EURO 2008: Ratings suggest that soccer has arrived in the US

[stingbee30]

It is pretty obvious that ESPN is very estatic and pleased with EURO 2008 ratings. Furthermore, the telecasts themselves are getting great reviews for production and commentary.

For starters:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/soccer/?p=29

some key points:

Here’s some preliminary crunching of viewer ratings from ESPN. There’s no Euro matches to compare them to because this is the first time ESPN has telecasted a European soccer
tournament.

On ESPN2: Through 16 matches (Monday, June 23), it averaged a 0.5 rating (506,000 homes), which is up 59-67 percent compared to the same time period in 2007 (0.3 rating and 318,000 homes). The network has averaged 635,000 viewers, up 75 percent from 362,000 over the same time period last year. ESPN2’s highest rating was a 0.9 (831,000 homes and 1.01 million viewers) for the Sweden vs. Spain match on Sat., June 14.

On ESPN: Through matches including the quarter-finals, it averaged a 0.9 rating (835,000 homes), up 80-90 percent compared to the time period average in 2007. The network has averaged 1.1 million viewers, up 116 percent from 362,000 over the same time period last year.
The competition’s highest-rated and most-watched match delivered a 1.4 rating (1.39 million homes and 1.91 million viewers) for Italy vs. Spain in the quarterfinals.
On ESPN360.com: 8 of the 10 most viewed single events are now Euro 2008 games; fans are averaging nearly an hour of time spent viewing per person for Euro matches; June is already ESPN360.com’s most watched month ever.

Some more quotes from this article:


“We’ve been delighted with our presentation of Euro 2008,” Drake said. He called the positive TV ratings “a real move forward for soccer in the U.S.” (See some preliminary
numbers below.)

Vice president Tim Scanlan called Wednesday’s international semi-final blackout “a technical failure of significant proportions.” But viewership on the ESPN channels and Web-site represented “a spectacular story,” he said.


I assume the semifinals probably did something like 1.4-1.8 on ESPN, and something like an additional 150K homes on ESPN deportes. So, one can assume more than 2.0-2.5 million viewers watching it live on TV.

ESPN is loving this. They are getting solid numbers from a tournament that never had a comprehensive coverage before in the US. The fact that they have increased viewers for ESPN DEPORTES, and seeing the record breaking streaming traffic for ESPN 360, and ESPN's website is significant. This was the first EURO that the US viewers got a taste of the event via a mainstream tv outlet. Going forward, the US viewers will become far more familiar with this tournament. For majority of the US viewers, the only time they really watch soccer is during the World Cup. Going forward, ABC/ESPN doesn't have to wait every four years to showcase soccer to the US. Now, they can be far more consistent and doing it every two years.

As for next year's calendar, The Confederation Cup should get decent ratings since it is leading to the 2010 World Cup. Once again, ESPN/ABC will be able to showcase soccer for 2 weeks next year.

All of this is pointing to a massive hype for the 2010 World Cup. Mark my word, the 2010 World Cup tv ratings will be the best ever for the US market.

[stingbee30]

Any guesses for the EURO 2008 Finals?

I think the final will do a 2.5-3.0 in the overnight ratings, around 3.25-3.5 million viewers. If it does anything like around 4.0 rating, than that would be huge and will surprise many people. Ratings always go higher if the game goes into extra time, and penalty kicks. If we get anything like that, than the last 30 minutes of the game should average getting close to a 4.0 rating.

The MLS game should do something like an overnight rating of 1.5-1.8. If the game gets anything higher than a 2.0, than it will be a huge number for an MLS game, and the best ever.

[stingbee30]

Some more interesting excerpts:

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_9711474

We go back to the 2006 World Cup, and even after the U.S. was knocked out, we were not expecting an increase in ratings, but they continued to climb and the interest kept going," said Tim Scanlan, ESPN's vice president of event production. "It wasn't just the games, but also the studio shows. We felt the buzz around the country. So after we picked up this programming, we went in thinking that after the World Cup, the interest would build again. And with a great tournament, so far that's been proven."

This is a great article for those who missed it:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080623.wsptdiary23/GSStory/GlobeSportsSoccer/home

[huhe888]

Any guesses for the EURO 2008 Finals?

