MLS 2013 TV Ratings

OK, but if the league improves the product enough so that they double the viewers for the final, presumably ratings would go way, way up for all of the other matches as well, and then the investment looks pretty good.

 

I think we also have to face the possibility that the ratings will never go way, way up.

 

300k+ Season average, would be fantastic IMO. At least as a short to mediums goal.

 

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I think that when MLS is able to haul in a few more players from higher profile NT, that quite a few of those countries fans residing in the US will give MLS a shot, if anything to check out their countrymen.

 

This is absolutely correct. As things stand, there is simply not enough money to be made that justifies dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on improved quality of play, and as you point out, that is what is needed if quality of play is going to significantly move the television ratings needle.
Perhaps MLS needs to look at other ways of improving ratings. Personally, I believe that it's not so much quality of play that needs to improve, as it's relevance in US sports culture. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished really. Perhaps the most likely trigger is a perfect storm of a fantastic World Cup showcasing MLS players, a strong USMNT showing, and several fantastic games (packed stadia, high scores, SportsCenter-worthy plays) shortly after a World Cup ends when there might be curious newcomers watching.
But I don't know, I'm no expert. I just think that MLS has to take it's place as a niche sports league for the time being, but be ready to react if ever something like this perfect storm ever happens and national interest is piqued.

 

Throwing money at players on the front end isn't the only way to improve the league. Academies, more talent mining in cheap places in CONCACAF and improved coaching are more cost effective. Obviously the league should have an "all of the above" policy which it seems to be implementing.

"All of the above" also means more than just quality of play. It's also improving the aesthetic appeal of the league, more effective marketing, more infrastructure investment and of course expansion. Again there seems to be progress on all those fronts.

At this point I think staying the course is the best answer to the long term ratings problem. I'm not a fan of drastic panicked reactions to the ratings dilemma. I don't even think the ludicrous one off transfers for the like of Defoe or Dempsey are the correct way to invest in the long term health of the league.

 

i suppose it depends on your definition of way way up, but MLS just has to continue to incrementally improve until their finances are in the realm of the NHL, and they will be one of the top leagues in the world. if MLS is able to achieve that, i think ratings would be way way up by most any definition.

 

Ratings for pretty much everything have been declining steadily since the advent of cable systems in the late 70s/early 80s.

The fracturing of the marketplace and the proliferation of entertainment options that just didn't exist in the old days of 3 commercial networks, PBS, and a smattering of independent channels has changed things.

Now with people "cutting the cord" and getting content over the internet, or just playing videos or video games, the number of available eyes - or maybe just measurable ones - is in decline.

"Catching the NHL" may be more of just maintaining the level MLS has been at rather than growing the number to where the NHL currently is.

Only the NFL, in the U.S., has a built in audience for games not featuring local teams. Even MLB serves up a steady diet of New York, Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago with the small markets only appearing when they are 1) very good and 2) facing one of the teams from the big four media markets.

I don't know that it's rational to expect a whole lot of improvement for the MLS game of the week. MLS Cup, however, is a different subject. The league and its broadcast partners should be able to deliver top numbers for the championship game. I suspect much of the behind the scenes discussions over the new TV deal(s) will involve plans and actionable items on how to achieve that. Did ESPN do any cross-promotion of MLS Cup on its other products? Did any soccer people show up on Mike and Mike or their other talk radio properties in the two weeks leading up to the game? I'm sure MLS is now in the position to expect more broad spectrum marketing support from whichever network (Fox, ESPN, NBC, ???) gets the rights to MLS Cup after next season.

 

i was using the NHL comparison as a financial goal post. its been awhile since i looked, but when i had, the money the NHL has was on par with the EPL. what i'm saying is MLS doesn't need to catch up with NFL/MLB, it just has to reach the financials of the NHL to be the best, or one of the best leagues in the world. if someones desire is for MLS to be the top sport in the US, this doesn't mean much. if someones goal is to have MLS be the top league in the world, this is very important and a much more doable goal to achieve than rising to NFL heights.

the import i put on becoming one of the wealthiest leagues is the ability to feature some of the best players in the world. i think employing a respectable number of the best players in the world (including growing a couple ourselves), and being viewed as fielding some of the best teams/competition in the world, will be important, if not the most important aspects of achieving ratings nirvana.

i believe it will be a slow slog to that goal, as the bulk of those funds will come from tv contracts, and tv contracts of that size are going to come from eyeballs tuning in. chicken and egg and all that, but i think MLS has the required ingredients to eventually achieve it.

in the shorter term, i have to imagine your points about MLS going into the next round of tv contract negotiations with promotion being a very important item on the table is very much correct.

