Sat TV #ALeague #ONE #SydneyDerby 55k

So yeah, more cross promotion and visibility and junk

Holy fk

For comparison Chelsea Westham got 95K on SBS with an 11:30 pm start.

Been saying it for a while, there was nothing particularly wrong with SBS coverage, problem is HAL is stale and people are getting tired of the constant recycling of players & don't want to see pensioners lolling about on the pitch. The public is rapidly losing interest, and all the FFA & Team owners can do is focus on who controls the money.  

Holy shit.

SAT STV #ALeague #FoxSports #BRIvWEL 59k


SAT STV #ALeague #FoxSports #PERvNEW 42k

SAT STV #ALeague #FoxSports #SydneyDerby 81k

If the womens bbl ratings are anything to go by we are in for a world of hurt when the mens comp starts.

hahaha I think we have

Pro rel will fix this one. 

I blame Christmas parties!

Well, WBBL got 386,000 and 442,000 for their games last night, the main football match got 136,000 or about a third.

And then another 95,000 tuned in to a foreign game and another 101,000 tuned in to the two remaining games.

In total 332,000 watched football on tv on Saturday. The message to the FFA is the viewers are there, even when you f’ck up your own product, the question is how do they connect with them?

I’d say pretty much everything they’ve been doing for the last 1-2 years is the opposite of what was required.

I remember that haha.

By that math, 800k watched WBBL when it was probably more like 500k with a lot of overlap.

Football only had 332k watch, if no-one watched anymore than 1 game, which is unlikely.

There is no way to determine unique viewers across different platforms, but that is the key here.

I think the foreigners in the league are the best we have seen, also the average age of those foreigners are younger. What the game lacks are high profile players that have a higher cut through to the mainstream. The media in Aus are not the most astute and perception is everything, big names mean higher viewership. As Simon Hill stated after Del Piero, Hesky and Ono we should of aimed to have 3 more high profile players in the comp hence building the profile year by year. However as is typical of football in this country we take three steps forward and another 5 back. We need strong leadership with a view to growth.

The most condemning fact about the A-League ratings is that the late night EPL games are absolutely crushing them. And then there is the national team ratings...
Forget the general public and other sports fans that the FFA are marketing towards (in vain), not even football fans are tuning in. Most football fans in this country prefer to watch the national team and the EPL games, and its easy to see why.

Its clear the A-League needs to cater to football fans first and foremost by restoring its reputation and integrity.

We need the following ASAP:
> More teams. Bring the A-League to at least 16 teams to freshen up the fixtures and add new faces. An 18 team league containing a combination of current HAL clubs, current NPL clubs, and expansion teams would be ideal and fantastic for increasing interest. 
> A balanced home-and-away schedule. Get rid of fixture fatigue which is a massive reason for the stagnation of interest. The big derbies and rivalries lose their edge when we see them at least three times a year, often twice in the span of two months.
> Implement promotion and relegation, even if its just one spot at first. Differentiate the league from other sport competitions in this country by adding intrigue at the bottom of the table. In seasons when one team runs away with the title, it keeps things interesting. TV ratings will benefit from the relegation dogfights.
> Introduce transfers and loans. Add more interest off field during the duration of the season with clubs able to control their squads easier.
> Get rid of everything involving the salary cap, salary floor, and squad restrictions. Let clubs control their own destiny and see how it goes.
> Move to a primary FTA channel that broadcasts in HD, regardless of name. Moving from Viceland (a secondary channel) to ONE (a secondary channel) was pointless, especially since ONE does not broadcast in HD (which is a honestly a massive turn off for many people). Even if it ends up being ABC or SBS, the next FTA broadcaster MUST show games live on their primary channel and in HD.

All of the above has obviously been stated on this forum before, but it really needs to be hammered home. The FFA administration cannot justify this stagnation we are experiencing, and considering their obsession with metrics they surely must take a long hard look at themselves when a game like the Sydney derby gets this response. As fans of the sport here in Australia we are fed up with how the game is being mishandled by the monkeys in charge.   

Unfortunately we need to go through this pain until FFA and stakeholders get the message. I just hope the game doesn't implode like the NSL.
Ten got the football for free so they dont care.FFA said they were going to promote the game later in the season.But i suspect the giant turd the game has devolved into in ten games can't be polished into gold.
My hope is FIFA will allow an independent HAL to emerge next year and a reboot with firm dates for new teams can revive interest.

when a womens cricket match, gets nearly 6 times as many viewers than a Sydney Derby, its time to admit that things are pretty grim. 

but but but Channel Ten was meant to get a zillion viewers !!

