Brisbane football ratings: Sat 31 July

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Vulcan
A neverending arguement about ratings again.

The pay TV figures produced earlier are National not Queensland figures.So perhaps it's fairer to do the breakup roughly in line with population distibutions.
The penetration is 21% of households not population.
In other words hardly anyone is watching,except in clubs and pubs.
White shoes are still the fashion in Queensland it seems.
Even in Melbourne a pub owned by an AFL footballer insisted the rugby was shown despite requests by customers to show the AFL.
You wonder why don't you.
Or do you!

Some days i find it interesting, others .... oh well, i wonder if the rugby was not shown what % of veiwers would switch codes and what would the trade off be ....... 70/30 to the league or 60/40, perhaps 80/20. Who knows.

I think while QLD is still league territory a fair portion of it is no longer league heartland as LD likes to put it. Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast and the Gong must accept rules footy for the game to become truly national.

Sydney is being surrounded if you like, although i'm not sure if they culturally despise footy because of the Sydney/Melbourne thingy or they dont really care about sport fullstop.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
I think while QLD is still league territory a fair portion of it is no longer league heartland as LD likes to put it.

I disagree, but I do agree that RL is losing its grip on SEQ even though it's still market leader.

Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast and the Gong must accept rules footy for the game to become truly national.

Dont forget other highly populated areas adverse to AFL such as NSW/QLD country areas, more specifically Northern NSW, North Qld, Central Qld, etc

Sydney is being surrounded if you like, although i'm not sure if they culturally despise footy because of the Sydney/Melbourne thingy or they dont really care about sport fullstop.

I think the excellent crowds the Sydney Swans attract show that there is room for AFL in Sydney, and that Sydneysiders are prepared to embrace the blockbuster 'event' style games on show. I think this is because Sydneysiders have become accustomed to attending big games, but not so much the rest. I think this 'big game' mentality is part of Sydney culture, whereas in Melbourne there is a culture of attending football week in week out. I think that's because Melbourne is traditionally a one-code town that lives and breathes AFL. While many in Sydney live and breathe RL, there has always been a large representative season from the various codes, such as RU Test Matches, RL Test MAtches, SOO, RU World Cup, etc. Today, I would add Swans TS blockbusters to the 'rep season'.

I think the Sydney (pathetic) tv ratings show that Sydneysiders just dont care enough to live and breath the Swans or the game itself as they do in Melbourne.

I would argue the AFL can never ever recreate the Melbourne AFL culture anywhere in NSW & QLD, including Sydney or Brisbane. I think is because any AFL teams here are destined to remain just one of many footballing alternatives.

 

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by littleduck
Yes, households not population, meaning nobody can argue tht 21% represents paytv exposure to roughly 1 in 5 Australians. Clearly, thats wrong and the real penetration is much higher.

I think we need to know the number of households..

Also, the average household consists of more than 1 person, probably a family of 3 or 4, thus pushing up payTV coverage even higher.

Oh dear minute semantics are going to be tiresome.And I'm not a good typist.
Agree the number in households is about 3.5 persons simply based on the pay TV figures,that is about 5700000 give or take.
The population of the Brisbane area is,what? 2000000 thereabouts,meaning something like 120000 subscribe,split between whatever companies provide it.

FTA has pretty much 100% penetration yet in reality the viewer figures are lucky to be 20% of those on a good night.But lets assume if you subscribe to pay and I did once but gave it the flick,you are going to use it,more of those people watch,say double 40% to various channels,the figures are still pathetic.

The arguements by grayham are pretty close what ever angle you come from.

Basically nobody much cares about pay TV in this country.And quite right too it's basically a whole heap of rubbish.
And poor way of judging the success or otherwise of a leading sporting code.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Vulcan
The arguements by grayham are pretty close what ever angle you come from.

Basically nobody much cares about pay TV in this country.And quite right too it's basically a whole heap of rubbish.
And poor way of judging the success or otherwise of a leading sporting code.

