Both the ICC Cricket World Cup and Fifa Women’s World Cup are in full swing now, with England having played a number of fixtures in both tournaments. 2019 has been billed as a pivotal year for both sports, but in very different ways.
Women’s soccer is very much a sport on the up: record attendances, record sponsorship spend, and potentially record marketing activation spend has meant that 2019 could represent the moment when the women’s game was able to truly stand on its own two feet, separate from the men’s game.
For cricket, the story is very different. Since the 2005 Ashes win – a modern high-point for the game in the UK – attendances have been in steady decline, along with broadcast reach.
The format of the game continues to be tweaked – the oft maligned ‘The Hundred’ series launches next year – and many feel that a home World Cup in which England are favourites, followed by a home Ashes series, may be the last opportunity to capture the attention and imagination of the next wave of potential cricket fans.
Headlines have been grabbed in the last few weeks as matches featuring the Lionesses continually break UK viewing records for women’s soccer matches (6.9 million tuned into their last 16 win versus Cameroon on BBC2), whereas the England men’s Cricket World Cup match versus Bangladesh only managed an audience of around 681,000.
Another record breaker!
A peak audience of 7.6 million watched England's 3-0 win over Norway at the #FIFAWWC.
Full details: https://t.co/jayOjIcval#ChangeTheGame pic.twitter.com/aVDlgEfxzs
— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) June 28, 2019
In direct reaction to this, Sky Sports are now considering allowing the Cricket World Cup Final to be shown on one of its few Freeview channels, or offering a free Now TV day-pass, allowing a much greater audience to have access.
Free-to-air television has long since been held up as the silver bullet when it comes to the challenge of returning cricket to its place as England's summer sport. Much of the commentary on the Cricket World Cup thus far has focused on this issue, often very critical in tone about the decision of the tournament to be on Sky, and the missed chance to reach a new generation of fans.
Indeed it’s been the argument made for many other sporting events – but a closer look at the figures suggests this isn't quite as black and white as some may think.
This is excellent by @the_topspin. There's a cricket World Cup going on and millions of potential new fans, not least kids to whom it could be magic, have zero idea.https://t.co/l4yugC5FUj
— Nick Harris (@sportingintel) June 12, 2019
Analysing the numbers – Free-to-air vs Paid TV
Firstly, let's compare apple and apples. England v Bangladesh actually achieved a peak audience of 1.1 million – rather than the widely reported average audience of 641,000. This is obviously still way off the reach that free-to-air can achieve, but let's dig a little deeper on those audiences.
Just 7% of that record peak BBC2 audience were aged 18 or under, whilst the figure was 11% for England cricket.
Simply put, linear TV is no longer the best way to reach the next generation of sports fans. In fact, the average minutes of TV viewed per day has declined rapidly over the last decade or so, amongst almost all age groups.
Beyond the fact that we as a society are no longer switching the TV on as regularly, or for as long, is the fact that actual ownership of TVs has declined, with only 67% reporting household access in comparison to 73% for a computer, or 94% for a mobile phone (source:Ofcom).
It begs some key questions: Does it really matter that the Cricket World Cup is not on FTA? What is the best way to reach and engage the key audiences that will be vital for the future of both sports?
Looking at 2019 on the whole, there remains very little evidence to suggest that young people are making the appointment to view almost any TV, let alone sport.
Of the top 20 shows amongst those under 18, only two pieces of programming saw more than 15% of the audience coming from this age group: Inside Out and The Jungle Book – two films.
When we expand this to those under 35, one television behemoth appears in the list. Of the top 20 shows in 2019 watched by this age group, only four of twenty are sporting events (the same number as Game of Thrones, whilst a whopping 50% of the list are Love Island episodes. Both GoT & Love Island arguably represent two of the final appointment-to-view bastions for linear television. (All television data sourced from BARB).
The Fifa Women's World Cup on the BBC has generated record viewing numbers in the UK
Moving beyond linear TV
The ECB aims to engage over one million fans through fan parks as well as social activity on platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and TikTok, and whilst the cricket traditionalists mock this approach, it's ultimately a fact that this is where the younger generation are consuming their content.
Our insights show that for those under 35, linear TV has fallen behind mobile and computers/laptops when it comes to time spent daily, and is now at a similar level to music and content streaming (Global Web Index, 2018).
The generational divide has never been greater. Not only are young people not paying for expensive subscription packages due to share of wallet tensions and delayed life stages (to access all Premier League matches next year it is reported to cost around £900), they're simply less likely to switch on the television for their entertainment.
When looking at the share of time spent viewing select content amongst UK internet users, a recent study found that amongst the prized aged 16-24 demographic, watching TV/Video via YouTube had a greater share than watching live TV at the time of broadcast (24% versus 21%) (Source: GroupM ‘Big Screen Matters’).
Highlights of England’s loss to Sri Lanka on Thursday 20th June, for example, has already amassed 12.3 million views on YouTube, in just over 2 days.
This is a generation that has grown up with a wealth of free content at their fingertips, are tech savvy, and like to pick and choose when they do eventually commit to a subscription (which, by the way, better not be more than UK£9.99 per month). Gone are the days of 12 month UK£60 TV and broadband packages.
