PDA

View Full Version : Bad ratings nothing but ESPN/MLBs fault


FedEx227
10-21-2006, 08:47 AM
Hmm, people are predicting record-low ratings for this years World Series... I can just hear the pity pot right now from the MLB. But I hope this opens their eyes up to see only advertising and marketing the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers and Mets causes this to happen. They've shoved those teams down everyones throats that the national public no longer cares about any other team.

jamokes
10-21-2006, 08:50 AM
You're absolutely right on marketing only certain teams.

The rich teams get richer BUT they don't always get better on the field, how about revenue sharing?

esbrechtel
10-21-2006, 08:52 AM
the NLCS had some solid games....its too bad people arent watching the baseball playoffs...its only going to get worse when TBS takes the playoffs over...

southside rocks
10-21-2006, 09:51 AM
Hmm, people are predicting record-low ratings for this years World Series... I can just hear the pity pot right now from the MLB. But I hope this opens their eyes up to see only advertising and marketing the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers and Mets causes this to happen. They've shoved those teams down everyones throats that the national public no longer cares about any other team.

I think that probably the largest segments of the viewing audience are on the East and West coasts.

If those areas don't have a team or teams in the WS, viewership on both coasts will be way down, which will result in low ratings.

The middle part of the country will not increase viewership enough to boost the ratings, and that's just a fact of demographics. If you look at where the population is in this country, lots of it is concentrated on the coasts.

I don't see why anyone cares, very much, what the ratings are. It's possible, I guess, that the WS might not be carried on network TV if ratings were consistently low over years; but there's already a plan to move the post-season more to cable, which will mark a pretty radical change ... The WS is always going to be available for TV viewers in some form, although maybe not on free TV forever.

If the corporate giants that advertise in WS games see less return on their advertising dollar, I doubt that will keep me up nights.

Lip Man 1
10-21-2006, 10:43 AM
Phil Hersch in the Tribune today has on column on what he thinks is the main reason people are turning off baseball....lousy announcers.

Lip

Hitmen77
10-21-2006, 10:48 AM
Last year, the media and Cub fans enjoyed making an issue of how the Sox played in the lowest rated Series ever. Remember the cracks about nobody even watching the Sox win from the likes of Keith Olbermann and that jagoff Cub fan from CSI (which the Cubune was more than happy to print)? Well, they don't have the Sox to blame this year. Somehow, I think Cub fans won't even be aware of the ratings this year. Yeah, let's blame to historic franchises like St. Louis and Detroit this time!

I agree that this is totally MLB and ESPN's fault. They've marketed baseball as if the teams FedEx227 mentioned are the only ones that matter. Look no further that fatso Berman's shameful pro-Boston slant in last year's ALDS ("Ohhh NOOOO!!!! Everybody's Safe!!!" and then upon the final out in game 3 "....and the Boston Red Sox dream of repeating has ended").

Other media types are to blame too. Olbermann just reflects the East Coast mentality towards baseball. Of course, we won't here Bob Costas complain this year about low ratings because his beloved Cards are in it.

nasox
10-21-2006, 11:17 AM
Why can't the games start at 7 witht the pregame at 630 instead of 730? I also believe there should be a Sunday afternoon game instead of a sunday night game, or, becuase of the conflict with football, do it on saturday afternoon instead of saturday night.

jenn2080
10-21-2006, 11:17 AM
I would actually prefer a series like this one then the same old **** every year with the same teams. They always say that a series is going to lowly rated if the Yanks and Red Sox are not in it.

1951Campbell
10-21-2006, 02:03 PM
Why can't the games start at 7 witht the pregame at 630 instead of 730? I also believe there should be a Sunday afternoon game instead of a sunday night game, or, becuase of the conflict with football, do it on saturday afternoon instead of saturday night.

Yes. The games start too darn late.