I think the final will do a 2.5-3.0 in the overnight ratings, around 3.25-3.5 million viewers. If it does anything like around 4.0 rating, than that would be huge and will surprise many people. Ratings always go higher if the game goes into extra time, and penalty kicks. If we get anything like that, than the last 30 minutes of the game should average getting close to a 4.0 rating.

The MLS game should do something like an overnight rating of 1.5-1.8. If the game gets anything higher than a 2.0, than it will be a huge number for an MLS game, and the best ever.

I expect the MLS lead-in on ABC to draw a national household rating of 0.9%-1.2% (1.2 million to 1.5 million total viewers), and the Euro 2008 Final to draw a national household rating of 1.2%-1.5% (1.5 million to 1.8 million viewers).

Recall that the 2006 World Cup Final got a 7.0% final national household rating on ABC. Euro 2008 is NOT the World Cup.

Also recall that the 1999 Women's World Cup Final got a 10% final national household rating on ABC, but the 2003 Women's World Cup Final only got a 1.3% final national household rating on ABC. Once the U.S. was eliminated, most of the audience left.

MLS is going to draw what it always had drawn in recent years when a marquee "name" (i.e. Beckham) is playing: 0.2% national household rating (0.3% coverage area household rating) on ESPN2, on the order of a 1.0% national household rating on ABC.

The "overnight" household rating tracks only the top 56 TV markets. Because soccer traditionally has an audience that skews toward urban and suburban viewers, the "overnight" rating will be a higher percentage than the final national rating, which is usually 30%-40% lower in percentage compared to the overnight (i.e. 2.0% overnight = 1.4% final).

In contrast, NASCAR and College Football tend to have audience skews toward rural small market viewers (i.e. 2.0% overnight = 2.5% final).

[napolisoccer]

I don't realize a thing about ratings : if 0.5 rating is 665.000 viewers and 1 rating is 1.330.000 viewers because the last Superbowl has been watched by 97.5 million of viewers with a rating of 43.2 ?
Isn't 43.2 ratings = 57.5 million of viewers ?
Where is the error ?

[Cool Rob]

What fascinates me the most about the Euro 2008 success in the US is not just the obvious fact that the US isn't playing, but the fact that Mexico and England aren't playing either! The participating teams do not have massive US fanbases- this is just watching top-quality soccer for its own sake.

[Panfilo]

What fascinates me the most about the Euro 2008 success in the US is not just the obvious fact that the US isn't playing, but the fact that Mexico and England aren't playing either! The participating teams do not have massive US fanbases- this is just watching top-quality soccer for its own sake.

Maybe because its the only futbol on.

Plus Espn's numbers aren't all that impressive.

The games not involving US/Mexico in the World cup get higher ratings on Espn then the Euros.

You'd think that Espn would get higher ratings considering the availability of Espn Deportes is no where near Univision's.

[Cool Rob]

Maybe because its the only futbol on.

Plus Espn's numbers aren't all that impressive.

The games not involving US/Mexico in the World cup get higher ratings on Espn then the Euros.

You'd think that Espn would get higher ratings considering the availability of Espn Deportes is no where near Univision's.

Gloom and doom...unfortunately not substantiated by the opening statements in this thread, especially by the ESPN reps.

[kenntomasch]

I think some of us keep looking for the Ah, HA! moment that will announce "soccer has arrived."

Soccer is here. It's been here.

There is no one flashpoint like Euro ratings (which certainly please us and please ESPN, apparently).

There is a panorama of things - an outdoor league in its 13th year that will soon be the longest-running D1 league (basically*) ever, one that's putting shovels in the ground and building stadiums that will ensure its survival, rights-fee-paying television partners, increased international respect, the emergence of the national team(s) on the world stage, better international players coming here, etc. etc. etc.

All of those things taken together and over time are a better indicator that our sport has "arrived" than the snapshot of Euro 2008 TV ratings. Not to minimize them. It's good news, obviously.




*Here's where Steve Holroyd chimes in on ASLII

[kenntomasch]

Mark my word, the 2010 World Cup tv ratings will be the best ever for the US market.

The US team can help (or hurt) those efforts. As will the final makeup of the teams that qualify.

Six hour time difference (is that right?), same as Germany '06 and France '98. Games in the afternoon.

Supposedly 2006's ABC average was 2.6 million viewers per telecast. That's a lot. If 2010 beats that, that will be another very positive step.

