Goals show also got 45k & 44k on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively. Again decent figures with live games on the other channels and they justify what is a really entertaining show.
BT Sports Channel (Part 2)
293 of 345
Good to get those CL and EL officials - as suspected there was a problem with the Top 10 overnights - the Man Utd game should obviously have been in the Top 10.
Moral of the story is if numbers don't make sense be careful - they may not be right - and that proved to be the case on this occasion.
Re Arsenal / Chelsea - remember that Sky Sports web article a few months ago which showed most popular team by location - it didn't give cumulative numbers for the whole of the UK but Arsenal were most popular in far, far more locations than Chelsea - implying it's likely they are more popular in total across the whole of the UK.
I'm hopeless at searching but someone may be able to find it!
Moral of the story is if numbers don't make sense be careful - they may not be right - and that proved to be the case on this occasion.
Re Arsenal / Chelsea - remember that Sky Sports web article a few months ago which showed most popular team by location - it didn't give cumulative numbers for the whole of the UK but Arsenal were most popular in far, far more locations than Chelsea - implying it's likely they are more popular in total across the whole of the UK.
I'm hopeless at searching but someone may be able to find it!
Originally Posted by arunan22:
“I'd disagree in terms of Arsenal and Chelsea being similar TV draw. Think there is a clear Top 2 (United and Liverpool), then Arsenal clearly 3rd, and then Chelsea further back in 4th.
Where Man City come into this is anyone's guess but often feel they rate quite poorly.
Also - just to add, I feel United benefit by playing on the same day as City, so cant compare like for like obviously. If United played the same day as Arsenal or Chelsea, suspect United would be lower.”
“I'd disagree in terms of Arsenal and Chelsea being similar TV draw. Think there is a clear Top 2 (United and Liverpool), then Arsenal clearly 3rd, and then Chelsea further back in 4th.
Where Man City come into this is anyone's guess but often feel they rate quite poorly.
Also - just to add, I feel United benefit by playing on the same day as City, so cant compare like for like obviously. If United played the same day as Arsenal or Chelsea, suspect United would be lower.”
I've always said that City are a small club, despite their immense wealth. The only reason they were taken over is because they were local rivals to the biggest club in English football. Certainly wasn't because of their pedigree.
How would they compare to Sky's?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?
From Chris Neilsonm, BT Sports Rights Manager: "The FA Cup 4th Round Qualifying Match between Margate v Forest Green Rovers will be live on BT Sport 1 (KO 1230)"
http://www.thefa.com/news/the-fa-cup...o-be-televised
http://www.thefa.com/news/the-fa-cup...o-be-televised
Originally Posted by bwfcol:
“How would they compare to Sky's?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?”
“How would they compare to Sky's?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?”
Its a real apples and pears as Sky's figures on Tue will be severely compromised by ITV game (and likely quite a few would navigate to terrestrial match over Sky)
The match timings are different, Gillette Soccer Special is on at the same time and will take viewers away in the same way the goals show wouldn't and Sky1 factor.
The figures look quite healthy for BT in respect that quite a few people must have BT Sport Europe either through Sky or paid the extra to BT. Their match nights overall are getting similar averages to their better PL games in midweek
As you say, paying subscribers is key.
The figures do appear to be down on comparable Sky matches- but not by loads (excluding Sky 1 figures)
The Sky 1 figures were very high though- around 500-600k for first two games reported last year
Has no one considered that most people watched Man City on free view ??
Those numbers would not be included in the figures given above
Those numbers would not be included in the figures given above
Originally Posted by bwfcol:
“How would they compare to Sky's?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?”
“How would they compare to Sky's?
Do BT actually care about these? Surely paying subscribers is 90% of the income?”
As you say, subscriber numbers is the important thing for BT. Not sure why weekly ratings are discussed because in the grand scheme of things, they don't mean anything. We all know that BT Sport has less subscribers than Sky Sports, for example, so the ratings are always going to be considerably less. I could be missing the point completely but I just don't understand why they are treated with such importance on this thread.
Originally Posted by Judio:
“Has no one considered that most people watched Man City on free view ??
Those numbers would not be included in the figures given above”
“Has no one considered that most people watched Man City on free view ??
Those numbers would not be included in the figures given above”
The Showcase ratings are miniscule.
We don't have individual programme ratings but we do have the overall weekly viewing shares:
BTS1 - 0.16%
BTS2 - 0.23%
BTS Europe - 0.40%
BTS Showcase - 0.02%
BTS/ESPN - 0.04%
Even allowing for the Man City game being the only programme on Showcase for the entire week, its audience has to be low.
Showcase had a 0.03% share in the week of MD1 and I did a post showing that equated to a rating for the Man Utd game of 120,000 assuming a rating of zero for the entire rest of the week (can't find post - maybe in another thread?).
So the 0.02% above for Showcase in the week of MD2 implies a rating for the Man City game of well under 100k.
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“As you say, subscriber numbers is the important thing for BT. Not sure why weekly ratings are discussed because in the grand scheme of things, they don't mean anything. We all know that BT Sport has less subscribers than Sky Sports, for example, so the ratings are always going to be considerably less. I could be missing the point completely but I just don't understand why they are treated with such importance on this thread.”
“As you say, subscriber numbers is the important thing for BT. Not sure why weekly ratings are discussed because in the grand scheme of things, they don't mean anything. We all know that BT Sport has less subscribers than Sky Sports, for example, so the ratings are always going to be considerably less. I could be missing the point completely but I just don't understand why they are treated with such importance on this thread.”
Advertising revenue must be quite important too, so ratings do mean something -if not everything.
