1. They can start by running ads in front of people who aren't already converted. Running an ad for MLS during and MLS broadcast is beyond pointless. 2. This league needs to invest in print advertising as well. Not just before big events vut on a more consistent basis. Many people get most of their news and general opinion of what goes on in the world from newspapers and newspapers only. The league did these things in the early years but for some reason has stopped. 3. The product on the field must improve. Clean up the officiating and encourage the acquisition of players who try to play creative football instead of kickball. When I pointed out that KC showed absolutely no creativity against DC all I heard was that Preki and Klein were out so that explains that. But what does it say about a team that if two players leave they lose ALL ability to create? What does it say about the rest of the players on the team? What does it say about our league. We have a real shortage of football savy players in this league. It doesn't help that you have players who gleefully admit that thye don't wacth the game on TV at all. Only un this country is this kind of attitude present. Football intelligence is de-emphasised in favor of team work too much in this country. A large part of this is the youth soccer culture that emphasises winning over actual player development. Which is why MLS needs to devlop its own player and I don't mean signing 22 year old college kids and calling them "developmental" either. Many people love this program since the players are cheap and they believe more talent will be found since it is cheaper to "take a chance" on a player. Now I will be the broken record. That is not talent development. That is roster filling. Thats is what MLS is doing. If you want to increase the quality of the product you must develop your own players from a young age when they can be improved as opposed to a 22 year old college grad who won't improve immensely.
I am sorry that doesn't wash. Did the NFL's ratings for the suprbowl go down 43%? 1. Does it have to be either or? Does it have to be a choice between Jack Jewsbury and Zidane? Is there no middle ground. 2. The reason it is still such a nuche sport is because we failed to capitalise on the chances we have had to grow the sport. At what point do we stop being a niche sport? What will spur this growth?
Why does no one mention the margin of error when the league had good ratings but only do so when they want to explain away bad ratings? The 0.8 rating is relevant because it is consistent with the trend we have been seeing for 9 years.
i actually think a .8 is pretty good considering it's going up against the NFL. as long as they play the Cup in that time slot it'll always have a small relative viewership, no matter how big soccer gets in this country.
I think the league should adopt the tactics of some of the political campaigns. They should cold-call likely viewers in key swing cities and pick out the opponent they want to pick off. Then you tell them that the opponent, say nascar, is gay and that the Nascar drivers are secretly backing an agenda to ban the bible. Then slip in a little tidbit that Ben Olsen is a born again and has dedicated the final to the lord. Tim
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think you'll ever find a post from me crowing about any MLS ratings exactly for the reasons I stated. The 0.8 is relevant if included in the larger context of being one number that is not always indicative of what people who make decisions at the sponsorship and investor level look at for guidance. You may focus on the 0.8. I doubt the people with budget decisions that affect MLS are. I don't know what they are looking at per se and what those numbers are, but they're not looking at the overall rating. That's all I'm saying.
I think Ben's radio interviews in the days following the championship pretty much wiped that strategy off the books.
It's perfectly logical. Half a point is meaningless when you're drawing a 20 rating. Half a point for us would be an increase of 60%. In that sense, the margin for error is a much bigger deal to us.
I don't crow about the ratings either, and I don't think MLS owners are or should be looking at TV at all. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, it's there just as an ad for the league.
I don't think the unconverted fans know the difference between Jack Jewsbury and the middle ground player 99% of the time. And said "Mr. Middle Ground" probably costs in the vicinity of $1 million dollars a year. (In a way, you're better off going after Zidane. The bell curve of famousness drops off fast). Once you think about at least an $8 to $10 million/year player roster (because you don't just want one or two "Mr Middle Grounds" on your roster, you want all the Jack Jewburys off it [side note: You must really hate that guy. He's always your example of eveerything this league shouldn't be.]) whose players stop contributing to your revenues the moment they leave the team, and then you think about a stadium that contributes for 25 years, it's obvious which is the better investment. The reason soccer is a niche sport is that other sports got here first. It's the same reason basketball is a niche sport in Italy (and it is still a niche sport there, even though it's a very good league).
But if the league fan base is not growing, when will we ever be close enough? All this stuff is fine, but I guess my question is; what is all of a sudden going to make people start watching and following this league?
