TAS Tas TV ratings vs Sydney TV ratings

[Doctor Jolly]

Sydney AFL ratings are around 100,000 per game give or take a bit. Swans matches higher, no swans lower. Night matches higher, day matches lower.

Anybody have Tasmanians TV ratings for AFL.?
By my reckoning, for tassie to supply 100,000 viewers per game it would need 1 in 5 people watching every AFL game broadcast.... the equivalent of 1,000,000 vewiers per match in Victoria

Now, Victoria never gets 1m viewers, except for Grand finals, In fact FNF, the top rating footy, gets around half that.

I'd expect Tassie footy ratings to be around 50,000 on average at best.

 

[krusden]

Sydney AFL ratings are around 100,000 per game give or take a bit. Swans matches higher, no swans lower. Night matches higher, day matches lower.

Anybody have Tasmanians TV ratings for AFL.?
By my reckoning, for tassie to supply 100,000 viewers per game it would need 1 in 5 people watching every AFL game broadcast.... the equivalent of 1,000,000 vewiers per match in Victoria

Now, Victoria never gets 1m viewers, except for Grand finals, In fact FNF, the top rating footy, gets around half that.

I'd expect Tassie footy ratings to be around 50,000 on average at best.

So sydney matches gets 100,000 out of a potential 2 million (give or take innit?). So that is 1/20.
If tasmania got 50,000 people watching then that is about 1/10. To "beat" the sydney ratio they would have to get less than 25,000 people watching.
So, per capita if tasmania have less than 25,000 people watching on average then you have a valid point. I think your point is that western sydney and sydney as a team and area would have higher TV ratings than tasmania and ergo the AFL decision to base a team there and not in tasmania

 

[Doctor Jolly]

So sydney matches gets 100,000 out of a potential 2 million (give or take innit?). So that is 1/20.
If tasmania got 50,000 people watching then that is about 1/10. To "beat" the sydney ratio they would have to get less than 25,000 people watching.
So, per capita if tasmania have less than 25,000 people watching on average then you have a valid point. I think your point is that western sydney and sydney as a team and area would have higher TV ratings than tasmania and ergo the AFL decision to base a team there and not in tasmania

Adertisers dont care about ratios.

They want to know how many customers will see their ad. 100,000 or less than 50,000. Simple choice.

Ratio's are used by Tv channels to compare against each other.

As an aside, Adelaide and Perth seem to be around 150,000 average. Not that far ahead of Sydney.

 

[Unsociable]

I'd expect Tassie footy ratings to be around 50,000 on average at best.[/B]

I don't rate arguments based on 'what I reckon facts'.

 

[krusden]

Adertisers dont care about ratios.

They want to know how many customers will see their ad. 100,000 or less than 50,000. Simple choice.

Ratio's are used by Tv channels to compare against each other.

As an aside, Adelaide and Perth seem to be around 150,000 average. Not that far ahead of Sydney.

so in regards of that - what IS your point. That the advertising is a STRONG reason why the AFL will not go into tasmania for a side? or, do you see it as merely a contributing fact?

 

[Rob]

The information is available if you look hard enough. see www.regtam.com.au.

Tassie's AFL ratings are massive by comparison. The big Friday night games get close to 100k audience - eg. Collingwood v Hawthorn was 93k, Geelong v Hawthorn 83k. They were the 2 matches that were in the top 20 programs over the last couple of months. I'd guess that most FNF matches would get an audience of 50-60k - but if it doesn't make the top 20 then it's hard to know for sure.

That strength is their weakness - the AFL know they're going to get strong ratings regardless. They don't need to take the risk of spending huge dollars on establishing a team there, because it's not going to get any more popular. Not by more than a negligible amount anyway.

