DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 132314--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 2, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuincyJones link ---
>
> Totally agree that it's a 'free sample' strategy and it's a
very good strategy at that, because it gets more eyes on the
women's game.
>
> What does an England women's rugby ticket cost, maybe £25 on
average? (Some more expensive but offset by plenty of £5-10 kids
tickets). 60k x £25 = £1.5m
>
> To put on an event at Twickenham stadium for 60k people costs
a huge amount more than £1.5m. There's just no way it's
profitable for the RFU.
>
--- End Quote ---
The RFU annual report doesn’t break out profitability by match,
but it does break out total ticket and catering revenue.
2023/24 was the final year of an RWC cycle, with only 2 summer
warm up matches and 2 home 6N matches rather than 4 AIs and 3 6N
in the previous year - but it did have 2 Red Roses matches at
Twickenham.
Ticket revenue was down from £48.4m to £23m (47%) - so the Red
Roses didn’t make much of a dent in that, but Hospitality &
Catering was £48.8 vs £70.4m (67%)
If we look at that in attendance terms, then in 22/23 it would
have been around 610k, including 40k for Red Roses v France, and
in 23/24 it was around 425k - about 68%. So it looks like even
though the ticket prices are lower, the RFU is still making the
same amount from food and drink when the Red Roses are in town.
#Post#: 132316--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: January 2, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> I can't imagine that Twickenham costs £1.5 for the RFU to
hire.
> Surely, the RFU will get it at cost as they own it?
>
> I know there is a cost to staffing the bars and hospitality -
but, these are profit centres - so, bar turnover, etc should far
exceed the costs.
> Some of the stewards are volunteers - but, there is still a
cost - but, can't be huge.
> The games are televised - so there is some TV money
> So - I can't think of where the £1.5 million cost would come
from.
>
> There was a recent article about Big Game 1 where it suggested
that 40,000 tickets (where some adult tickets were on £10) was
the break even.
>
--- End Quote ---
You could be right, but I read it costs a few million to put on
a men's 6N game, including staffing, insurance, marketing and
everything else. So while the women's game might cost less to
put on, I can't imagine it's that much less. But as poorfour
says, there is food and drink to take into account too, and it's
good to know women's fans eat and drink as much as men's fans!
Either way, I think if it was profitable we'd have heard about
it (several times over) by now.
#Post#: 132318--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: Mayor West
Date: January 2, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it was reported that Twickenham had the highest ever
revenue from merch, food and drink at one of the women’s games.
It was thought that because the entry cost was way lower that
people decided to spend more on souvenirs and hunger & thirst.
If you’re going to spend £100 at an international game then you
won’t get in for a men’s game. However, for a women’s
international you can get in, eat and drink, buy some merch and
still have the bus fare home. (If you live locally).
#Post#: 132319--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: championes
Date: January 2, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As someone working in sports promotion and marketing - the idea
that it’s got anything to do with wokeness to believe that
people say women’s sport is the place that’s going to generate
the biggest revenue increases is, I’m afraid, wide of the mark.
You’re welcome to tell me that you know lots of women who attend
sporting events and there’s nothing stopping women coming to
watch men’s rugby - and you’re right on all those things in an
anecdotal way.
However longstanding and repeated research shows that very few
women as a percentage of the population regularly attend live
sport, or pay money for subscriptions to watch sport or spend
money on sports and related lifestyle merchandise.
Furthermore, research also shows that women more often report
than not that sporting events “aren’t for them” (or similar
wording depending on the research).
Women’s football is showing how the right marketing and game
development can reap significant financial rewards for brands
(yes, none of this is charity - it’s not 1955 - the teams do not
exist at the whim of their supporters. Yes the relationship is
crucial (as Quins show so well under the current boss) but have
no doubt that it only all grows due to the chance to make money
- and that means the brands.
Anyway.
It’s also a mistake to compare women’s football and men’s
football - and womens’s rugby with men’s rugby.
That was the mistake that was made in the early marketing of the
games.
Women’s rugby - for example - features more ball in play, more
ball in hand and fewer collisions. It’s got a lot more in common
with the way 7s is played than the men’s 15 game.
The last women’s rugby World Cup attracted far more women than
the men’s competition.
Fans who go to Premiership women’s football are more likely to
be female and younger than the people who go to men’s football.
The Tv audience for the last women’s football World Cup had the
highest percentage of female audience in history at 42%
This meant more cosmetic and personal care brands spent money on
advertising in these games than they normally do on sporting
events.
Men who like rugby and watch rugby aren’t going to spend much
more money than they already do watching rugby - and getting
them to increase their spending is going to cost a lot in terms
of return on investment:
It’s a lot more profitable to hook in people who currently don’t
spend any money on sports entertainment. And in general terms
those are women.