But, critics are right when they say six-second clips on Twitter of an amazing catch in the slips aren't the answer. Ultimately these 'teasers' aren’t likely to drive further engagement, and won't tempt the next Jos Buttler or Toni Duggan to put down their phone and turn on the TV – it's just not what they do.
Coverage of the Cricket World Cup in the UK has been behind a pay wall on Sky Sports
So is free-to-air the answer?
There is already a danger that we have a generation of sports fans who are aware of two parallel forms of the sport: that which happens on TV channels they don’t have or on channels they don’t subscribe to, and that which happens within the four walls of their tablet, console screen, or smartphone.
So how can the ECB do more to reach the younger audiences they crave? Well sadly one of the real issues here is that 50-over cricket simply isn’t designed for free-to-air television: it requires a minimum six-hour broadcast with the likelihood of significant down time, not to mention that primetime FTA television should be there to serve the masses, and not showcase a still relatively niche product like 50-over cricket.
Ultimately one-day cricket is a viewing spectacle made for pay-TV, and those that wish to pay for it, hence the birth of ‘The Hundred’, and a ‘product’ made for FTA television. Setting aside the debate around ten ball overs and rule changes, it’s going to come in the much more digestible time slot of 2.5 hours.
We’ve suggested that TV can’t be the cure for engaging the next generation, however it still delivers the best reach of anything else on offer when it comes to the full match experience.
Time will tell if The Hundred is the solution to cricket’s problems, but there is a clear irony in observing that “young people don’t watch TV” and then criticising a rights holder for not giving rights away to FTA broadcasters (below market value) to “reach the next generation”.
The future challenge for governing bodies in sports such as cricket, horse racing and Formula One – and indeed the broadcasters that carry those sports – is use the increased revenues from paid TV to determine how to re-package their content in a way that is easy to access and competitive when it comes to share of wallet.
Free-to-air will still be the best way to gain reach and invaluable media coverage in the days after – the statistics and ensuring media coverage around the Lionesses in this last fortnight shows that – but it won’t guarantee any long-term engagement, or efficiency of reach to younger audiences.
The question should be how can you provide this generation with a service as personalised as Spotify, with the breadth of content as Netflix, with the price to match?
We believe the solution will come in the form of an over-the-top (OTT) platform that allows fans of all ages the flexibility to follow the sports they choose for a monthly sum they can afford. It won't be an easy problem to solve but it's one that both rights holders and broadcasters will need to, whilst also educating commentators about why these decisions are made.
This article was written by Octagon, a leading sports and entertainment agency, in partnership with sister agency Futures Sport & Entertainment.
Both the ICC Cricket World Cup and Fifa Women’s World Cup are in full swing now, with England having played a number of fixtures in both tournaments. 2019 has been billed as a pivotal year for both sports, but in very different ways.
Women’s soccer is very much a sport on the up: record attendances, record sponsorship spend, and potentially record marketing activation spend has meant that 2019 could represent the moment when the women’s game was able to truly stand on its own two feet, separate from the men’s game.
For cricket, the story is very different. Since the 2005 Ashes win – a modern high-point for the game in the UK – attendances have been in steady decline, along with broadcast reach.
The format of the game continues to be tweaked – the oft maligned ‘The Hundred’ series launches next year – and many feel that a home World Cup in which England are favourites, followed by a home Ashes series, may be the last opportunity to capture the attention and imagination of the next wave of potential cricket fans.
Headlines have been grabbed in the last few weeks as matches featuring the Lionesses continually break UK viewing records for women’s soccer matches (6.9 million tuned into their last 16 win versus Cameroon on BBC2), whereas the England men’s Cricket World Cup match versus Bangladesh only managed an audience of around 681,000.
Another record breaker!
A peak audience of 7.6 million watched England's 3-0 win over Norway at the #FIFAWWC.
Full details: https://t.co/jayOjIcval#ChangeTheGame pic.twitter.com/aVDlgEfxzs
— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) June 28, 2019
In direct reaction to this, Sky Sports are now considering allowing the Cricket World Cup Final to be shown on one of its few Freeview channels, or offering a free Now TV day-pass, allowing a much greater audience to have access.
Free-to-air television has long since been held up as the silver bullet when it comes to the challenge of returning cricket to its place as England's summer sport. Much of the commentary on the Cricket World Cup thus far has focused on this issue, often very critical in tone about the decision of the tournament to be on Sky, and the missed chance to reach a new generation of fans.
Indeed it’s been the argument made for many other sporting events – but a closer look at the figures suggests this isn't quite as black and white as some may think.
This is excellent by @the_topspin. There's a cricket World Cup going on and millions of potential new fans, not least kids to whom it could be magic, have zero idea.https://t.co/l4yugC5FUj
— Nick Harris (@sportingintel) June 12, 2019
Analysing the numbers – Free-to-air vs Paid TV
Firstly, let's compare apple and apples. England v Bangladesh actually achieved a peak audience of 1.1 million – rather than the widely reported average audience of 641,000. This is obviously still way off the reach that free-to-air can achieve, but let's dig a little deeper on those audiences.
