84K for a RU league game. Yes tickets might have been only £5 but the fans filled the stadium. RFU on the right marketing track. RFL initiative "Lets return to all pay games for CC rd 4 matches" We all know how disappointing the attendances will be.
Who is the marketing guru at the RFL?

How much money does the RFU Marketing Dept have compared to the RFL Marketing Dept?
How much media coverage do RFU events receive compared to RFL ones?
How many historical sponsorship partners willing to help promote the game/events (such as O2/Guinness etc) do the RFU have compared to the RFL?
How much of a benefit do the RFU have with an established base in the prosperous London and the South East compared to the RFL's M62 corridor?
How much of a benefit to the RFU is the public/independent school sector which happily churns out rah-rah supporting rich boys & girls every year?

Just saying RFU do a good job. RFL do a bad job is simplistic and a bit silly.

Don't blame the RFL for the fans failings.

The previous two posts are spot on.

Cracking post

100+ year head start and yet the rfu are streets ahead......your list of excuses above is missing the dog ate your homework

I'm sorry, are we talking about the current RFL marketing or mistakes made in the previous 100+ years?
You can call it "excuses" all you like but you know as well as I do that they are legitimate reasons why the RFL cannot market anywhere near as effectively as the RFU.
Could the RFL do better? Probably. Is it as simple as pointing to one 83k crowd at Wembley and saying the RFU are streets ahead and it's all because the RFL are stupid/incompetent? Of course not. There are reasons why they're ahead, some the RFL's fault in the past, some recently and some they have no/little possibility of controlling.

Are you president of the Flat Earth Society? You certainly seem to be in denial that the RFL can do any wrong.

Point here is nothing to do with comparing resources, it's about successful marketing of the game and engagement of fans and potential sponsors. All things the powers that be in the game have proved to be completely inept at and show no signs of improving. The RFU on the other hand understand the needs of both and develop plans to suit.

Rugby League fans tend to not turn up in huge numbers when offers are on and then moan about it afterwards.

With the prices of the Magic weekend, it should be full all weekend!

The RFL organised an event with 7 league matches at a 70,000 capacity stadium, ridiculously cheap prices, and were barely able to fill half of it thanks to the apathy of RL fans.

Are you the President of Basic Incomprehension? Firstly, kindly point out where I have said the RFL can do wrong.

Secondly, kindly explain how, when comparing the performance and effect 2 marketing departments have had, the resources available to and differring scenarios to be dealt with by those departments is irrelevant.

Just how do you think the RFU engages potential sponsors? Why do you think the RFU can attract huge companies like Aviva, O2, RBS, Guinness etc to pour millions into the sport while the RFL has the relatively smaller companies with significantly lower deals of the likes of Engage & Stobart. Do you seriously think its because the RFL are rubbish at engaging sponsors or do you think it might just have something to do with the amount and potential wealth of the average Union spectator compared to a League spectator. Do you think it might have something to do with the much higher media profile Union enjoys compared to League, especially in the areas where these major companies are based or focus their products? Not to mention the influence the public/independent school sector has and continues to play.

As for engaging fans well it's a bit hit & miss. The Grand Final has been a big success for the RFL and the Challenge Cup Final is well attended. The SL crowds keep increasing as do viewing figures. There is a challenge engaging fans with internationals but that's as much a fans issue (only bothered about club) and a GB/England performance issue as it is an RFL marketing issue. Staging England v Australia at the national stadium for £10 a ticket still only drew 40 odd thousand.
The RFL doesn't have the resources either monetary or in terms of a competition and supporter base appealing enough to entice the larger companies to invest in RL in a country where the vast majority of wealth and importance is in the south-east and RL is based around the M62.
When comparing the 2 marketing departments the difference in difficulty of effectively marketing the game is huge. Union have the edge in everything. They have more money, more influence, more friends, a base in the rich south, a public school network, a flourishing international competition, a better and more inclusive amateur network, and much higher media exposure.
It's like comparing the local school sports day to the Olympics and blaming for the school for not doing as well.

Utter chip on shoulder bollox!
Advertisers and sponsors spend where they will get the best ROI.........not where they can help out the old school tie network!

The RFU has shown consistently that it knows how to market games as an event, and plenty of casual RU fans react to big events in exactly the right way from a marketing perspective. why did 84k turn up at Wembley? Its not because they are all fans of Quins/Saracens, its because its seen as a 'must be there' event.

In contrast, RL fans tend to be high and mighty about 'quality' of the game. RL fans moan about poor quality - and often invented - sides in the World Cup. In RU its all about 'plucky challengers' when someone gets beat 80-0; in RL its used as evidence that its not a world game.

I reckon you could give the best marketing execs in the world the RFL's budget and fail to generate too mcuh more than we do now. we could and should do better but without money you'll get nowhere.