MarySwiss
10-21-2006, 02:21 PM
There's a pretty good article in today's Arizona Republic that touches on some of these issues.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/1021chinmusic1021.html

caulfield12
10-21-2006, 02:49 PM
The Tigers got $25 million in revenue sharing last year?

I thought their payroll was pretty high, at least in the top half...not enough that they would be receiving that type of money, which you would expect for TB, the Marlins, Royals or Pirates.

Myrtle72
10-21-2006, 03:11 PM
They always predict that the Yankees and the Red Sox will bring the highest ratings.

But it's funny, I have never actually heard a true baseball fan say that she/he wants to watch a World Series that included the Yankees or the Red Sox. Okay, maybe never, but my point is that hardly anyone actually wants to watch them.

So, in theory the Yankees and the Red Sox are getting higher ratings, but where are the ratings coming from?

:dunno:

dcb56
10-21-2006, 03:23 PM
The Tigers got $25 million in revenue sharing last year?

I thought their payroll was pretty high, at least in the top half...not enough that they would be receiving that type of money, which you would expect for TB, the Marlins, Royals or Pirates.

It doesn't surprise me they're on the dole from Steinbrenner considering how poor their attendance has been, which is understandable because of the abyssmal teams they've fielded. Seems to me the Tigers might actually be spending the money they're getting to become more competitive instead of pocketing it like some of these other owners.

TDog
10-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Phil Hersch in the Tribune today has on column on what he thinks is the main reason people are turning off baseball....lousy announcers.

Lip

I would never watch a game announced by Tim McCarver. Maybe with the sound turned down. TV should have an SAP option with no announcers and just crowd noise and stadium announcements. The sound of McCarver's voice grates on my nerve endings.

The irony with this ratings business is that a Cinderella team in the NCAA finals probably attracts great ratings.

dcb56
10-21-2006, 03:32 PM
Why can't the games start at 7 witht the pregame at 630 instead of 730? I also believe there should be a Sunday afternoon game instead of a sunday night game, or, becuase of the conflict with football, do it on saturday afternoon instead of saturday night.

FOX is in a delicate position because they have four time zones to consider when they pick a time to start these games. If you start the games at 7PM locally, that means they'll be getting under way at 5PM on the West Coast, which would definitely hurt viewership out there as not many people would have enough time to get home from work before the games begin. A 7:30PM start time locally seems to make the best of the situation for FOX becuase it gives people out west some time to get home before the game begins while making sure the game stands a reasonable chance of concluding before midnight for those out east.

chisoxfanatic
10-21-2006, 03:34 PM
Last year, the media and Cub fans enjoyed making an issue of how the Sox played in the lowest rated Series ever.

It was their way of coping with the extreme jealousy they had towards us seeing our Sox win the World Series. They can have their coping mechanisms...I'll take our title!

The East Coast sports Propeganda Network is shooting themselves in the foot...Beauty!

nasox
10-21-2006, 03:39 PM
FOX is in a delicate position because they have four time zones to consider when they pick a time to start these games. If you start the games at 7PM locally, that means they'll be getting under way at 5PM on the West Coast, which would definitely hurt viewership out there as not many people would have enough time to get home from work before the games begin. A 7:30PM start time locally seems to make the best of the situation for FOX becuase it gives people out west some time to get home before the game begins while making sure the game stands a reasonable chance of concluding before midnight for those out east.

So the game ends at close to midnight out east and at 9 out west?

I call BS. The east coast is denser and has more population than the west coast. There are more potential baseball watchers on the east coast than the west coast and not catering to them at least a little will not hurt.

A HALF HOUR WILL NOT HURT. Ratings would not be hurt out west drastically by a half hour, and whatever falloff in the west there might be would be compensated by the extra viewers out east and even in the central time zone.

And one WS day game would help everybody.

I also love the idea of a SAP option with just crowd noise and stadium announcements. If FOX is worried about less advertising revenue, then they could have the advertisements announced on the SAP just like how Buck does it on the regular feed.

dcb56
10-21-2006, 03:46 PM
So the game ends at close to midnight out east and at 9 out west?