It is a shame - but splitting the AFL's profits one more way without any prospect of increasing revenue (short or long term) simply doesn't make commercial sense. The only realistic chance they have to if they are ready to go on a few months notice on the chance a Melbourne club falls over or merges.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

so in regards of that - what IS your point. That the advertising is a STRONG reason why the AFL will not go into tasmania for a side? or, do you see it as merely a contributing fact?

No, All I'm saying is that Sydney delivers more advertising customers through TV than Tasmania, which is probably close to saturation already.

When you look at TV as a factor, expanding into Sydney is far more attractive to Tassie. The current Sydney setup, as flimsy as many suggests, looks twice as strong as tassie already.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I don't rate arguments based on 'what I reckon facts'.

Stop on if you read Robs post. Never doubt the Doctor.

 

[cos789]

No, All I'm saying is that Sydney delivers more advertising customers through TV than Tasmania, which is probably close to saturation already.

When you look at TV as a factor, expanding into Sydney is far more attractive to Tassie. The current Sydney setup, as flimsy as many suggests, looks twice as strong as tassie already.

The fact that Tassie ratings aren't added to the national ratings means little .
The AFL still sells it's games there and advertisers still pay for AFL games.
Adding a Tassie AFL team would alter the dynamics very little .
In a lot of ways NSW and QLD are quantitively equal to WA and SA .
but with a many times larger potential , especially by adding new teams
and new markets .
.

 

[fishmonger]

Adertisers dont care about ratios.

They want to know how many customers will see their ad. 100,000 or less than 50,000. Simple choice.

Ratio's are used by Tv channels to compare against each other.

As an aside, Adelaide and Perth seem to be around 150,000 average. Not that far ahead of Sydney.

Once again Doctor Folly, your ignorance of Tasmania is your undoing.

So the television ratings Sydney vs Tasmania are roughly equivalent.

Now add to that fact:
1) Sydney is 10 times the size of Tasmania
2) Sydney has had a team in the AFL for 25 years that has played finals for the last 10 years straight
3) The AFL wants to put a second team into this market

It makes your argument all the more embarassing.

OF course the ratings would go up if Tasmania had a team, as would their crowds, especially if they are competitive.

But the biggest reason why the AFL won't admit a Tasmanian licence now is that they would look so massively hypocritical if they didn't provide that team with the same sort of money laundering and draft concessions that they're going to need to give West Sydney and the GOld Coast if they are to be anywhere close to not folding in the first 5 years.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Once again Doctor Folly, your ignorance of Tasmania is your undoing.

So the television ratings Sydney vs Tasmania are roughly equivalent.

I never said that. I said Tasmania was less than half

Now add to that fact:
1) Sydney is 10 times the size of Tasmania
2) Sydney has had a team in the AFL for 25 years that has played finals for the last 10 years straight
3) The AFL wants to put a second team into this market

Exactly, The growth potential is enormous.

It makes your argument all the more embarassing.

OF course the ratings would go up if Tasmania had a team, as would their crowds, especially if they are competitive.

Very unlikely, Tasmanian AFL ratings are already at saturation point. Even more saturated than Victoria which is AFL heartland.

But the biggest reason why the AFL won't admit a Tasmanian licence now is that they would look so massively hypocritical if they didn't provide that team with the same sort of money laundering and draft concessions that they're going to need to give West Sydney and the GOld Coast if they are to be anywhere close to not folding in the first 5 years.

No, they wont put a team in Tassy because it would cost more than it would generate. For ever.

 

[1903]

So the television ratings Sydney vs Tasmania are roughly equivalent.

Now add to that fact:
1) Sydney is 10 times the size of Tasmania
2) Sydney has had a team in the AFL for 25 years that has played finals for the last 10 years straight
3) The AFL wants to put a second team into this market

It makes your argument ...........

All about potential. You don't seem to be able to get your head around this. Because the AFL is run by an independant body it can make decisions in the best interest of the league and that is to completely cover the market .

.

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

Sydney AFL ratings are around 100,000 per game give or take a bit. Swans matches higher, no swans lower. Night matches higher, day matches lower.