So it’s fine if you don’t rate women’s sport - and yes there are
still some years of development before enough teams have enough
players of enough of a standard to mean a truly competitive
league from top to bottom.
But it’s 100% where the money and effort is going to go.
You don’t have to watch. But it’s got little to do with wokeness
and a lot to do with future profits.
#Post#: 132324--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 2, 2025, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve also seen it reported several times that the women’s game
draws more of a family audience - which is important for the
game as a whole. It’s more affordable to take the kids to
women’s rugby, and that helps grow both the fan base and
potentially the player base for the long term.
#Post#: 132327--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: championes
Date: January 2, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> I’ve also seen it reported several times that the women’s game
draws more of a family audience - which is important for the
game as a whole. It’s more affordable to take the kids to
women’s rugby, and that helps grow both the fan base and
potentially the player base for the long term.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes indeed it does (attract more families).
I assume the demographics at the Big Game are similar.
#Post#: 132328--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: January 2, 2025, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: championes link ---
>
> As someone working in sports promotion and marketing - the
idea that it’s got anything to do with wokeness to believe that
people say women’s sport is the place that’s going to generate
the biggest revenue increases is, I’m afraid, wide of the mark.
>
> You’re welcome to tell me that you know lots of women who
attend sporting events and there’s nothing stopping women coming
to watch men’s rugby - and you’re right on all those things in
an anecdotal way.
>
> However longstanding and repeated research shows that very few
women as a percentage of the population regularly attend live
sport, or pay money for subscriptions to watch sport or spend
money on sports and related lifestyle merchandise.
>
> Furthermore, research also shows that women more often report
than not that sporting events “aren’t for them” (or similar
wording depending on the research).
>
> Women’s football is showing how the right marketing and game
development can reap significant financial rewards for brands
(yes, none of this is charity - it’s not 1955 - the teams do not
exist at the whim of their supporters. Yes the relationship is
crucial (as Quins show so well under the current boss) but have
no doubt that it only all grows due to the chance to make money
- and that means the brands.
>
> Anyway.
>
> It’s also a mistake to compare women’s football and men’s
football - and womens’s rugby with men’s rugby.
>
> That was the mistake that was made in the early marketing of
the games.
>
> Women’s rugby - for example - features more ball in play, more
ball in hand and fewer collisions. It’s got a lot more in common
with the way 7s is played than the men’s 15 game.
>
> The last women’s rugby World Cup attracted far more women than
the men’s competition.
>
> Fans who go to Premiership women’s football are more likely to
be female and younger than the people who go to men’s football.
>
> The Tv audience for the last women’s football World Cup had
the highest percentage of female audience in history at 42%
>
> This meant more cosmetic and personal care brands spent money
on advertising in these games than they normally do on sporting
events.
>
> Men who like rugby and watch rugby aren’t going to spend much
more money than they already do watching rugby - and getting
them to increase their spending is going to cost a lot in terms
of return on investment:
>
> It’s a lot more profitable to hook in people who currently
don’t spend any money on sports entertainment. And in general
terms those are women.
>
> So it’s fine if you don’t rate women’s sport - and yes there
are still some years of development before enough teams have
enough players of enough of a standard to mean a truly
competitive league from top to bottom.
>
> But it’s 100% where the money and effort is going to go.
>
> You don’t have to watch. But it’s got little to do with
wokeness and a lot to do with future profits.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd like to place on record that I didn't mention the 'W' word!
I found a lot of that very interesting and take your word on it,
but still fail to see where the profits are going to come from?
I'd also politely question how working in promotion and
marketing means you have greater insight into the profitability
of well, any business?! But you might be able to tell me.
To summarise the above, you say male rugby fans, by and large,
won't really pay more on top of what they already spend to go
and watch women's rugby. You also say the percentage of women
who attend live sport or watch sport is very small. But then you
go on to say that the focus needs to be on hooking in women, as
that will be more profitable. But.... we've just established
that women, in general terms, aren't particularly interested (by
percentage of population) so where's all this amazing profit
coming from then?!
I think people often overlook that there are fundamental
differences between men and women, biological differences that
mean men often like certain types of things and women like other
certain types of things. No amount of equality of opportunity or
marketing is ever going to change that.
I do rate women's sport, in general. I'm not saying you or
anyone else has accused me of this, but it's very easy to jump
straight to, "misogyny!" when anyone holds the views I do, but
that's not the case. The standard of some women's sport is
incredibly high, particularly some individual sports that are
brilliant to watch. Women's rugby has improved a lot over the
last 10 years and I'd like to see it continue to do so. I still
don't see how it will ever be even anywhere close to as
appealing as the men's game, due to the nature of the attributes
required and the differences between the physical capabilities
of men and women.
In my view, the narrative often spun that women's rugby is this
sleeping giant here to save rugby as a whole and bring profit to
the game where the men's game has failed, is a million miles
wide of the mark. I hope it gets better and better and better
and proves me wrong but I'm confident that in another 10 or even
20 years time, that narrative still won't have materialised.
