Next Broadcasting Deal
-
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness
Sky's supidness and whittling of the product? what do you mean by that?
Sky's job is to make money. They sell subs and ads, and create the markets for those by buying products to watch. Their only real skin is to pay as little for that product as possible.
-
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness
Sky's supidness and whittling of the product? what do you mean by that?
Sky's job is to make money. They sell subs and ads, and create the markets for those by buying products to watch. Their only real skin is to pay as little for that product as possible.
Decreasing the money for the rugby is going to whittle down the product, which could lead to a decrease subs and ads, and at that point then they could have been stupid.
I'm not saying they are stupid now, or it's whittled down too far now, but clearly there is a cross over point, and Sky will want to make sure they don't cross it.
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
i dont agree there is nothing to be learnt form things like the AFL.....the fact melbourne alone can be home to 9 fully profession clubs (all bigger than any NZ rugby team, plus another two moved interstate but with large melbourne support) and will huge numbers to the ground every week...makes you think NZ should be able to do better...we just need a seachange....i just dont see much of an effort to actually get more people watching, comes across as arrogant, "we're NZR...we just play and people will watch"
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
Yep I see most points here, The biggest problem in NZ is there is no competition for broadcasting rugby really. That disappeared once Spark went tits up. The only reason it stays as high as it does is that without rugby, Sky folds. NZR always knew they were getting money shaved of broadcasting deal this time round.
It hard to compare with NRL/AFL, who have no comp for players, but operate in a multi channel market, with a big population. For all the big money leaguies etc in Aus aren't makingmore money than Union players at top end, and have huge advatage there nowhere else for their players to go and get bigger coin, Same as sabbaticals etc, I would rather ABs went on sabbaticals than disappeared completely. -
the thing i ask myself...if there isn't competition for the rights....why? if its becasue these other companies dont see value in it then thats the main sign our product isn't good and we need to change it
my personal feeling is its only us rugby weirdos that truely care about having the best players playing the best rugby at all times....but the the market of people that just want some sport with a competitive and understandable competition with some fluff like fantasy or drafts is much larger
-
Got this money coming, too
Qatar Airways agrees £80m sponsorship deal for rugby union’s Nations Championship
Qatar Airways has agreed a deal to become title sponsors of the new Nations Championship, underlining rugby union’s determination to secure investment from the Middle East
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
i dont agree there is nothing to be learnt form things like the AFL.....the fact melbourne alone can be home to 9 fully profession clubs (all bigger than any NZ rugby team, plus another two moved interstate but with large melbourne support) and will huge numbers to the ground every week...makes you think NZ should be able to do better...we just need a seachange....i just dont see much of an effort to actually get more people watching, comes across as arrogant, "we're NZR...we just play and people will watch"
Oh yeah, I'm not claiming there's nothing to be learnt from AFL etc, but I think we need to acknowledge that there are pretty big differences. AFL has always had huge crowd support right?,Even the NRL has only fairly recently started having big crowd numbers. I think this year was the highest average of the NRL era.
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
the thing i ask myself...if there isn't competition for the rights....why? if its becasue these other companies dont see value in it then thats the main sign our product isn't good and we need to change it
my personal feeling is its only us rugby weirdos that truely care about having the best players playing the best rugby at all times....but the the market of people that just want some sport with a competitive and understandable competition with some fluff like fantasy or drafts is much larger
We don't have the media landscape in NZ, probably due to market size. I'm sure TVNZ and TV3 etc would love to bid for the rights, but I assume they don't have as deep a pockets as Oz FTV channels to make that feasible.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
the thing i ask myself...if there isn't competition for the rights....why? if its becasue these other companies dont see value in it then thats the main sign our product isn't good and we need to change it
There certainly won't be competition within NZ. TVNZ has been busy cutting jobs/shows and trying to find $30M to survive. They have inherited the cricket from Spark Sport but it is a sport that lends itself to having ads after every over. There is no way people would watch rugby filled with ad breaks. Sky does that for selected sport on SkyOpen.
TV3/Newshub no longer exists in its previous form and is now part of Stuff. Bascially, the only real alternatives are international streaming services.
-
@Bovidae said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
way people would watch rugby filled with ad breaks
disagree. The free-to-air NRL, AFL and Origin games are chock full of ads, and they rate through the roof.
-
@Bovidae said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
the thing i ask myself...if there isn't competition for the rights....why? if its becasue these other companies dont see value in it then thats the main sign our product isn't good and we need to change it
TV3/Newshub no longer exists in its previous form and is now part of Stuff. Bascially, the only real alternatives are international streaming services.
Thats kind of what i was getting at, but getting an international streamer on board means a product that can be sold to new overseas fans like we might follow premier league football or the NFL....and to my mind to sell it to a new market we need a better product, one longer comp rather than two different ones with different formats etc...one long home and away league...easy to understand
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Kiwiwomble said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@mariner4life said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
objectively the math doesn't add up to a huge deal.