Some good points, but some things go to far. 
In an 18 team league, who is going to care about the relegation dogfight between the bottom 3 or so teams, beyond the fans of those teams?  
One game is on FTA, is it going to be a game between bottom of the table teams in a relegation fight?  If it isn't, how does a relegation dogfight help ratings?
I just do not get how a relegation battle between teams who's support base is likely to be small is going to get people watching the A league who are not watching now.
In what universe do the games involving the worst teams in an 18 team team league broaden the appeal of the league.  Yes it keeps fans of those teams engaged, but that is not what broaden means.

The EPL has fantastic support, the EPL has pro/rel.  The A league has poor support, the A league does not have pro/rel.  How much would support of the EPL drop if it did not have pro/rel?  Is it certain support of the A league increases with pro/rel?  The A league needs pro/rel, but it needs it for its own sake, I am unsold on the idea it has much affect on ratings or crowds.

You also need to consider incremental benefit verse cost, and what effect it has on existing teams, and the AFL is a case in point.
Adding 2 new teams to the AFL lowered both ratings and attendance, despite existing clubs maintaining their appeal.  The maths works out like this.  As the AFL did not extend the fixture, it meant games between the new teams, with less appeal replaced games with greater appeal in the season.  Each team played the same number of games it did  previous seasons, but now had somewhere between 2 and 4 games with the new, low drawing teams, so the number through the gates through out the season goes down, and so do average ratings.  The loss from the big clubs each drawing fewer fans outweighed in the short term the benefits of an extra game per round. This was a notable and predictable affect, and the AFL only added 2 teams to a 16 team league.

You propose adding 8 teams to a 10 team league.  Despite the fact this will add fans, some of the fans of these new teams will come from the fan base of existing teams.  Unless the FFA can find a location for 8 new teams, each able to draw on a brand new supporter base as big as the current league average, then average attendance and average ratings will go down, and they will go down a lot.  They would have to significantly extend the season, which significantly increases the cost.

The A league needs to expand, but its not a certain cure all, expansion can be fucked up, and it can put other clubs in danger.  This is why the risk averse FFA have not done it.

FFA have no intention to go to 16 teams soon.
Why would they?
It would present a raise in costs of let's say $3 million x 6 + ref, travel etc.

I doubt they would get an extra ca $19 million per year from tv for 3 extra matches per round

With regards to 18 teams, that would be the ideal objective but it would likely take at least a decade to get there. Before then we can settle for 16.
Maybe I am in the minority but relegation dogfights are nearly as interesting as the title race when there is a fierce relegation battle. Desperate relegation dogfights produce intense games which are good for neutrals, even more so than derbies which tend to be more conservative than relegation battles where one team has to win at any cost.

Another important factor to consider is that with 16-18 teams in the league the number of games each round would increase to 8-9 as opposed to the 5 we have currently. Given that other codes get a couple of FTA games each week it would be fair to say that an increased number of A-League games per round would result in an extra FTA slot (such as Friday night or Sunday afternoon/evening) so there would be more freedom in fixturing. And a key point to consider is that relegation fights can overlap with title races and games involving big teams, whenever a team threatened by relegation encounters a big club battling for the title. These encounters are perfect to inject some more life and excitement into the A-League. Overall it would reduce the amount of dead rubber matches we currently have which as we are all aware is way too high. One of the most unappealing things in any sports league is a meaningless dead rubber fixture especially near the end of the season, and that could be largely alleviated with the implementation of promotion and relegation. It cannot fix every concern about staleness but it would be a massive shot in the arm to the league.

With regards to the AFL comparison, its worth noting that the AFL does not use a properly balanced schedule (i.e. - each team playing every other team once home and once away, equating to 30 rounds in a sixteen team comp or 34 rounds in a eighteen team comp) nor is there any form of relegation, thereby creating a lot of dead rubbers and meaningless fixtures. These dead rubbers are prevelent in pretty much any Australian sports code because there is no true punishment at the bottom of the table.

With regards to broadening appeal,  it has to come from additional teams from areas unrepresented currently. Thankfully there are many to choose from:
> Wollongong (Wollongong Wolves should be a lock-in)
> Geelong (Victoria Patriots bid)
> Sunshine Coast (Sunshine Coast Fire)
> Canberra
> Tasmania
> Cairns (FNQ Heat)

Plus Townsville and Gold Coast should be re-examined. Between them we have 8 areas that I am confident would not cannibalise any existing teams.

Then there are the other bids from existing areas that can join either as expansion teams or via promotion from a second division:
> Dandenong (Team 11/SEM)
> Ipswich (Western Pride)
> South Sydney (Southern Expansion)
> SW Sydney Lions
> West Adelaide or Adelaide City, or both eventually
> Brisbane City or Brisbane Strikers, or both eventually

And the current NPL teams like South Melbourne, Heidelberg, Blacktown City, Melbourne Knights, APIA Leichhardt, etc, who could achieve promotion from a second division and have stints in the A-League. They may not attract viewers in droves to their games but they can prove themselves in a system of meritocracy and supplement the rest of the league.  

