TOPIC:

I would imagine those very clever marketing people doing their analysis in their respective codes would look a bit deeper than TV ratings for the GFs.

After all, the seasons are a bit longer than 1 weekend, and bums on seats (for the entire season) is also an important indicator.

Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote: Marketing is about growth, 42.

The WA market, ie WAFL, was already mature, as was the SANFL - the Sydney & Brisbane markets were ripe for growth.

I never completed Marketing 101 (BC can probably chime in here), but I know where I would have put my money.

On that basis it has been a singular failure. Head to head the NRL GF featuring to non-NSW teams thumped the AFL GF in Sydney's TV ratings A similar result occurred in Brisbane.

Your arguement is poor at best Swan42.

Sydney is the NRL heartland much the same as Melbourne is for the AFL (before you go on a rant, no other capital city could sustain 9 sides)

To measure the success or failure of the AFLs investment into NSW and QLD you can’t look at ratings for the GFs television audiences head to head. You need to look at the growth in the new markets of the following areas:
- participation
- live audiences
- television audiences
- sponsorship revenue

I’m sure the NRL would consider the Storm to be a success but they never have crowds which exceed the AFL or have television audiences that out rate AFL games in Vic.

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote: Marketing is about growth, 42.

The WA market, ie WAFL, was already mature, as was the SANFL - the Sydney & Brisbane markets were ripe for growth.

I never completed Marketing 101 (BC can probably chime in here), but I know where I would have put my money.

On that basis it has been a singular failure. Head to head the NRL GF featuring to non-NSW teams thumped the AFL GF in Sydney's TV ratings A similar result occurred in Brisbane.

Your arguement is poor at best Swan42.

Sydney is the NRL heartland much the same as Melbourne is for the AFL (before you go on a rant, no other capital city could sustain 9 sides)

To measure the success or failure of the AFLs investment into NSW and QLD you can’t look at ratings for the GFs television audiences head to head. You need to look at the growth in the new markets of the following areas:
- participation
- live audiences
- television audiences
- sponsorship revenue

I’m sure the NRL would consider the Storm to be a success but they never have crowds which exceed the AFL or have television audiences that out rate AFL games in Vic.

The differential between those that watched the NRL GF versus those that watched the AFL GF was significantly greater in Sydney and Brisbane compared with the differential in Melbourne.

Like most AFL supporters who merely compare attendances between the two codes at the venues you completely misunderstand the Sydney market and psyche.

swan42 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote: Marketing is about growth, 42.

The WA market, ie WAFL, was already mature, as was the SANFL - the Sydney & Brisbane markets were ripe for growth.

I never completed Marketing 101 (BC can probably chime in here), but I know where I would have put my money.

On that basis it has been a singular failure. Head to head the NRL GF featuring to non-NSW teams thumped the AFL GF in Sydney's TV ratings A similar result occurred in Brisbane.

Your arguement is poor at best Swan42.

Sydney is the NRL heartland much the same as Melbourne is for the AFL (before you go on a rant, no other capital city could sustain 9 sides)

To measure the success or failure of the AFLs investment into NSW and QLD you can’t look at ratings for the GFs television audiences head to head. You need to look at the growth in the new markets of the following areas:
- participation
- live audiences
- television audiences
- sponsorship revenue

I’m sure the NRL would consider the Storm to be a success but they never have crowds which exceed the AFL or have television audiences that out rate AFL games in Vic.

The differential between those that watched the NRL GF versus those that watched the AFL GF was significantly greater in Sydney and Brisbane compared with the differential in Melbourne.

Like most AFL supporters who merely compare attendances between the two codes at the venues you completely misunderstand the Sydney market and psyche.

One things for sure Swan you have no idea about marketing or business at all.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

Utter crap - On what possible basis do you work that out Swan. given the WAFC are supposed to be the ones looking after WAFL in accordance with their constitution, you know the one the WAFL agreed to? Why have the two local AFL(VFL) Franchises got so much stashed away when they are supposed to NO PROFIT for the good of WA footy?? why are you now defending these two parasites??

A short history lesson for you:
Who voted for the West Coast Eagles to the VFL? The WAFL Clubs..
Who agreed to the Indian Pacific Set up that went broke,,The WAFL Clubs
Who Agreed to pay a stupid amount to join..The WAFL Clubs
Who went bust and agreed to hand over power to the WAFC ..The WAFL Clubs.
Who voted in Peel..The WAFL Clubs
Who voted in the Dockers..The WAFL Clubs...

A litany of disaster all thanks to a our very own clubs and committees...

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

Utter crap - On what possible basis do you work that out Swan. given the WAFC are supposed to be the ones looking after WAFL in accordance with their constitution, you know the one the WAFL agreed to? Why have the two local AFL(VFL) Franchises got so much stashed away when they are supposed to NO PROFIT for the good of WA footy?? why are you now defending these two parasites??

A short history lesson for you:
Who voted for the West Coast Eagles to the VFL? The WAFL Clubs..
Who agreed to the Indian Pacific Set up that went broke,,The WAFL Clubs
Who Agreed to pay a stupid amount to join..The WAFL Clubs
Who went bust and agreed to hand over power to the WAFC ..The WAFL Clubs.
Who voted in Peel..The WAFL Clubs
Who voted in the Dockers..The WAFL Clubs...

A litany of disaster all thanks to a our very own clubs and committees...

Not all WAFL clubs as Swan Districts voted against all of the highlighted!

True - as did SF, but the MAJORITY did. The only one Im not sure about re the exact vote to the hand over to the WAFC, I think that may have been unanimous..

I might also remind Swan that it was WAFL Clubs that broke ranks on the alignment.

Bazza wrote: True - as did SF, but the MAJORITY did. The only one Im not sure about re the exact vote to the hand over to the WAFC, I think that may have been unanimous..

I might also remind Swan that it was WAFL Clubs that broke ranks on the alignment.

And I will point out to you that IT WAS the WAFC's DECISION. They could have and SHOULD HAVE VETOED the host club alignment. It is THEIR RESPONSIBILTY, 100% THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.