The title of the NYTimes report is, "Lot's of Eyeballs on Columbus." About 1.2 million viewers watched the game on ESPN2 (cable) and 10.7 million watched it on Univision (broadcast).
This is why Mexico is magically 'seeded' in the WC draw over the US. They deliver viewers and $$$ to FIFA.
US$ are why the USA will host the WC again before Mexico is even considered as a host. Probably several times too.
Mexico is not magically 'seeded' for TV viewership. They were 'magically' seeded ahead of us because they have a more consistent record of advancing in the world cup, and a higher FIFA ranking. Do the math and there is nothing magic about it. If it was about eyeballs, China would have been seeded.
usa soccer market is essentially an emerging country soccerwise, with huge up wards possibilities.. 1994, usa had more people watch a match IN PERSON, than any other wc ever... it'd be the same again.. add in the players, with all that disposable income just buy buy buy, the latest stuff., not yet available yet for them...
Maybe the ESPN program operators will "notice" and not shut down the coverage the moment the game is over. They missed all the side items (near brawl, interviews, commentary...) that go with an event. Gaining and keeping viewers is not so important to them as showing and commenting on the Bret Favre stock clips for the 100th time of the day. I turned them off and countless others did s well. Maybe? I won't hold my breath.
also, i believe the numbers are in HOUSEHOLDS watching, not actual viewers.. any one think BIG BROTHER really knows how many people are actually watching
Truth. Mexico is one of a tiny handful of nations that have advanced to the knockout stage in the last 4 Cups. I *think* the list is Italy, Germany, Brazil, and Mexico.
The Times article says 794,800 households watched the ESPN2 broadcast. The viewer numbers I posted above are given in the article. How they are estimated is not stated. Household numbers for Univision are not given.
Also bear in mind that these were households, not bars/clubs/restaurants. I know of lots of places here in Houston that were showing the game, and were likely packed. Do a little math and this is truly staggering.
How do college dorm rooms count in those numbers? Are they included because a friend told me they dont get recorded but I dont know so thats why I am asking.
Use that Baldwin-Wallace education and google it. (sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick. my brother went there.)
So, when combining the 1 million people (ESPN) and 10+ million people (Univision) who watched this WCQ: At least 3.5 times more people watched USA vs Mex than Duke vs UNC (3 million) . ESPN's loss if they don't give our rivalry more coverage...
ESPN had 1 million watchers while Duke/UNC had 3 million. How is it ESPN's loss if the 10 million Spanish speakers were watching Univision. I've always wondered why ESPN do some sort of Spanish SAP to get all 13 million instead of 1 million. Isn't that still available.
This gringo watched the game on Univision because of the poor commentary and production by ESPN despite not being able to understand 80-90 percent of the words being said. My guess is that ESPN could get the gringos back from Univision (I'd figure at least 5-10 percent of Univision viewers were native English speakers) if they'd treat the game with the amount of respect it deserves.
Guys! These numbers are huge. HUGE. I sell advertising. Advertisers do not care one iota what language the eyeballs speak, they just want the eyeballs. This game, A YEAR BEFORE THE WORLD CUP QUALFIIER, brought in total numbers, of key demos, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK, that are nothing less than astounding. When the game shifts to Mexico, watch for ESPN go to half an hour pre-game and post game, selling ads at top rates. And, they will get a lot more for the remaining US home games. And Univision is smiling big-time cause they came out the big winner. They get BOTH the Tricolor and the US games as big draws for the rest of the year. At a time when NASCAR is having a fire sale to avoid the ugly sight of massive empty seats at its Super Bowl, the Daytona 500, and MLB looking at its worst season of attendance in a generation, the numbers from Wednesday ARE HUGE.
