http://www.socceramerica.com/article/46055/mls-on-nbc-sports-network-gets-big-bump-in-viewers.html Looks like people finally found NBCS.
But (and even relative to the "success" MLS is finding in some smaller/other markets) this "inability to capture (comparable local viewing percentages/ratings in) its largest local markets" may be affected by the competitive entertainment/sportsTV landscape within those markets. there are lots of reasons that a higher percentage of people (for example) in/near Portland "care about and watch" the Timbers (and MLS) than the percentage of people in/near NYC "care about and watch" the Red Bulls (and MLS).
And those reasons are directly entwined with "not capturing" the audience. It's not like LA/NY are the only two with multiple reasons not to "care" or "be captured" by the MLS. Why is that an excuse for LA/NY ? It's pretty much the whole point.
not intending to use it as an excuse. (and not trying to limit the comparisons to just the #1 and #2 sized market.) just hoping to put the reality into some context, and pointing to the "task" (and search for "relevance") MLS has before itself in various markets of various sizes. to "hope/expect" that an MLS team in Market X (of market size rank 1-5) would be proportionately as "relevant/popular" as some MLS team in Market Y (of market size rank 21-25) lacks some real context, imo.
Well there's obviously different levels of meaning to things like this. I'd certainly put some stock in say "in 2008 the league had a minimum of a 10% viewership share of its specific tv markets and that figure rose to a minimum of 15% in 2011." There's certainly value in that regardless of context. Direct measures always hold some kind of value. I think the market comparison is where the line blurs. "Equal relevance" is a nice ideal and would indicate a direct measurable that would sound nice for the league and its specific media markets. However, the equation isn't the same for each market. The idea is sound however, the variables involved for the different markets make the math impossible to conclude a proper encompassing end point.
but those "10%-15% viewership shares" per market are (even as examples) completely unrealistic and overshooting the reality (and likely targets) by factors of 5 or 10 (or even 20) for the business MLS runs. exactly. (and you've stated it very well.) And I was just trying to highlight the point (as you re-stated) that "the equation isn't the same for each market." As a league-wide (and multi-country) yet single-entity business, I'm assuming that MLS has various metrics and expectations in place for various markets.
In no fashion were the numbers intended to represent anything other than a place holder for illustration purposes. Replace that with 1% - 5% per specific market if you'd like. The point though, of being "X" percent relevant (having "X" percent of market share) in every MLS specific market (regardless of actual number) represents a measurable value for the league. That's really all I was saying there. Here in lies the problem. "Various" metrics ... fans of the league will have their own "various" metrics as well. We're seeing it in this very thread. They want transparency because 99% feel that their logic/reasoning/ability is equal to or greater than that of the league/ownerships in terms of valuing a specific piece of data. 99% are pretty out there with that thinking, conversely. For instance, I stated that the ideal of being "X" percent relevant in every MLS specific market is sound. I'd rather though, prescribe to having every single one of those market shares continue to grow regardless of how they sit in conjunction with one another. Even if LA/NY are lagging behind everyone else, as long as they continue to grow there isn't really an issue. It just means that the growth will sustain and the top end will simply be that much larger.
MLS on NBC Sports Network gets big bump in viewers Soccer America Personally, a 2nd team in NY will definitely spike the ratings needle past 350k on NBC..
I think you all are missing the bigger picture here. Nobody really questions the ratings of the NFL. Why? Because it is so popular, even when a team is totally in the hole, people still tune in. The MLS is still the new guy on the block having only been around for 16 years now. As it continues to grow, it's popularity will also continue to grow. We see it every year. Maybe I'm biased since I live in Kansas City, but it would appear to me that at least half of the teams playing in MLS right now are drawing good numbers at games and likewise drawing good ratings on TV. As it continues to grow, say in 2 to 3 years time, these rating discussions will all be a thing of the past as the ratings will be decent enough all the way around that nobody will really worry about it anymore. I say two to three years time because we have a World Cup coming in 2014 and I suspect that in 2014 the US will do better then in years past, helping to boost the popularity of soccer like it has done the past two or three World Cups.
The two-hour game window averaged 145,000 viewers, more than double the FSC average for last season. Are we still panicking, or is it ok now?
On a different tangent: I was thinking today about the whole LA not pulling it's weight criticism, which in part I agree with on a local level. With the encouraging numbers coming from week 2 on NBCSN. If we do see some growth over the span of the 3 year deal, when the new contract is negotiated obviously we'll be in a better negotiating position but I wonder what effect the Galaxy deal will have at setting the market for a national deal? Does anyone know what the MLS makes from all of it's TV deals? It's it more then the $5.5m per/yr that LA is going to get from Time Warner?
I've not been able to confidently conclude why MLS chose to replace FSC rather than supplement with a third partner. Do they think two partners will pay more than three? The reason I concluded that is not true is that three partners would show more games for a larger total audience -- and that is the bottom line. Three national games a week will produce more advert revenue than two. So you smart guys -- can you educate me on this?
Quite a bit more. And to be specific, it is SUM who gets this money, not MLS (although for your question feel free to think of it as the same entity) MLS is getting ~$10-11M a year from NBC MLS is getting ~$8.5M a year from ESPN MLS gets TV money from Univision. Not sure the exact amount but think around $3-5M a year MLS gets TV money from TSN in Canada MLS gets TV money from their international rights. 8 figure deal according to this link. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/12/22/mls.rights/index.html The international rights expire after 2013 season NBC, ESPN, and Univision right expire after the 2014 season TSN rights expire after 2016 season.
It isn't really bidding if the number of winners equal the number of bidders. MLS doesn't have that much leverage so it makes sense to pick two major broadcast partners until there is a viable 4th partner (like, say, if CBS decided to bid through CBS College Sports or Turner through TNT/TBS). I know the NFL has a presence with the major networks (with ESPN standing in for ABC), but it's a different case. I'd compare it more to how MLB handles its playoff contracts--- it's split between Fox/TBS rather than equally among Fox/TBS/ESPN because otherwise there is less bidding (on a much larger scale, obviously).
I understand your point with MLB playoffs, or NFL, where everygame is nationally televised and with strong ratings too. But with MLS only a fraction of the total games are nationally televised. If you had three partners you would have more games, more total advert revenue, and more revenue to be shared with the league. At least by my simple thinking. Is NBC paying more because Fox is not showing a game at a different time? I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I find it hard to believe Don G is getting this wrong. I just don't know why I'm not right.
Maybe those two didn't want to share. Maybe MLS ran out of numbers on its speed dial. Maybe the teams didn't want to cannibalize their local packages which are getting increased attention. Maybe the league wants to grow the eyeballs on the number of national games they have instead of growing the number of national games they have. Maybe their conversations with advertisers show that three (actually four when you count Galavision) national partners would cause them to merely split the money they are currently spending instead of increasing their buys. Maybe the networks wanted to show games at the same time and MLS knew that wouldn't help anyone. There are lots of potential reasons. Just adding more games does not mean you will get more revenue because it's much more complicated than that, especially when dealing with TV advertising, a certain amount of which seems to be tied up in league partnerships instead of straight ad sales.
Nailed it. As I mentioned in another thread, Fox offered more money than NBC, but MLS went with NBC. When they make these decisions, MLS is thinking about more than short term financial gains.
Yes. That is true. http://ussoccerbiz.typepad.com/the-business-of-us-soccer/2011/12/money-and-exposure-for-a-young-league.html
Ratings on french tv station RDS for the Mtl Impact game va Chicago was 187 000. Still waiting in TSN numbers. 187 000+ 60 000 in attendance+ people in bars (first really hot day in Montreal)+ TSN= not bad!