume that all of those subscribing are doing so just for RL. I'm a multi-sport fan and I probably wouldn't ditch Sky if it lost RL. I assume I'm not alone in that.

wrencat1873 wrote: You can't say that Sky is underpaying RL based purely on volume of audience, because volume really doesn't tell advertisers and broadcasters very much at all. What the sport needs to do is actually look hard at what it offers to Sky, what more it could offer and how it goes about trying to attract more of the sorts of audiences that advertisers want to reach. I think that you have put words into my mouth or tried to read my mind (which is dangerous). Do you think that RL should be trying to change the demographic of it's cor supporter base, in order to try and please Sky. One may have thought that they would like to have a diverse range of sport's within their portfolio, in order to attract as wide a spectrum of viewers as possible. Your typical RL supporter may eat pizza/McDonald's and spend their cash at Betfred but, even they have a value to Sky and their ilk. It's not all about Rolex watches and long haul flights. ITV are happy to show the X factor and Corrie and who do you think their market is ? I do think that RL needs to diversify it's audience. I'm not, by any stretch, suggesting that we completely abandon the sports' roots - that too would cause problems - but I do think we need to embrace new audiences to survive and to ensure that we're delivering more value to Sky (or any other broadcaster) and that we're delivering growth across the sport. Yes, it's not all about advertising premium products, but there is also no getting away from the fact advertisers are willing to pay more to reach premium audiences. Taking on your point about Corrie or X Factor, I'll clarify that when I said "volume tells you little", that is less of an issue when you're talking about very high volume, mass-market content (and RL isn't in that league). Brands will advertise on a 'volume' basis when they simply want to "get in front of as many people as possible" - that's why John Lewis' or Coca-Cola's Christmas ads always debut during X Factor - because its about creating brand buzz that then gets amplified across other media. There's only a handful of advertisers that can attribute any sort of significant budget purely to "brand noise". It's in Sky's own hands to push the game up market in the way it is presented and with "posher," more intelligent commentators. That way it can start pushing out the social boundaries of who buys into and become advocates for the game. RL in the UK will always have it's core, traditional audience but there is no reason why the appeal cannot be extended if things are done the right I think that's a fair point about how the game is presented and good Lord, the Sky presentation package is in dire need of refreshing. Those Cyborgs playing to what sounds like a crappy stock-music backing track make me cringe. But again, I think it's down to all parties to do what they're can to appeal to more diverse audiences. We still have clubs that offer very limited facilities in terms of premium seating, we still have grounds where we expect people to go to the toilet in a glorified out-house or where the corporate facilities are poor. We also have clubs and a governing body that are far, far too quick to start discounting tickets and send voucher codes to all and sundry. And we have clubs rarely trying to expand their catchment area. There is a huge commuter flow in to Leeds from wealthy areas such as Harrogate, Ilkley and Skipton - how are a club like Leeds engaging with those audiences? I don't understand the link which you're trying to make between Sky TV, RL and advertisers. If Sky was a free to air channel, and they were trying to recoup their outlay through advertising revenue, then fair enough. However, it isn't, it is a subscription based service, where a RL fan has to pay a minimum of £18/month to access the appropriate Sky Sports channel. Yes I know that we will all be subsidising the Premier League football, but Sky do pretty well out of their RL subscribers in terms of how much they bring in, compared to the amount they pay out, irrespective of any advertising. Lets do the same basic maths as earlier, (exclusive of any advertising revenue/programme sponsorship they get too): 300000 RL subscribers at £18/mth for 12 mth = £65m per year and yet they pay out just £36m per year for the RL rights Firstly, don't be ridiculous in thinking that Sky doesn't care about advertising revenue. Sky AdSmart is currently one of it's biggest R&D projects right now. Where on earth are you getting a 300,000 figure from? That's probably more than the entire weekly average gate at SL, Champ and L1 games combined. You can't assume that the 300,000 watching on Sky equates to 300,000 subscribers - it's probably closer to 100k households. And you can't assume that all of those subscribing are doing so just for RL. I'm a multi-sport fan and I probably wouldn't ditch Sky if it lost RL. I assume I'm not alone in that.

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:34 pm  

All well and good trying to "expand" the game over there, but why not set their own league up? If it's lack of players then there's the other side of the world to pick from as well! There is absolutely no need to bring in American teams into a British league, it's alright for the Frenchies, but the logistics are going to cause more problems for the British based teams then they have at the moment.

RL here at the moment is like an elastic band, and what happens to that when you stretch it too far?

Re: 2 more transatlantic sides gunning for League 1 : Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:40 pm  

but the logistics are going to cause more problems for the British based teams then they have at the moment.

They don't seem to have been much of an issue so far? I imagine that a 7-8hr transatlantic flight is much easier than a 7-8hr bus ride between Newcastle and South Wales.

Aside from the issue of visas (and that's not guaranteed to be a stress-free issue in a couple of years), is a flight to France logistically easier than a flight to Toronto?