pip / Mr Football

In one way or another you have posted rating across 442 & The Roar say on average 3 times a day so say 1, 000 posts per year for 12 years ..

Meaning after 12, 000 odd posts we kinda get it ,,,, many on this site are more than aware of various ratings...

But mate after 12, 000 posts give it a rest .... its either sad maybe dangerous you keep this up.

On a serious note I honestly suggest you seek help ... this can't be healthy for you ...

Very sad indeed. Must've forgot his password to BigFooty

The forum needs some objectivity and independent thought, and I'm in a position to provide that.

Independent thought regarding what? Have we had our ALF fix? 

Not questioning that ... but after 12, 000 odd posts on the same thing you must assume we are the thickest people in the world or you are posting to annoy, and many like myself often posts things running against the mob ... you are not alone in that.

Also and I am disappointed that you never acknowledge external factors in your posts ... as you are aware I had a client who charted many things across Australia including sport and there is a direct co-relation between media coverage and ratings...

So for example an Socceroo match with little promotion rating say 400K against say the SOO with weeks of lead up and promotion ratings of say 3 million... swap the media build up and coverage and those two figures become very close ... I am sure you know this you choose not to publish its effects.

Essentially with your knowledge you are withholding key data and in doing so present a false impression  of the relative strengths of Football.

Using your SOO example, as Bluebird has argued many times (in broad terms), the SOO isn't popular because of promotion, it's popular because it's popular.

TV does not create popular sports out of thin air, it chases those sports which are already popular.

Similarly, the Melbourne media (SEN radio, the press, etc) don't dedicate 90% of their sports coverage to aussie rules just because the management like aussie rules, they do it because that's how they make their money.  They don't create the popularity, they go chasing what's popular.

HHHMMmmmmm seriously are you saying promotion of the SOO in the southern states has had little effect on its ratings..

I agree with you to some extent .... but to imply that there is no co-relation between promotion and ratings is beyond foolish.

I know people who watch SOO who don't even like sport ... my wife watches it and she has played Football for years and hates league ... my three boys watch it and they don't like league... 30 years of promotion does have its effects...

Whats will be interesting will be the reaction of many traditional sports followers when Football picks up ... Football IMO will receive a major bump in the next two years ...  the trend lines and graphs I keep bagging on about are growing.... 

These trend lines will in time effect media coverage  and then its kinda one feeding the other... 

I am sure you are as aware as I am of these models and charts .... thats whats disappoints ... almost selective cherry picking with little analysis ... 

Hey there, loooooong time reader here...

@pippinu (and Bluebird)

If Channel 7's main channel and SBS Viceland both showed the State of Origin live at exactly the same time, who do you think would get the better ratings?
(I chose Channel 7 and SBS as they both don't have a history of showing Rugby League).

You say that the channel and promotion has very little to do with people watching sport on TV, and seeing that these two channels are not known for showing rugby league, I can assume you would suggest the ratings would be about 50/50 yes? Is this your view?

Cheers

No, I personally believe that Ch 7 would get the higher ratings than Viceland.

But, if it was shown on Ch. 7 one year exclusively, and then on Viceland the following year exclusively, I still think Ch. 7 would get higher ratings but only marginally so - the gap would not be as great as many believe - and that is the gist of Bluebird's argument, that that gap is not as high as many would believe.

We actually had a real life AFL example not long ago when a game was played on a Monday night, and ch. 7 chose to show the grand final of MKR on the main channel with the footy broadcast on 7Mate.

Now the ratings were definitely lower, but not by a big margin, and in fact, seeing it was up against the MKR grand final, you'd argue the 7Mate ratings were sensational.

Needless to say, ch. 7 won the ratings easily that night with two big rating shows spread across two of its channels.

Not an afl thread.

Pippinu, so you essentially agree that the channel does make a difference to ratings in regards to sport, as you said twice above that you believe Channel 7 would get higher ratings than 7mate. Thanks.

