10.7 mil view USA:MEX on Univision

they were probably all Mexican fans !
I went to a Chili's to watch the match, at their bar they have about 6 tvs, all were on different channels showing american sports, even though nobody was really watching anything, and it took the bartender (some ditsy girl)about 20 min to change the channel .
most americans dont care about soccer, even if the US plays !
unfortunately !!!

 

10.7 million watched a game on Univision doesn't mean jack.

Univision is an American channel, true, but its target audience are not English speaking Americans.

That little fact would not appeal to CBS or NBC to pay hundreds of millions for the English broadcast rights of the MLS, EPL, Champions League, etc., just because 10 million Mexican immigrants watched the Mexican national team on a Mexican-centric channel.

In other words, "10.7M view USA:MEX on Univision" has no effect on the growth of soccer, or soccer broadcasting in America. It's as relevant as saying:

"50 millions in the U.K. watched England vs Germany in Euro 96".

 

you're going to have a tough time proving to me, or anyone, that when an estimated 10.7 million people do something, that that fact doesn't really mean anything.

but if you want to take some small and skewed view on this, go right ahead. I doubt too many will share your take on the reality.

so, if the audience is "not English speaking Americans" they are not an American audience or an audience that is not relevant to those advertisers doing business with Univision, an American company?

why does it need to do that? no one is claiming that Univision's audiences would need to or be able to affect the business decisions of CBS or NBC (with respect to the money they may or may not choose to spend on soccer rights).

can't Univision run their own business and find success with certain content? why must this match say something about MLS, EPL, Champions League, etc? can't this ratings data just say something about Univision's coverage and the types/size of audiences that Univision reaches?

disagree with certain points on this.

these are people living and watching television in the US. they see the ads on Univision and spend their money on products in the US. these Univision ratings are important for they represent the audience (for specific soccer matches) that is in the US and spends dollars in this market.

Univision's viewers are primarily spanish-speakers, but the game is clearly seen on that network by viewers whose primary language is not spanish (these viewers don't enjoy the Disney production or don't have access to the pay ESPN channels, but can watch Univision for free over-the-air).

these viewers of Univision are relevant, and relevant to the business of soccer in the US.

 

You conveniently dodge the fact that 50+ million in the UK watched Germany X England in Euro 96. Did that fact mean anything or not?

No? using your own words, when an estimated 50+ million people do something, You're going to have a tough time proving to me or anyone that that fact doesn't really mean anything.

Yes? so what is it?

Take your pick...

I'll worry about it after I hear your answer.

Umm.... that's a stretch from what I said, won't you say?

Aren't you a little bit too defensive here? There is a fact A, then I say "A doesn't not imply B", does it touch your nerve? For Christ's sake, this is a discussion forum. Other topics that's closely or remotely relevant to A can be discussed, like

"I went to a Chili's to watch the match, at their bar they have about 6 tvs, all were on different channels showing american sports",

"most americans dont care about soccer, even if the US plays !",

I have no interest in discussing Univision's own business. I am interested in what this ratings does NOT imply. If you are interested, you can join me to discuss it. If you are not interested, you are welcome to ignore my post.

That fact (the audience size of specific soccer matches - involving Mexican national team) we already know. I am only interested in what that fact does NOT imply.

I'll believe it when I see it, that the audience of non-Spanish speakers watching USA X Mexico on Univision is substantial, because

1) they despise the ESPN production, or
2) they want to watch the game but they don't have cable/DBS, they only have Univision on FTA.

Say, a lot of American businesses will pump money into Univision for their El Tri telecasts. Pray tell, how's that related to the "business of soccer in the U.S."? Which FA is the beneficiary here? And how does it help the growth of soccer in America?

 

here's the thing. you're talking about the UK.

I'm talking about the US. (so the UK viewing stats from 12+ years ago aren't all that relevant to this discussion, it would seem to me.)

