Good stuff in here(The NHL stuff just makes you cringe though) http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/martzke/2004-06-03-martzke_x.htm The 1.7 average national rating (1.8 million homes) tumbled 29% from last year's 2.4 for ABC's first two games of the New Jersey-Anaheim series. The 1.4 for last Saturday's Game 3 was the second-lowest rating for any program on a major network in prime time in TV history (the lowest was a 1.3 for a snowboarding event on NBC in December 2002). "ESPN's 36% rise in cable ratings for the Detroit-Indiana Eastern Conference finals mirrors the 37% increase in TNT's telecasts of the Lakers-Timberwolves Western finals. That bodes well for a large boost in ratings for the Finals over last year, when the Finals averaged an all-time low of 6.5 for the Spurs-Nets series." " Ratings for the Indy 500 have fallen 29% in the past three years. In 2001, the race got a 5.8 rating; last Sunday's race got an all-time low 4.1. Meanwhile, IRL's open-wheel racing has been declining in popularity compared to NASCAR's stock-car events. " "The overall average rating for NBC's 11 Triple Crown races has been 29% higher than the rating ABC drew for the comparable races at the end of its contract (6.6% of the USA's TV homes for NBC's telecasts, 5.1 for ABC's). A Triple Crown has been at stake in the Belmont in three of NBC's four years with the series, but ABC also had a horse going for the Triple Crown in the Belmont in three of its final four years." And a very interesting comment from Ebersol "We've not made a profit (on the Triple Crown deal), but we've come close," NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol said Thursday. "The key to our success has been a company-wide commitment to promote the Triple Crown across the board, in the mornings and on Thursday and Friday nights where NBC has been No. 1. ... Nobody makes a dime anymore from the total audience you reach. You get paid for reaching the greatest number of young adults."
That is interesting. Let me ask you this, though - WTF appeal does the Triple Crown have for young adults? Saturday night prime time is a tough time to get ratings anyway, I'm not surprised a hockey game between a team in Canada and a team in Tampa didn't do better. It seems as though the idea that Philadelphia/San Jose wouldn't have done better than that might be a bit specious (though we'll never know, obviously).
I think that was Ebersol's point though. Even though the ratings have been VERY good, they have still not turned a profit. I love NBC because their comments give more insight into the business than all the other spin-doctors combined. Sounds like Ebersol continues to confirm that demographics are continuing to command more and more respect. But it was a 1.4........ I mean that is pretty low. Andy
So let me get this straight. You have a marginal product like horse racing, hockey, basketball or maybe soccer. You then promote it during your highly watched programs to attract the ideal market segment for your advertisers? Now, all ESPN needs is a highly watched program. Maybe MLS should be doing some promotion with other networks. If you are looking for the young adult market, I would think Adult Swim, especially Aqua Teen Hunger Force. And we're very affordable.
But he said that the key to success is getting those young adults. All I want to know is, if that's your goal, how does the Triple Crown play into that? I'm just out of that demographic, but horse racing holds no appeal for me, nor for anyone I know, nor can I conceive of what the big deal is unless a horse is going for the third leg, and then maybe you'll tune in for that two minutes. Maybe not. But they're going to show the stretch run on all the news shows, anyway, so why bother? Looked like more on TV. Seriously, it wouldn't have been much higher than that anyway, but when you combine one fanbase that doesn't count in the ratings, another fanbase from a 13th-ranked market, and precious little interest anywhere else (not even the people who claim Tampa Bay doesn't "deserve" to be there were going to tune in to yell at the TV) and then put the game on Saturday night of Memorial Day Weekend, that's not going to help at all.
I don't watch horse rating but I also don't watch NASCAR, doesn't make the ratings any smaller. 6 million households do watch and probably close to 10 million households will tune in to the last race. Certainly was a recipe for disastor, which is exactly what they got. Do you think that if the NHL does play next year, that this may be the end of primetime games on the broadcast channels? Andy
"Nobody makes a dime anymore from the total audience you reach. You get paid for reaching the greatest number of young adults." --------------------------------------------------------- don garber are you listening?
Wouldn't NBC still want to carry the Finals? I don't know. Why get into it otherwise? As for horse racing, maybe the third time will be the charm: I understand the ratings are what they are. Outside of the normal Nielsen methodology questions, I don't really doubt that people are watching. I'm just curious and want someone (maybe someone who's in that demographic) to explain to me what appeal horse racing has for 18-34s, when it seems it's all old men and women who own these horses and go to the grounds? Or is the gambler demographic larger than I think it is?
I guess I was more asking about prime time itself. I fully expect NBC to cover some games as thats what the contract mentioned. Andy
Ouch. Well, they aren't going to play all the games on weekends, and they aren't going to televise the midweek games during the afternoon. I just can't see how they wouldn't have to put them in prime time. Unless they're going to shift the midweek games to MSNBC or something and play the weekend games at 4pm.
The contract between NHL and NBC calls for NBC, NOT NBC Cable (CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo). There is no risk for NBC since the deal called for revenue-sharing. NBC probably won't make much money, but it won't lose money either. NBC can tailor the NHL Stanley Cup TV production budget to fit the ad revenue: few ads = fewer bells and whistles. To put things in perspective: LIVE coverage of Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final on ABC got a lower overall rating and got a lower rating for the key 18-34 male demographic than the first run of the episode 7 of 2003 World Series of Poker on ESPN, which aired on 3-MONTH tape-delay. (1st run of 2003 WSOP episode 7 on ESPN drew 1.7 million households.) The NHL has fallen off most casual sports fans' radar screen. Pro team sports is a relic leftover from the early 20th century, when working men lived near the city center and stayed in the city center for entertainment. The automobile, freeways, and suburbs changed population patterns to the point where new pro sports teams that can't get corporate support out of the gate will almost always struggle at the gate (examples: MLS teams almost everywhere, WNBA, and every women's pro sports league that has failed). It's always easier for someone to go to the multiplex theatre at the mall down the road than to go to the stadium or arena 30 or 50 miles away.
