ESPN - Good or Bad for Soccer, Part II

It's wouldn't cost them anything to do so, but it wouldn't cost them anything not to do so either.

Do you ever see ESPN promoting the World's Strongest Man? bass fishing? drag racing? spelling bee? Why not?

because these are ***PROGRAM FILLERS***. A promotion will not increase the ratings 5-fold to the point that would give them advertising revenue. If a promotion gives the CL a 5% ratings bump, from 0.15 to 0.1575, why bother? They are not going to sell ***TARGETED ADS*** because of a jump of .0075 in ratings, are they? these are "margin of errors".

I mean, these are people running a multiple billion $ business. Do you think they would have done it long time ago had it been able to make a difference?

 

A little bit of history:

Ads for both 1994-1995 UEFA Champions League semifinal 2nd leg games and the the 1994-1995 UEFA Champions League final aired for a week during ESPN SportsCenter in the US before the telecasts.

The result?

Those 3 live UEFA Champions League telecasts in April-May 1995, two of which were on ESPN and one on ESPN2 in the US, averaged less than 200,000 households.

Average US TV ratings for the UEFA CL on ESPN or ESPN2 have been stuck at around 150,000 to 200,000 households for the past 11 years, with or without promotion during SportsCenter and/or ESPNEWS.

ESPN started cutting back on international soccer coverage on ESPN and ESPN2 in the US after the 1998 World Cup, when it became apparent to everyone in the industry that there was absolutely NO CHANCE for any of the international soccer products on ESPN International's inventory to ever average significantly more than 200,000 households per telecast in the US.

ESPN's sublicense deals with Setanta, ESPN's brief foray into a digital-cable soccer-centric pay-per-view service ESPN Extra (which lasted from 1999 through 2001 befere it was shut down prior to the launch of ESPN Deportes), and ESPN's launch of ESPN Deportes in the US (a business plan was drawn up by ESPN in 1994 under the code name "ESPNol" but the plan wasn't fully executed by ESPN until January 2003) all reflect ESPN's adjustment to the reality of the US TV marketplace for international soccer products.

UEFA is also aware of the reality of the US TV marketplace, and is willing to re-up with ESPN, again and again, for the past 11 years as well as the next 3 years under a new deal, which has basically the same requirement as before: 13 live telecasts, including first pick of semifinal games and the final, in the US on a channel distributed via expanded basic cable/satellite TV, i.e. ESPN2.

Bottom line: UEFA WANTS the UEFA Champions League on an English-language channel in the US that goes to 80+ million households, even if the exposure on such a channel is only for 13 live telecasts each season.

The alternatives for UEFA aren't nearly as good as what ESPN2 can offer:

1. FOX Soccer Channel: passes only around 25 million households and still has no Nielsen ratings data after being in business for 8.5 years. (Sister channel FOX Sports en Espanol, which is a much better business than FOX Soccer Channel, passes 8 million households, has Nielsen Hispanic ratings data, and is either the most profitable or the 2nd most profitable Spanish-language cable/satellite TV channel in the US.)

2. GolTV: passes less than 10 million households

3. Comcast/OLN/Versus, with about 65 million households passed: ask the NHL, which averaged only 118,000 households this past season on OLN (less than what MLS or WNBA gets on ESPN2 and far less than what Mexican League soccer gets on TeleFutura), how happy the NHL is with awful TV ratings on OLN being reported repeately by TV critics (Don't ask about the $65 million in TV rights fee that the NHL got from Comcast.)

 

--ESPN is bad for soccer because these threads are going to make me start killing my fellow soccer fans.

 

Not only that, they hate it so much that they're advertising the final on the scorer's table during ABC's NBA playoff broadcasts.

 

In other words, "nope" should be changed to "yup". I mean, that's what I said. ESPN prefers to show rope-jumping over CL.

uhh... probably what they prefer to do (ie. show rope-jumping)

 

I guess they're doing that because they don't hate soccer.