[stingbee30]

I expect the MLS lead-in on ABC to draw a national household rating of 0.9%-1.2% (1.2 million to 1.5 million total viewers), and the Euro 2008 Final to draw a national household rating of 1.2%-1.5% (1.5 million to 1.8 million viewers).

Recall that the 2006 World Cup Final got a 7.0% final national household rating on ABC. Euro 2008 is NOT the World Cup.

Also recall that the 1999 Women's World Cup Final got a 10% final national household rating on ABC, but the 2003 Women's World Cup Final only got a 1.3% final national household rating on ABC. Once the U.S. was eliminated, most of the audience left.

MLS is going to draw what it always had drawn in recent years when a marquee "name" (i.e. Beckham) is playing: 0.2% national household rating (0.3% coverage area household rating) on ESPN2, on the order of a 1.0% national household rating on ABC.

The "overnight" household rating tracks only the top 56 TV markets. Because soccer traditionally has an audience that skews toward urban and suburban viewers, the "overnight" rating will be a higher percentage than the final national rating, which is usually 30%-40% lower in percentage compared to the overnight (i.e. 2.0% overnight = 1.4% final).

In contrast, NASCAR and College Football tend to have audience skews toward rural small market viewers (i.e. 2.0% overnight = 2.5% final).

I agree with the overnight markets v. national rating. ABC final rating for Russia V Netherland was 1.2 v 1.4 for the overnight. But, the difference was not 30-40%. It is actually less than 15%. The world Cup final drew a 7.9 with overnight v a 7.0 for the national rating. That is only a difference of 10%.

I think you are underestimating the final numbers for the Double header game on Sunday. Spain v. Italy game already drew a 1.4 (with 1.91 million viewers) last sunday on ESPN. Remember, ESPN 360 is already showing great streaming numbers for its weekday telecasts. One can assume that the EURO 2008 final will be much higher than a 1.5 household rating. Once again, i think ABC will get an overnight rating between a 2.5-3.0 rating, with the national rating will be around 2.0-2.5 rating. As i indicated before, if the game goes to overtime, and plus penalty kicks, than the overnight and the national average will trend higher. The overnight could average about 3.0-3.5, and the final numbers around 3.0 rating.

As for the Women's world cup, there was really not that much buzz the last time around. EURO 2008 has a lot of momentum going for it and the quality of the games.

[kenntomasch]

Also recall that the 1999 Women's World Cup Final got a 10% final national household rating on ABC, but the 2003 Women's World Cup Final only got a 1.3% final national household rating on ABC. Once the U.S. was eliminated, most of the audience left.

Plus, the former was on a Saturday afternoon in July, the latter was on a Sunday afternoon in October.

[napolisoccer]

I don't realize a thing about ratings : if 0.5 rating is 665.000 viewers and 1 rating is 1.330.000 viewers because the last Superbowl has been watched by 97.5 million of viewers with a rating of 43.2 ?
Isn't 43.2 ratings = 57.5 million of viewers ?
Where is the error ?
Can somebody to explain these numbers ?

[huhe888]

I don't realize a thing about ratings : if 0.5 rating is 665.000 viewers and 1 rating is 1.330.000 viewers because the last Superbowl has been watched by 97.5 million of viewers with a rating of 43.2 ?
Isn't 43.2 ratings = 57.5 million of viewers ?
Where is the error ?
Can somebody to explain these numbers ?

The "rating" that is quoted is the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS, not the percentage of viewers (the general media usually quotes household ratings and does NOT quote viewer ratings).

Furthermore, there are different types of household ratings:

1. National household rating: percentage of households with TV across the U.S. that tuned in, regardless of whether that household has access to that particular TV channel or not.

2. COVERAGE AREA household rating: percentage of households WITH ACCESS TO THAT PARTICULAR CHANNEL that tuned in. Because only 98 million out of 113 million households in the U.S. have access to ESPN, a 0.5% COVERAGE AREA household rating on ESPN will translate to about a 0.4% national household rating.

3. OVERNIGHT household rating: percertage of households in the Top 56 U.S. TV market that tuned in. Because soccer TV viewers in the U.S. live mostly in major cities and suburbs, the OVERNIGHT household rating for a soccer match tends to be at least 30% higher than the NATIONAL household rating. For example: a 2.0% overnight rating will translate to only about a 1.2% to 1.4% national household rating.

Furthermore, the number of viewers per household varies depending on the channel and the time of day the program is shown.