Univision is a US station. this discussion is relevant to the US television audience.

your UK stats are a distraction and completely off topic and not relevant. (if you wanted to start a thread to talk about "the fact that 50+ million in the UK watched Germany X England in Euro 96" please do so, and I'm sure that would lead to an interesting discussion that doesn't have anything to do with this topic in 2009 that "10.7 mil view USA:MEX on Univision.")

I don't think so. I was attempting to point out that you were making a strawman argument. you're introducing the business concerns of CBS and NBC, when in reality this discussion can focus on Univision's business and the type and sizes of audiences that it can reach.

it's not some earth-shattering or new revelation that CBS or NBC doesn't appear too interested in paying for broadcast rights to be able to show English language primetime coverage of Concacaf WCQ matches. But ESPN2's ratings (and not Univision's) are the more useful baseline for the English-language audience for soccer in the US.

then why post in this thread?

that would be a huge thread.

I was attempting to point out how off-topic certain parts of your post were.

why waste so much time harping on what Univision's ratings and audience doesn't mean?

isn't the more important and relevant discussion around what Univision's ratings do mean?

ok, what is it that we know? and isn't this new data from Feb 2009 incredibly useful?

from the thread starter's link:

----
Univision’s live telecast of Wednesday night’s highly anticipated World Cup qualifying soccer match from Columbus, Ohio between the national teams of the U.S.A. and Mexico was seen in its entirety or in part by 10.7 million viewers, and was watched by more viewers than any other sporting event in the history of Spanish-language television.

In addition, with an average audience of nearly 5.9 million total viewers, it was the most watched sportscast season-to-date on Spanish-language TV and posted dramatic increases over last year’s USA-Mexico Friendly Match across the following key demos
----
​

you can frame your discussion that way. but as I said, that doesn't seem the most useful purpose for this thread.

we can all agree about what the limitations are to analyzing any specific piece of data, and we can draw the bigger conclusions about what the spanish-speaking audience prefers in terms of televised sports in the US, and how that isn't able to be projected to what the full sample of US households prefers in terms of watching sports.

but I do think it is useful to try to focus this thread and have the discussion be about what these ratings do actually mean.

I'll have to go back and dig and find some data from the 2006 WC that indicated how much of Univison's WC viewing audience came from non-Hispanic homes.

now, these links don't specifically talk about the composition of Univision's audience on 2/11/2009, but they do get at the composition of the Univsion's audience during previous big soccer events, and sporting events that got significant/substantial ratings:

http://worldcup.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/for-abcespn-a-big-tv-audience-gained-and-lost/

and this is a Univision press release, but it clearly relies on Nielsen data:
http://especiales.univision.com/pdf/corp_releases/20060710_1_wc_rating_final_en.pdf

-----
MIAMI, FL, JULY 10, 2006 – Univision Communications Inc. (NYSE:UVN)
announced today that an estimated 50 million viewers tuned in to the 2006 FIFA WorldCup™ tournament on its three television networks - Univision, TeleFutura and Galavisión - including 29 million Hispanics and 21 million non-Hispanics.
-----​

so that combined total audience data seems to indicate that about 42% of Univision's audience for WC2006 was in non-Hispanic households. I don't know how the average audience ratings data would pan out, but I'd imagine it would still be a significant number.

but again, why does it matter if Univision's viewers are spanish-speakers or not? can't we just look at the overall number of viewers (as estimated by Nielsen) who were watching Univision during the US/MEX WCQ? it's a substantial and impressive number, and it means something, imo.

who controls (and sells) the broadcast rights to Mexico games played in the US?

I don't know. but I don't see how US Soccer doesn't benefit when there are 10+ million people living in the US who are watching a Concacaf WCQ that features the US team.

do Univision's broadcasts benefit the Mexican Federation more than they benefit US Soccer? I have no idea. but to claim that US Soccer isn't seeing some (significant) benefit in their own right (from having a team play in and succeed in these matches that are seen by so many viewers via tv), seems like an incorrect claim to me (if that indeed is the claim you are trying to make).

