So ABC ratings keep climbing.
From 40's  to 50's to 60's.
NJ vs PG is not exactly a big city game.But a close game and exciting result.
What does this actually say about viewers?

I don’t think so far there has been a correlation between the quality of the games and the viewer numbers, but a good product will certainly at least keep people engaged. 

Fox ratings last night:
WU v WSW 57k 
Jets v Per 35K
Matildas vs Chile 21k

hopefully mariners vs Adelaide can keep the trend going next week 

yes hopefully but no Friday night game next week is a missed opportunity  

Solid ratings

so NJ v PG over 100,000 combined? when was the last time that occured in a regular season game? if you add streaming numbers, it looks like a very positive result. could it be the RWC being finished? 

How much of the NJ vs PG ratings on ABC may have been due to carry-over from the Matildas? I guess we will see next week.

yes would say ratings on ABC higher because of Matildas game before 

LIVE: A-LEAGUE MELB V V WELLFOX SPORTS 505 37,000

LIVE: A-LEAGUE ADEL V BRIS

FOX SPORTS 505

35,000

After a survey I read about the Roar that had Fox subscription as 47% and Fox Go, Kayo & Telstra  as 53% I set up some polls on the Mariners, MV & WSW forums.

Am still waiting SFC, & Jerks forum approvals to join their forums so I can do the polls

But to date and not counting Optus or the ABC just subscriptions as we are bombarded with Fox rating decline...

So over MV, Mariners & WSW and 85 votes this is the result

Fox main sub  = 35%
Fox Kayo ==== 37% 
Fox Go ===== 16 %
Tetstra ===== 12 %

Its interesting and even if the numbers are small the Roar figure was over 300 people I believe, it illustrates the panic about ratings being half what they were, fails to look at the changing viewing patterns.

Not sure TBH what it all means but simply not accepting Fox / News propaganda and agenda setting articles..

If Inside Sport forum members of SFC, AU, MC, Jerks & PG could add similar polls and posts links to the polls we could get a much better picture .

BB I think posted a while back going online and asking viewing patterns will get an over net bias... hhhmmm I am not sure but that the Roar survey to members was not a forum based net and it still had a higher not Fox main sub figure.

To me it clearly shows or indicates our next media deal will involve streaming... whether that be by a reinvented Fox or another streaming service only time will tell...

In 2018 Foxtel subscriptions were 5mill according to Morgan Research.
Now somehow the base figure is 2.4 mill and another mill for Kayo and Foxnow.Total 3.4mill.With another 1.6mill gooone.
Something doesnt add up because Foxtel people are saying subscriptions increased overall.Anyway,its not hard to see a massive viewing change.Even I,who have Foxtel rarely watch it live.I like to record ,pause and ffwd at will.
5mill to 2.4mill is a 50% drop in live non stream viewing.
If you ignore that change and just look at Live viewing vs Streaming for Foxsports alone ,it's now 70% live and 30% streaming.
You have to take into account a much greater proportion of people on Kayo and FoxtelNow would watch sport to those with an IQ box. 

It would not be crazy to believe a Foxsports rating could be increased 30% to 50%  to account for Kayo amd FoxtelNow.
Then you still have the other streaming services.Add another 10% -20%.
That's 40% -70% add on.
40k becomes  56k -68k.....
60k becomes. 84k -- 102k
And we are getting back to where we were.

That's BS and you know it, your just making up the numbers based on what's new. Facts are no one is watching the HAL over 50k. We are the new NBL.

When I first did the ratings stats (in SBS's first year) the common perception was that FTA would be 3 to 4 times higher than Foxtel based purely on how many had one vs the other

I predicted the ratio would be 45:55 because football was an exclusive payTV product so it was either subscribe to Foxtel or miss out entirely. After the first year, I dont recall the exact figures, but a Friday to Friday comparison resulted in 40% to 45% for Foxtel. Even though ratings are an estimate based on the habits of a sample, it was interesting to see that it was pretty much bang on the mark of what I predicted

What we see on ABC today is no different to last year, or the year before, or the later SBS games when the BBL was on. Its the figure that we used to get when we were left with core fans. The figures today still represent 60% of our core fan base that we saw before Internet streaming, during the last rounds of the season. This is expected because the ratings are done on the assumption that everybody watches FTA. They arent adjusted for Foxtel, Internet or otherwise

In the utopian society where people only watch FTA the interest in our game has not changed. You can also assume Foxtel do the same for their data, especially considering Kayo sports was barely 5% of their total subs not even a year ago, and overall subscriptions to the Foxtel box have not dropped

The Internet subscriptions, which is 24% of total Foxtel subscriptions, is not captured in the data. If the FTA ratings represent depleted interest, then it is natural to expect Foxtel ratings will drop, as we have also seen with attendances. So there is nothing wrong with the data we are seeing

So the question is, what is actually happening?

