During the World Cup, mainstream media debated rugby's appeal to Americans, reaching very different conclusions.
The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic argued the US public has been missing out because it's narrow minded. 'Rugby, I believe, is the future for a country that learns each day how much more impossible it is to turn our backs on the rest of the world', opined the Journal's Matthew Futterman.
Fortune contended the game doesn't suit American sporting tastes. 'The sport is so close to our football, it’s not different enough to be fascinating here', according to a sports marketing executive quoted by Daniel Roberts.
The Journal and the Atlantic used sociological argument. Fortune interviewed media professionals as well as rugby enthusiasts, and so better portrayed market dynamics. 'Though the sport has grown in populariity ... at the youth and college level, it hasn't translated to more eyeballs for the sport at a professional level on television', Roberts concluded.
With Monday's PRO Rugby launch announcement, the question remains current. Business requires deep understanding of the target market, allied with an effective operating model. Above all, it requires customers.
The Fortune argument that the game has not translated into more eyeballs watching the game on television sort of ignores the fact that there really is no rugby to watch on what would be considered mainstream TV. Only TWO WC matches were on broadcast TV in the just completed tournament and these matches were not supported with any marketing effort at all. Sort of hard to build an audience when nothing is being offered.
With regards to the professional league I still believe we are a good 5 years away from this being modestly successful from a commercial point of view - under the best of circumstances.
Posted by: Doug Lyons | 15 November 2015 at 18:32