 

i don't know what to say. what would you say?

what were you saying, or what were you trying to say when you posted the following?

I guess I want to know your thoughts on Univision's audience (particularly those who tuned in for the US/MEX match on 2/11/09) and if it is "not an American audience or an audience that is not relevant to those advertisers doing business with Univision, an American company?"

 

Here is the thing. Univision is about a Spanish audience watching the Mexican national team.

So I am talking about soccer in the U.S. Stats of a Spanish-speaking audience viewing Mexican-centric content aren't relevant to this discussion, it would seem to me.

See, as soon as you have to play this "relevant" card, I can play this game too.

Univision is a spanish speaking station, this discussion is NOT relevant to the English speaking television audience.

So is your attempt to use a Spanish speaking audience and Mexican-centric content - a distraction and completely off topic.

which is not the theme of my post.

Right, so the Mexican-centric audience has no relevance here.

If some one saying he goes into a bar with 6 TVs showing American sports can, why not? Are you the police of this thread?

Not necessarily. This thread hasn't even reached page 2.

Not as off topic as "going into a bar with 6 TVs showing American sports". Did you point that out? No.

I suspect that this "off-topic stuff" is touching your nerves, as this stat shows absolutely no prospect of soccer future in America...

Why do you have to know? do I need your approval to post here?

Not so. You don't decide what's important for me to discuss.

That's your opinion. I think otherwise. So it's opinion vs mine.

What you think doesn't mean jack here. Your thinking does not dictate what I should or should not discuss.

Because

1) if the viewers are not spanish speaking, they are not the target of the main revenue - ads.

2) even if the viewers are not spanish speaking, it still don't mean much to the growth of soccer in America. If these viewers are simply immigrants from other countries (like those of Portugese or Italian origins) who would like to watch the Spanish telecasts instead of the English.

That's your opinion. I say it means nothing in the context I am interested in (which you claim as a strawman).

Not sure, probably the U.S., probably Concacaf.

OK, your tall task, what's that benefit?

Then you should enlighten us what that (significant) benefit is. Without spelling it out, you think my claim is incorrect? What a joke...

 

I say you are stretching. At least I didn't say Univision's audience is not relevant to those advertisers doing business with Univision. Talking about strawman argument...

I mean, you would have a hard time explaining your logic, if X, then Y or Z, where

X = not English-speaking Americans
Y = not an American audience
Z = an audience that is not relevant to those advertisers doing business with Univision

I said: "Univision's target audience are not English speaking Americans" what is there to clarify?

 

but about 40% (estimated) that watch big soccer events on Univision in the US are not in Hispanic households in the US (according to the Nielsen data)?

clearly Univision is not only about "a Spanish audience watching the Mexican national team." look at all the other data (from games that don't feature the Mexican national team) that shows the success Univision has had with soccer content in recent years.

then why this thread? spanish speakers (and/or people who watch Univision, since it is a US network) are "relevant to this discussion" about "soccer in the U.S."

your stats about the UK audience aren't relevant to the US homes that watched the US/Mex WCQ in Feb 2009.

it is when a significant number of non-Hispanics seem to watch Univision for important soccer matches (again, per Nielsen's data).

and, this thread was never about the "English speaking television audience" (but you tried to make it that type of discussion.)

go back and read the thread. it is about the ratings earned by a soccer match in the US and the size of that audience in the US. you were the one (wrongly, imo) who tried to drive some wedge into this discussion by classifying certain sections of the audience based on their language spoken.

my attempt? I didn't start this thread. I'm just hoping to keep it on topic, and show its relevance, as opposed to some who want to drag it off-topic or show that the data (linked by the original poster) isn't somehow relevant.

that point was a personal experience. everyone will go to different bars. i'm not going to take issue with someone who points out a reality about a certain bar and the amount of tvs that were "showing American sports" (as if a USMNT game isn't an "American sport.")

your attack on the Nielsen data (i.e. "10 million viewers doesn't mean jack") is a broader attack that naively (imo) and wrongly addressed the full set of available Nielsen data for this game from February as it best represents the overall audience in the US for the US/Mex match.

saying what one experiences first-hand (I saw this or that in a bar) is vastly different than claiming that data (such as Nielsen estimating that 10+ million viewers tuned in for the US/Mex) somehow "doesn't mean jack."

that's why I took issue with your broad and sweeping statement (based on your opinion) and didn't mind someone posting their own personal experience in one bar that had 6 tvs not showing the US/Mex WCQ.