I'm looking forward to Bluebird's response to my question above regarding which Channel would rate higher if broadcasting the State of Origin at exactly the same time (Channel 7 main channel or SBS Viceland). As previously stated I'm using those two channels as they have no connection with Rugby League, and therefore the argument of one of them being the home of that sport cannot be used.

Unless I'm mistaken, Bluebird has consistently stated that the channel and promotion has little effect in regards to sport. If that's the case then surely it would be a toss of the coin as to which channel would receive the higher ratings?

My opinion? Channel 7 would win the ratings easily due to the mass promotion/cross promotion of the match.

Thoughts Bluebird?

Yes, but if I have understood Bluebird's arguments in the past, it is one of degree.

As we saw with the AFL game broadcast on 7Mate on a Monday night, the ratings were excellent.

Bluebird would say that the starting point is that the game is already popular, so whether it's on 7 or 7Mate, it will attract strong ratings.

I think he would agree that the main channel will always be higher, all things being equal, but his view is that the difference is marginal.

In the context of the A-League, there undoubtedly was a drop in ratings from SBS1 to SBS2, but it's open to debate as to how significant that drop was, arguably, the ratings on SBS1 were in decline before it was shifted.

I should close by saying that the previous debate was about the main channel and a secondary channel (of the same station), so it's probably a bit cheeky to throw into the mix ch. 7 vs Viceland because SBS on the whole is the weakest rating station of the five.

Nothing cheeky about it. I may be a new poster but I've been reading this board for years.

Many of the arguments on this thread revolve around moving from SBS Viceland to a main channel such as Channel 7, and whether ratings would increase. Many feel ratings would increase if treated well by the channel. One or two posters believe they would more or less stay the same as everyone has access to all the digital channels, and if they wanted to watch football they would find it.

Therefore the hypothetical Channel 7 vs SBS Viceland State of Origin question is exactly what people here are arguing about. If the channel doesn't matter, then SBS Viceland should get about 50% of the ratings as both have started with a clean slate.

If you don't think that SBS Viceland would get comparable ratings to Channel 7 then the whole channel/promotion doesn't matter argument is blown.

A primary commercial FTA will always have a larger audience than SBS' secondary channel, although there are certainly limits to the bump you can expect.

For example, when the world cup is on, SBS ratings are always strong, so for that product at least, the difference between the world cup being on SBS or on a commercial FTA is minimal.

I've already given the example of AFL being shown on 7Mate on Easter Monday, and getting 542k in competition with the grand final of MKR (with a further 276k on Fox).

Anyway, no sport has an automatic right to be plonked on commercial FTA, as a general rule, a commercial FTA will opt to put sport on its primary channel because they know it's popular, they know it will get the viewers to justify the cost.

The BBL was regularly getting 300k ratings on Fox before Ten bought the rights, where it started getting 900+k ratings.

There's a big, big difference between getting 60k and getting 300k on Fox.

Pip

I think you misrepresent Bluebird.

Bluebird and I are of very similar beliefs which are based on various modelling methods. Especially behavioural science and normalisation, Bluebird looks at normalisation theories from a behavioural science aspect I tend to look at these models after applying financial and numeric data.

We are roughly 10 points apart but see in many ways a similar path forward.

I also think much to annoyance of many on this forum that much of what FFA have done pertaining to  increasing the financial analysis of the normalisation's  models has been excellent. I fear it may be lost with Lowy's intransigence in wanting to maintain control and the upcoming war to rest full control from FFA. 

Its actually a nonsensical question and not one that can be answered

But here are some things to think about:
If 7 showed the game in SD and SBS showed the game in HD, which would rate higher?
If 7 showed the game with ads and SBS showed the game without ads, which would rate higher?
If 7 showed the game this year, and SBS showed the game next year, which would rate higher?