Or could it be because we're one month away from the World Cup? I hope you're not expecting these "lets pretend we love soccer advertisements" to continue beyond 9 July...

 

didn't really know where to put this.

the One Campaign looks to have teamed up with ESPN for their coverage of the WC:

http://soccernet.com/onegame/

there are some really nice pieces there.

 

That's not what you said. What you said didn't include the most important factor: making money vs not making money

Not true. If showing CL would make them money, they'll show it. If NOT showing CL would make them money, they'll not show it.

 

And I remember when we had some threads saying that MLS should go to OLN after the NHL signed a huge deal with them. Many of us said that would be a massive mistake and it appears, after seeing the NHL numbers, that it most definitely was. They'd much rather be on ESPN/ESPN2 at this point in time.

 

Yep.

About the only thing saving OLN from oblivion is the off chance that they might land one of the MLB packages that ESPN is apparently not desperate to keep (late Wednesdays and/or Thursdays, possibly some playoff games included).

 

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002503448

check out the last paragraph:

ESPN's senior vp of marketing Katie Lacey said in a statement, "Our goal with this campaign is to make World Cup soccer meaningful and relevant to American sports fans. We show the passion that fans around the world have through compelling stories that are set to the music of U2 and narrated by the band members themselves."

--Kathleen Sampey, Adweek

Here's hoping a) it works and b) they spread more of that mojo to other competitions... like they did with a 3+ minute package on Ronaldinho and the CL final today on SportsCenter. I nearly soiled myself, which would have been particularly embarrassing at the gym.

 

ESPN good with football - not futbol

 

I am. I enjoy seeing the best players in the world. And I'm thinking about getting satellite so I can get GOL TV so I can see La Liga.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought ESPN has no control over replays, camera angles, etc. for the World Cup. Isn't there just one single feed?

Of course, they still manage to screw-up by not showing the teams exit the tunnel before the match and not showing the national anthems. The pre-game pageantry is a big part of the World Cup.

 

It is awesome that ESPN is showing the World Cup live on espn 360. I can watch at work!

 

Fans say ESPN's World Cup coverage deserves penalty

 

That article from the Wall Street Journal is probably one of the best articles I've read concerning soccer and American media. Also a good mention of BigSoccer on there. But I must admit, I thought Dave O'Brien (not Marcelo Balboa) did a much better job toward the end of the tournament. Best English announcers were Dellacamera and Harkes. Great find, Chandu. Thanks.

I don't see any "Rangers" coming down hard on them now...? Too many in agreement.

 

Was there any narration on those pieces? I never stuck with them long enough, but I don't recall the narration. If there was, I couldn't tell it was U2.

Thx,

Jay!

 

good article. This sentence pretty much says it all "The conflict over the telecasts raises a question about soccer in America: With tens of millions of people playing, coaching or connected to the sport, does it still need to be dumbed down for U.S. viewers?"

I can understand that even with the popularity of soccer as a participation sport, there are still lots of people watching the World Cup who don't know that two yellows = one red or the offsides rule, etc. But, hey, there are loads of people watching the Super Bowl who don't know the specifics about gridiron football.

 

I have to say that I want to give em credit for trying.

Last night's Sportscenter showcased that awesome goal in the chivas USA Real Salt Lake game as the play of the day. It beat out some decent Baseball plays too, which surprised me.

IMO it has a ways to go, but it is a start.

This is how NASCAR went from a regional niche sport to the Goliath it is in the US market nowadays, bit by bit...

 

Which awesome goal? There were at least 3 from distance and Razov's wasn't too bad, either.

Thx,

Jay!

 

Talley's 40yd shot that binked the goal's corner...

 

Rather than start a new thread, I figure that this is the best place to point out that ESPN.com is reporting that Donovan and Mastroeni are out of the "MSL" All-Star Game. That mistake was made not only in the link to the story, but in its headline, so it isn't just an isolated typo that's easily missed.

That would never, NEVER happen with, for example, MLB, which I have never seen referred to as the MBL.