Chip eating stereotypes aside, the fact remains that the lower socio-economic classes are largely concentrated in the north (and the south west), and thus the advertising revenue available is adjusted accordingly. There will be pockets of affluence (Wilmslow, Alderley Edge for eg), but it's not libellous to marry the M62 corridor to some pretty poor boroughs.



In any case, weren't we supposed to be getting an announcement of new sponsors on the back of Friday's meeting?

I think it's fair to say that if Wiganers ran the game from top to bottom we would all be better off. What's Maurice up to these days?

I'm sorry but that is NOT fact.



Lower socio economic classes can be found all over the country. What about parts Scotland/parts of Wales/the Midlands/The north east etc. , as well as Inner London (some of the poorest boroughs in the M62 corridor like Knowsley hardly play any RL at all - confusing isn' it?)



The 'pockets of affluence' extend to all big cities in the north (Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds/Bradford/Hull) larger towns (too numerous to mention) as well as parts of West Lancashire/North Yorkshire. Then there's seaside towns like Blackpool/Lytham/Southport. Not to mention places like Parbold/Crosten/Rufford.



There are plenty of affluent people in the north to target (not just in Cheshire), many of whom watch football and pack grounds out all over the north paying a lot more than RL clubs charge.



I would argue that there are plenty of people from all socio-economic groups that RL can appeal to and the failure to find sponsorship lies at the RFL door.

So, who is he??

Not getting into an argument, but: yes it is.

A couple of years ago. the bottom 10 regions by wealth (earned wage) were Knowsley, Blackburn, Middlesborough, Dundee, Sunderland, Leicester, Caerphilly, Stoke, Blackpool & Hull.

It's a generalisation, but a broadly accurate one that outside the London commuter belt wages and social classification are (at least perceived to be) lower.

I think that the point that we are argueing about is whether RL as a sport can be marketed succesfully in the north. Would it be fair to say that you think (because of what you have stated) that it can't, whereas I would argue that there are plenty of people in the north from all socio-economic groups to market the game to - just as football does.

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.'" Yes your assumptions are frightening. I'm very tempted to write to Sky with a Subject Access Request asking to see what information they have on me.

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"I'd imagine true revenue breakdowns will be hard to find. The basic summary: corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures Revenue of £7,200,000,000 off of 10 million customers. Whilst it's difficult to say I'd imagine it'd work out 1:2 subscription: advertising on those figures. Sky will generally know each one of its customers educational background, profession, and probably some correlated data on shopping habits, as well as watching habits. The detail can include as much detail as whether or not you own a pet, how many children, whether your married etc (all actually quite frightening when you stop to think about it.) all built to profile their watchers so they can sell the advertising space (a dog food company won't want to advertise when no pet owners are watching) It's the classic example of do you sell 1 for £100 or 10 for £10 - I think the common belief is it's better for the former (less work to maintain contracts etc) which is why higher, more affluent, category's are more catered for more readily.'" Yes your assumptions are frightening. I'm very tempted to write to Sky with a Subject Access Request asking to see what information they have on me.

I would argue that advertising split, if the 10m subs are accurate they would average £60 a month to generate that revenue, so if you half it then 50/50 would be worst case imo

RL has been weak because it has been divided and has poor leaders, but if 100,000 had sky subs for RL alone then that's about £70m pa - so how do end up with what we do?

We represent fantastic value to sky and hopefully BT may see this and force the correct rates to be paid

I can tell you how if you like

your profile won't be kept with a name so they can deny any specific requests - just they'll be able to say x% of our customers do this that or the other (depending on who they're selling to)



(Did an internship (well 2 weeks before I couldn't stand it anymore) with channel 5 doing exactly this - no there aren't enough showers in the world to make me feel clean again)

No I'm not saying it[i can't[/i be marketed. It's simply down to revenue. The advertisers (rightly or wrongly) perceive RL as aimed at the "lower" classes (ie C2, D & E) whereas Union is dominated by ABC1s.

A truism which is promoted at almost every level or media type (a cynic would say aided & abetted by the suits in Twickenham) is that RL is dominated by flat cap & clog wearing manual workers in "the North".

Thus Sky/Premier don't or won't charge as much per slot as Union or soccer which then knocks-on to what they're prepared to pay the RFL for broadcasting which, in turn, means that the salary cap is where it is unless the club owners put their hands in their pockets.

Thus the disparity between Union's SC & ours is going to stay until Red Hall get off their a*ses & properly promote the sport (which I think is what the OP was rattling on about in the first place).

Information is power. For eg, regardless of whether you have any of the "loyalty" cards, every spend you make in a supermarket is tracked (the loyalty card only serves to give them more information). Even the type of card is used to work out direct advertising unless you ticked the "no junk mail" box (Curry's & PC World don't routinely ask for your post-code for nothing).

If you've got a card that gives cash-back for eg, that means you earn more than the average, whereas if you routinely use a debit card it might mean that you're on average wage or less & thus not likely to respond to offers of discounted wine boxes.

Yes - good post. I'd agree with you - especially the last bit. Getting over the stereotype is the bit that needs addressing. As I've said previously the stereotype is lazy. Actually it has more to do with the backgrounds of journalists employed by the national media and I include the newspapers and the tv stations as well as the BBC. Journalism as a career is dominated by those from "top" universities and from privileged backgrounds.



If you add that to the fact that no newspapers are based in Manchester any more (like the Manchester Guardian for eg) and you have a situation that means most newspapers don't even report on the sport any more. The Saturday Guardian now regularly has 3 or 4 whole pages devoted to Union whilst the Friday night Super League game is relegated to a report on the website. I wonder if the Media City venture will help to redress the imbalance?