Rob's Thoughts

Pay or Free

Two issues that are at the heart of the future of footy in North America.   One is the future of AFANA and the other the future of TV coverage.  

As we plan the upgrade of the AFANA web site and look toward 2004, one issue that keeps coming back is how long we can continue to make our web site available for free to all visitors.  It's been a point of pride with us that we have been able to develop this web site and provide the information we do for fans and do it without restricting the site only to members.  How much longer we can continue to do that is open to question.

If our voluntary membership levels were higher, then there would be no question to be answered.   However, such a small percentage of our visitors ever join and even fewer join at the $30 level and up we are able to pay the bills and not much more.   Most visitors probably don't realize that we don't pay our writers and web staff anything beyond a few expenses here and there.  We are able to compete with the big footy sites (all of them based in Australia with paid staff and / or links to major media) only due to the dedication of our staff.  

Costs continue to rise and advertising really doesn't get us there.   So, like most other web sites including almost all of our competition, we may soon be forced to restrict some of our content to members.  At the very least we are going to raise membership rates in 2004 for the first time in many years.   So when we ask you to support us, we are asking for survival money not cash for a Carribean vacation.   The next time you read an article here or check the TV schedules think about it...  are you supporting us or getting a free ride?

Our recent survey reaffirmed the desire of fans for live coverage and their apparently increasing willingness to pay for it.   If that's correct, then it is only a matter of time before live pay per view Aussie rules coverage comes to US televisions.   Most other sports, even minor ones, already are there including soccer, rugby, cricket, etc.  

AFANA and some other promoters tried to sell pay per view coverage several times a few seasons ago.   All of those efforts failed due to the unwillingness of fans to pay for it.   Not one of the efforts ever had more than 100 homes and businesses signup for the coverage.   Having mentioned our difficulties in raising funds to operate AFANA and it's web site, what confidence is there that fans in North America would step to the plate and buy live coverage?

I think prospects are better today but it would still be high risk.   A season of one live match per week would likely be priced at $199 or more per subscriber.   Even at that rate, the equivalent of at least 500 homes and businesses would have to sign up to make it work (one business equals about 10 homes and the rate is per home not per fan).   The costs of the coverage include rights fees, satellite time and production costs, distribution costs which include fees to whichever company administers the pay per view (e.g. inDemand, DirecTV, etc.), plus some profit for the promoters.  

So, US and Canadian fans tell us how you feel.  Would you pay $199 for 25 live matches per year?

-Rob (contemplating where it's all going)

Exhibition Match in LA

As some of you will know by reading our BBS or our TV & Media newsletter there is a proposal afloat for two AFL clubs to play a match in late January, 2004 in Los Angeles, California.  We know for sure that the Kangaroos are involved.  Early reports indicated the other club would be the Adelaide Crows however now we believe they are no longer interested.   Details on this match remain pretty sparse beyond this.

While this might ordinarily be cause for great rejoicing, you'll excuse me for being a bit wary.   No organization has more strongly pursued an exhibition match involving AFL clubs in North America than has AFANA.  We've been lobbying for a match since our inception back in 1996.  However, at each and every turn we have warned the AFL that they should not repeat the mistakes made with some of the matches held in the USA and Canada in the late 1980's.

First and foremost among those warnings has been that the worst thing they could do is schedule an exhibition with only a few months notice at an inappropriate venue.   Sadly, that appears to be exactly what is happening here.

With no formal announcement yet made, we are now just 3 1/2 months from the proposed date of about 25 January, 2004.  This is insufficient time to properly promote the event and the timing could not be worse it from a media perspective.  

In case no one has noticed, there will be a presidential election next year in the US.  The date chosen (during the weekend of "Australia Day") happens to be less than 4 weeks prior to the California presidential primary and smack dab between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.  It is also about a week prior to the NFL Super Bowl.  It should be obvious that getting media attention for this event will be very difficult.   Further, very few Americans either know what Australia Day is about or care.  

There isn't time to plan for the large numbers of US and Canadian fans likely to travel long distances to attend.  This includes adequate hotel rooms, airline travel, car parking, security, etc.   Fans also require time to arrange work schedules so they can get the time away from the job or family.  The last weekend in January is about the worst winter weather weekend nationally making it all the more complicated for travelers.

We're not sure where this event will be held.  A report in the Melbourne press indicated it would be at "UCLA Arena".  There is no such venue and in fact, there isn't so far as we can determine, any appropriate venue on the UCLA campus.  The only potential venues nearby, except for a temporarily constructed site, are the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum.  Both are too large and expensive.   Any location must be appropriately sized and have a suitable field as well as spectator amenities.  

Any provision for television coverage is also a concern as taped delayed coverage of the exhibition would stand to be a significant promotional vehicle for the sport on this continent.   It troubles us that there is no evidence any of the major footy organizations in the US or Canada, including AFANA, have been contacted regarding this event.

AFANA has written Rod Austin (acting General Manager for Football Operations) at the AFL with our concerns.  We want an exhibition here but we want it to be the huge success it can be for the sport.  The worst outcome from our standpoint would be another failure or an event that generates the wrong kind of publicity due to poor planning.

-Rob (who first talked to the AFL about an exhibition in 1996)

The AFL and International Development

Recently a frequent correspondent of mine posed a question about the AFL.  He asked why the AFL sees the states of Queensland and New South Wales and the Northern Territory in Australia as the "new frontiers" of footy and does not see the 40 countries around the globe (where Aussie rules has a foothold) as that frontier?

