Field Theory: They're talking to you
55 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
And re: TVNZ freeview and sport, not a hell of a lot. Look at all the sport they've given away over the past three years.
Sky has both of the next Olympics I think. Which might be my impetus to get sky in order to get the Winter Games next year.
-
I hear this time and again but I'm yet to bump into these people who are apathetic to rugby.
I am really going off my personal observations plus a study I heard of a while back which suggest there were something like 700,000? people in NZ that were avid rugger fans and another 500,000 or so that follow it to a significant extent. Believe me though, I can think of a stinkingly large number of people who couldn't give a flying fuck about rugby. My wife and every single Korean that she and I know as a starter for ten. I could also suggest a large number of radio sport callers and sports forum posters who are rugby fans but openly becoming or long since became apathetic to rugby (by their standards anyway).
I'd say at my school over half the kids come from families without access, they don't pop into many pubs.
I'm not representative of millions of people but I used to watch ALL rugby and league live and now I watch about 5% of it live.
I live next to a radio though with is permanently tuned to RS. Most of those who listen (well call in at least) funnily enough seem to have SKY as they are typically talking about what they saw and it was only on SKY. But make no mistake, there are a whole lot of kids out there who are watching very, very little rugby, league and cricket and it must be making a significant difference down the stretch. You don't want a generation growing up without sporting heroes. Not if you are adminstering that sport anyway.
-
Now, I'm not attacking you or anything but I'd just wanna raise some things:
Most of those who listen (well call in at least) funnily enough seem to have SKY as they are typically talking about what they saw and it was only on SKY.
They're also generally white, 40 or over, predominantly male [there are quite a few female, including a regular for Miles Davis] and will ring up with a grievance. If it's not Henry it's Tew. If it's not Tew it's Nonu. If it's not Nonu it's Hansen. Etc etc etc. It's hardly ever positive. It doesn't help when they also employ one of the most negative, cynical, sports-bashing 'journalists' I've ever heard [I'm looking at you Matt Gunn.] They also always know better than those involved in the sport. [Imagine a 2008 without Henry, Hansen and Smith, or Cowan, Weepu, Thomson, Nonu, Smith, Kahui, Sivivatu and Mackintosh?!] These are not teenagers trying to find a sport which interests them.
Not if you are adminstering that sport anyway.
So who is to blame then? The broadcaster doing their best to secure revenue and viewers for their company or the administrator attempting to promote their sport to the masses while ensuring it is financially stable enough to still have a competition? [Heres a hint: Both and neither]
As an example, are SPARC, as the governing body, to blame for the inadequate rugby league competition and participation levels in New Zealand? Or is Rugby League NZ, as the ruling body? Or is SKY, as the broadcaster, because the kids can't watch the Warriors/Kiwis on the weekend as their families don't have the money?
I live next to a radio though with is permanently tuned to RS.
Must be pretty cheap rent huh? :P
You should really stop listening to Radio Sport. BSport is miles better. :) Even Richard Loe's On the Field is better than Miles Davis or 'The Brendan Telfer Experience' ;)My wife and every single Korean that she and I know as a starter for ten.
Ok sure, you got me there. But would they watch it if it was on free-to-air, in the afternoon and in warm, sunny conditions? [as your earlier post suggested was the way to fix it.]
And Kyle, yep, you're right. Prime and SKY have the rights to the winter and summer olympics from 2009 - TBA.
-
Too many questions to answer there. but I'll go back over some of the issues.
I listen to radio sport for the live sport (something to do with not being able to see most of it) not the talkback which thankfully there is relatively little of. And that even includes the domestic cricket. My wife asked me in the car yesterday "do you actually enjoy listening to this?"
You've pretty much agreed with my initial point about TV being where young folk get their sports heroes from. That was what I was trying to say. Young people don't go to bars and they don't listen to radio sport enjoying the talkback whingefest. And there aren't many I know who sit down to read the sports section of the newspaper each day if there's even a newspaper in the house.
All I am saying is that a sport that has 500,000 watching on pay tv or 1 million watching on free to air is more likely to be better off long term in terms of profile, spectator numbers, and playing numbers with the latter. Financially it's a no brainer for them to go with the highest bidder but the simple fact is that a lot more people will watch something if a lot more people have access to it. Fortunately for them SKY is in enough homes but if it was in a couple of hundred thousand homes and there were no replays at all on free to air it would be a whole other story when the rights were up for grabs I'm sure.
The responsibility for playing numbers lies purely and simply with the administering body. In the NZRL's case they don't have anything to show on TV. Aside from the domestic comp which ran over a couple of weeks this year and was on Maori TV. They also have a couple of test matches which they will sell to the highest bidder but Maori TV are also getting a lot of rights as well. The Warriors don't have any say in TV rights, that's all sorted by the NRL who need bucks to keep the game going at their end. They are not responsible for administering the game country-wide that would be the ARL and they don't have much to offer TV networks.
I'm not blaming SKY, in fact I'm not blaming anybody. Maybe my point wasn't made clearly. It is merely an observation that less people can follow a sport if less people have access to (VIEW) it and that that will be a concern long term to those running the sport in terms of playing numbers. It's a simple no brainer though.
So to sum up: less people able to watch = less people watching = less of a following and participation.*
*but way more $$$ for players.
-
Ok sure, you got me there. But would they watch it if it was on free-to-air, in the afternoon and in warm, sunny conditions? [as your earlier post suggested was the way to fix it.]
Oh yeah, and the Korean thing had nothing to do with how to fix viewing numbers for rugby. It was a point about a large percentage of the population not caring about rugby.
But rugby on free to air, in the sunshine would get more people watching that's patently obvious. Just not my wifes friends ;)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.