Dalmiya : 20twenty = less revenue

[Pratters]

On Sportcentre India a few days ago Dalmiya made this interesting point that this form of cricket is not in the agenda of India unlike many other countries as its 40 percent of a match and thus 40 percent of income.

Now it does seem a valid point given a 50 over game has a lot more time and thus air time and this ads and thus revenue.

The more I think of it, the more I think Dalmiya is on the spot. It is not as if one day cricket is on the decline like test cricket was. People still go to watch it much more than tests and is played to packed houses and has more tv viewership as well.

Why cut on revenues by promoting a reduced format?

 

[Neil Pickup]

More viewers = higher advertising revenues

 

[Duncan]

I don't think so. It means more spectators... more TV viewers... and it will attract new fans.

 

[Pratters]

More viewers = higher advertising revenues

Ofcourse.

The thing is though, that in Asia, international ODI matches are watched by a HUGE audience. It is highly unlikely, if at all, that a 20 over game between two countries will be able to generate incomes as good as a LOI here.

In domestic matches, ofcourse it is a highly successful option as proved in Pakistan.

In England as well would a 20 over match generate as much as a 50 over game in international matches? Is it then a legitimate option to reduce international one dayers for twenty 20s?

A tour ice breaker like Australia-England which happened a few days ago is the way to go really. I dont see a point in a 3 mach or 5 match twenty20 series between nations, if it ever happens.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Twenty20 TV audiences will be greater than ODI TV audiences, mainly because of the time period - ODIs are missed because people have work to go to, while Twenty20 are generally evening games.

 

[Sanz]

Twenty20 TV audiences will be greater than ODI TV audiences, mainly because of the time period - ODIs are missed because people have work to go to, while Twenty20 are generally evening games.

May be in England, I think In India we have more viewers than ever. Twenty20 is going to kill the art called cricket and I guess the afridis of this world will rule in this form of cricket while the Bradmans of this game wait in the Corner. I would rather miss a game than watch Twenty20.

Anyways, I feel Tennis games are too long, we should reduce it to tie breaks. Football games are too long, should be reduced to Penalty shootouts. Hockey should be reduced to penalty corners. people dont have time.

 

[Pratters]

Twenty20 TV audiences will be greater than ODI TV audiences, mainly because of the time period - ODIs are missed because people have work to go to, while Twenty20 are generally evening games.

I will be repetitve but from a revenue viewpoint in Asia, how will a 40 overs with ads ever compensate for 100 overs with ads and revenues?

Ads will have to be sold for more than double the price for the same time periods like a 10 second or 1 second duration or whatever it is between overs.

Day night games are 2-10 approx.

Twenty twenty will be 6/7-10 I would imagine.

So the same audiences would almost certainly watch a game in Asia in the time slot of 6/7-10 pm whether its a LOI or twenty20. Plus the advantage of more viewers who watch in the period of 2-6/7 which a twenty20 doesnt have.

I dont see the two co existing without effecting the number of loi games if we are having a twenty20 3/5/7 match or tri series.

Regarding new audiences for the game, Asia has large number of people already watching and drawing to the game every day with the LOIs themselves.

As an administrator, Dalmiya has a point for his reservations as profits/revenues are vital.
As a cricket

 

[dinu23]

Twenty20 TV audiences will be greater than ODI TV audiences, mainly because of the time period - ODIs are missed because people have work to go to, while Twenty20 are generally evening games.

not in SL mate! when there's a match on people here always find a way to listen or watch it, whether it's a working day or not. u should see our malls when a match is going on. people crowded around shop windows to watch the match on TVs that are on sale.

 

[C_C]

Neil- In the subcontinent, it doesnt matter, because ODIs are sold out 99% of the time anyways.
Besides, the lion's share of cricket revenue comes from media rights and advertisement, not gate receipts. Longer matchplay time automatically translates to longer advertisement period and thus more money.
Infact, the media generated revenue so outstrips the gate receipts that even if the attendance dropped by 50%, ODI cricket would still be more profitable than 20/20.

I think 20/20 is like the clownshow before the circus starts......pure popcorn and entertainment.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dalmiya is right. But so is Neil.

Beauty of Twenty20 is that it attracts, and aims to convert, new fans and in England it gains more publicity/attendance/TV audience than a 50 over game every will through a mixture of the "dumbed down" gameplay and the convenience of the shorter timespan of the game.

In India, the same number of people will be watching a Twenty20 as they would a One Day match, so the lessened timespan revenue wise is not compensated for by extra viewing numbers like it would be in England.

 

[Richard]

Neil- In the subcontinent, it doesnt matter, because ODIs are sold out 99% of the time anyways.

ODIs are sold-out 99% of the time as long as they involve the home team in most places.

 

[Beleg]

Richard,

did you watch the recent ODI series between Pakistan and West Indies?

If so, do you think that was sold out?

 

[Richard]

I watched only the first few overs of the Third game.
After which I turned off in disgust at Afridi getting away with slogging Bradshaw all over everywhere.
And I didn't notice anything of the crowds.

 

[Beleg]

Heh.

Anyway, my point was that the grounds were, for the most part, depressingly empty. Same happens when Pakistan is playing Bangladesh/Zim at major centres at home. Hence, attendence at ODI centre's isn't as universal as many think. Most don't bother going to the ground when they can watch the match much more cheaply and with far less hassle on television. The recent enhanced security measures have also effected the crowds negatively. No one wants to be poked and proded, stranded in lines for hours and generally be treated abrasively.

(this is a general point I wanted to make and not necessarily targeted at anyone in particular, for the most part I agree with richard )

 

[vic_orthdox]

Generally, in other countries, if your city is hosting a Test match or a One Day International, do they provide coverage in that city all day? Because they never have in Australia unless its a sell-out, which will change in the next year or so - and I reckon (especially with One Dayers) it'll have a pretty noticeable effect on crowd numbers.

 

[Pratters]

Generally, in other countries, if your city is hosting a Test match or a One Day International, do they provide coverage in that city all day?

yes

 

[Neil Pickup]

not in SL mate! when there's a match on people here always find a way to listen or watch it, whether it's a working day or not. u should see our malls when a match is going on. people crowded around shop windows to watch the match on TVs that are on sale.

I never meant to imply anything about anywhere other than England

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Generally, in other countries, if your city is hosting a Test match or a One Day International, do they provide coverage in that city all day? Because they never have in Australia unless its a sell-out, which will change in the next year or so - and I reckon (especially with One Dayers) it'll have a pretty noticeable effect on crowd numbers.

IIRC, you can't get TV coverage in the West Indies if you're on the same island as the match.

 

[PY]

Have same TV all over the country but it isn't much of a problem to be honest because Test matches are sold out well in advance on every day for this summer and it was similar last year except for the last day I think, not entirely sure though.

I think one thing that needs to be looked at is the possibility of getting new (or extensions to) stadiums built in England because the capacities aren't enough to cash in on this boom that English cricket is having due to the success of the national side and a few other things.

I know money is a big problem but need something slightly bigger, never though I'd say this but it's a pity that there's no Aussie Rules here because then ground-shares could be implemented.

 

[marc71178]

I watched only the first few overs of the Third game.
After which I turned off in disgust at Afridi getting away with slogging Bradshaw all over everywhere.

Why am I not surprised - it was showing you to be wrong again.