March 29, 2024, 04:35:24 AM

Author Topic: What came first: TV or the Fans?  (Read 1757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dwn

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • "Hands that help are holier than lips that pray"
    • View Profile
    • Arsenal Now!
What came first: TV or the Fans?
« on: October 12, 2006, 02:58:55 PM »
I got a PFL magazine in the mail the other day. And there was an intro letter talking about the vision of the league. They mentioned following the marketing model of European leagues.

Major marketing tools were print and TV. Everytime I see or hear this I wonder how exactly it works. The goal of marketing is increasing 'sales'. In the case of the PFL I think it would be increasing the number of paying fans (or viewers in case TV/media selling).

And you dont just want to get fans but you want to keep them. Like any business - As important as it is to get clients, its more important to get them to stay.

So my question is does putting the PFL on TV achieve this? Im skeptical. Do we watch the premiership because it is on TV or is the premiership on TV because we wanted to watch it? (Of course one feeds off the other - but which is more fundamental).

Is there a large enough market to say that putting the PFL on TV makes sense or is the PFL hoping to increase the market by putting it on TV? Is the fact that it is on TV going to make people watch? Can a PFL game compete with cable TV?

I think there will be a number of people who dont watch the PFL that may watch a game now and then. Personally I think I would fall into this category. But Im skeptical about the number of regular viewers ("repeat clients/customers from a business perspective") that would come out of TV coverage. Would the games regularly get the kinda of viewership that will lead to substantial TV revenues. 

As far as marketing is concerned I think the goal should be getting people attached to clubs so that each club has a substantial fan base. Based on what I read that seems to be the goal of the PFL as well. They keep talking about community involvement. But is TV the answer?

Does anyone know of other types of marketing that is being done to create community relationships with teams?


Offline DeSoWa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3542
  • Life. Passion. FOOTBALL!
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2006, 03:35:55 PM »
Nice post dwn  :beermug:

I understand your point, but in this case, the PFL need to be on TV to get the people more aware of the PFL and the teams. I don't think they should show the games live initially though. They should pick ah day in the week and show the top game, making sure it well advertised so people would tune in. Then if they like what they see, maybe they might make ah effort to go see the next game live. In this way you use the TV to get the attention of the people and then hopefully more people would turn out to see the games.

Big Up!
Warrior Nation Member

Forward Thinking does not mean you cannot reflect on the Past!

Offline Latent

  • Full Warrior
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2006, 07:01:58 PM »
I think before we start putting the Pro-League on Television, more needs to be done to promote it. Currently, the crowds average around 2000-5000 depending on how big the match is. Yes we may show it on TV but with the exception of the fans, how much people will watch it when compared to say Arsenal playing Manchester United?

Offline Darkromeo

  • New Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Tru Tru warrior
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2006, 09:34:48 PM »
I think before we start putting the Pro-League on Television, more needs to be done to promote it. Currently, the crowds average around 2000-5000 depending on how big the match is. Yes we may show it on TV but with the exception of the fans, how much people will watch it when compared to say Arsenal playing Manchester United?


I shocked to hear PFL crowds average around 2000-5000 alot more than i tought. I remember they use to show the old SPFL ON TV on ah Sunday. Thats when the big rivalry was between NFM and Joe Public. I was bout 12 or 13 then and used to look forward to it on ah sunday afternoon. But thats jus me i love football and would gladly watch our local league on TV alot of ppl would to. but i think they should focus on getting crowds at the venues, which from wat i saw at d Panama game is real poor. If u take out d school kids who got in free (not sure how much of them would be there if it was not) d stadium would look real empty and that was d national team.

Who knows the TV thing might help..... and to answer that question the fans came first. Thats y football is on tv. but pro leauge fan support is low.

Offline Filho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2006, 06:45:11 AM »
Good, thoughtful post dwn. I don't know the answer to what the PFL is doing to market the league, but I believe u r right in that you can and should develop a strong fan base through a variety of means that are independent of TV viewership. At the same time, once the executives at the PFL feel that they have a high enough quality product to attract fans, and once there is a sufficiently large number of fans who attend games in the flesh, TV broadcasting should be employed as a powerful marketing tool to broaden awareness and attract a larger audience. You are right, TV won't keep veiwers unless they like the product. It will also initially eat away at live viewership in the stadia, so you want to  make sure you have a healthy live fan base that can afford to lose some numbers without killing the atmosphere. But at some point it is essential to broaden awareness thru TV..and in time, TV will actually encourage fans to go to the stadia- I guess u are not certain the PFL is at that point yet. what was the time linefor getting the PFL on TV?

Also, 2,000 to 5,000 crowds is rather impressive. This is much better than I expected.

Offline spideybuff

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3316
  • Certant omnes sed non omnibus palma
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2006, 12:57:22 PM »
Well actually guys, the fans really don't matter. The TV is where the money is, based on advertising revenue. If a tv station decides to pay for the rights to show PFL, then PFL get their money already regardless of if people watching the games on tv or not. Is the sponsors who lose out cause their ads playing when nobody watching. So from a financial standpoint, gate fees are no comparison to TV revenue.

If the goal of Skeene and them is to really market the league to make it popular, then they going about it the wrong way...but in this day and age, we all know that money is what they want, not to improve the game or get the fans out. That is all nice and a good thing...but it not paying the bills
You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

Offline Filho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2006, 04:03:12 PM »
Well actually guys, the fans really don't matter. The TV is where the money is, based on advertising revenue. If a tv station decides to pay for the rights to show PFL, then PFL get their money already regardless of if people watching the games on tv or not. Is the sponsors who lose out cause their ads playing when nobody watching. So from a financial standpoint, gate fees are no comparison to TV revenue.

If the goal of Skeene and them is to really market the league to make it popular, then they going about it the wrong way...but in this day and age, we all know that money is what they want, not to improve the game or get the fans out. That is all nice and a good thing...but it not paying the bills


Spidey...it does not really work like that. The games will only go on TV if there is demand from fans to watch. The more demand, the better the time slot and the more advertisers will pay. If noone is watching, or if broadcasters feel noone will watch, then they will not be able to make sufficient revenue from advertising  and will not pay for the rights for games. Companies can usually pull advertising at short notice, so broadcasters will want to ensure there is a healthy fan base for the length of the contract...they may even have some sort of cancellation, or walk away clause if the advertising revenue dries up...in any case, they will walk away at the earliest time possible if the viewership is not there.

Offline spideybuff

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3316
  • Certant omnes sed non omnibus palma
    • View Profile
Re: What came first: TV or the Fans?
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2006, 12:09:26 PM »
Understood...i was sayign that Skeene and them make their money already by selling the tv rights though. Now is the tv station to catch when nobody watching. Thus the fans will be important to them having a sustainable product, but once somebody willing to pay to put it on tv, PFL safe regardless of if people watching or not.

Roght now it on tv and I am pretty sure the rankings are very low, but the money make for the year already. Is if they willign to put it on tv again next year is the problem now, which is what Skeene and them addressing by focusing on the tv and print, and not on the fan at the venue.

I agree with the original post that the sustainability of the product is more important, but if they have people willing to put on tv regardless, I am pretty sure they will be happy to go down that route and try to market the product to tv each year.
You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

 

1]; } ?>