And yet, there have been more than a few "new pro sports" success stories over the last 20 years, (Arena Football and minor league baseball teams), that have been successful at the gate without huge TV numbers. It depends how "success" and "failure" are defined. How many pro sports leagues and teams outside of the NFL can boast: -Increased Attendance -Increased TV Ratings -Increased TV rights revenue -Increased Sponsorship revenue -Increased Profitability -Increased "share of media attention" ...year after year in perpetuity? With more sports/entertainment choices than ever before, I think the sports, television, and entertainment industries need to re-examine their benchmarks for success. In some cases, survival alone is reason enough to celebrate.
I agree. There's obviously been a shift in how this all works. Niche leagues have much less margin for error if they're spending too much money, because it becomes readily apparent if it's not going to work. And once the blood is in the water, forget about it. I was only throwing the MSNBC thing out there because I didn't know.
Arena Football has survived to the point where it is almost the equivalent of the NHL as far as the national TV product goes, but it still struggles to a certain extent: franchises come and go every year. One thing that Arena Football did right was to keep labor costs under control. Some players still get paid less than $1000 per game. Minor league baseball teams, particularly those class "A" teams (all travel on charter buses) located in residential communities on the fringe of big metropolitan areas (notably the 3 teams in the Southern California Inland Empire and the team at Coney Island in Brooklyn) are doing well because 1) they don't have to pay the salaries of the players, and 2) they pay very little rent, if at all. As Kent mentioned: the key to success for niche pro sports teams in this era is COST CONTROL. Arena Football has it. Minor League baseball has it. MLS has it to a certain extent. But the NHL does NOT have it. Not even close. And the women's pro sports league that failed (WUSA in particular and also the ABL to a certain extent) did NOT have it.
The 18-34 male demographic who are into "gambling" don't watch horse racing according to Neilsen ratings. The 18-34 male demographic who are into "gambling" used to watch CNBC before the stock market tanked in 2000-2001. The 18-34 male demographic who are into "gambling" now watch The Travel Channel on Wednesday nights, ESPN on Tuesday nights from July through September, FOX Sports Net on Thanksgiving Day, and NBC on Super Bowl Sunday. The 18-34 male demographic who are into "gambling" not only watch this "sport" on TV, they spend millions of dollars playing this "sport" 24/7/365. Over 1000 of these guys recently won their way into the "world championship" event of this "sport", which has a $10000 entry fee and a first prize of $5 million. (2576 total entries in 2004, up from 839 in 2003. Organizers are gearing up for a mindboggling 7500-8000 entries in 2005.) NBC got a 3.0 rating the first time it aired this "sport" on Super Bowl Sunday 2004 even though the event aired was on 6-week tape delay. To put this into perspective, that particular 2-hour episode on NBC got a higher overall rating and a higher rating for the 18-34 male demographic than NHL Stanley Cup Final telecasts on ABC this season.
FYI, their salary cap this year is $1,684,075, and teams have to spend at least 82% of that figure ($1,380,941.50) in 2004, according to their CBA. For a 24-man roster, that's $57,539 a man, or $3,596.20 per game. The CBA lists a minimum salary of $1,484, but doesn't say if that's per game or not. If it's per game, and somebody's making less than $1,000 a game, that shouldn't be kosher.
As I hit the big three-five in August, I'm disheartened that I'm about to become demographically irrevelant. I'm optimistic, though, about MLS ratings growth in its second decade, when thousands of kids who have "grown up" watching MLS enter the 18-34 demo (though some may argue that MLS ratings can only go in one direction). I was 15 when the NASL folded, and as miguided and mismanaged as that league was, I've wondered if soccer's visibility in the US would be where it is today if the Cosmos & Co. had managed to survive as an outdoor league.
Tennis, Anyone??? This looks like the place to ask... Since I'm sure to forget to look, can someone catch the tennis ratings and post them here. And if anyone listens to Mike and the Maddog in NYC, and catches their rundown of weekend ratings, let me know. I wonder how MLS will do next to the Grand Slam Network and their Arg/Arg, Rus/Rus matchups? Thx, Jay!
3.0 may have been its overnight rating, or its rating among the 18-34s, but the final national rating for the World Poker Tour on 2/1/04 was a 2.3, with 2,519,000 TVHH. And NHL Stanley Cup Finals telecasts, when all was said and done, averaged a 2.6 on ABC thanks to a 4.2 for Monday's Game 7.
Roland Garros traditionally has not drawn nearly as well as Wimbledon and US Open. The 2% rating was not a surprise. Also, the theory that women's tennis draws better than men's tennis is now out the window. Viewers will tune in to watch big names (the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Anna K.), not two relative unknowns from Russia. The NHL got lucky this time with a Game 7. (The TV ratings would have been a disaster if the NHL got a 4-game sweep.) The NHL still has a ton of problems to solve if it wants to stop its slide into irrelevancy. I stand corrected regarding Arena Football salaries (still peanuts for the rank and file players, though $1500 per game is better than $800 per game), and the final rating for WPT on NBC (only 2.5 million homes, which is not good enough for tournament poker to get more than 1 over-the-air network broadcast each year).
