Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 7:07 am  

WC wrote:

Why is it people struggle with the obvious re the conflict. I'm interested. Deniers take it away... Cant wait.

Cool, assuming thats aimed at me, which bit of the C.o.I am I denying?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 7:10 am  

It wasnt at you but feel free...

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 7:15 am  

WC wrote:

It wasnt at you but feel free...

Sorry bud, crossed wires and urgent need for caffine.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 7:18 am  

joedynamo wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you're a pay TV company tryin to sell subscriptions and create extra value to advertising rates..Those with an interest in RL will be watching your channel for most of the late afternoon/ evening. Improves the reach no end.

But does it make sense for every game to go out live? Money wise yes, but attendence wise..

Its going to be interesting to see what happens to the Afl numbers from next yr.

Feel free to delete this nxt bit btw, but whats happened to the Attendence Tracker thread? Doesnt a thread with no discussion allowed go against what an internet forum should be about?

It will be, Would a drop in attendences be acceptable if the tv money more than covered it?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 7:59 am  

Balancing act. Defeats the purpose of showing it if crowds are low. I have never personally gone to a Monday pm game...I have a conflict. I generally tape it on iq.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 8:32 am  

Sheldon wrote:

It will be, Would a drop in attendences be acceptable if the tv money more than covered it?

Dunno, havent you and others argued that attendnce at the elite level is the key factor in assessing the popularity of a sport, even though this ignores (real) participation rates and cultural significance and can also be influenced by other factors.

As WC states, 'its a balancing act"...one which has been tipped in favour of the TV companies and against RL in Australia since the SL war. Imho of course

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 10:36 am  

Key factor? No a important one and certainly more important than, what could be seen as flawed, tv ratings.

If your getting more fans in attendences and more cash for tv deals something is very wrong.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 10:39 am  

Yeah the conflict you keep ignoring...

TV ratings - capturing all the regionals in Australia - are a better indicator than gates.

Otherwise, sports like union and soccer wouldn't be more than half a billion behind the sports that do rate - rugby league, followed by AFL...

Which part of 77 out of 100 top pay TV programs and biggest FTA televiser is a struggle?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 10:50 am  

Counting only 5 capital cities has been shown to be seriously flawed.

Why? Check out the top 20 population centres in the country sometime...

There is a reason why the AFL uses 5 capital cities. Because it skews ratings and makes them look closer to the NRL than they actually are...

But I wouldn't expect that to be pointed out here.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:08 am  

Why am I ignoring the conflict of interest subject?

Are you saying the way tv ratings is collected is a 100% indication?

You have just pointed out the 5 cities subject, so why wouldn't you expect them to point be pointed out? Have you surprised yourself by doing it?