Anybody have Tasmanians TV ratings for AFL.?
By my reckoning, for tassie to supply 100,000 viewers per game it would need 1 in 5 people watching every AFL game broadcast.... the equivalent of 1,000,000 vewiers per match in Victoria

Now, Victoria never gets 1m viewers, except for Grand finals, In fact FNF, the top rating footy, gets around half that.

I'd expect Tassie footy ratings to be around 50,000 on average at best.

http://www.agbnielsen.net/Uploads/Australia/regtop20080727.pdf

93,000 for FNF

http://www.agbnielsen.net/Uploads/Australia/regtop20080720.pdf

83,000 for FNF

http://www.agbnielsen.net/Uploads/Australia/regtop20080706.pdf

81,000 for FNF

http://www.agbnielsen.net/Uploads/Australia/regtop20080413.pdf

75,000 for FNF

Other weeks not in top 20 so <= about 75,000.

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

All of the above.

Figures quote above (93K etc) are peak FNF ratings. I was talking about a 50K average over all games on a weekend (day and night). Still a solid figure IMO.

And what is the Sydney average across all games on a weekend, day and night?

 

[Beaussie]

And what is the Sydney average across all games on a weekend, day and night?

Much better than anything the TAS TV market can offer when compared to the SYD market judging by those live FNF ratings in TAS above in this thread. 93k looks to be the best TAS can offer for FNF live. Check out the SYD figures I've compiled from OzTAM for Saturday and Sunday afternoon live or delayed games. The figures stack up well for a 2nd Sydney team over a TAS team I would have thought:

http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2008.php

 

[finders]

So sydney matches gets 100,000 out of a potential 2 million (give or take innit?). So that is 1/20.
If tasmania got 50,000 people watching then that is about 1/10. To "beat" the sydney ratio they would have to get less than 25,000 people watching.
So, per capita if tasmania have less than 25,000 people watching on average then you have a valid point. I think your point is that western sydney and sydney as a team and area would have higher TV ratings than tasmania and ergo the AFL decision to base a team there and not in tasmania

SYDNEY has 4.2 Million population NOT 2 Million!!! So that makes it 1/42 watching from the total population.But it dosent work like that as the whole population never wiew television at the same time.Even 50,000 is a shit amount for advertisers and some country TV stations get more viewers than that.

 

[ringleader]

77,000 watched the Swans in Sydney last night. Dreadful.

 

[Rob]

77,000 watched the Swans in Sydney last night. Dreadful.

Not suprised, it rated shithouse everywhere. I switched over 20 minutes into the game. Adelaide + Perth combined was only 84,000.

 

[adhs]

I think there are three important points here. The new teams are largely designed to give the AFL new negotiation points for the next TV Broadcasting agreement (I believe Andrew Demetriou has incentives built into his contract for increasing the TV contract amount).

1) Tasmanian TV is considered regional TV by media buyers/advertisers. As such AFL programming is onsold from the major metro networks as part of their agreements with their regional TV partners such as WIN and Southern Cross. So the effects of a Tasmanian team on AFL TV negotiations would be indirect and because of the small potential audience would not command a huge increase to the TV contract (although the Gold Coast is considered a regional TV market also there is a larger and expanding potential audience there plus there'd surely be a flow-on effect to viewers in Brisbane watching the Gold Coast team play).

2) While Sydney and Tasmanian AFL audiences might be similar, the ratios demonstrate that there is a greater potential audience for AFL broadcasters in Sydney. AFL viewing in Tassie is saturated and introducing a Tassie team could even have a negative effect on TV audiences in that while more viewers might switch on the watch their team when they're interstate, less people might watch other teams play on TV. Also the ratios demonstrate that there is a greater potential audience in Sydney. When the team is doing well and playing blockbuster games, they will have more viewers tune in and when they're doing average they have the core audience which is equal to or slightly more than Tassie anyway. Furthermore, advertising rates which the networks charge are proportionately higher in Sydney than Tassie anyway.

