Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

ALM TV Ratings

someguyjc said:
Plenty of opportunities for growth, just not without change.
TV is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of the population no longer watches FTA TV in any substantial amount. There is a reason it is referred to as legacy media in the industry. Streaming numbers are far more important. Unfortunately for us we don't know what those are like. We do know that the free streaming options (10play, abc iview, sbs on demand, etc) see steady year on year growth.
Click to expand...
and thats the big ? when you see for eg the P+ subscriptions of over 2M.
Luv to really know how many actually have tuned in to games and the actual numbers viewing any game.
Besides, like surveys of the past - can you actually believe the numbers in any case.
 
When people say FTA numbers are nothing, then why are they so big for state of origin, NRL/AFL finals and Matilda games that bring in over 2mil views. To say FTA is dead and everyone watches streaming is just plain BS. FTA TV brings in much more revenue with advertising then streaming and that's a fact. To run a add when state of origin is on cost a fortune I don't have the numbers but it was in the paper a few years back. Advertising during big matches like the Matilda's games etc on FTA u know its money well spent with the viewing figures .
You just don't get that on streaming. Also why are big matches on FTA then just streaming if everyone just watches streaming now? Because FTA is not dead, its a cash cow for the stations and the numbers don't lie.
 
NoMates said:
Because FTA is not dead, its a cash cow for the stations and the numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...
Not dead, but dying.
Big events bring in money, no denying that, however big events are few and far between.
The numbers don't lie, and those numbers say that the majority of the population aren't watching broadcast TV.
 
NoMates said:
When people say FTA numbers are nothing, then why are they so big for state of origin, NRL/AFL finals and Matilda games that bring in over 2mil views. To say FTA is dead and everyone watches streaming is just plain BS. FTA TV brings in much more revenue with advertising then streaming and that's a fact. To run a add when state of origin is on cost a fortune I don't have the numbers but it was in the paper a few years back. Advertising during big matches like the Matilda's games etc on FTA u know its money well spent with the viewing figures .
You just don't get that on streaming. Also why are big matches on FTA then just streaming if everyone just watches streaming now? Because FTA is not dead, its a cash cow for the stations and the numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...
Because NRL/Origin/AFL is on FTA………..
 
someguyjc said:
Plenty of opportunities for growth, just not without change.
TV is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of the population no longer watches FTA TV in any substantial amount. There is a reason it is referred to as legacy media in the industry. Streaming numbers are far more important. Unfortunately for us we don't know what those are like. We do know that the free streaming options (10play, abc iview, sbs on demand, etc) see steady year on year growth.
Click to expand...
I would question this and would have hurrumphed 1-2 years ago but now, looking at my families use, you are spot on.. The odd news or live sport is pretty much the only time the telly is used for FTA, everything else is streaming.

This begs the MAIN question though, if Paramount has 2 million subscribers WHY are only 3-5,000 people attending Aleague matches live?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
I would question this and would have hurrumphed 1-2 years ago but now, looking at my families use, you are spot on.. The odd news or live sport is pretty much the only time the telly is used for FTA, everything else is streaming.

This begs the MAIN question though, if Paramount has 2 million subscribers WHY are only 3-5,000 people attending Aleague matches live?
Click to expand...
You may have answered your own question.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for sure....

The 2 million subscribers to Paramount Plus in Australia can't just be subscribing for the tv shows and movie offerings which are mostly shit....
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
I would question this and would have hurrumphed 1-2 years ago but now, looking at my families use, you are spot on.. The odd news or live sport is pretty much the only time the telly is used for FTA, everything else is streaming.

This begs the MAIN question though, if Paramount has 2 million subscribers WHY are only 3-5,000 people attending Aleague matches live?
Click to expand...
Even my boomer parents don't watch much FTA TV anymore. Every time I visit them they'll almost always be watching something on a streaming service. People still watch a little bit here and there, but it's not a focus anymore. Other than live events, people prefer to watch on their own schedule.
I'd say some people are saving a bit of money and watching from home rather than going. P+ is really cheap compared to the others.
 
One thing is for sure and this is where I agree with Mono a bit, some serious work needs to be done with the clubs that are getting small crowds....

The general aesthetic of the A-League as a TV sports product is actually quite good. The quality of the football is pretty good, there's a few young exciting talents running around, the atmosphere in some of the grounds is good and usually there's enough intrigue to make everyone watching the football at home on TV remain on their sofas....