 

That will be a while. NHL revenue was 2.4 billion in 2012-13. While missing 510 games due to lockout.

Projected to be for 13-14 season being 4billion plus in revenues. (Based on salary cap being 71m next yr per team which is 50/50 split of hockey revenues)

 

Just want to point out that Chicago, while a Bears town for sure, is a much bigger college football market than anywhere on the East Coast (except for New York, but that's just a sheer numbers advantage). You're just as likely to see Iowa or Michigan or Ohio State or Notre Dame represented on the streets there as you are the Chicago pro teams... because it's such a melting pot for midwesterners, and this is arguably the most populated region where college football is a big deal. Not only is it mecca for graduates of Big Ten colleges, it's also home to non-alum fan expats from throughout the Great Lakes region

I'd also argue that while there are comparisons to be made between the MLS/EPL and NCAA/NFL (the whole "college team as the pro team for the small state" phenomenon), there are also major differences that explain why the dynamic is different.

 

I still think the overall TV market for domestic soccer in the US is too small to expect any significant growth for MLS.
MLS may have a smaller share of that market than other soccer products but even increasing that share can only take MLS so far and it won't get any further until the market size it can tap into has been significantly increased.

I don't believe that MLS is the best vehicle for that and while products such as the EPL are probably better placed to attract newcomers to the sport the World cup is really where it's at.
Somehow MLS needs to be associated with that as much as possible in the same way politicians were queuing up with fake smiles to be associated with Mandela - fame and celebrity by association, it's the new way.
Seriously though, a good run by the US will do MLS no end of favours but only so long as MLS ensure they get their share of associated glory.
That may cost a lot of money one way or another but that would be money very well spent IMO.

 

this is a horrible analogy. You can't compare a form of entertainment to a means of conveyance that people rely on to live their lives.

A better comparison would be someone who loves classical music but thinks the local orchestra blows, so they sit at home and listen to the London Philharmonic on CD. But, you argue, they may never get the experience of seeing their favorite works performed in person. And they argue "it's better than seeing them performed by inferior musicians". And thus, we reach a stalemate.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

I would say it is actually far easier and more imaginable for MLS to double the ratings for the final than to raise them by 50%, let's say, for the regular season. The regular season is a long haul, that's a lot of games, most of which feature teams you don't support and will have negligible impact on the title race (and Europurists, spare me, because that's also true even when there's no playoff). It's a lot to ask people to tune in regularly as a neutral for that. It is less of an ask to make one game appointment viewing for fans (even though we haven't done that yet).

Oh yeah, I agree with all of that. "Quality of the product" includes how loud the fans are, how good the camera angles are, the production value and shoulder programming etc etc etc, not just the talent. I also agree that player development might eventually, once it really gets going well, be a cheaper way of improving the on-field product (because it is subsidized by the transfer fees it generates). I was of course speaking to the 'quick fix' approach, which does in fact exist (ask Abramovich or Mansour). . . but at a mind-boggling price.

Well, I guess each has its defense. Dempsey is about a gamble on him producing in the World Cup, because that *is* a lot of legit publicity for the league (I mean, 20m people each would be a plausible prediction for viewership of our two 6pm ET
games, if we're still in the mix for both of them). I think Donovan has been a bargain and a half for the attention he's brought his franchise and league. Mucky said that somehow MLS needs to be associated with the World Cup, and this is one of the ways they're trying to do that.

Defoe is more about proving to its fanbase that the team can still be aggressive, when most of them seem pretty convinced that ownership doesn't care. (That said, that's a lot of danged money that's being talked about for him.)

