Ok, this is just a thought so no one go nuts on me, but.. How about MLS show games on 30 minute tape delay and include 30 more minutes of commercials? How bad would this be?
I'll take that as an endorsement. Actually, it's a weird phenomenon. You can make a serious post and nobody cares, but make a silly one and dozens react. I spent sometime putting together Joe-Max's EPL and USA stats, showing how incredibly similar they were. Over 2000 minutes for each, exactly 8 goals for the Nats, 8 in EPL games. The idea being that USA play is good indicator for EPL success (or lack thereof). Of course, we don't have many other similar cases, but I found this incredibly interesting. Not one comment. Now, back to the topic. What is so bad about this idea? Life is about trade-offs. MLS needs more tv revenues. 30 minutes of ads is much less than other sports. Yeah, you lose the flow a bit, but if done on delay, it can be timed intelligently.
I'd rather see the 30 minutes of comercials and SEE the playoff games than not see them at all. San Jose at Columbus should be a feature match at a SSS, but we won't be able to see it. What a shame it is to follow the sport all season and then get shut out come play-off time.
With MLS and USL attendence increasing, advertisers will eventually get on board. With advertisers comes better TV coverage. What scares me, and I'm old enough to remember this, is the TV timeouts that the old NASL had. (shudder) As football fans we must not allow that to happen again.
actually, in many "soccer countries" (such as Colombia) they have commercials, except that these commercials at least respect the game... they shrink the game a little and run a commercial on a strip on the side or bottom of the screen (never more than 1/4 of the screen)... sometimes they have little translucent line animations that "dance across the screen"... these are a little more distracting, but they don't obscure any of the action... the sound is of the commercial, which is quite short by US standards (usually 10 second spots)... it is obvious that the timing is controled by people who know what is going on in the game (throw in, injury, etc) because it does not interfere with the viewing of the game much more than the "bottom line" that you see on most sports broadcasts now and doesn't interfere with the sound any more than the "station identification" announcements that you hear on sports radio all the time... it works for the viewer, it works for the advertiser (people don't get up and go to the kitchen or bathroom) and I would be all in favor of it if it would attract more sponsor dollars to the pot... the only problem, is that these commercials have to be specially constructed to fit in these spaces and these time constraints, so I'm not sure that US advertising agencies would be up to the task of putting them together... rand
This has been brought up several times and I think it is a great idea if it generates more revenue. BenReilly's idea sucks on so many levels, I'm surpised that Segroves isn't here calling him Corky.
With all news and events delivered in real time these days, I think tape delayed games would not be received well. Even though it is the same game and people could easily avoid learning the result, somehow I think knowing it is tape delayed would be a real hangup. I have a slightly different thought that I am sure would be similarly flamed. I think it would be okay to add a few commercial breaks to major televised games. The referee could call them during a break in play (i.e. - before a throw in, corner kick, free kick etc). This might allow a few more games to be televised at decent time slots and make MLS more TV friendly. And I personally don't think it would change the dynamics of the game much.
I knew that most people wouldn't like it. In fact, I'm not sure I like it, but I would like to see a serious discussion about it instead of "it sucks" and "Corky" I think it sucks that the league is losing money. I think it sucks that most of the playoff games aren't on tv. I think it sucks that if MLS had higher ratings than other sports, networks would still make more money off of the other sports. Those things suck a great deal as well. Whatever the solution, it will suck the big one. How about we break this up. How bad would a 30 minute delay be? That way you can time things better and not disrupt the game for attendees. Is that a problem for you?
1. Ben, this isn't a new idea. 2. I think the "animated" ads are a better option. 3. wrt to your suggestion...what would be the costs of doing this? Because the horrifying thought is that the ad revenue generated is close to the cost of implementing it, so the profit for MLS makes it a marginal or even bad idea. Remember, these are timebuys. Your suggestion increases the time block purchased by 20%. 4. OT games can lose suspense. Last year or the year before there was a SDD game that went OT, so you knew what was going to happen the last several minutes of regulation. Now, if the broadcast starts at the same time as the game, and the "tape" broadcast starts at the first commercial break, this won't be an issue. To those who are dismissing the idea...what about the other half of the equation. I doubt it's a big money maker, but suppose it's worth $10M a year to the league. Would you like it if it meant a $500K increase in the salary cap per team AND reserve teams? I would. Suppose it's worth $20M...would you support this idea if it meant that every 3 years AEG could put up a new SSS? I would.