I completely agree that how we approach expansion is important and that it can be screwed up if done poorly (same applies for the second division), unfortunately the FFA are just as concerned about how much money they can make and how they can advance their self-interests (as evident by the farce surrounding Southern Expansion, the second Brisbane team, and the lack of transparency in the bidding process because they need to hide the fact that they have already selected the next two teams despite there being better options out there) so the FFA deserves to be under scrutiny for this. The discussion on this page of the thread gives more insight and analysis of the expansion and future of the A-League than anything the FFA has said in the past 12 months.

"CLEAN AIR"

Ratings would be higher if we had a real FTA broadcaster like 9 ;)

More games on FTA is important for the A-league, the problem is, with current ratings, it isn't important to broadcasters.  Casual watchers catching a game, may not see those teams again for quite a while.  To convert a casual observer to a fan that looks for games, they have to be involved with a team.  To be involved with a team, you have to begin to identify with them.  Seeing the local team, coming to know the players, being engaged in their campaign for the season, but 1 game a week means thats unlikely. Your local team might only be broadcast a handful times a year, the casual watcher is unlikely to see all of them.  A couple of games is not enough to establish that rapport.

However, broadcasters are unlikely to be sold on the 'broadcast more games now, and in a few years it will pay off in ratings' argument.  A TV show not pulling ratings gets canned half way through a season, networks do not double down with more promotion and episodes.

So it becomes circular.  Not enough exposure to generate engagement, not enough engagement to generate ratings, not enough ratings to justify more exposure.  I don't actually know how the FFA could solve that even if it had the will.  If it had the cash, I would suggest paying for broadcasts, but it doesn't.

The only possible approach is social media and creativity and bravery in decision making.  There was a good article this weekend about the NBL, and how all the metrics are up significantly this year.  They do not get a lot of exposure either, but have become creative.  Having NBL teams play NBA teams in the US attracted a lot of attention, they have a significant social media drive, and its working.

I remain unsold on pro/rel, but I understand where you are coming from.  I am firmly in the casual basket, which gives me a bit of a different perspective than most here.  Pro/Rel helps because football gains significantly from competitive tension.  When the next goal could decide a season, tension goes up hugely, and pro/rel doubles the number of games for which that is true.  For an A-league fan, neutral relegation battles are much better than irrelevant games, and will draw attendance and viewers, from the fan base.

However, as a casual, Sunshine Coast are playing Tasmania in a relegation battle, do I care?  Not sure I do, and if I don't care, then there isn't competitive tension, then its just a football game between teams I don't care about.  Pro/Rel will lift ratings by providing more games of significance, however, I think that's because it makes people currently watching, watch more games.  The FFA needs people not currently watching to watch games, and I don't think Pro/Rel can do that.

The other issue is, that this ties in with broadcasts.  If the A league remains stuck on 1 game a week, then pro/rel will almost certainly not help, as doubling the number of games of consequence is of no use if you cannot show them.  Expansion of the league may even hurt here, as I do not think 10 will broadcast more games just because the A league is playing more games, and may be wary of adding more teams that may not be high drawing.

Regardless of all that, it does really need to happen.

I think the A league and the FFA are in a situation that does not have a 'solution' that can just be rolled out, and hey presto, couple years later, all is well.  I think it is going to be incremental, will involve many changes and will take a long time.  

$3.55m x 6 = $21.3m for distribution to the clubs, plus match officials for 240 games instead of 135 games and the same increase for air and land transport, plus increase in player insurance, plus a small (hopefully) increase in administration, plus, plus, plus.  I reckon your $19m might be closer to $25m+ with the current model.

The clubs would also have additional costs for things like home ground hire for an average 1.5 games a season, and away costs for 1.5 games a season etc that would probably see them wanting an increase in the distribution to clubs from central funds.

I think for each extra club added to the competition, allowing $4.5m to the cost to the FFA (or independent operator) would be needed with the current model.

With the first increase in the current broadcast deal being $6m pa, that leaves a shortfall of more than $3m pa to be met from elsewhere just to add 2 clubs..

RIP

MediaweekAUS 1h1 hour agoMoreSun STV #ALeague #FoxSports #MCYvCCM 74k

Average STV rating for this round 69k.  Average STV rating for the same round last season 68.6k.

The lower the ratings the less the Independent League will have to pay to the FFA 

That's why the AAFC have stopped buying big Marquees

and CFG have just deleted Timmy, the FFA's only remaining marketing tool

the lower the ratings, the less income from sponsors, supporters & TV stations, meaning more financial pressure for HAL teams majority of which are already bleeding. 

MediaweekAUSFri STV #ALeague #FoxSports #SYDvMCY68k

The last Ashes Perth Test we were up against we averaged 42.6k for the round.  The highest ratings up against the Perth Test, since the current teams have been in the competition, was 56k average for the round.