PayTV v FTA numbers for Darwin.

Pay TV v Free to Air TV Debate; Food for thought, taken from elsewhere,

How pay TV is killing V8 Supercars ...
Last weekend's racing in Darwin was live on free to air TV. The stats for race 15 are as follows:

- 126,000 tuned in on Pay TV.
- 422,000 tuned in on free to air TV.

So that’s almost 422,000 People extra who normally don’t see sponsors names on cars, and if you are a business contributing towards the $2-$3,000,000 team bill each year - you want 422,000 extra people to see your name on a car.

I would be more than a bit annoyed if I were tipping vast amounts of cash into a sport with a TV audience of 126,000 when it could have been a total of around 550,000.

Plus of course there are all the kids (future drivers and purchasers ) who flick around stations on an afternoon - and decide they are interested in the sport.

yep paytv sucks in the big picture for the avg consumer.
Its just not killing SC but alot of sports who have souled their souls.
ALeague being one of the neglected sports not in Fox's mantra incl Union has decided to say bye bye after next year going to livestreams and likely Optus Sport.
Gayfl/NRL rule the roost everything else no matter to them.

You've raised some very valid points Norm. No doubt SC's and their stakeholders have also considered.

Sometimes marketing stats like this don't always disclose the real story when measuring actual engagement.

For example, let's just say hypothetically that a large portion of paid TV subscribers represents a more qualified audience. That is an audience that is not only willing to pay to watch the sport they are also likely to engage with the teams and sponsors, attending events, buy merchandise, becoming team members, and making purchase decisions based on sponsor alliances.

Then you have the 422,000 free TV viewers. Lots more eyeballs as you said, but what about the engagement conversion? Could free equal less invested in the sport and if so, what are the consequences of that in terms of results for stakeholders?

From a marketing perspective..

a) I can reach 422,000 people that have shown some level of interested in my industry when served with free content but overall engagement is low, verse
b) I can reach 126,000 qualified people that have paid to see my industry content and actively engage with it at a tangible level

In truth, you'd hedge your bets and do both if they budget allowed for it, then track and measure engagement across all channels. Free TV is at the top of the funnel, whereas Paid TV is much lower down.

The fact that SC's is looking to renew for another 5 years indicates engagement is as strong, if not stronger even with fewer viewers (than free TV). Obviously I don't have access to their data but this would be my suspicion.

On the other hand, you'd be mad to put all your eggs in the one basket.

Free TV is much more broad-reaching and serves as the means (top of the funnel) to attract and build brand awareness and followers, sponsors and progress them down the funnel to become a more invested and engaged audience that may watch paid TV etc..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WASP

You've raised some very valid points Norm. No doubt SC's and their stakeholders have also considered.

Sometimes marketing stats like this don't always disclose the real story when measuring actual engagement.

For example, let's just say hypothetically that a large portion of paid TV subscribers represents a more qualified audience. That is an audience that is not only willing to pay to watch the sport they are also likely to engage with the teams and sponsors, attending events, buy merchandise, becoming team members, and making purchase decisions based on sponsor alliances.

Then you have the 422,000 free TV viewers. Lots more eyeballs as you said, but what about the engagement conversion? Could free equal less invested in the sport and if so, what are the consequences of that in terms of results for stakeholders?

From a marketing perspective..

a) I can reach 422,000 people that have shown some level of interested in my industry when served with free content but overall engagement is low, verse
b) I can reach 126,000 qualified people that have paid to see my industry content and actively engage with it at a tangible level

In truth, you'd hedge your bets and do both if they budget allowed for it, then track and measure engagement across all channels. Free TV is at the top of the funnel, whereas Paid TV is much lower down.

The fact that SC's is looking to renew for another 5 years indicates engagement is as strong, if not stronger even with fewer viewers (than free TV). Obviously I don't have access to their data but this would be my suspicion.

On the other hand, you'd be mad to put all your eggs in the one basket.

Free TV is much more broad-reaching and serves as the means (top of the funnel) to attract and build brand awareness and followers, sponsors and progress them down the funnel to become a more invested and engaged audience that may watch paid TV etc..

---

Yep agree totally.

From my perspective PayTV represents the "rusted on" viewer, someone who is already a fan.

FTA opens up the opportunity to attract new people to the sport.

I believe the new 5 year agreement see's a significant migration back to FTA, read into that what you will.

From my perspective i'd like to be represented across both platforms, "hedging" your exposure.

FTA allows me to offer greater value for money to sponsor brands who appeal to all demographics, (as opposed to automotive enthusiasts), these are often the large multinationals who have the largest budgeting spends.

Put it this way, the day you see an international Cosmetics, Sporting or Clothing brand on cars or event advertising you know you've made it.

Both Col and Norm make good points. I suppose it should come down to what are you exactly trying to achieve with both the forms? If there is a strategic plan then those numbers may be acceptable. Get the normal pundit interested with the free to air with a basic layout. Then charge the Foxtel rate with more in depth telecast, choice of in car views etc. This then justifies the extra charge for in improved experience. Overall though, would I be right in thinking that 550,000 combined numbers is low for the sport considering overall motorsport is lacking at the moment?

Very valid thoughts. Apparently the about to be signed deal with the 7 network, there will be more rounds on FTA. No numbers have been given tety, but going on sevens performance last time, will be treated as poor cousin to AFL, and now cricket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perko

Both Col and Norm make good points. I suppose it should come down to what are you exactly trying to achieve with both the forms? If there is a strategic plan then those numbers may be acceptable. Get the normal pundit interested with the free to air with a basic layout. Then charge the Foxtel rate with more in depth telecast, choice of in car views etc. This then justifies the extra charge for in improved experience. Overall though, would I be right in thinking that 550,000 combined numbers is low for the sport considering overall motorsport is lacking at the moment?

---

Absolutely.

You'd approach both platforms from different perspectives, dare i say it, you could probably charge more for the PayTV access because those rusted on fans, (the same ones who bagged people for being cheap skates wanting it still on FTA) will pay for the extra coverage and detail.

Then taylor the FTA broadcast to a more vanila audience.

Pay tv as it currently exists Is a dinosaur just waiting for it’s final shot.

The future I suspect will lie in limited fta exposure to act more as an advertisement or gateway for the sport and the main event will be pay per view or other online subscription.

I think most sports will go that way eventually.

The downside is that it will end up costing the consumer more.
Even though the individual subscription may be $10-15 a month we are already seeing that in order to watch everything coming out on subscription services you need a lot of different accounts.
I think Megan and I already have 7-8 different subscriptions and we aren’t big watchers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why waste money on subscriptions, sink all this constant money into something u hardly use. I have no subs n yes I miss out on the latest TV shows n some of what was my favourite sports, but I'm surviving just fine. Have absolutely no fear of missing out. I have a fair firm belief in not giving any of my money to certain individuals who have done nothing but destroy Australian sporting culture. Foxtel n kayo can shove it where the sun don't shine. I'm sure they're aren't missing me. But if everyone keeps buying their service things will never change. I don't see much in paying for something that u hardly use n still have AD's to put up with.
PS loving West Indies cricket of YouTube, free coverage when playing at home against any international team, no subs required
Ultimately if all sports want a future u have to allow the younger gens to see it n putting it behind a pay wall restricts that for those on lower income. Priority's is not paying for subscriptions