Would AFLW be better served if not every game was televised?

[enzso]

Part of the problem AFLW faces is that it's too often a poor product on television. Games with poor skills held in venues not built for TV cameras and produced by second-rate production crews.

Imagine if there were just one or two "blockbuster" AFLW games each round that were televised live and held in a venue suited to television? The remaining games could be filmed with one camera for a highlights package, much like VFL in the 80s. Only the best teams would be showcased live, with the developing teams protected from the limelight and given the time and space to improve.

Just because every game CAN be shown live, doesn't mean it should. AFLW is getting better every year, but dodgy camera work on lopsided games featuring teams in their first year or two of development does it no favours.

 

[AussieNick1999]

For a national competition where fans will frequently be unable to attend games in person it'd be rediculous not to have every game be available to watch from home. Not to mention these teams are going to have a harder time drawing attention if their games aren't being covered live. This isn't the 80s, the way people engage with entertainment and media has changed and live coverage of sport via TV broadcasts or streaming is a basic element of top-level sport these days. A highlights package uploaded to Youtube or show on Fox Footy after the game ends is going to draw sweet f***-all in terms of viewers.

Personally, the main issue I have with live coverage of the AFLW is the frequent production errors; in the season opener there were frequent glitches with the broadcast scoreboard and it would frequently swap between Fox's and Channel 7's graphics or be absent entirely. In a Brisbane game last week the time clock wasn't working for an entire quarter. I don't work in the media so I don't know the exact causes of these issues, but my guess would be it's more down to the quality and skill of the broadcast teams themselves rather than any issue with the venues.

And as we've seen tonight with the Bulldogs' performance, even the worst teams can show signs of life at times. The game is still in a growth state where the talent pool is still catching up to the expanded competition (and there's an argument to be made that it's expanded too fast) and there's a significant gulf between the best and worst players. But that'll improve with time. Having started following local women's footy in the past two years, there are some absolute guns coming up through the grassroots game and in the next few years I think we'll start to see that quality rise toward the AFLW.

But less coverage around the league isn't going to help with viewership. Live coverage is important for drawing in viewers and sponsors, and for giving the AFL a commercial reason to invest more money and resources into the women's game.

 

[jatz14]

Part of the problem AFLW faces is that it's too often a poor product on television. Games with poor skills held in venues not built for TV cameras and produced by second-rate production crews.

Imagine if there were just one or two "blockbuster" AFLW games each round that were televised live and held in a venue suited to television? The remaining games could be filmed with one camera for a highlights package, much like VFL in the 80s. Only the best teams would be showcased live, with the developing teams protected from the limelight and given the time and space to improve.

Just because every game CAN be shown live, doesn't mean it should. AFLW is getting better every year, but dodgy camera work on lopsided games featuring teams in their first year or two of development does it no favours.

Ammos and country footy is being live streamed.

And some of the metrics the AFL has set for the AFLW expansion is based on viewers.

I do understand that some of the games arent great, but most fans and potential fans understand where its doming from. I know people that pour absolute scorn on the AFLW for its quality, but realistically, these people were always going to pour scorn on it, it wouldn't particularly matter if the worst games weren't broadcast.

So, put the games out for those that want to watch, ignore the haters, most of them will hate regardless.

 

[AussieNick1999]

Ammos and country footy is being live streamed.

And some of the metrics the AFL has set for the AFLW expansion is based on viewers.

I do understand that some of the games arent great, but most fans and potential fans understand where its doming from. I know people that pour absolute scorn on the AFLW for its quality, but realistically, these people were always going to pour scorn on it, it wouldn't particularly matter if the worst games weren't broadcast.

So, put the games out for those that want to watch, ignore the haters, most of them will hate regardless.

In my experience, a lot of the people who still mock the AFLW for its skill level don't seem to have watched a game since 2017, some of them are outright sexist. Can't do much about people who are wilfully ignorant and refuse to give it a chance.

And you're right about viewership being an important metric to the AFL. At the end of the day they're a business out to make money, and they're not going to invest resources into women's footy unless they see the AFLW pulling high numbers in terms of attendance and viewership. Less games being shown means less viewers.