I also could have pointed about that going to one bar (while possibly indicative of a broader sample) is not the best sample, but it was an honest and reportable data point amongst the whole picture for this discussion (although Nielsen data is only for in-home viewing, so what's on the TVs in bars, isn't really all that relevant to this thread which started with a quote about Nielsen data).

but your point (apparently attempting to disregard the entire Univision audience estimate, as made by Nielsen) seemed ridiculous and worth questioning, imo.

what are you talking about?

10+ million people watch a WCQ featuring the USMNT and that "shows absolutely no prospect of soccer future in America...?"

how is that?

and it's a bad thing when people living in the US watch soccer? why does it matter what a particular viewer's background is? isn't the fact that they are a soccer fan now living in the US the more important item (in terms of the business of soccer in the US)?

why does language of telecast (or language spoken by viewer) make any difference? people are watching the content, because they are drawn to it. soccer is of interest to (many) viewers in the US.

But why set up the context as such? why do you have to have Univision's ratings (for a US/Mex WCQ) tell you something about CBS or NBC (or whatever English-language network) and their interest in presenting MLS or EPL or Champions League or whatever?

why do you want to set up your context to be so limiting -- or wish to have it apply so broadly that it could never meet those absurd and off-topic contextual standards?

can't you see and learn more from those large numbers of viewers who are in fact tuning in to watch the available soccer content now?

again, why worry (too much) about what the ratings "don't say or indicate" when it is better (imo) to realize what the ratings do indicate?

when people watch something on tv, that content earns ratings. the more viewers, the higher the ratings. the higher the ratings, the more desirable the content is to a content provider/broadcaster. and the broadcaster can charge higher advertising rates to companies who wish to get their name out in front of all those eyeballs (that are watching the televised content).

the benefit of reaching 10+ million people is that US Soccer is shown in a good light. it is succeeding. people are watching. perhaps people will continue to watch. people (maybe not huge numbers overall -- relative to other sports) do watch soccer in the US. the availability of broadcasts (from multiple networks and in multiple languages) to find ratings success with soccer is a very good thing (for those of us in the US who like to have as much soccer as possible to watch on television).

the game/sport is exposed to and reaches more people. more people have the opportunity to get interested in the sport. how is that not beneficial? how is this exposure (whether it comes via ESPN2 or via Univision, and whether it is made to a primarily english-speaker or a primarily spanish-speaker) not a good thing for soccer, and the business of soccer in the US?

in the media and television world, popular things tend to make money, and be worth more money. if US Soccer or MLS or any part of "soccer in the US" can be popular and be successful and find revenue streams and grow, then that is a good thing, in the opinion of this soccer fan.

 

please clarify why you or anyone needs to state that some target audience are not English speakers? (doesn't everyone already know that about Univision?) From a business and commerce perspective, what makes "non-English speaking Americans" different from "English speaking Americans?" (or what makes either of those groups different from Chinese speaking Americans or French speaking Americans or German speaking Americans?)

why not just say that Univision's target audience was Americans, or people living in the US who have access to Univision's broadcasts?

we're still talking about an audience in the US, are we not?

the full quote was:

why the "but"? isn't that in some way implying that the audience reached by Univision (even though it is "an Amercian channel") is somehow a dissimilar -- and non-equal or irrelevant -- audience (based on some language distinction, as compared to the ESPN2 audience)?