#Post#: 132329--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 2, 2025, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In simple words:
1) Relatively few women watch men’s sport.
2) There is evidence that more women would be interested in
watching women’s sport, given the opportunity.
3) However, because women’s sport has been underfunded,
underexposed and sometimes outright suppressed, it has not yet
had time to build the profile that will attract that underserved
audience.
4) Many people who know more about sports administration,
marketing and business in general than we do believe women’s
sport is a sensible investment, though they are realistic that
it will take time (probably a decade or more) to see it reach a
sustainable scale.
For someone who claims not to be a misogynist, you’ve devoted a
lot of time and words essentially to repeatedly asserting that
there is no market for women’s sport, without showing any
specialist knowledge on the subject.
#Post#: 132330--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: January 2, 2025, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> In simple words:
> 1) Relatively few women watch men’s sport.
> 2) There is evidence that more women would be interested in
watching women’s sport, given the opportunity.
> 3) However, because women’s sport has been underfunded,
underexposed and sometimes outright suppressed, it has not yet
had time to build the profile that will attract that underserved
audience.
> 4) Many people who know more about sports administration,
marketing and business in general than we do believe women’s
sport is a sensible investment, though they are realistic that
it will take time (probably a decade or more) to see it reach a
sustainable scale.
>
> For someone who claims not to be a misogynist, you’ve devoted
a lot of time and words essentially to repeatedly asserting that
there is no market for women’s sport, without showing any
specialist knowledge on the subject.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks for the simple words. I don't think any of us have
claimed specialist knowledge on the subject, you included. We're
sharing opinions. There's so much nonsense written about it, I
like to be able to counter.
1) Relatively few women watch any sport, men's or women's.
2) When does this opportunity convert into actual viewing
figures? Because nobody publishes them. (Again, wonder why?!)
3) What is 'underfunding' and 'underexposure'? Why should
anything have an inherent right to funding and exposure? It has
to have a significant following and be of a certain quality to
earn these things, before professionalism even enters the
conversation.
4) Lots of these people say lovely things about the potential of
women's rugby and how it's the best investment opportunity since
early Google, but the evidence in front of our eyes doesn't back
it up. It doesn't generate enough money, it piggy backs off the
men's game and diverts funds from it and women will never be
able to match the physical output of the men's game and as a
result, it will never be as popular - for the same reasons the
Championship isn't as popular as the Premiership. The quality
isn't as high and it never will be.
Fewer women watch sports in general but we're all supposed to
believe that millions of women will come out of the woodwork and
suddenly be interested in live women's rugby just because the
opportunity has been manufactured, spending significant sums on
tickets, merchandise, TV subscriptions etc. and that the women's
game will generate all this profit and growth and rugby will
finally get to achieve its full potential around the globe? It's
cuckoo land stuff.
It's such a great investment opportunity that the Premier 15s
title sponsor pulled out the second its contract expired. You've
got Worcester Warriors women, who secured a 10-year sponsorship
deal to continue playing in the Premier 15s independently of the
men's team after their collapse...fantastic!!! Do you know what
happened? The sponsor pulled out 3 months into the deal. But
why?!?!? Women's rugby has so much profit to be made! It's the
best growth opportunity ever! I'll tell you why... they realised
their sponsorship deal was a money pit with little to no return
for them.
Proof will be in the pudding. But I look forward to witnessing
the men's game piggy backing off the success of the women's in a
decade or so.
#Post#: 132331--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: RodneyRegis
Date: January 2, 2025, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> In simple words:
> 1) Relatively few women watch men’s sport.
> 2) There is evidence that more women would be interested in
watching women’s sport, given the opportunity.
> 3) However, because women’s sport has been underfunded,
underexposed and sometimes outright suppressed, it has not yet
had time to build the profile that will attract that underserved
audience.
> 4) Many people who know more about sports administration,
marketing and business in general than we do believe women’s
sport is a sensible investment, though they are realistic that
it will take time (probably a decade or more) to see it reach a
sustainable scale.
>
> For someone who claims not to be a misogynist, you’ve devoted
a lot of time and words essentially to repeatedly asserting that
there is no market for women’s sport, without showing any
specialist knowledge on the subject.
>
--- End Quote ---
1 and 2 are flawed arguments. Plenty of women watch plenty of
sports. Tennis, gymnastics, seems to me they are far more
interested in individual sports. They don't watch rugby because
they don't like rugby, not because they don't like men's sport.
Just because rugby hasn't been 'exposed' doesn't mean that no
women's sports have.
Far more women go and watch sport in general than did a
generation ago. That's because people tend to do things as a
family which men used to do with their male friends while their
wives stayed home and looked after the children. Times have
changed - but not enough to make women's rugby particularly
popular.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page