The Spanish-language channels tends to have a greater number of viewers per household compared to the English-language channels simply because Spanish-speaking families tend to be larger than English-speaking families in the U.S.

Also, free-to-air broadcast channels (such as ABC) tends to have a greater number of viewers per household compared to cable/satellite pay TV channels such as ESPN and ESPN2.

Also note that BIG SPORTS EVENTS (such as the SuperBowl) tends to be viewed in bigger groups than niche sports events such as a European soccer match on weekday afternoons during the summer.

==

Advertising for sports events in the U.S. is sold usually based on the number of VIEWERS in two age groups: 18-34 and 18-49.

A rule of thumb: a sports event (with the probable exception of golf) on U.S. TV tends to have at least 50% of its viewers in the 18-49 age group if the event were shown in English. If the sports event were shown in Spanish, then 55% to 60% of the viewers are in the 18-49 age group.

Any televised "sports" TV product that starts to lose young TV viewers in the 18-34 age group in large numbers will lose advertising support from categories such as beer and mobile phones, and the product will eventually lose its TV rights fee contract. Most current example: World Poker Tour (whose option to renew were declined by Travel Channel and Game Show Network in two consecutive years).

[huhe888]

The US team can help (or hurt) those efforts. As will the final makeup of the teams that qualify.

Six hour time difference (is that right?), same as Germany '06 and France '98. Games in the afternoon.

CORRECT.

South African STANDARD Time (during the Southern Hemisphere winter) is indeed GMT+2, which is equal to Central European SUMMER Time and is 6 hours ahead of U.S. Eastern DAYLIGHT (summer) Time.

[huhe888]

Maybe because its the only futbol on.

Plus Espn's numbers aren't all that impressive.

The games not involving US/Mexico in the World cup get higher ratings on Espn then the Euros.

You'd think that Espn would get higher ratings considering the availability of Espn Deportes is no where near Univision's.

First of all, no one who has any knowledge of soccer television in the U.S. would expect Euro 2008 to produce equal viewership numbers compared to World Cup 2006.

I had predicted the average viewership on weekday afternoons to come in with a national household rating between 0.5% and 0.8% (coverage area household rating average between 0.6% and 1.0%) and my prediction was spot on.

(World Cup matches on weekday afternoons would have averaged a 1.0% national household rating easily.)

ESPN presented Euro 2008 as it would present a major conference college basketball TV product (i.e. Big East), but with a lower TV production budget by necessity because ESPN was limited in the number of ways it could make money on Euro 2008 (i.e. no logo burn-ins of non-UEFA sponsors allowed).

After World Cup 2006, ESPN finally understood where major European soccer fits within the U.S. sports TV landscape in the early 21st century (i.e. 2006 is very different from 1994) and ESPN, in my opinion, gave Euro 2008 the appropriate level of treatment given the size of the audience and the tight production budget.

[stingbee30]

First of all, no one who has any knowledge of soccer television in the U.S. would expect Euro 2008 to produce equal viewership numbers compared to World Cup 2006.

I had predicted the average viewership on weekday afternoons to come in with a national household rating between 0.5% and 0.8% (coverage area household rating average between 0.6% and 1.0%) and my prediction was spot on.

(World Cup matches on weekday afternoons would have averaged a 1.0% national household rating easily.)

ESPN presented Euro 2008 as it would present a major conference college basketball TV product (i.e. Big East), but with a lower TV production budget by necessity because ESPN was limited in the number of ways it could make money on Euro 2008 (i.e. no logo burn-ins of non-UEFA sponsors allowed).

After World Cup 2006, ESPN finally understood where major European soccer fits within the U.S. sports TV landscape in the early 21st century (i.e. 2006 is very different from 1994) and ESPN, in my opinion, gave Euro 2008 the appropriate level of treatment given the size of the audience and the tight production budget.

Thank you for your in-depth analysis. Here are some more facts:

http://www.espnmediazone.com/press_releases/2008_06_jun/20080626_Euro2008FinalonABCSundayGermanyvsSpain.htm

ESPN Deportes

Through 23 matches, ESPN Deportes is averaging a 2.39 Hispanic household coverage rating. The Spain/Italy match on June 22 was the most-watched sports event on Spanish-language cable last week, with 223,000 Hispanic household impressions (309,000 viewers). In addition, ESPN Deportes has been the most-watched Spanish-language cable sports network for 18 consecutive days since the kickoff of Euro 2008.