Particularly when the games are played in the evening under the lights

What hurts it is these clubs playing in front of 3/4 empty stands and also if you add the ridiculous afternoon kick-offs, where matches can be played in 30°+ temperatures it can make it all look lethargically un-entertaining.

Small tweaking of kick-off times, a re-think on some of the stadium strategies and a few commentator changes could something that improves the A-League as a TV production andcget more eyes on screens.

The Bottom Line: If they can fix the "cavernous stadium" problem and stop forcing players to run through treacle in the mid-afternoon sun, the A-League is actually sitting on a very decent TV product. It just needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with poor scheduling...

And maybe refresh of the broadcast talent to better engage the stay-at-home audience.
 
Football us life said:
One thing is for sure and this is where I agree with Mono a bit, some serious work needs to be done with the clubs that are getting small crowds....

The general aesthetic of the A-League as a TV sports product is actually quite good. The quality of the football is pretty good, there's a few young exciting talents running around, the atmosphere in some of the grounds is good and usually there's enough intrigue to make everyone watching the football at home on TV remain on their sofas....

Particularly when the games are played in the evening under the lights

What hurts it is these clubs playing in front of 3/4 empty stands and also if you add the ridiculous afternoon kick-offs, where matches can be played in 30°+ temperatures it can make it all look lethargically un-entertaining.

Small tweaking of kick-off times, a re-think on some of the stadium strategies and a few commentator changes could something that improves the A-League as a TV production andcget more eyes on screens.

The Bottom Line: If they can fix the "cavernous stadium" problem and stop forcing players to run through treacle in the mid-afternoon sun, the A-League is actually sitting on a very decent TV product. It just needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with poor scheduling...

And maybe refresh of the broadcast talent to better engage the stay-at-home audience.
Click to expand...
Sort of my point... I was more questioning the fact that if 2 million people are subscribing to watch the Aleague, they would already have some sort of affiliation with an Aleague club... 2 million people watch on stream but only 8.5 thousand attend live on average? Thats a catastrophic difference.
 
Cost of living has exploded over recent years, it's so cheap just to get a whole season on P+ for $60 on sale, we should get accustomed to these crowd sizes and have stadia to match. This is where NBL will do well in this climate. I used to think the "highest ever ratings/subscribers" posts about P+ were rubbish, but it actually makes sense.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Sort of my point... I was more questioning the fact that if 2 million people are subscribing to watch the Aleague, they would already have some sort of affiliation with an Aleague club... 2 million people watch on stream but only 8.5 thousand attend live on average? Thats a catastrophic difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah get yer....

In the UK with nearly 2.5 times the population of Australia around 7 million people subscribe to Sky TV the major broadcaster of the Premier League....

Plus the Now streaming service which also carries Sky Sports on a weekly or monthly short term basis, but which doesn't release subscriber numbers but I'd guess it's probably around a quarter of the full service...

So let's estimate around 9 million people have access to.Sky Sports in one format or another.

Average EPL attendance?

Around 40,000 per game.

I'd need Grazorblade to work out an equation but it doesn't look too dissimilar.
 
HappyGuus said:
Cost of living has exploded over recent years, it's so cheap just to get a whole season on P+ for $60 on sale, we should get accustomed to these crowd sizes and have stadia to match. This is where NBL will do well in this climate. I used to think the "highest ever ratings/subscribers" posts about P+ were rubbish, but it actually makes sense.
Click to expand...
Not sure mate.... 2 million people watching online is a VERY powerful fanbase... having 3-5k people in the stands some time is pretty inexcusable.
 
Football us life said:
Yeah get yer....

In the UK with nearly 2.5 times the population of Australia around 7 million people subscribe to Sky TV the major broadcaster of the Premier League....

Plus the Now streaming service which also carries Sky Sports on a weekly or monthly short term basis, but which doesn't release subscriber numbers but I'd guess it's probably around a quarter of the full service...

So let's estimate around 9 million people have access to.Sky Sports in one format or another.

Average EPL attendance?

Around 40,000 per game.

I'd need Grazorblade to work out an equation but it doesn't look too dissimilar.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and you dont even have to go to something as commercially succesful as the EPL either. Something is broken if 2 milion people clearly enjoy a sport enough to pay for it but dont want to watch it live.. at least some of them..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top