A fair criticism, but with the caveat that I don't think most people would argue that seeing an orchestra live carries quite the same weight that seeing a soccer match does. There is something vaguely inspiring sympathy about following a soccer team that you almost never get to see in person, something that goes beyond anything available in classical music. Musical theater maybe, since there's a real interaction with the audience: if you refuse to go see the touring company of, let's say, Book of Mormon, because it features inferior actors to the Broadway show, but you'll only ever see the Broadway show on a video recording, I'd say you've lost more than you could hope to gain.

My wife is fond of the ballet. She loved Baryshnikov, and can easily see the difference between some local touring company and that level. She watches old Baryshnikov on DVD, but she's more than willing to see ballet in person from the locals.

Or as another example, I watched a Second City comedy show not too long ago. The comedians were pretty talented, but not as much as the Second City Chicago troupe, still less of the "graduates" of that troupe you usually see moving on to SNL. But you gain something from the personal interaction that takes place in the live show that is worth it, compared to sticking up your nose and only watching the highest level.

 

Lots and lots I like in Stan Collins' post, but just an counter-anecdote to the example of your wife and dance, I know a guy, classically-trained tenor, will absolutely go to see the Met Live in HD for $20 at the local theater, but will not make the drive to the city to see the local opera company in person. His feeling is that while they may be good professionals and the shows have perfectly fine production standards, he's only interested in experiencing the very best. There are people like that. But this getting a bit far afield, sorry.

 

the point of increasing ratings for the final is that it's supposed to be a step to increasing them for the rest of it. if the final/regular season ratio is (more or less) a constant, you'd expect...
at least that's the theory. step 1. step 2. etc....

as for the live/remote distinction being more compelling for soccer than certain other things, that's silly. it's true for a soccer fan. but a classical music fan finds carnegie hall a lot more exciting than red bull arena, and might wonder why someone who just wants to watch a game needs to do any more than turn on the tv. while he would rush to buy tix far in advance for an appearance of his favorite conductor. it's ridiculous to think there's something 'inherent' in soccer that makes it any more must-see-in-person.
in a poll question, 'classical music live or soccer live, which is more compelling?', i'm not even sure which wins in the u.s..

 

Football is different. If you don't have a connection with a team, a real connection, it isn't the same game.

With the Galaxy I have an opportunity to talk with the players, and on occasion have a drink with them after the game. Chris Klein regularly roams the tailgate (sorry, "picnic") areas before games chatting with supporters. The players have a connection with the city, live close by and run charities in our community. The supporters in MLS have sway with the team and vice versa.

You can not tell me that some hipster from the US has ANY sway with an EPL club, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves that it's "their" club. When I meet euro-snobs who prattle on about "their club" somewhere in Europe I always invite them to an MLS game. To me, those who refuse are ignorant of what this game is all about. They don't live in Barcelona and don't have a stake in the team, but I'm sure Barcelona appreciates the money they send. Those people will never know what it's like driving 6 hours for a 2 hour game in San Jose or planning your vacation around away games.

Point is, long distance watching because "it's quality football" is entertaining, but it doesn't build a connection. And a connection is what creates a lifetime, life or death supporter. And life or death supporters will follow their team on TV when they move, can't afford games, grow old, etc.

And that will increase ratings.

 

meeting the players has nothing to do with loving the game of soccer, imo.
and the 'local' aspect of the sport meant a lot more when distance was a barrier to information.
i'm an mls sth, but i watch far more soccer on tv, and i'm glad as heck that i can see the sport at a far higher level than rbny can offer.

 

Geez, if only you had more of a soap box to let these poor deluded souls know what they really want. Are you sure you shouldn't be handling out pamphlets or flowers or something at the biggest soccer bar in your town? Or maybe offer a copy of Beau Dure's book?

Your talents are wasted here.

 

You forgot this:

[/eyeroll]

 

you're right about his tone, although i don't agree with your point that 'football is different.' it's different if you're a football fan. but that's begging the question.

 

Unless you can provide examples of other entertainment where people will go week in week out with friends and family even if when the entertainment does not match the billing just for the interaction with like minded people and develop a sense of loyalty to "their" brand that is strong enough to cross generations then I think I will stick with the idea that soccer fandom is different.

By the way, I see the EPL is still proving itself tactically inferior to the other European leagues in the CL.