Honestly, I don't think there's anything that will do it all of the sudden (that's worth doing). Everything that would work would be too costly and sacrifice the long term for the short term, and make our league into an NASL or XFL. 1 - It's a step by step process, I think. First it's the stadia. And it looks like at least four or five years before that phase is done. 2 - Then I think when we get stadia in between half and two thirds of MLS cities (and I can actually see that day coming, which is a source of huge joy to me), then it will be time to start letting salaries and ad budgets increase. It's simple economics there: when each fan brings in more marginal revenue (because you now not only have hteir ticket revenue, but also their ancillaries), it's worth more money to beat the bushes for more of them. That's about year five to year eight. 3- Once the salaries have increased (by between 50 and 75% over what we have now), then we hope we get to the point where we're selling out those 20-25k stadia. (It's not that far away in LA). I would say a lot of that new money will be dedicated to keeping the more exciting players America produces, rather than acquiring expensive ones from abroad. Then (and only then) can we expect the coverage and TV exposure to increase. And that's just the exposure. Significant revenue would come only after a few years of exposure, IMO. These are years 8-10. That whole process is 8-10 years or so. Difference between now and 2000, is that the league's bottom line is improving (Thanks, Adidas!), and the serious stadia projects are coming down the pike (though fitfully), to the point where I can actually see this stuff happening over that timeframe. In 2000, I hoped it might, but now I see it as a much more tangible possibility. In fact, I even think the odds are about 60% that in 10 years, we'll be to the point I where all the teams but maybe a couple are in SSSes, we're selling those stadia often near capacity, and we have a national TV contract that actually pays us at least token money. Most real progress isn't sudden. It's slow and fitful. Two steps forward, one back. And you don't tend to notice it unless you're lokoing carefully. Then, when the infrastructure is in place people tend to take notice all at once. Then you have "an overnight sensation, decades in the making." (Like NASCAR or the NBA).
While I agree that better placed commericials, smarter print ads and creative play all contribute to the leagues success, but let me play devils advocate for a moment. Lets suppose that MLS improved its advertising and it was a success. It got people in the door to see what we have to offer. Do you think this product is enough capture many peoples imagination? I ask, because I have brought about 50 or so people this season and the feedback by and large, was not especially good. They made it through the door and they didn't like what they saw. It's a small sample granted, but I brought a similar amount of people last season and resulted in similar reactions. This has just been my experience, I ofcourse could be wrong. Creative play.. I think that this is a huge aspect of making this league popular aswell, but is that enough? ChampionsWorld brings over the most creative players in the world. Many of them anyway. Yet you hear a litny of complaints that they didn't try hard enough. It was only a friendly game. It lacked intensity. The game didn't mean anything. These same complaints would ring true here in MLS aswell if we just improved our creativity without making the games played mean more. No doubt, your suggestions would get people in door, I am just not sure they would be enough to make them stay. Curious to hear your comments... I'll brace myself
But the margin of error is not an absolute point it is a percentage. Its not as if anyone is saying that the rating is anywhere between .3 and 1.3. That represents a margin of error of +/- 40+%.
1. I wouldn't recognise Jewsbury if he hit me with a baseball bat. I use him because people like to use him as an example of the triumph of the developmental player system yet he does not stand out to me at all, This is what I have a problem with. The league concentrating on filler material while the product on the field degrades. 2. That middle ground doesn't have to cost a million dollars or anywhere near. If we had a league where a. Every single team had two or three Amado Guevarra's and two or three cornell glen type players (not necessarily at those postions but at that level of competence) I would largely quit my b#tchin'. b. The league would commit itself to having the refs actually allow players to play skillful football I would be happy. But I don't see that. I see a league committing itself to more Jack Jewsburys and not mich else. This league believes it needs to have just enough talent to put on the exhibitions it plays all year.
It isn't either of those two things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error The absolute number does get smaller as you go towards zero, but it gets bigger as a proportion of the rating.
Soccer is growing here because 10 years ago we didn't have a pro league at all. We have made the world cup every years since 1990 as well. How man CL players did we have 10 years ago? How do you predict we do in germany '06? I believe the success of the nats in the next 2 world cups will have a huge difference on the level of interest in the MLS. I think adidas is a very good sign. It would be pretty easy to make negative comments on any of our pro leagues right now and their relative health and their state of labor relations etc.
Which is why I have been saying the product has to improve. I know what you are getting at. The number of teams in the playoffs. I just don't think it is as important as the quality on the field. The fact is some of these teams can be plain incompetent at creating. Does colorado become more exciting because it will be harder for them to make the playoffs? I doubt it. People in this country think their job is to sell soccer as if the product sells itslef. They are wrong about that. Without the quality people won't stay. I now see people saying that we shouldn't worry about the scoring because with expansion teh defenses will be less competent and scoring has to increase. When I hear this I just shake my head since these people just don't get it.
Cornell Glen sucked this year for the metros. All he does is flop on the ground whenever somebody sneezes on him.
I was making a point that declining ratings are common in all sports right now. You took it the extreme of pointing out the super bowl which is totally out of context with MLS cup.
Spoken like a man who has very little knowledge of the game. Cornell Glen has what it takes to be a star in this league and has as much talent as any american forward. anyone who really watched the Metros can tell that. Why is this country so averse to seeing players who express individual ability? This is the kind of attitude that leads to the type of league we have now. The Jack Jewsbury's are hailed but the players who try to show some talent for the game are slammed. Cornell Glen is a diver so is Eddie Gaven. Yet no one gets on him for it. Why? Because he is american. People need to lay off the foreigners.
Well I will ask agian did the other sporst experience a 43% drop in ratings in the last 9 years? Show me one that did and I will leave it alone.