You replied to the wrong post. Have a look at my researched post and follow my logic. I back my logic over grayhams. Not saying I'm right tho.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by littleduck
-
Out of 2.1 million, I would think an average of 600,000 per match would be realistic?

So you are saying, that those with Pay TV, something like 30% of them watch every NRL game over:
1) Not watching TV at all.
2) Watching any one of the other 30 channels
3) Watching Normal FTA TV.

You are delusional. Even SOO doesnt get that penetration. Nor even the Olympics.

You figures are so out of proportion that only "little birdies" could have told you to keep up this stupid line.


FWIW, the biggest TV events in Australias history only get 25% - 30% FTA penetration.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
Some days i find it interesting, others .... oh well, i wonder if the rugby was not shown what % of veiwers would switch codes and what would the trade off be ....... 70/30 to the league or 60/40, perhaps 80/20. Who knows.

I think while QLD is still league territory a fair portion of it is no longer league heartland as LD likes to put it. Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast and the Gong must accept rules footy for the game to become truly national.

Sydney is being surrounded if you like, although i'm not sure if they culturally despise footy because of the Sydney/Melbourne thingy or they dont really care about sport fullstop.

Interesting comments Phil, trying to incorporate some logic into your arguments, unlike some here....

League still has relavance in Brisbane...

The three highest rating Tv programs this year in Brisbane ( and Sydney for that matter) have been the three league SOO's.....25 years after inception the concept of QLD v NSW still as strong as ever....

I concede that the AFL would be wrapped in Brisbane crowds and ratings, but lets not forget that they have one of the best ever AFL sides representing them of all time, and everone loves a winner- geez the Swans got 1.2 Million watching them in the grand final eight years ago, yet only 89,000 bothered to watch them play the premiers last week??

The Swans have been in Sydney for 22 years, a whole generation have grown up knowing only the Swans - not South Melbourne, with the opportunity to watch all their games live on TV for that period, and not inconsiderable media attention and on field success during that period...

They can still only attract 89,000 viewers to a game where they had no competition on free to air TV from the No 1 sport in town?

The No 2 sport in town had one of their pinnacle games of the year outrated by the Friday night Footy League game the night before, so i don't buy the excuse that "everyone" was watching the Union...

I'm sure the bean counters at the AFL and Channel 10 are doing the maths and forming thier own opinions about the "success" of the Swans, regardless of what the opinions are here..

How much do you think Channel 10 is charging for advertising in Sydney during Swans games??

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by grayham
So you are saying, that those with Pay TV, something like 30% of them watch every NRL game over:
1) Not watching TV at all.
2) Watching any one of the other 30 channels
3) Watching Normal FTA TV.

Yeah, why couldn't it be true considering football is a major reason for subscribing in the first place?

You are delusional. Even SOO doesnt get that penetration. Nor even the Olympics.

You figures are so out of proportion that only "little birdies" could have told you to keep up this stupid line.


FWIW, the biggest TV events in Australias history only get 25% - 30% FTA penetration.

You're assuming payTV replicates FTA viewing habits. I wouldn't necessarily go along with that automatically, because payTV is a better demographic and football is a major reason for subscribing.

 

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
Some days i find it interesting, others .... oh well, i wonder if the rugby was not shown what % of veiwers would switch codes and what would the trade off be ....... 70/30 to the league or 60/40, perhaps 80/20. Who knows.

I think while QLD is still league territory a fair portion of it is no longer league heartland as LD likes to put it. Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast and the Gong must accept rules footy for the game to become truly national.

Sydney is being surrounded if you like, although i'm not sure if they culturally despise footy because of the Sydney/Melbourne thingy or they dont really care about sport fullstop.

That last bit is what my thinking has been for some time.The one think most of us outside Sydney have in common is that we live in one country and they live in their own.They virtual say that regularly,who could forget Keating.

This is now a little off topic but your thought I reckon is is the one way for AFL to really progress.And that is put them in the old pincer movement.

