Wow, says it peaked at 211k. I wonder if the scoreless first half caused the ratings drop? I can't remember if 5:45 was the second half, though. Wait, the game came on at 3pm EST, right? So, do you think it's a good sign that people tuned in during the last part of the game? I do.
Philadelphia averages a 1.0 local rating. Seattle/Portland both average 3.0+ local ratings. Look at the tv ratings for the playoffs last year. NY and LA got terrible ratings and were outdrawn by other MLS teams in the playoffs. Houston vs Philly got more viewers than LA vs NY. LA got a 1.5 local rating for the MLS cup final. Really........they gotta do better than that. For the populations those two cities have, they should be getting much higher ratings.
i may misunderstand the overall implications, but when talking about local ratings, doesn't LA's 1.5 equate to much higher viewer count than portland and seattles 3.0 rating due to the much much higher population of LA's media market?
I was happy with the 124k but the 145k for the game itself is even nicer obviously. Does anyone know if last weeks number included the pregame?
The numbers I posted are the national ratings. Besides New York the Galaxy "pull their weight" as well as any MLS club. Also, does local ratings not vary relative to market size. So a 1.5 rating locally in the LA is different then 3.0 in Seattle? Also I'd like to know where you're getting the local ratings from if you don't mind.
Wonder if Garber has called up the folks at FSC and rubbed their noses in these numbers? Wonder if Wynalda has anything to say on the matter?
There's no way MLS is going back to FSC. Two weeks in, and the league has already achieved both goals they set out with: higher ratings and better presentation.
Never mind I found the local numbers. I forgot they were in the article about the new TV deal. Not impressive but surely the local TV ratings are the Galaxy's concern, because it effects the clubs ability to maximize commercial partnerships. The national TV ratings are more of a concern for the growth of the league and the Galaxy do well nationally. Also the FS West deal was poor. I get FS West in my market and they did a terrible job of promoting the Galaxy. Actually I think they do a terrible job with all the LA based teams. I'm glad the Lakers dumped them for Time Warner and the Dodgers are set to do the same, CBS and Time Warner are in the mix. I think the ratings will improve on Time Warner, hopefully it's available in the Las Vegas market, still no word. Also Time Warner apparently say they plan to broadcast in Spanish which makes you wonder why that wasn't done before.
yeah, didn't the galaxy just sign a pretty big local tv deal? i'd love every MLS team to be in as bad a situation with their local tv deal.
The point is, LA got 1.5 local rating for a MLS cup final. Seattle gets double that on average for regular season games. If Seattle made it to the MLS cup final, they'd probably get at least a 10.0 local rating. Seattle vs Houston would have gotten significantly higher ratings than LA vs Houston. The fact that Seattle outdraws LA in both local ratings and national ratings is of concern, especially since LA Galaxy is one of the most well known teams. Even Houston got a much higher local rating than LA did. In the 2009 final, RSL got a 5.8 local rating, and LA didn't even get 1.5.
Fox is likely to have a national sports network by 2014, from what I've heard. Which also makes sense, since they're carrying the World Cup. And if/when such a thing happens, they too will have production value just looking for product. And burning bridges gratuitously isn't going to get you anywhere anyway.
what i'm talking about is the value of those ratings. isn't LA's 1.5 more valuable than Portlands 3.0? wouldn't an advertiser pay more to be exposed to LA's 1.5 than Portland 3.0?
Oy. Fanboys. As I'm sure CBS did when they lost the NFL after all those years and they saw the early FOX games in 1994. I'm sure they called up Tagliabue and said "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! Your games are on Channel 61 now!" You know...actual business people, who often have to deal with people many different times in many situations from both sides of a table over the course of their careers, rarely act like message board posters when it comes to things like this. As a corollary, this is why Bigsoccer posters don't get chances to make big decisions like these. Yes, anyone can see why there'd be no value at all in being aligned in the future with a multi-billion dollar company that operates a 24-hour soccer network, especially when that company is going to be televising at least two World Cups in the future. That's a bridge that should be napalmed nine days into your history with another network. Sounds like an excellent plan.
Re: Oy. Fanboys. Additionally, FSC offered MORE money than NBC for the current contract. It's not like FSC was trying to be cheap and screw over MLS.
umm, you do understand who owns FSC right? It is not like FSC is their only channel. If in 2014 Fox puts together a nice monetary package that includes a healthy dose of FX and Fox OTA games, you really think the league is going to try and jeopardize by acting like a petulant child? MLS wants, check that, needs as many interested carriers as possible as that will only drive competition. Giving the middle finger to one of the likely 3 English languages partners is pretty darn stupid no matter how you look at it.
Seattle/Portland wouldn't get a 3.0 if they were in the MLS cup final. They'd get higher than 10.0. Of course LA's 1.5 is more valuable than Seattle's 3.0, but that only happens if LA makes the cup final. In every single game outside the final, Seattle always beats LA in every measurable way. If Seattle makes it to the final, they will boost the national average more than LA does.
Thanks. The direct link to the tweet is here. If you click "open" and then "details" you will go directly to the tweet rather than the twitter feed, and then you will have a link directly to the tweet in question making it easier for your audience to find the tweet in question. 145k is not a bad number at all given that most here figured NBCSN would average 150K per game. That's something to build on. And that's 134% higher than the average audience for NBCSN for the month of January.
there is a lot of assumption in your post there. how can you possibly predict a 330% increase in seattle ratings and expect that number to be anything worth even discussing? what does LA get locally for the average local broadcast? if things are as bad in LA as you seem to think, how does just signed a $55 million dollar 10 year local tv deal fit? whats seattles local tv deal worth?
LA Galaxy's local rating averages somewhere in between 0.11 and 0.28 for regular season games. I'm not saying LA Galaxy's ratings are worthless. There are many MLS teams that are doing FAR worse. My point was, LA is not pulling their weight when it comes to TV ratings. They should be getting MUCH higher ratings than they are currently getting.