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“As you say, subscriber numbers is the important thing for BT. Not sure why weekly ratings are discussed because in the grand scheme of things, they don't mean anything. We all know that BT Sport has less subscribers than Sky Sports, for example, so the ratings are always going to be considerably less. I could be missing the point completely but I just don't understand why they are treated with such importance on this thread.”
“As you say, subscriber numbers is the important thing for BT. Not sure why weekly ratings are discussed because in the grand scheme of things, they don't mean anything. We all know that BT Sport has less subscribers than Sky Sports, for example, so the ratings are always going to be considerably less. I could be missing the point completely but I just don't understand why they are treated with such importance on this thread.”
Ratings are almost meaningless in the sense that advertising revenue is a tiny proportion of BT's (and indeed Sky's) income so is of trivial consequence to them.
However they are worth looking at to gauge how the rights are performing - the stronger the ratings the more value subscribers are getting for their subscriptions which in turn should lead to lower churn. Stronger ratings also imply stronger demand for the product which should mean it's easier to push through price rises and new subscriber additions should remain healthy going forward.
Ditto re BT's broadband strategy - if "free" BTS is a tool to drive broadband additions / retentions then stronger BTS ratings imply more people are getting value from their "free" BTS which should then in turn have the desired knock-on effect on the broadband business.
So BT's (and indeed Sky's) ratings are really just an indicator (and in particular a leading indicator) of the success of the strategy being followed.
Ultimately the results that actually matter are the financials but very few people on here take any interest in those. Though on that subject both BT and Sky's results for the quarter ending 30/09/15 will be out in the next week or so and they will be of particular interest given it is the first quarter of BT showing the CL (and Sky not showing the CL) - so we'll look at those when they come out.
Daily Mail reporting that viewing figures for Saturday's Liverpool Tottenham game on BT at 12.45 could come close to their record figure of around 1.4mil!!!!
Surely it's not going to get that close for a Sat lunchtime game......is it?
Pretty sure out of all the up and coming games on Sky this is one they would of given anything for.
Surely it's not going to get that close for a Sat lunchtime game......is it?
Pretty sure out of all the up and coming games on Sky this is one they would of given anything for.
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“Daily Mail reporting that viewing figures for Saturday's Liverpool Tottenham game on BT at 12.45 could come close to their record figure of around 1.4mil!!!!
Surely it's not going to get that close for a Sat lunchtime game......is it?
Pretty sure out of all the up and coming games on Sky this is one they would of given anything for.”
“Daily Mail reporting that viewing figures for Saturday's Liverpool Tottenham game on BT at 12.45 could come close to their record figure of around 1.4mil!!!!
Surely it's not going to get that close for a Sat lunchtime game......is it?
Pretty sure out of all the up and coming games on Sky this is one they would of given anything for.”
Most football fans (including me) will miss the game, as they will be on the way to a game themself.
Never understood that 12:45 kick off on a Saturday lunchtime!!
Originally Posted by Judio:
“The Asian TV market likes the 1245 ko”
“The Asian TV market likes the 1245 ko”
Originally Posted by tvsatweek:
“What makes you say that”
“What makes you say that”
Time zones.
12:45pm UK is 6:45pm – 8:45pm in the far east.
3pm UK is 9pm –11pm so getting pretty late when matches will not finish until close to midnight in China and Singapore.
5:30pm UK is 11:30pm – 1:30am in the far east, but a friendly 9am – 12pm in north and central America.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Ratings are almost meaningless in the sense that advertising revenue is a tiny proportion of BT's (and indeed Sky's) income so is of trivial consequence.
.”
“Ratings are almost meaningless in the sense that advertising revenue is a tiny proportion of BT's (and indeed Sky's) income so is of trivial consequence.
.”
If they are of trivial consequence then why do we have to suffer so many?
Originally Posted by Homesdale:
“
Never understood that 12:45 kick off on a Saturday lunchtime!!”
“
Never understood that 12:45 kick off on a Saturday lunchtime!!”
2 reasons, Asia (hence La liga and serie A trying it)
And also Champions league sides have to play on Saturday.
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“If they are of trivial consequence then why do we have to suffer so many?”
“If they are of trivial consequence then why do we have to suffer so many?”
I didn't say that (BT/Sky) ratings are of trivial consequence - I said that the effect that (BT/Sky) ratings will have on their advertising revenue is of trivial consequence.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I didn't say that (BT/Sky) ratings are of trivial consequence - I said that the effect that (BT/Sky) ratings will have on their advertising revenue is of trivial consequence.”
“I didn't say that (BT/Sky) ratings are of trivial consequence - I said that the effect that (BT/Sky) ratings will have on their advertising revenue is of trivial consequence.”
Apologies, I quoted the wrong bit!!
I meant, why do we suffer so many adverts, if they are of trivial consequence?
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“Apologies, I quoted the wrong bit!!
I meant, why do we suffer so many adverts, if they are of trivial consequence?”
“Apologies, I quoted the wrong bit!!
I meant, why do we suffer so many adverts, if they are of trivial consequence?”
no one Gonna turn down money even if the percentage earned from adverts is a small percentage of total income.
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“no one Gonna turn down money even if the percentage earned from adverts is a small percentage of total income.”
“no one Gonna turn down money even if the percentage earned from adverts is a small percentage of total income.”
Yes, that's right.
The other thing to note is that BT/Sky's advertising revenue is 100% profit - there's no incremental cost involved.
So even if advertising revenue is a small % of total revenue, it's actually a much bigger % of total profits.
The point I was originally trying(!) to make is that the effect on advertising revenue is trivial - not that advertising revenue in total is trivial.
ie If advertising revenue is 6% of total revenue then if it goes up or down by 10% or even 20% that's only 0.6% to 1.2% of total revenue.
The Saturday lunchtime KO is the only game of the week I can comfortably watch without having to stay up/get up early!
293 of 345