What this means that the Italy v Spain game had a total of about 2.2-2.3 million viewers (adding ESPN + ESPN deportes numbers), and roughly about 1.7 household rating.

On ESPN 360, the official numbers will be released in July. I was reading in one article that the Tiger Woods US Open Gulf playoff had about 600,000 streaming viewers, which was a record. However, EURO 2008 is now one of the top events in the history of ESPN 360, occupying 8 out of the 10 most watched events on ESPN 360. One can assume that ESPN 360 was probably averaging about 250K-400K for the whole tournament. The number were probably close to 400K-450K for the Quarterfinals (Weekday match-ups), Semi-finals (weekday), and the marquee weekday matches (ex. Italy v France).

Furthermore, i'm thinking ESPN semifinal game (Wed, Turkey v Germany) probably did about 1.7-1.9 household rating for the combined ESPN+ ESPN deportes. The total viewers for LIVE+SD telecast was probably between 2.2-2.3 million. In addition, when you add the 360 numbers, one can assume that an additional 300-450K watched it on ESPN 360. In summary, you probably had about 2.5-2.7 million viewers watching the game from different outlets. The most important thing about ESPN 360 is the majority of the individuals that streamed the broadcast for an average of an hour. It is usually 15 minutes for their typical broadcasts.

Now, these are raw calculations and not exact numbers. But, it should be close to the real numbers. Like some of you have you pointed out in the past, we will really never know the real numbers because there are thousands of people watching the games at pubs, bars, restaurants, and at their work cafeteria's.

[kenntomasch]

I had predicted the average viewership on weekday afternoons to come in with a national household rating between 0.5% and 0.8% (coverage area household rating average between 0.6% and 1.0%) and my prediction was spot on.

Where were these predictions?

[stingbee30]

I'm pretty confident that the EURO 2008 final will do about 3 millon+ viewers. The fact is ABC will get a good number of the ESPN Deportes families to watch the game. Secondly, Spain attracts more of the spanish immigrants in the US to watch the game. Thirdly, there is a solid number of German-Americans in the US. Finally, TV viewership is always higher on Sunday afternoons v Saturday afternoons. So, ABC will get most of the ESPN 360 viewers since they are not working.

In summary, one can assume that the majority of the viewing audience from all of the different platforms will come to a single day and watch the event.

[Panfilo]

First of all, no one who has any knowledge of soccer television in the U.S. would expect Euro 2008 to produce equal viewership numbers compared to World Cup 2006.

I had predicted the average viewership on weekday afternoons to come in with a national household rating between 0.5% and 0.8% (coverage area household rating average between 0.6% and 1.0%) and my prediction was spot on.

(World Cup matches on weekday afternoons would have averaged a 1.0% national household rating easily.)

ESPN presented Euro 2008 as it would present a major conference college basketball TV product (i.e. Big East), but with a lower TV production budget by necessity because ESPN was limited in the number of ways it could make money on Euro 2008 (i.e. no logo burn-ins of non-UEFA sponsors allowed).

After World Cup 2006, ESPN finally understood where major European soccer fits within the U.S. sports TV landscape in the early 21st century (i.e. 2006 is very different from 1994) and ESPN, in my opinion, gave Euro 2008 the appropriate level of treatment given the size of the audience and the tight production budget.

No I worded it wrong.

There is no way in hell Espn nor Univision would get the same ratings for the Euro Cup as the World Cup. I know that.

What I was trying to say was that with availability of Univision being much more than that of Espn Deportes it would be logical to assume that many people would have gone to Espn (in English) to watch the game. When normally they would have watched on Univision.

For instance as you say 309,000 people watched Spain vs Italy on Espn Deportes. That was the highest ratings they have gotten.

Spain vs France in the second round of the WC 06 got 2,037,000 viewers on a Tuesday afteroon on Univision. Like I said before no way in hell would I expect a Euro Cup to compare to a World cup on Univision.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=274&num=5901

But I sure as hell would expect Univision to get higher than 309,000 people to watch a Euro Cup quarterfinal on a Sunday afternoon. (Marketed/Advertised correctly of course, like a Gold Cup or Copa America)

And that is my whole point where do those people turn to, to watch the game. ESPN

And that is why I wasn't that overly impressed by their numbers. Because they would get a bump, because they really don't have that much competition fighting for viewers ala the World Cup