Attack from Brisbane down.With Melbourne in the South secure and Adelaide and Perth in the west,they can have New Zealand in the various Islands in the East.

Help the swans but forget anything else there for the moment.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Vulcan
That last bit is what my thinking has been for some time.The one think most of us outside Sydney have in common is that we live in one country and they live in their own.They virtual say that regularly,who could forget Keating.

This is now a little off topic but your thought I reckon is is the one way for AFL to really progress.And that is put them in the old pincer movement.

Attack from Brisbane down.With Melbourne in the South secure and Adelaide and Perth in the west,they can have New Zealand in the various Islands in the East.

Help the swans but forget anything else there for the moment.

I think that's what the AFL is trying to do.

But my argument is that AFL concentrates too heavily on the capital cities, which works fine in VIC SA WA with the vast majority residing in the metropolitan area, but that approach can't work as effectively in decentralised states, the biggest being Qld.

 

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by littleduck
You replied to the wrong post. Have a look at my researched post and follow my logic. I back my logic over grayhams. Not saying I'm right tho.

Didn't see it but apart from exact figures,as you claim you "logic" doesn't stand up.
Addressing the rest of what people say instead of selective quoting might might be more helpfull rather than choosing bits and pieces here and there.
You are not training to be a journelist fot television are you? They are particularly good at it.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Vulcan
You are not training to be a journelist fot television are you? They are particularly good at it.

No.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by littleduck
Yeah, why couldn't it be true considering football is a major reason for subscribing in the first place?

No.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by grayham
No.

'Maybe' is the right answer...

 

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by littleduck
I think that's what the AFL is trying to do.

But my argument is that AFL concentrates too heavily on the capital cities, which works fine in VIC SA WA with the vast majority residing in the metropolitan area, but that approach can't work as effectively in decentralised states, the biggest being Qld.

Well if they are they have kept it to themselves.Was surprised to see the population of NSW North of Sydney and by extention South East QLD.That's where the growth obviously is but the problem I suspect is the spread is pretty large.

What staggers me more than anything is why there is only one NRL team in Brisbane? Sydney again.

If you are argueing that from an AFL perspective, up there is the way to go.Couldn't agree more.
Do it now and forget the republic of Sydney.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by littleduck
'Maybe' is the right answer...

No, to even consider it is showing your inability to understand the media industry.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Well if they are they have kept it to themselves.Was surprised to see the population of NSW North of Sydney and by extention South East QLD.That's where the growth obviously is but the problem I suspect is the spread is pretty large.

spot on.

What staggers me more than anything is why there is only one NRL team in Brisbane? Sydney again.

If you are argueing that from an AFL perspective, up there is the way to go.Couldn't agree more.
Do it now and forget the republic of Sydney.

Exactly right. SEQ is a weak link in RL heartland (has been for half dozen years, and will be while ever there is only the Broncos) and the AFL should be concentrating on this region ahead of Sydney -- they appear to be.

However, the GC Dolphins may go some way towards restoring the traditional dominance. If the GC Dolphins are admitted and are immediately succesful then I think the AFL should forget about the Gold Coast and concentrate on a 2nd Brisbane team and/or western Sydney. A 2nd Brisbane team would benefit the AFL ahead of a Gold Coast team if the Dolphins have established themself in the market before they arrive with a team.

An AFL game every week at the Gabba when there is only 1 NRL game every 2nd week across the river will be more beneficial than a Gold Coast team.

Ideally, for RL to reestablish its dominance completely in SEQ they need 2 Brisbane teams and 1 Gold Coast team. Admitting the GC Dolphins will go some way, but not the whole way.

Since 1 Bris NRL team and 1 Gold Coast NRL team is looking likely, I recommend to the AFL that Qld expansion should focus on a 2nd Brisbane team ahead of the Gold Coast.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by grayham
No, to even consider it is showing your inability to understand the media industry.

You're lacking some credibility tonight after your 'logic' led you to argue there might have only been 15000 watching the Broncos in Brisbane on foxsports last Satdy night.