A small population with what appears to be a shrinking percentage actively engaged in or with rugby.
One realistic broadcast option, with no free-to-air interest.
A lack of product at key times. The season is stretched too long with too many gaps, and not enough games in prime slots regularly. Even worse during the ridiculously extended test season with no games for weeks.
Half the product being Super Rugby which gets nothing but bad press and bad reviews. Another portion being NPC rugby played by kids and club players in front of their families.You throw in NZR moves to further piss off the supporter base like the sabaticals which allow household names to not only miss half the broadcasted product, but to go play in other markets. Or taking test matches away from NZ and playing in the states.
The numbers guys at Sky aren't stupid.
Compare and contrast to NRL/AFL. More people. More product. More engagement. Constant cheerleading about the amazing product. Genuine competition driven by the free-to-air channels. And they reap the rewards.
Cheers for the discussion points ever though I don't agree with a bunch of it (you and I want different stuff from our rugby, that's fine), but obviously agree with the market size problem.
Don't agree with the usual bring up the NRL/ARL comparison, it's a given that rugby can't compete with that in Australia, but that has always been true, and a 20+ million competitive broadcasting market is a completely different beast. But, it's not hugely relevant to NZ even though the NZ sports media have been dick riding the NRL bandwagon the last two years.
However, I do believe that rugby is still the golden goose for Sky. I know on the Fern a lot are fans of a range of sports (cricket, NRL, US sports etc) so a sports package has value outside of rugby, but many of the people I know in real life have it mainly for the rugby still. I still think it drives subscriptions for Sky so if they whittle the product down anymore I 'm not as confident as you in their non stupidness.
i dont agree there is nothing to be learnt form things like the AFL.....the fact melbourne alone can be home to 9 fully profession clubs (all bigger than any NZ rugby team, plus another two moved interstate but with large melbourne support) and will huge numbers to the ground every week...makes you think NZ should be able to do better...we just need a seachange....i just dont see much of an effort to actually get more people watching, comes across as arrogant, "we're NZR...we just play and people will watch"
Oh yeah, I'm not claiming there's nothing to be learnt from AFL etc, but I think we need to acknowledge that there are pretty big differences. AFL has always had huge crowd support right?,Even the NRL has only fairly recently started having big crowd numbers. I think this year was the highest average of the NRL era.
just double checking and the average attendance in the late 80's or early 90's seems to be 10k-20k....which doesnt feel much more than we use to see at NPC and then super in the 90's...although i might be romanticising
-
Newscorp in its current form runs print media/news websites as well as streaming of games which is also now getting stronger in their social media channels too. AFL and NRL also have a FTA angle as part of the deal for some games and the FTA also play their part (also in the deal). AFL and NRL tap into this, including drafts/fantasy that also tap into this.
I dont think NZR does enough in all mediums to sell their products. Sky only pays for whats in its own scope. For me this is more on NZR not Sky. -
-
@Bones said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
they lag behind Netflix and Disney.
Is that the case in NZ?
Data is a bit old but Prime had roughly 450k subscribers and Disney 1.25m subscribers according to this article.
Islands in the stream - New Zealand Marketing Magazine
With streaming services introducing ads, what does this mean for brands looking for new audiences, and how are local operators responding?
I couldn't find any recent data. Maybe Amazon the store is bigger in NZ now and that has increased subsciptions?
-
@Nepia geez, a quarter of the population? And also a sixth as many subscribers as the the UK by the looks of things. Didn't expect Disney to be so popular.
I'm guessing with prime being a late comer those stats might have changed.
But I digress.....
-
@Bones said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia geez, a quarter of the population? And also a sixth as many subscribers as the the UK by the looks of things. Didn't expect Disney to be so popular.
I'm guessing with prime being a late comer those stats might have changed.
But I digress.....
Yeah seems high for Disney ... but I guess - kids.
-
@Nepia said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Bones said in Next Broadcasting Deal:
@Nepia geez, a quarter of the population? And also a sixth as many subscribers as the the UK by the looks of things. Didn't expect Disney to be so popular.
I'm guessing with prime being a late comer those stats might have changed.
But I digress.....
Yeah seems high for Disney ... but I guess - kids.
I figured the rest of the world has kids too, pretty sure I've seen some over here.
-
i considered Disney+ one of the big ones, maybe not netflix big but in the running with all the rest, with the marvel stuff (previously) and Star wars i have probably watch it more than Amazon
-
@Kiwiwomble had it for a couple of months, got into The Bear but found it pretty shit to navigate and couldn't figure out what star wars or marvel stuff was the good ones. Use prime all the time.
I was surprised at how big Disney is but it's not as big as prime.
-
Disney in Australia are starting to consider their sports platform, so it could be a possibility down the road they look to do the same thing here.
Could Disney pull sports from DAZN-Foxtel in Australia this July?
And has Disney-ESPN just signalled greater international intentions to keep the NFL?