To the last question, we have already seen examples with the Ashes, Socceroos games and as Pip said above the AFL that there is no real difference. We even saw this with the shift from SBS2 to SBS1 with A League coverage. Ratings are fickle and not a 1:1 ratio so there is error built into it. One family goes to Uncle Tyrones party and it is assumed 1000 people did the same.

If you are talking about station making a difference then it needs to be a clear measurable difference. And we don't see this. Undeniably we see this with TV shows where advertising is the only form of exposure. But sport is different. News, radio, billboards, internet...

Incidentally: SBS did simulcast a game across 2 channels. SBS2 managed to get the higher ratings, but it was almost a 50/50 split


As Midfielder said I am approaching this from a behavioural science point of view. So enlighten me. Why would people flock to 7 over SBS for the same product? Does it feel better? Does the logo make them feel giddy? Is the stream quality better?

Hi Bluebird,

A nonsensical question you say? This entire thread is made up of hypotheticals and opinions on what may or may not happen. It was a very simple question on who would get the higher ratings in your opinion with all things being equal. This means both HD, same commentary etc. Oh well...

I think I'll pass on "enlightening" you as I don't think there would be much chance of that ever happening. There's 61 pages here of many people trying to do just that. I won't be adding myself to that list for now. Let's be honest, it would be fruitless.

Thanks for the reply though. 

Another Mr Football multi, fantastic.

Huh? Are you referring to me? If you are you may want to read my posts again. My views are quite the opposite to Mr Football. 

No problem Davo / Nulla

So in one post I'm accused of being Mr Football and now I'm told I'm Davo! Two people who have extremely opposite views? Funny stuff. 

I can assure you I'm neither. I thought I'd respectfully join the conversation that's all. At least that's what I thought I did. Lesson learnt. 

The 442 forum is a tough gig.

Half of all new participants are accused of being Mr Football, the other half are accused of being me.

Seven to ten years ago, this board was a fantastic forum, lots of great discussions, lots of different forumites and views.

Needless to say, that period corresponded with my weekly provision of quality articles.

Perhaps it's time for Kevin to invite me back to start contributing quality articles again.

:blush: I completely misread that! Apologies. I read one post and not others. My mistake!

No problem mate. 

Last night's game finished in 7th spot amongst the digital multis, over half the audience from Sydney:

Rank	Description (grouped)	Channel\Market	(r) 5 City Metro	Sydney	Melbourne	Brisbane	Adelaide	Perth
4	PETER RABBIT-EV	ABC2	192,000	42,000	54,000	41,000	23,000	32,000
5	LITTLE ROY-EV	ABC2	192,000	40,000	54,000	43,000	25,000	31,000
6	BEN AND HOLLY’S LITTLE KINGDOM-EV	ABC2	182,000	25,000	54,000	52,000	26,000	24,000
7	FOOTBALL: LIVERPOOL FC V SYDNEY FC-EV	ABC2	174,000	90,000	37,000	22,000	18,000	8,000
8	PEPPA PIG-PM	ABC2	172,000	35,000	54,000	30,000	22,000	31,000

Top 3 from last night's Fox shows:

Rank	Description	Channel\Market	Consolidated 7	Overnight	Increase
					000s
1	SELLING HOUSES AUSTRALIA	LifeStyle Channel	150,000	108,000	42,000
2	LIVE: AFL 360	FOX FOOTY	88,000	82,000	6,000
3	THE FLASH	FOX8	85,000	50,000	34,000

That would be average right??

I'm assuming 300k would have tuned in to start with and that would have fell away pretty quickly.

Yes, that's average over the entire broadcast.

If 300k tuned in for the first half hour, that means there was 48k for the final half hour, to give an average of 174k (with a gradual consistent decline in between).

90k in Sydney is pretty good, much more than an AFL game would get......double what a Swans game would pull.

Precisely why the next team will come from Sydney.

Not necessarily, there would have been more interest in Sydney because Sydney was playing. Figures would probably reverse if it was Melbourne playing.