Which is what I said. But if you think the public school network has no influence on media exposure or on where smaller companies owned by former Union playing public school boys put their money then you simply don't understand the system.

Him, Brisbane Rhino and (gulp) Headhunter have nailed it. The 2013 World Cup fixtures were confirmed last week. Within minutes there were 'fans' proudly stating that they wouldn't be attending any of the games, the tournament would be a disaster and that the RFL were incompetent. When your target audience have that mindset, what chance have you got?

i was actually at the wembley event yesterday and a pretty good event it was too (they even had McFly as pre-match ent!!!).

Point to note though - this has nothing to do with the RFU at all. It was promoted and marketed by a single club - Saracens.

Yes but a single club that is propped up by wealthy millionaire owners who have pumped money into the club on a scale never seen in Rugby League. I wouldnt be surpised if Saracens lose more money on an annual basis than all SL clubs combined. The RFL simply cannot afford to lose money like that, at the expense of the game as a whole such as grassroots development etc, and it would be wrong of them to try.

Every game Saracens have played at Wembley so far has lost a fortune (dont know about yesterday) and even the Saracens fans complain that the 'additional' new fans only come for the pre-match entertainment, not the actual game. Yes I am sure the RFL could pay Take That a £1 million to play a few song at a match at Wembley and sell the place out but would it really be a wise use of funds? Can they even afford to do so?

Losing fortunes is fine when you have owners with bottomless pockets. Saracens have spent something like £20 million + since they took over. Indeed they lost £6.9 million last year and they have lost over £13 million over the last 3 years alone. Despite all this they still average only average 6,000 and are quite a failure for the amount of money ploughed into them. The Saracens oweners could have paid 10,000 fans £100 a year just to watch them and got a better return on what they have done so far.

No SL club or the RFL has the funds to do these kind of things. Look at Bradford and the trouble they are in over owing £1 million, which in the world of sport really isnt that much. By all accounts they are now quite solvent on an annual basis and this is just historical debt. If they had a RU type backer they would be fine but they dont and few RL clubs do. Even the ones that do dont really plough that much money into the clubs compared to the Rugby Union or Football backers due to the salary cap being so low. 9 Rugby Union clubs lost more than this in 1 year alone last year but it doesnt matter as they are backed by millionaire owners. Comparing RL and RU is simply not comparing like for like.

Exactly, yet people continue to do just that. Try comparing union with soccer and see what you find.

wait and see how many of those 83,000 + turn up at Vicarage Road for the next Saracens game. My bet would be anywhere between 5 and 7 thousand. do we really want a game where the vast majority of the crowd have little or no interest in the game itself? with all the gimmicks they used to promote the game it would be a travesty if they didn't get so many there, it was a bit of a circus really. it might just be me but I don't think that's what rugby league is about. i'm not sure this event can be compared with the 4 nations double header - that was a game attended by rugby league FANS.

How dare you post a reasoned well researched argument! Shame on you!




Tremendous post by the way

That actually has a massive impact spot on. I'm currently PE co-ordinator for the school I teach at, and can say that while it's only an advisory document both the creative learning journal and the statutory framework for pe modules heavily feature rugby union in lesson planning, and unsurprisingly don't mention league. . These are pumped out be those ex-public school boys like Gove et al. Unless the pe teacher happens to be a big league fan, it's unlikely you'll find any school venturing away from union. While they have so many kids only being involved in union there's little the rfl can do. Never mind the influence public schoolers seemingly have in media circles

Awful typing on my phone but hopefully that was legible

It was! I have the same problem! An iPhone not designed for fat thumbs!



You're spot on with the schools issue. It has a far bigger impact than people realise. Even if it doesn't produce extra players into the player pool it raises a mild interest in people that can then be turned into either full supporters, occasional fans of big games or even just extra TV viewers for the viewing figures. I went to a Comprehensive school in the heartlands. We didn't have a rugby league team because the PE teacher was an ex Union player and so ran Union teams but not League. He wasn't opposed to League, it's just all the sports teams had to be run after school and he only had so much spare time. As a consequence most of my school friends had and continue to have a passing interest in Union and no knowledge/interest in League. Around 7/8 go to at least 1 England game most years. These weren't lads who were raised on Union but gained their interest through school. So Union has gained 7 or 8 international spectators just from 1 school year of 1 school in 1 town.
It probably goes someway to explaining why Union has a relatively lowish domestic attendances/interest but high international attendances/interest.

Now apply that to the public school network with a much higher emphasis on sport and on Union and you can see how it can have a big effect upon their students. Who then grow up to become the political, economic and often media leaders of the country.

what he said..........

RL fans are their own worst enemy...........