The problem with the data you have posted is there is no FTA audience. This once represented 60% of our total estimated support, which has not changed from what we expect when interest is low, yet it is missing from your data. I can imagine the actual ratio might be 40% Fox, 10% Internet, 50% FTA which means if you survey 33 fans, 17 or 18 should report watching the games on ABC

I dont see the Internet audience as an addition to our fan base because as mentioned before, people act like people. It isnt logical to think casual fans will turn away from watching the game, as we saw in the data before streaming was available, but then start watching it in large numbers over the Internet

I think the Foxtel and ABC figures are over inflated because they both project their figures to 100% of the audience. They dont have a "did you watch Kayo instead" button on their ratings box. Which means when you have a game that is 40k Foxtel, and 60k ABC, it is likely (for example) 35k Foxtel, 10k Internet, and 55k ABC. Not 40k Foxtel, 60k ABC, 20k Internet as some people think

OzTam's Universe Estimates for this quarter is 2,571,800 homes served by STV.  Last time I used the UE's to calculate penetration of the market was about 5 years ago and the total homes served was 2,372,300.  I've never seen a figure of 5 million so I doubt it is correct.

Probably a few tuning in early to watch the matildas game as well.

Thats what I meant, a-league ratings were probably higher because of people watching the Matildas game before.

Yep, I think we can put these ratings down to people watching the Matildas and then hanging around for the News. The 57k on Foxtel for MU and WSW was also probably something to do with something.

Sorry, don't understand your point

The point is, why cant we just appreciate good ratings without having to find a negative angle.

Was that negative was it? Just an opinion. It's a noticeable bump, just putting it out there why I think there was a bump.

Yeah, it was another good bump, lets hope it continues. I remember reading that games on 10 were averaging around 70k so it will be good to get back there and some.

pretty sure that article said 75k average on TEN and believe it was metro+regional numbers. ABC have only been providing metro numbers, so numbers could well be up on ABC overall (so far).

Nn

BB

Two things in reply to your post above... first I was only looking at Fox and subscriptions rating ... I left out Optus & the ABC as I was only interested in what Fox was doing... the numbers are small and maybe net bias given they were on Football forums... however IMO they demonstrate a shift away from lets call it main stream subscription viewing and to early versions of streaming subscriptions and combined the fall is no where near the death rattle talk...

On the more specific issue you raised pertaining to a fall off in interest .... well anyone who believed it would not happen in a dirty civil war over 3 seasons has rocks in their head... A simple example in the late 80's rugby league for a short period in sports administration in Australia was the best managed sport ... at the same time and again unusual the AFL was not well managed... not counting crowds or memberships but for a brief time league was the king of Australian professional sport...

Then came the Super League war of the mid 90's it lasted for I think just under two years and almost destroyed league and arguably league has never recovered the ground it lost ...

So first the 3 year civil war hurt... other factors and a reason I believe we have had two Hals ie. pre World Cup Bid & Post World Cup Bid... is  that pre the bid Hal was tearing along .. post the bid its been one issue after another with FFA incapable of re capturing and controlling the conversation... secondly in this environment they where incapable of reacting to the changing sporting market place around them i.e. the development of the Big Bash, growth in other female sports, Super Eights improved hugely, Netball the growth of E-Games... finally the spilt between Fox & Optus when Optus got hold of the-EPL rights...

IMO the reason for the decline is quite simple,  we have had no real management who lead and created vision moreover we have had management trying to justify itself since the failed world cup bid, resulting in a 3 year civil war to oust a failed management team... while other sports were busy at creating their own stories...

I don't think either the new Hal management nor the new FFA, at this stage have earned  the respect of the broader Football community. Further the Football community because of a lack of leadership is highly fractured and in many ways polarised to different positions.

Having said all this deep down in my soul, with decent management, which would include a more bottom up approach as opposed to the top down approach Football has had since the mid 50's I believe Football is capable of rapid growth. As I have posted often the answer is with the associations and thu them to the committees of their park teams.... from their to engage an create a behavioural shift in the playing base towards Professional Australian Football...

That has been my opinion all along

Its like after season 6 the AFL / NRL mob said "We've tried things your way, now lets try things our way". The sole focus has been "rescuing" attendances and ratings independent of the actual product

These cringe worthy features of our game would never have even been joked about during the reform

Its time to dump the AFL / NRL model and introduce a proper competitive football league. It doesnt have to be popular, only viable. If big Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane markets, along with international ownership / investment is enough to pay the bills, and there is enough to trickle down and support smaller teams / W League / second tier, then thats the best we can hope for. But I think you'll find it would naturally be more popular also

don't need to be a rhodes scholar to work out you're No Mates.


this exactly. why are people looking for an excuse to downgrade something that appears to be an improvement? the old bitter bullshit is getting tiresome.

Agree and have been thinking for a long time how to transition away from existing models to in time a full FIFA model.... its a lot harder than most think... having said that I honestly believe I have worked it out...

I send off my ideas to Fozzie & SBS and they are currently looking at them .... hopefully they will publish on the SBS site ... if not I will put it on here and the Roar...

 

great initiative mate  

can't wait to see this new model