from a business perspective (which is what ratings are all about), why does it matter that Univision's "target audience are not English speaking Americans?"

why does it matter what the primary language is for people, especially in the case of this thread which is discussing the some 10.7 Million people who tuned in to watch a soccer match on a specific channel on one night in Feb 2009?

if Univision can average over 5 million viewers for some content (while ESPN2 can average just over 1 million for that same content), isn't that good business for Univision?

and isn't it an important piece of data that is worth discussing?

if you want to discuss why it doesn't mean something, or what Univision's viewers don't indicate, have at it. but, again, to me that 10+ Million audience is significant and important.

 

the majority (of those watching on Univision) probably were indeed fans of the Mexico team. but I seriously doubt that they "all" were fans of that team, and that there weren't any US fans (or just neutral fans -- perhaps there were El Salvador fans or Guatemala fans or other fans) who were among the 10.7 Million who tuned in to Univision to watch the US/Mex WCQ.

 

hah - take a knee, dude. It's not worth it!

 

That was the World Cup proper, a tournament all immigrant groups would watch. What's the composition of ethnic groups on a USA X Mexico qualifier?

I don't have to. The World Cup data is not what this argument is about. Brazilians watching Brazil X Croatia on Univision instead of ABC has nothing to do with this particular game. I doubt many Brazilians would be interested in USA X Mexico.

This stat about Spanish speakers watching a Mexican national team isn't about growth of US soccer either. So what if the carrier is a US company?

I'll worry about if after you show me not the data of the World Cup TOURNAMENT, but this particular USA X Mexico game.

Really, who define and restrict the scope of this thread? you? what's your role here?

Yep, I was trying to drive some wedge into this discussion, but why do you have this big fuse about it? Are you the moderator? In other words, I think you are the one WRONGLY trying to limit what people can or cannot say.

Yep, people often say closely related or remotely related stuff on a thread, but you took big exception on what I said about what this audience did not imply. Yet you have no grief when someone else said "in a bar with 6 TV showing American sports". The motive of your attempted "moderation" is obvious.

It's perfectly on topic. After a few posts, you have finally shown your true face. You want to argue against the grim picture of USA soccer.

It's more on topic than a bar of 6 TVs...

And why didn't you take issue on that? That had nothing to do with the Univision ratings. See, if you attempt to be the moderator, at least show some consistency.

Oh, so something vastly different from an off-topic issue (your opinion) is then OK? does it become on-topic just because it's vastly different?

Nope, you took issue because my post didn't paint a rosy picture of USA soccer to your liking...

But that has nothing to do with the Univision data, does it? 6 TV showing American sports, pray tell when did soccer become an American sport?

But you didn't point it out as off-topic.

That's IYO, which I don't worry about.

See, so you finally show why you took exception to my post. Painting a grim picture of US soccer is what you don't like...

So spare us all these "off topic" excuses.

Easy, if the majority of the audience is to watch the other brand of soccer, not the Americans. Say, a big sector of Mexican immigrants are interested in Mexican futbol, Chivas X America constantly draw ratings that beat out baseball and basketball on Univision.

Enlighten us, how do Mexican fans flocking to watch Mexican teams show prospect of soccer future in America?

More or less. Here in Asia, soccer is the mainstream sport. But fans here flock to watch the EPL, la Liga, CL, Serie A, etc. on TV. The EPL rights fee here in Hong Kong (a city of 7 million) is higher than what FSC/Setanta pay in America. On the other hand, the local game is getting pitiful support. There is no TV coverage, while the terrestrial stations are even showing Dutch, Chinese and Scottish leagues, and Copa Italia.

So does it matter which brand of soccer the fans are supporting? you tell me.

Nope. It's not that simple.

Because Mexican fans watching Mexico on Univision would have minimal, if not none, effect on USA soccer. You don't think they'll switch their loyalty to USA just because "I am watching the game on Univision, an American company. I am thus grateful to Corporate American and switch to root for USA and start following MLS", do you?