3) Pay TV is likely to play a big part in the next TV negotiations. Tasmania is covered by Austar, Sydney is covered by Foxtel. While the western Sydney AFL team is unlikely to drive massive amounts of Foxtel subscriptions, a Tassie team would only serve to drive Austar subscriptions.

Tassie is a safety-net for the AFL. It is the next Sydney for the Swans or Brisbane for the Lions. But if a Melbourne team ever decides their only option is to relocate, then at least this time they will be welcomed with open-arms. Tasmanian Tigers? It's up to Richmond to decide...! But realistically a relocated Melbourne team is the state's only AFL option.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

77,000 watched the Swans in Sydney last night. Dreadful.

There's a little event a half a world away in the Northern direction, that might explain that one.



Back on topic 77,000 would be top 10 rating in Tassy.

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

There's a little event a half a world away in the Northern direction, that might explain that one.



Back on topic 77,000 would be top 10 rating in Tassy.

Let's try R18 Collingwood vs Hawthorn 7,000 and Port vs St Kilda 9,000 in Sydney. You've been comparing the best matches ratings-wise in Sydney and claiming those ratings for every game. To put it another way, TOTAL ratings for all 8 games for Sydney for R20 was 166,000 (an average of 20,750) according to Beaussie's figures.

I'm not claiming Tasmania delivers a better POTENTIAL audience for TV than Sydney but please be honest and admit that most games in Sydney rate very badly (way worse than in Tasmania) or aren't even considered worth being shown.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Let's try R18 Collingwood vs Hawthorn 7,000 and Port vs St Kilda 9,000 in Sydney. You've been comparing the best matches ratings-wise in Sydney and claiming those ratings for every game. To put it another way, TOTAL ratings for all 8 games for Sydney for R20 was 166,000 (an average of 20,750) according to Beaussie's figures.

I'm not claiming Tasmania delivers a better POTENTIAL audience for TV than Sydney but please be honest and admit that most games in Sydney rate very badly (way worse than in Tasmania) or aren't even considered worth being shown.

Those games are shown at about 1am in the morning.

You're clutching at straws there!

 

[Redb]

77,000 watched the Swans in Sydney last night. Dreadful.

The AFL has the best conversion rate between TV ratings and fans then. Last week the AFL in Sydney drew 45,000 to the game agaisnt Geelong, that was bigger than all three NRL games. Three times a as big as the soccer game between the Big 2 Melb and Sydney in the opening round.

Those TV ratings are suspicious no sport in the world gets that many to its game and yet 'apparently' rates so poorly on TV.

Any of you NRL trolls seen the pay TV audiences of late?, 4-5 of the top 10 shows each are AFL. It was only a matter of time once the better AFL games became available .

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2008/01/2008-tv-ratings-archive.html

That;'s why the AFL gets more money than the NRL.

 

[ringleader]

There's a little event a half a world away in the Northern direction, that might explain that one.



Back on topic 77,000 would be top 10 rating in Tassy.

That little event didn't hurt the movie on channel 9 which got 278,000 viewers.

 

[ringleader]

The AFL has the best conversion rate between TV ratings and fans then. Last week the AFL in Sydney drew 45,000 to the game agaisnt Geelong, that was bigger than all three NRL games. Three times a as big as the soccer game between the Big 2 Melb and Sydney in the opening round.

Those TV ratings are suspicious no sport in the world gets that many to its game and yet 'apparently' rates so poorly on TV.

Any of you NRL trolls seen the pay TV audiences of late?, 4-5 of the top 10 shows each are AFL. It was only a matter of time once the better AFL games became available .

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2008/01/2008-tv-ratings-archive.html

That;'s why the AFL gets more money than the NRL.

I suggest you look at the proper ratings http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/enews/...oice-On-Subscription-TV-This-Week-250808.html