Sport on Terrestrial Telly

[Deleted member 15344]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/48989639

Some viewing figures from the weekend but mainly the Sunday

9.6mil peak for the Wimbledon Final on BBC - average of 6 mil

7.9mil peak for Cricket World Cup combined on Sky/Ch4 - average of 1.2 mil on Sky and 2.4 mil on CH4

2.5 mil for the F1 on CH4


Looking at some of the stats a lot of unique visitors using the website to follow the WC games 29mil


Will be interesting to see how many viewers The Open gets , when it was on BBC it was around 5 mil peak which dropped to 1 mil when it went to Sky

It seems Golf gets hit the most - maybe there was more casual viewers

 

[Hobbit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/48989639

Some viewing figures from the weekend but mainly the Sunday

9.6mil peak for the Wimbledon Final on BBC - average of 6 mil

7.9mil peak for Cricket World Cup combined on Sky/Ch4 - average of 1.2 mil on Sky and 2.4 mil on CH4

2.5 mil for the F1 on CH4


Looking at some of the stats a lot of unique visitors using the website to follow the WC games 29mil


Will be interesting to see how many viewers The Open gets , when it was on BBC it was around 5 mil peak which dropped to 1 mil when it went to Sky

It seems Golf gets hit the most - maybe there was more casual viewers

Just a thought on the golf viewing figures. Golf as we know is typically an older person's sport, especially when you look at the average age of golf club members. If you then look at various Sky TV viewing stats by age you'll see that the oldies are a lot less likely to have Sky TV. Therefore, its not unreasonable expect a low viewing figure if a significant number of those interested in golf don't subscribe to Sky TV.

 

[Papas1982]

Just a thought on the golf viewing figures. Golf as we know is typically an older person's sport, especially when you look at the average age of golf club members. If you then look at various Sky TV viewing stats by age you'll see that the oldies are a lot less likely to have Sky TV. Therefore, its not unreasonable expect a low viewing figure if a significant number of those interested in golf don't subscribe to Sky TV.

That’s a fair point, plus it’ll be on tv for 10 hours a day. Probably lots of tuning in and out but the casual viewer isn’t going to get captivated unless a big finish so won’t watch all day.

I’d imagine the cricket peaked at end this weekend, f1 start and finish where as tennis will have been pretty constant.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Just a thought on the golf viewing figures. Golf as we know is typically an older person's sport, especially when you look at the average age of golf club members. If you then look at various Sky TV viewing stats by age you'll see that the oldies are a lot less likely to have Sky TV. Therefore, its not unreasonable expect a low viewing figure if a significant number of those interested in golf don't subscribe to Sky TV.

That’s a fair point, plus it’ll be on tv for 10 hours a day. Probably lots of tuning in and out but the casual viewer isn’t going to get captivated unless a big finish so won’t watch all day.

I’d imagine the cricket peaked at end this weekend, f1 start and finish where as tennis will have been pretty constant.

I think the golf audience is the older people 50+ maybe so by moving to Sky they did lose a lot of that core audience for the sport and it also lost the casual viewers as well

I don’t see Sky have that many “casual” viewer because people are paying a subscription - there maybe the small percentage of the people viewing will be other sports fans and there is nothing on that day so will watch the golf but ultimately the people watching the golf on Sky will already be golfers or golf fans as such - the audience graphic has shrunk significantly just like it did with cricket etc

The telling story is the level of viewing figures for the last two days of the Masters .

With the contract coming up for renewal next year it will be interesting to see what the R&A do - 2021 is a big year for them so I guess they would want it to be broadcast to the widest possible area they can get - I’m not sure how much difference rbe extra money has made with the main difference to some being the way Sky present the Sport with the whistle and bells which some love

 

[patricks148]

Eurosport has covered the TDF fully far longer than ITV/C4, who for many years only bothered with highlights of mainly the finish.

the counties get a share of the money from Sky, if that was gone how would they survive on falling attendance at matches, attendances were poor when it was on free to air, times have changes people don't go to CC games as they used to some 50 years ago

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The thing with these viewing figures is I am certain they get skewed. My old mum had zero interest in tennis but would watch both single finals religiously and I am sure she wasn't alone so I think you need to be very careful just how much gets read into numbers. Not sure where LP gets 2021 from as Sky have already signed a deal to extend coverage to 2024 https://www.skysports.com/golf/news...s-live-coverage-deal-with-ra-extended-to-2024

For me Diablo got it spot in in post #55 and without Sky backing a lot of these sports, a lot of teams and indeed competitions (county championships in cricket) etc would be in serious trouble as they don't attract enough money to make them viable long term. He's spot on about the netball and without Sky money and professionalism we'd never have a side that can challenge the best. Same with the ET. Without Sky input and coverage would there really be as many tournaments?

I really don't understand why people pay so much attention to viewing figures. This weekend in particular, I was in and out of the F1, watching the cricket, flicking over to the tennis and the golf. Where does my viewing figures get counted. I think if you are able to give people the product let them make a decision on what to watch. Sadly the BBC and to a lesser degree ITV and C4, simply feel their golden jewels and what they have to date is sufficient. If the BBC dumped MOTD it would fund live golf coverage of the Open and much more for decades. With access to football highlights available across so many platforms these days do we actually need an hour of highlights or is the BBC playing the sentiment card as MOTD is seen as a BBC traditional programme

 

[MegaSteve]

Viewing figures are important, for providers, as their advertising income is almost certainly linked to them...

