Change in philosophy RE: soccer promotion

[Asprilla9]

folks, I've recently experienced somewhat of an epiphany regarding the way the powers that be promote soccer in this country. and this epiphany represents somewhat of a radical change in the way the game tries to attract new fans...

the way I used to feel...
as annoying as they used to be, I was actually in support of Jack and Ty, for several reasons. (1.) They talked down to us, like we're 6 years old. Annoying for the older crowd, but then again, who is MLS/USNAT trying to appeal to? young kids. (2.) they explained things ad nauseam. It always annoys educated soccer fans when Jack would say things like, "You may be wondering how it is that DeMarcus Beasley can play for the Chicago Fire and the U.S. Well, it's just like Michael Jordan playing for the Bulls and the U.S. Olympic team." or the even worse "Ajax Amsterdam are the New York Yankees of Dutch soccer." while these types of statements are absolutely abhorrent by the serious fan's standards, I always felt that ridiculous statements like those were necessary to attract the casual fan. i'll bet there really are people out there who've wondered how it is that soccer players have two teams, because the US Nats play so often they're viewed as more of a club team for the uninitiated. and there are probably plenty of people who have no concept of the Ajax Amsterdam football club, we know this...

the epiphany...
I recently experienced an epiphany last week, on July 4th, to be exact. It occurred while watching the ESPN show "Outside the Lines." On it, they had Kasey Keller, Brian McBride, and Tommy Smyth discussing all things Beckham and US National team. In the show, host Jeremy Schaap did his best to move the discussion forward in a pace befitting that of an unmotivated snail in a work release program, so Tommy did his best to spice up the discussion. for example, after Schaap asked one of his typically soft questions to Keller like, "is Beckham really that good?", Tommy would just jump in like, "I got a question for Kasey: Tim Howard will likely sign with Manchester United, is that a good thing if he's only sitting the bench?" Great question for a great player. And then in another characteristic lull, undoubtedly brought on by Schaap, Tommy changed gears completely and was like, "Brian, how do you feel about players starting younger and younger, moreover how do you feel about Freddy Adu?" Good question for a veteran player. Problem was after both those questions Schaap stepped in (no doubt bringing a good conversation to a screeching halt) and was like "Whoa, whoa, whoa...slow down there. For those who don't who don't know, Tim Howard is the goalie for the New York/New Jersey MetroStars. He's excelled in the league and now could possibly be moving to Manchester United, one of the best clubs in England." He even did it after the Adu question ("Slow down Tommy, not everyone is as knowledgable as you...let me take five minutes to go through an excrutiatingly boring and elementary explanation of who Freddy Adu is...).

the epiphany defined...
you see, I used to be for these elementary explanations, constantly bringing the casual fan up to date, but not anymore. Not after this. OTL and Schaap took it to an absurdly ridiculous level, and actually made me question the way soccer should be promoted in this country. Schaap turned what could have been a very quick, interesting, insightful panel and discussion into a slow, useless bore.

my new stance...
i no longer think that we should talk down to the unitiated. it's not working. it's stupid. does anybody think this philosophy gets any converts? it wouldn't have worked on me, and I doubt it would have worked on any of you, when you were in your formative years. I became a fan listening to John Motson and Martin Tyler years ago...not having a clue what they were talking about, but thinking it sounded SO interesting and SO earth shattering, that I had to go educate myself and figure out what the heck they were talking about. if either one of those guys would have ever stopped mid-match to explain something ("let's slow it down for our American listeners, Alan Shearer has long been thought of as one of England's pre-eminent strikers..."), I would have thought less about the product. i can't really explain it, but when you talk down to the audience you make whatever you're promoting sound bush league, like it doesn't matter.

a final thought...
a little mystery isn't always such a bad thing. think about it, if i'm a casual fan and i tune in to Outside the Lines and see these three soccer experts going off, having this heated discussion...i want to learn more about it. yeah, maybe i don't know who Tim Howard is, but they're talking about him like he's really good. maybe, just maybe i'll punch his name up on the internet and try to learn more about him. but when you strip it down and just have the bare bones, and temper every single point with a long-winded explanation, you quite simply turn everybody off. my solution is that MLS and the USNT just go about their business as normal, if you like the product, you like the product.

thanks for your time

[Soccerholic]

I agree that talking down to the audience probably does not do much to attract new viewers and it irritates a fair number of hardcore fans. If the announcers talk at the level the hardcore fans would like, the rest of the people will catch up at some point.