I suppose only the people in the big offices on the 2nd floor at Telstra Dome can really answer that.  However, I have some theories that might provide an answer.  

There are several plausible explanations for why the AFL does not see international markets as the "frontier".  One might be that they don't understand it is promoted or played in over 40 countries.  Another could be that the AFL is quite happy being the "big fish in the small pond" in Australia and doesn't want to spend the money or take the risk that growth elsewhere would entail.  Make no mistake that entering other major and larger sports markets such as Europe or North America entails a commitment of resources and a degree of risk that the AFL may wish to avoid.

More relevant to the question is that I suspect that the AFL doesn't understand how to promote the sport internationally.  It's efforts, meager as they may be, are often misguided.   However, I've already written on that issue in several different ways so I want to consider one more possible explanation.  

Just as significant as any of the above is that when the AFL deals with the football entities in most of the other countries where there is a significant presence of the sport they are dealing with Australian ex-pats.  This reinforces the perception around the AFL (and in some media down under) that most of these leagues are nothing more than expensive ways for the ex-pats to play a little footy on weekends and drink beer.   (I say leagues here because AFANA has no counterpart we know of on any other continent where footy is growing.)

For example USFooty and CAFA have almost always been headed by ex-pats.  This is not to say those leaders weren't qualified or competent, quite the contrary.  Are the ex-pats essential to spreading the game around the world?  Yes, without a doubt.  Their knowledge of the game is invaluable.  Should they be the face of footy in most of these countries?  No.  

You won't convince Americans (or Chinese or Canadians or Brits or Poles, etc.) to take the game seriously until they see the game being promoted and lead by fellow natives.  As long as soccer was viewed in the US as a game of interest to, and played by immigrants and ex-pats only, the media ignored it.   Only when natives finally started directing the sport, promoting it at the grass roots level, and playing and coaching the national team did it achieve recognition by the major sports media in this country.  

The point I often make is that if you went to Japan to sell a new "widget" and needed business advice, who would you hire:  an American or a Japanese businessman?  99% of the time the answer is a Japanese businessman.  Ditto for footy.  We have to get natives in each country involved.  We need ex-pat Australians for their knowledge of the game but the future market for the sport in the USA and Canada is not ex-pats, it's native Americans and Canadians.   And natives have to sell the sport to their countrymen.  With or without the AFL along for the ride.

-Rob (one fan among a potential 300 million fans in North America)

Preliminary Survey Results, Part II

This time I want to concentrate on the opinions fans offered about the programs.  Before I do, I want to make an observation in relation to an article that appeared in the USA Today newspaper yesterday.  It points up again how critical fans are to the future growth of a sport.  This time it's baseball.  Footy would be well advised to consider the care and cultivation of fans if it wants a future in the USA and Canada.

One of our goals in asking for fans to react to particular statements regarding the programs was to get a better idea of what you consider to be important and what you like and dislike about the programs.  This is important in determining what issues AFANA raises with the AFL and what direction we seek to have the programs go in future seasons.   Here are a few of things you told us:

• Fans, by a slight margin agree that some clubs are featured too often.  
  
• The original commentators are strongly preferred while a slight majority disagreed with the statement that the highlights should have voice over to explain footy to new fans.  These results confirm our sense that the voice over, which was dropped before this season, was not well received.
  
• Somewhat to our surprise, a majority of fans like the idea that the weekly wrap and Top 10 are in both the highlights and the match of the week.  The ones that disagreed though, do so strongly.  
  
• A majority of fans felt that the programs are not scheduled at convenient times and even more felt that they are not repeated often enough.  A slight majority now feel they are on at predictable times however and that the schedule doesn't change too often.
  
• Fans were evenly split on the issue of whether the shows help new fans learn the sport suggesting that work needs to be done in this area if that is a goal of the AFL (and we don't know what the AFL goals are...).
  
• The most stunning result of the survey is that contrary to the assumptions of many, respondents disagreed more strongly with the statement  "there is too much emphasis on violence in the telecasts" than with any other item in the survey.  Clearly most of you don't feel there is excessive violence in the programs which suggests that this is not an issue except to some leaders of footy in this country.
  
• Fans by a slight majority do not feel the programs are too chopped up.  This is a major shift from earlier surveys.
  
• A strong majority of fans felt that the would be willing to risk missing a round or two of the programs if it meant getting the programs on the air earlier than six days after the matches take place.  By contrast however, when asked if you would be willing to wait another day if that meant better match selection, a majority agreed with that.  Fans by a similar majority agreed that better matches could be chosen.  This will require more research and continued trade-offs since these results are contradictory.
  
• A slight majority of fans felt that the network on which they watched the programs did a good job and that the programs were better this year than last year.
  
• Slightly less than half of fans tape the programs weekly.
  
• The strongest majority in the survey agreed with the statement that the programs needed to be on a channel that was easier to get.
  
• Overall the programs got a mildly positive reaction from most fans.
  

What conclusions can we draw from the results above?  In general fans want fewer changes in the content of the programs than in the past and more changes in the scheduling and distribution.  The conflict between how quickly we see the programs and how the matches are selected is significant and continuing.  

'till next time.
-Rob