Easy, because I know it would attract people like you who don't like to see the grim picture, no matter how much you pretend that you come here to tell me it's off-topic. Boom, we have a discussion.

It's not off-topic, no chance. Once you get into the argument of this rating's implication on USA soccer, you just revealed the reason you are here.

I don't have to use these large numbers. Liga Mexicana have had big audience on Univision for years. Soccer has an audience in this country. It's just not the USA brand of soccer (MLS).

Don't tell me you know that Mexicans like to watch Mexican futbol only after you see this thread.

What does it indicate? what does it indicate that we don't already know?

That we already know. Chivas X America would beat out baseball/basketball. So anything new?

That's simple-minded. I don't need you to tell me that. People are watching, year in year out, Liga Mexicana. And they'll continue to watch Liga Mexicana.

If you take exception to my claims, the least you should do is to tell us how to transform a Mexico NT/Liga Mexicana audience into a USA/MLS audience. Just saying 10+ million is a good thing, it's the same as saying 50+ million watching England/Germany is a good thing.

How revealing. Well, the sun rises from the east. The bad thing is that they are not watching the USA brand of soccer.

If those people's interest in the game (from that audience) is Mexico, not USA. Now, is more people interested in Mexican futbol a good thing? Maybe to soccer as a whole (the world game), maybe not to the growth of USA soccer.

Easy, the Univision audience is enormous while the ESPN2 audience is miniscule. You are just telling me Mexicans are very supportive of their national team. That's a well known fact that no one would argue. Is this fact a good thing for soccer? perhaps, just as Brazilians, Italians, English are very supportive of their national team.

But that little fact is not an argument against what I said in the first post: growth of USA soccer.

You know Univision has the contract to cover the Mexican national team, not team USA, in the US, do you?

If the financial future of US Soccer or MLS relies on a big audience of USA X Mexico every 4 years on Univision, thus they can charge higher fee for this particular fixture, then you are telling me that US Soccer doesn't really have a future.

 

Because the context here is the effect on USA soccer growth (that you pretended not to be interested in but finally showed your true color). If it's the immigrant groups, they probably have their loyalty to the leagues in their homeland (particularly true for Mexicans). So how does that affect the league in the US?

You don't realize an audience in the US wouldn't necessarily support soccer growth in this country, do you? World Cup has a large audience in this country. How many Brazilians, Italians, Chinese, Koreans become MLS audience in the 4 years in between?

If it's not English speaking Americans, how do you think it would

- affect the growth of soccer in America?
- affect the English media to carry more American soccer?
- affect the English media to carry more foreign soccer?

We know that Mexican soccer on a channel like Univision is already a success.

Not to me. I like to discuss the effect on soccer growth in the USA. So do you.

Not to the context that you are interested and fall into (soccer growth in the US).

 

interesting read here (and yes it is from 2003, but I think the points are valid),
http://www.slate.com/id/2084987/

because that wedge (classifying people by language spoken) is rather pointless and short-sighted in my opinion. I don't think it is an honest discussion if you're going to drive the wedge between separate groups of viewers based on the language of telecast. to me, it doesn't matter. it's all viewing data.

so they could potentially have "minimal" (i.e. some) effect? is that better than it not meaning "jack"?

and what about those non-Mexican fans who are watching Univision? what's their effect?

clearly there are some (if not many) who tuned in to Univision on that night who were there to watch and be fans of the US team. no, they likely weren't the majority of those in the Univision audience (as clearly the Mexican national team is a big draw), but those US fans were there also watching Univision. and that's why I took issue with your it "doesn't mean jack" statement.

"wouldn't necessarily" or "wouldn't" at all?

see, I just happen to think that there's more gray area and openness to different possibilities than you initially claimed with your "it doesn't mean jack" comment.

viewers are viewers. and imo, a significant audience in the US does indicate some level of support for the idea (and reality) of soccer growth in this country.

but you don't have to listen to me, you could see what guys like David Downs, the former President of Univision Sports and current Executive Director of the US Soccer Bid Committee to host WC2018 or WC2022 -- http://www.ussoccer.com/common/stContent.jsp_180-20182022Committee.html#downs -- have to say:

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-indicators/5972568-1.html

noted. thanks.