An example is the offside rule. Instead of explaining it ad nauseum, just show a replay when there is a close call, playing the video back and forth as the player is striking the pass. Then if the announcers say something like, "Donovan was even with the last defender. That was a bad call." the uninitiated will figure it out.

The biggest reason that I prefer JP and Tommy to Jack and Ty for the Nats games is that they don't talk down to their audience.

And the networks shouldn't feel that they have to talk down to the kids watching the games. It is important to get young viewers interested in soccer, but most of the kids watching soccer probably play the game and understand the rules just fine. And if they don't already know about Tim Howard, Freddie Adu or Ajax, they'll figure it out soon enough.

[Justin O]

Ideally, the announcers would be talented enough to phrase things in ways that neither talk down to the informed nor are too obscure to the uninformed. In reality that rarely seems to be the case. Given that, I pretty much agree with your comments. I like for people to think that they should know certain basic things about the sport, rather than reinforce the notion that, "since your an American it's only natural that you don't care enough about soccer to know anythig about it," regardless of whether or not that assumption is true. In any case, most aspects of soccer aren't that hard to figure out. It ain't rocket science.

[MikeLastort2]

How do you feel about soccer relegation.

:)

Hey, somebody had to say it.

[Sykotyk]

That's what I thought this thread was about....

As for how to promote the game, if you're a fan of another U.S. sport, how did you become a fan?

You sit, and watch, and slowly pick up on the sport. The people that need the explanations to understand the game are the same people who ask questions during a movie,... it's ridiculous.

That's not the target audience.

Sykotyk

[Real Ray]

Funny having read this thread then gone to this article in the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/sports/tennis/08sandomir.html

While the daily live coverage of the Tour de France on the Outdoor Life Network since 2001 has been a positive, the network is making a mistake in assuming that all viewers are cycling aficionados.

Why, for example, did sprints suddenly occur during yesterday's Stage 2, like show tunes in a musical? The commentators Phil Liggett and Jeff Sherwen made no attempts at an explanation. No start and finish lines seemed to be delineated. Who signals the start of the sprint? Which racers are part of one? How do racers join?

And why, as Liggett said, were the cyclists engaged at one point in a race for third place? Don't they want to win? How could that happen if they are tens of kilometers from finishing?

The announcing was a mishmash of inside knowledge, and the graphics were lazy.

OLN does nothing for cycling :)

[QPR Kevin H]

I think that Rob Stone saying "netmeg" and "service" 500 times per match is really pulling in the punters.

[442]

Cycling and soccer, and to a lesser extent maybe F1 do share the similarity of not being entrenched in US sports consciousness.

I fall in the 'figure it out for yourself' category. Problem is, and I'm not trying to pat myself on the back here, most people are too stupid and lazy to want to figure it out. The average American (thus excluding BS posters) wants dumb sports spoon fed, or even better, IV dripped, into them. "Just show me a dunk and a home run, I'm too stupid to understand the team tactics involved in cycling. Soccer is boring because there isn't 8-6 final scores."

I love soccer and cycling. Most people in this country never will. F 'em. I think those sports should work on deepening the bond to the core fans, not try to spread out to more fans. Build deep relationships and you build fans who will preach for you.

[rhino_rulz]

Quite honestly, soccer may be slowly and gradually making its way with the media. I just read this... http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1514660 ...where the writer has some soccer tidbits included in with items on baseball, football, tennis and Kobe Bryant.
Soccer's a great game, but few seem to realize what makes it so. A 1-0 game, or even that 0-0 U.S.-Mexico friendly not too long ago, can be very exhilarating to watch.
Basketball has tons of scoring, but the NBA is boring and stale. Many fans need excessive amounts of beer to make baseball seem exciting.