Just 7% of that record peak BBC2 audience were aged 18 or under, whilst the figure was 11% for England cricket.
Simply put, linear TV is no longer the best way to reach the next generation of sports fans. In fact, the average minutes of TV viewed per day has declined rapidly over the last decade or so, amongst almost all age groups.
Beyond the fact that we as a society are no longer switching the TV on as regularly, or for as long, is the fact that actual ownership of TVs has declined, with only 67% reporting household access in comparison to 73% for a computer, or 94% for a mobile phone (source:Ofcom).
It begs some key questions: Does it really matter that the Cricket World Cup is not on FTA? What is the best way to reach and engage the key audiences that will be vital for the future of both sports?
Looking at 2019 on the whole, there remains very little evidence to suggest that young people are making the appointment to view almost any TV, let alone sport.
Of the top 20 shows amongst those under 18, only two pieces of programming saw more than 15% of the audience coming from this age group: Inside Out and The Jungle Book – two films.
When we expand this to those under 35, one television behemoth appears in the list. Of the top 20 shows in 2019 watched by this age group, only four of twenty are sporting events (the same number as Game of Thrones, whilst a whopping 50% of the list are Love Island episodes. Both GoT & Love Island arguably represent two of the final appointment-to-view bastions for linear television. (All television data sourced from BARB).
Moving beyond linear TV
The ECB aims to engage over one million fans through fan parks as well as social activity on platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and TikTok, and whilst the cricket traditionalists mock this approach, it's ultimately a fact that this is where the younger generation are consuming their content.
Our insights show that for those under 35, linear TV has fallen behind mobile and computers/laptops when it comes to time spent daily, and is now at a similar level to music and content streaming (Global Web Index, 2018).
The generational divide has never been greater. Not only are young people not paying for expensive subscription packages due to share of wallet tensions and delayed life stages (to access all Premier League matches next year it is reported to cost around £900), they're simply less likely to switch on the television for their entertainment.
When looking at the share of time spent viewing select content amongst UK internet users, a recent study found that amongst the prized aged 16-24 demographic, watching TV/Video via YouTube had a greater share than watching live TV at the time of broadcast (24% versus 21%) (Source: GroupM ‘Big Screen Matters’).
Highlights of England’s loss to Sri Lanka on Thursday 20th June, for example, has already amassed 12.3 million views on YouTube, in just over 2 days.
This is a generation that has grown up with a wealth of free content at their fingertips, are tech savvy, and like to pick and choose when they do eventually commit to a subscription (which, by the way, better not be more than UK£9.99 per month). Gone are the days of 12 month UK£60 TV and broadband packages.
But, critics are right when they say six-second clips on Twitter of an amazing catch in the slips aren't the answer. Ultimately these 'teasers' aren’t likely to drive further engagement, and won't tempt the next Jos Buttler or Toni Duggan to put down their phone and turn on the TV – it's just not what they do.
So is free-to-air the answer?
There is already a danger that we have a generation of sports fans who are aware of two parallel forms of the sport: that which happens on TV channels they don’t have or on channels they don’t subscribe to, and that which happens within the four walls of their tablet, console screen, or smartphone.
So how can the ECB do more to reach the younger audiences they crave? Well sadly one of the real issues here is that 50-over cricket simply isn’t designed for free-to-air television: it requires a minimum six-hour broadcast with the likelihood of significant down time, not to mention that primetime FTA television should be there to serve the masses, and not showcase a still relatively niche product like 50-over cricket.
Ultimately one-day cricket is a viewing spectacle made for pay-TV, and those that wish to pay for it, hence the birth of ‘The Hundred’, and a ‘product’ made for FTA television. Setting aside the debate around ten ball overs and rule changes, it’s going to come in the much more digestible time slot of 2.5 hours.
We’ve suggested that TV can’t be the cure for engaging the next generation, however it still delivers the best reach of anything else on offer when it comes to the full match experience.
Time will tell if The Hundred is the solution to cricket’s problems, but there is a clear irony in observing that “young people don’t watch TV” and then criticising a rights holder for not giving rights away to FTA broadcasters (below market value) to “reach the next generation”.
The future challenge for governing bodies in sports such as cricket, horse racing and Formula One – and indeed the broadcasters that carry those sports – is use the increased revenues from paid TV to determine how to re-package their content in a way that is easy to access and competitive when it comes to share of wallet.
Free-to-air will still be the best way to gain reach and invaluable media coverage in the days after – the statistics and ensuring media coverage around the Lionesses in this last fortnight shows that – but it won’t guarantee any long-term engagement, or efficiency of reach to younger audiences.
The question should be how can you provide this generation with a service as personalised as Spotify, with the breadth of content as Netflix, with the price to match?
We believe the solution will come in the form of an over-the-top (OTT) platform that allows fans of all ages the flexibility to follow the sports they choose for a monthly sum they can afford. It won't be an easy problem to solve but it's one that both rights holders and broadcasters will need to, whilst also educating commentators about why these decisions are made.
This article was written by Octagon, a leading sports and entertainment agency, in partnership with sister agency Futures Sport & Entertainment.
Getty Images