 

I haven't located the ethnic composition data for this most-recent WCQ on Univision -- but I'll keep looking. (note, I'm not certain if Nielsen or Univision has released it or publicized it, but if anyone has a link, please share.)

but I do think it is a fair and logical assumption (at this point) that "the World Cup proper" data would share (at least somewhat) a compositional make-up that would be similar to the audience composition on Univision for a very significant WCQ the year before a WC (even though that same match was available in HD on an English-language network -- as was the case during WC2006).

but again, I'll keep digging to provide useful links and data for this Feb 2009 WCQ match in hopes of showing that this audience for Univision does in fact mean something (if some reader out there still may have doubts).

they are not the same thing, because they are two separate geographic markets and samples (US and UK).

again, i was stating that the 10+ million viewers for Univision is more relevant and useful (to this discussion) because those are US viewers living in the US. your (unlinked) "50+ million watching England/Germany" data point is less relevant (if not completely irrelevant to this discussion), as those are UK viewers, and not viewers living in the US.

ok, here's the least I can do:

imo, it is not a matter of "transforming" or converting one audience into another. it is about having the time and understanding to let things play out naturally in the US market. there's no rush or mandate that everyone who watches Univision can no longer enjoy and support Mexico NT/Liga Mexicana and they must at once begin to only appreciate and support USA/MLS. i think there can be co-existence (and I think there already is this co-existence), and over time, the level of appreciation and support for the local products (league and NT) will develop a bit organically from the full sample of people (and soccer fans) living in the US.

to me, it is not about "transforming" an audience. it is about developing (and expanding) an audience. and having 10.7 Million people tune in to see the US beat Mexico in a WCQ on Univision is a very helpful step in (slowly) developing that audience (for soccer here in the US).

 

I do not think you have your facts straight.

you're saying Univision doesn't have a contract to broadcast all the USMNT WCQs in 2009? then why are the Univision family of networks (Univision, Telefutura, and Galavision) showing these US senior team games:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17048536&postcount=80
http://www.ussoccer.com/schedule/index.jsp.html

also of note was this friendly match, which seems to indicate Univision has a contract that goes beyond the WCQs:
1/24/09 (Sat, 5:30pm PT) ... USA v Sweden ... Home Depot Center (Carson, CA)
... Friendly [FSC / Galavision]

here's an article that outlines the contract:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/sport/soccer/article_1204845.php/Univision_and_MLS_partners_again

 

Good that you drop all those pretense on that "off topic" BS. Your motive of arguing with me here was loud and clear from the get-go.

So, I'd say time is on the side of those who think that 10.7 milion figure for this one game does NOT indicate something as opposed to those who think this data somehow paints a rosy picture.

Afterall, it's your speculation vs my speculation.

Not until you can show evidence that English-speaking Americans would rather watch the "rival's" station in an important qualifier featuring the two rivals, in a language they don't understand. It's like in an important WC game, say, Holland X Germany, the Dutch deliberately tune to a German station and shun the Dutch telecast. What you say is completely against human behavior.

Here are two cents, buy some clues.

It's the reality of the television industry. And this is not even my opinion. Advertising is all about TARGET adverting. So you are saying target advertising is short-sighted. Good grief!

And that's what I derive: the viewing data don't mean jack.

Minimal effect can easily be “not meaning jack”.

I’ll worry about that after you can cite some numbers to substantiate that. Remember, we are not talking about the World Cup proper that a Brasilian may watch Univision for Brasil X Australia…

So go ahead and took issue. This is a free country. I mean, I say those who tune in don’t mean jack. Heck, you are boosting the 10M viewers, not the “some (if not many) (non-Spanish speakers) who tuned in to Univision on that night”. I would say that group is insignificant.