Having a commercial break in the middle of the game is like asking women to give back their right to vote. I remember back in '94 there was still amazement that all the games would have 90 minutes of action. I fear that throwing in commercial breaks may be the proverbail inch that becomes a mile. However, I wouldn't be opposed to having short ads themselves (not that I'd be happy about it, but I wouldn't be petitioning for a barrage of strongly worded e-mails to MLS.) The different forms I've seen of in game ads that work: -Have Bud or whoever provide the border for goal replays -The little dancing animation on the bottom of the screen on Univision/Telemundo (probably my least favorite) -Have people sponsor things like the Tough Actin' Tinactin Tackle of the Game or stuff like that -One of the more interesting methods is something I saw in Italy: whenever there was a goal kick or a player was down for an injury, they would flash a 3-5 second ad. It mostly consisted of some chick going "Ahhhh, Peroni!!!!" and a the sound of a bottle twisting off, but it was so original, I remembered them more than any commercials during the telecast And given the alternative of zero games this weekend, I would gladly take some taped match in a 60 minute time slot. Of course, if we had a highlight show, we could see the goals and sell some commercial time there
The timebuy point is a good one. In the future, when MLS no longer has to timebuy, they might want to try doing what Telemundo does on their soccer games. Every few minutes you get a streaming colorful ad at the bottom or side of the screen. It lasts 10-20 seconds and isn't really that bad. This is in fact better than straight commercial breaks (for the advertiser) because during a commercial break you can flip to a different channel, but with this format, you are forced to see their ad.
I didn't say that I was the first person to ever think of this, just that I wanted to see a discussion. I haven't seen it discussed in the six months I've been regularly reading Bigsoccer. I'm not necessarily thinking about right now. I'm thinking more about at some point in the future when hopefully our cable ratings could be closer to 1.0 than 0.0 What concerns me the most is that even if we did get good ratings, it might not translate into much tv revenue. Your last paragraph is more what I have in mind. If it would bring in a lot of revenues, would it be worth it? My feeling is yes, especially if there were options to view it without ads (i.e. Shootout or hopefully online!!!). Also the animated ads, a la Univision, how much money do these bring in? Why hasn't MLS tried it? I've always wondered about that. Frankly, I have very little info on the economics of any of this. How much is a logo on the screen worth (I realize sponsors pay for more than the just that logo, but what would be the value)?
In the future, when MLS no longer has to timebuy ... it won't be the league's decision, or SUM's decision, anyway. It will be the decision of the network writing the checks. And then we can complain about the networks without feeling like we're eating our young.
A couple of years ago, I e-mailed the broadcasting guy at the USSF asking why they couldn't do this for the Nats. He's not there anymore, and I won't give his name because he got blasted by stupid BS posters in a bunch of e-mails, and e-mailed me and chastised me for sharing our exchange on bigsoccer. Anyway, he replied back that they didn't like what that would do to the broadcast (IIRC). If my memory serves me (and I haven't been smoking pot for a decade, so I should be OK) the main reason was asthetic, not economic. Of course, it also implies that the economics weren't strong enough to overcome the aesthetics. I would add that you've got to have companies willing to pay to make these ads. I have no clue how much it would cost Budweiser to create this kind of ad, but that may make the whole scheme unworkable. He's the expert and all, but I still think SUM should do this. Knowing how men are with their remotes, I would personally rather have my company spend X dollars for an animated ad on an MLS game with a .2 rating, than 10X or even 5X dollars on an NFL game with a 2 rating. I expect that research would show you get at least equal bang for the buck even if the NFL ad cost only twice as much (for, supposedly, 10 times the viewer.) Notice that the last ad before coming back from commercial break is almost ALWAYS a promo, and ad for upcoming programming. So if a viewer messes up the timing, and comes back early, he STILL won't see the Honda ad on an NFL game.
As soon as Tivo is more widespread, I think we'll see more ads on screen during the viewing experience. No company with executives of sound mind will pay for commercials that are frequently skipped over
First thought: What about showing the game live, but in a 2 1/2 hour window with real pre-game and post-game coverage that is heavy on ad breaks? Could those economics work out? Second thought: If you're looking for more ways to juice revenue, there's always the virtual "end-zone" ads. IIRC, they were tried out on a Fox broadcast last year (to much derision here).
1. People won't watch the pre-game/post game show. And you'll lose casual viewers with all the ad breaks. 2. EVERYTHING gets much derision here. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Virual end zone ads would be great. All that requires are corporate logos and URLs and a little work in post-production. You could delay a broadcast by 10 seconds to give extra time if needed. Sachin