And, it's not Sky 'money' it's subscribers money …

 

[Hacker Khan]

Just a thought on the golf viewing figures. Golf as we know is typically an older person's sport, especially when you look at the average age of golf club members. If you then look at various Sky TV viewing stats by age you'll see that the oldies are a lot less likely to have Sky TV. Therefore, its not unreasonable expect a low viewing figure if a significant number of those interested in golf don't subscribe to Sky TV.

I'd argue it's more down to the fact that outside of the Ryder Cup, golf, especially strokeplay 72 hole golf, is very difficult to broadcast in an exciting and engaging way that will draw in any casual/non hardcore golf viewers. Maybe if Rory is leading down the stretch at Portrush people would tune in, same for Tiger winning the Masters, but outside of that I don't think there's much to draw in the casual viewer who is not already subscribed.

 

[Slab]

How we consume live sport broadcasts will never regress to terrestrial TV, it just isn’t an option. Neither will it remain dominated by cable/satellite as online consumption is already well established and growing as we all know

The availability of live sport has exploded with the technology advancement such that any sporting event of substance is available anywhere in the world… if you’re willing to pay. Question is, is the appetite there in sufficient numbers to make it sustainable for each sport

Future tech is only going to make it easier to film sport so that in years to come hundreds of miles of cables and many dozens of personnel won’t be required to film The Open and when that tech is commercially available every Tom, Richard or Harriett will be vying to be the broadcaster for xyz sport & means terrestrial TV won’t even get its hands on minority sports let alone the popular content

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Viewing figures are important, for providers, as their advertising income is almost certainly linked to them...

And, it's not Sky 'money' it's subscribers money …

Don't be daft. It's Sky money. They have accrued it (from subscribers, or wherever) and then, it being theirs to do with it what they wish, it goes where it goes. Including sports or ventures etc that they support.
If a shop financially supports a local sport, then that shop's users in the past year wouldn't be claiming to be the providers for that local sport.

 

[MegaSteve]

Don't be daft. It's Sky money. They have accrued it (from subscribers, or wherever) and then, it being theirs to do with it what they wish, it goes where it goes. Including sports or ventures etc that they support.
If a shop financially supports a local sport, then that shop's users in the past year wouldn't be claiming to be the providers for that local sport.

No more dafter than the way folk go on and on and on about the way the beeb use their money...

 

[Crazyface]

I'd argue it's more down to the fact that outside of the Ryder Cup, golf, especially strokeplay 72 hole golf, is very difficult to broadcast in an exciting and engaging way that will draw in any casual/non hardcore golf viewers. Maybe if Rory is leading down the stretch at Portrush people would tune in, same for Tiger winning the Masters, but outside of that I don't think there's much to draw in the casual viewer who is not already subscribed.

They show bluddy indoor bluddy bowls. Just how exciting is that!!!!!!?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I don't want to watch 100 tournaments a year - I am actually only bothered about watching the one. And I am missing watching The Open very much

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They show bluddy indoor bluddy bowls. Just how exciting is that!!!!!!?

It is a sport that is enjoyed by many (I have played it in the past) - with participation biased towards seniors and retired - and so a perfect daytime viewing option for many.

 

[GB72]

Saw an article today that states that the last terrestrial TV deal for cricket was worth £15 million and the first Sky deal was for £50 million, now worth £75 million. Cannot see Sky paying those sums if all of the prime events had to be on free to air TV as well.

Compare that to the £204 million pounds that the BBC paid for the rights for match of the day. So, they could have had the full, live cricket package, full rights to England Rugby matches (about £30 million) and still have enough in the bank to pay for the TV licences for over 75s and maybe pick up another sport as well but would rather have one hour a week of football highlights (which are all over the internet).

Simply not falling for the fact that terrestrial TV cannot afford the rights to the events that everyone wants to see, just that the BBC has an over inflated infatuation with football. Yes, I know it is the most popular sport but, as others who support the BBC say, it is not about ratings. 5 Live is the worst offender, any other sporting event, however significant, is ditched in favour of the most meaningless of premier league matches or bumped onto digital only.

 

[ger147]

I don't want to watch 100 tournaments a year - I am actually only bothered about watching the one. And I am missing watching The Open very much

Then buy a Sport Now pass and watch it.

 

[GB72]

I don't want to watch 100 tournaments a year - I am actually only bothered about watching the one. And I am missing watching The Open very much

And this is a fact that governing bodies in sport have cottoned on to. They are not going to sell the rights to broadcast the few events that everybody wants to see unless you are also willing to show the more mundane events as well. Aside from football, the rights to the week in, week out matches are pretty worthless unless they are tied into exclusive rights for the big event matches.

 

[Papas1982]

I don't want to watch 100 tournaments a year - I am actually only bothered about watching the one. And I am missing watching The Open very much

Then pay a whopping £8.95 and get sky go for a week. You'll get more coverage than you'd have previously got from the BBC.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Then pay a whopping £8.95 and get sky go for a week. You'll get more coverage than you'd have previously got from the BBC.

I was going to do that - but forgot all about it - and not going to bother now...but I am missing it. Will do it next year.

 

[Papas1982]

I was going to do that - but forgot all about it - and not going to bother now...but I am missing it. Will do it next year.

You've still got the best part of 30 hours coverage left. Surely if you missed it that much you could take it on....