“wouldn’t at all” until it happens. I am in the camp of “will believe it when I see it.”

I also happen to think a small gray area doesn'’t mean jack. You know this is not a black and white business. It’s not an argument of 0 vs non-zero.

Keep repeating it doesn’t make your speculation true.

You don’t even need David Downs. You’ll get a lot of wishful thinkers in this forum on your side. Starting in 2004, Napoli Support (used to be called BocaFan) and I have been arguing this issue for 5 years. His classic:

“Soccer will become mainstream in 50 years (2054)”.

But of course, all of them have ulterior motives.

 

fair enough. i'll likely never believe your speculation, and you'll likely never believe my "speculation." although, i'll take comfort in knowing that my thoughts are generally supported by the data and links that have appeared in this thread.

i'm not quite sure upon what you are basing your speculation.

were you speaking into a mirror when you said that?

 

Nope, it's not a fair and logical assumption. World Cup is not just about USA and Mexico, it had immigrants from Brasil, Korean, Chinese, Iran, Germany, Italy, etc. watching their countries and other countries (because it's the World Cup).

In other words, don't even think that you can argue with me with these "I think it's a fair and logical assumption" BS. Either show some hard data to back up your speculation, or let this thread wander into my opinion vs your opinion.

Yeah, keep digging...

And geographical market is the only thing you look at? That's why we are arguing, stemming from two DEMOGRAPHICAL MARKETS even within the US.

If you can totally ignore the demography, why do I have to discard the geography?

Why does it matter? if you can completely ignore the reality of the business: demography, why can't I ignore the geography?

I'll just refer you back to my first post in this thread. We are going full circle. Again, it seems like you are using wishful thinking to argue against the reality.

 

Easy, more than a decade of Mexican futbol popularity in the US with the Mexican demographics and more than a decade of a struggling sport in the U.S.

You general data and links indicating what? MLS is still a struggling league. Soccer is still a minor sport in the country. You don't think David Downs' speculation that "soccer will become big" has already become the truth, do you?

Your speculation is that "buckling the trend of the past decade or so, things will change".

Not at all. It doesn't mean jack until some jack happens. When you say the audience means something, what's that "THING"? Show us. You don't think some hot air like

"a very helpful step in (slowly) developing that audience (for soccer here in the US)."

is a tangible thing, do you? Let me introduce BocaFan to you, with his classic

"Soccer will become mainstream in 50 years in the U.S."

as his major argument against me.

I bet your next response will be "10M viewers on Univision means 10M viewers on Univision"...

 

I stand corrected. I don't live in the U.S. anymore. Last time around, it was Telemundo that broadcast the US World Cup quals of 2006.

 

what are the population percentages in the US of all of those groups of immigrants? how does that related to the Mexican (or any spanish-speaking) immigrant population in the US? and how do those percentages relate to the viewing data that is available from Nielsen? can immigrants from Brasil, Korean, Chinese, Iran affect the Nielsen ratings as much as Mexican Americans can, or as must as all Americans who may choose to watch Univision for soccer can?

I showed the 2006 WC data for Univision's audience composition. I've said the audience composition data for the 2/11/2009 qualifier hasn't been released. if you're going to have the set opinion that Univision's soccer audiences won't be somewhat representative across a WC and a recent WCQ, then that's your choice. I would think others would be a bit more realistic and honest in the discussion (and not want to make it only about opinions). some data is available. what does that data indicate to you? jack?

how have I ignored demography? i've cited links that explain Univision's demographics. i've shown links discussing how there isn't a divide between the unique languages of US advertising.

i've focused my discussion on the US television audience.

you're still falling back to some UK-based data that is somehow supposed to have some relevance to the "10.7 mil view USA:MEX on Univision" discussion.

what reality is that? that 10.7 million people tuned in to watch a soccer match (US v Mexico) on Univision in February?