PayTV v FTA numbers for Darwin.

[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..