This really does bode well for US Soccer. I'm not sure why ESPN and other outlets haven't tried to amp up USA/Mexico. When it comes to CONCACAF football, Yanks/Tri is right up there with Cowboys/Redskins, Celtics/Lakers, Yankees/Red Sox and Canadiens/Maple Leafs. I'm sure if ESPN actually gave the August rematch at the Azteca a little pregame push, and we heard something about it a day or two before, the ratings would probably see at least a half a point bump. I happen to know at least one person I got to tune in, and he was literally shocked how his preconceptions of soccer being a "boring" sport were literally blown out of the water. Most people who claim to "hate" soccer, have usually never seen a match. They give the same tired arguments that truly only exist in their own heads. If the sports networks treat something as a big deal, a big deal it becomes. The XFL was hyped as a really big deal, and for its opening weekend it scored a 15 rating. Sure, the product quality wasn't there, as they got under a 3 for their championship, but my point is the hype machine got people to tune in, the product made them turn it off. Does anyone else think that USA/Mexico at the Azteca would be of inferior quality that the channel would be changed before people gave it an honest shake? If ESPN gave that return leg 25% of the hype they gave the average Tennis Major or weekend Golf tournament, how much of a ratings spike do you think the match would get? This country is tired of the same old things. Baseball, with its steroid problem has a bad odar right now. The NHL hasn't fully recovered from their season off, and hockey is still struggling to recapture its niche from the 90's. While the NBA does have a strong urban following, its ratings are declining, and it is becoming harder to identify with NBA players, let alone its teams. In what other sport do you find a suspended player tailgating with fans? I'm not saying that soccer is going to supplant any of these sports in the short term, and even in the long term it's unlikely. There is, however, an opportunity to finally get soccer on the map in the USA, and any marketing exec with any brains whatsoever should realize that when you get in on the ground floor, there isn't anywhere to go but up. If ESPN's ratings after a small bit of a push get to a 2.5 or a 3, that will mean more advertisers thinking soccer might get more bang for the buck in a tough economy, and who doesn't want to save money for more results?
All I want out of ESPN is some decent camera work. They totally blow. And that shitstick ESPN Sportscenter Pop-Up makes me want to kick in my television set. The ONLY reason I didn't switch to Univision (which I prefer even though I don't habla) is because of HD.
It should be noted that these ESPN2 numbers are Average Audience (ratings) data. While the Univision data looks to be a projection of the cume (total) audience for the entire game. The standard for reporting audiences are to use the ratings data. Cume data can be used (to report the full audience), but advertisers generally work off of the average audience ratings. cume figures are always going to be bigger than the Average Audience ratings. once Univision's rating (the average audience) data is know, it will still be big (likely in the 5-6 million persons range), but it will be lower than that 10million cume (total viewers) figure. still, there are impressive tv numbers for a WCQ match. i don't think ESPN2 will see audiences this big for the remaining Hex matches that the US plays (perhaps save for the trip to Azteca -- although ratings are generally higher in Feb than in August.)
Univision HD will be available by WC2010 (or perhaps earlier). and yes, the complaints are certainly warranted against the production quality (camera work and director takes, etc.) from the crew ESPN2 uses for their soccer coverage.
I can't find the quote, but Ruud Gullit said it best. Basically he stated that the people that run the media here in the US don't want football (soccer) to succeed in the USA. The big wig media corps will give you just enough to make your pallets wet. That is why you have a successful messageboard like BigSoccer.com. Footie fans here in the US don't get the attention they need in English. We come to BS to rap about the beautiful game. I guess I am kewl w/ that. I don't need my footie spoon-fed to me anyways.
I no longer believe that. The Networks, Advertisers, and Media do not care an iota what Sport is popular. They just want the viewers/readers and the money. What they are is lazy. They will not make Soccer popular. That is way too much work for these people. Look at NASCAR. They did not put it on prime time until is already had proven, time and again, it has a big audience. That took decades. Even though the product was good and getting better right along. The Media are not all biased against other sports. They are just too damn lazy to have to learn all the ins and outs of another sport, unless and until they have no other choice. I guarantee you the laziest SOBs working in any profession for the money they make are Sports Media. If you took the ear piece out they would sit there like a lump. Do not ask they them to have to learn every thing about a sport that is played world-wide by people they never heard of, a history they do not know, and a way of playing that requires some imagination to grasp. This will all change and is changing as a new generation of Sport Media people come in. They grew up with soccer, then know what is going on, and they are genuinely interested in sharing in it. Here in Pittsburgh we have Mark Madden, a wildly enthusiastic Liverpool fan, who chats it up in the midst of the Steelers, and gets huge ratings. Yeah, that's right, in Pittsburgh. No MLS team, and no other media interest in Soccer. Mark may not be leading a bandwagon for soccer, but when he goes on about it, his listeners are not turning him off.