I call BS. The east coast is denser and has more population than the west coast. There are more potential baseball watchers on the east coast than the west coast and not catering to them at least a little will not hurt.

A HALF HOUR WILL NOT HURT. Ratings would not be hurt out west drastically by a half hour, and whatever falloff in the west there might be would be compensated by the extra viewers out east and even in the central time zone.

And one WS day game would help everybody.

I also love the idea of a SAP option with just crowd noise and stadium announcements. If FOX is worried about less advertising revenue, then they could have the advertisements announced on the SAP just like how Buck does it on the regular feed.

Well, obviously FOX thinks differently otherwise they'd be starting games sooner. I'm sure they've studied this enough to know that the time they're starting games now gives them the best possible ratings.

Day games would be murder for the ratings what with college football on Saturdays and the NFL on Sundays.

nasox
10-21-2006, 04:03 PM
Well, obviously FOX thinks differently otherwise they'd be starting games sooner. I'm sure they've studied this enough to know that the time they're starting games now gives them the best possible ratings.

Day games would be murder for the ratings what with college football on Saturdays and the NFL on Sundays.

*** Baseball is now scared of college football? A professional sport is afraid of a college sport, a non professional sport? This is bull****, plain and simple.

Saying that FOX has studied this and they know best is a terrible argument. It's like saying, well, this Congressman has been in Washington for ten years, he must know best and know that this pork funding bill is the best for the nation.

Merck released Vioxx. Oh, but they know best because they've been doing this a long tim. The list of comparisons goes on.

We need an actual commisioner that isn't the TV companies' bitch. Whatever ratings fall out that there MAY be would be made up by the added amount of children who would watch a day game or who wouldn't have to miss the last three innings of the game because it is past their bedtime.

Not scheduling a day WS game because of the COLLEGE FOOTBALL REGULAR SEASON is absolute crap. This is the WS, the most historic sporting event in the country and the premier event of the national pastime.

Let me put it this way: A day WS game would get better ratings than a college football game in the same timeslot, and would get better ratings than a night WS game.

MarySwiss
10-21-2006, 04:20 PM
Not scheduling a day WS game because of the COLLEGE FOOTBALL REGULAR SEASON is absolute crap. This is the WS, the most historic sporting event in the country and the premier event of the national pastime.

Let me put it this way: A day WS game would get better ratings than a college football game in the same timeslot, and would get better ratings than a night WS game.
Don't you think that this sort of depends, though, nasox? If you're talking about a weekend day WS game, then it might get better ratings than a weekend night WS game. Although I'm not sure that's a given; some families actually do things with their kids during the weekends instead of just sitting in front of the TV all day. And do you really think that a WS game would automatically get better ratings than a college game? Better than, say, tOSU vs. Michigan?

But I will agree with your earlier statement that the East Coast is denser. KIDDING!! KIDDING!! [MarySwiss ducks and runs quickly away.] :tongue:

Fenway
10-21-2006, 04:56 PM
But I will agree with your earlier statement that the East Coast is denser. KIDDING!! KIDDING!! [MarySwiss ducks and runs quickly away.] :tongue:

ahem :tongue:

The Boston market is known for not delivering ratings when a local team is not involved.

Another reason ratings are lower than years ago is Fox competes with the Big 3 ( NBC, CBS, ABC ) so that slices the audience somewhat.

FedEx227
10-21-2006, 05:06 PM
The irony with this ratings business is that a Cinderella team in the NCAA finals probably attracts great ratings.

Its irony and its good marketing. How many times have you seen the Valpo shot, the constant upsets, etc. College basketball does not advertise teams outside of Duke maybe, otherwise it's all teams all conferences.

You want a fantastic example of smart marketing. Watch an NFL Network or an NFL commercial, you will see barely any mention of a particular team. Instead players representing the underlying league of the NFL.

NFL Network commercials will NEVER mention a teams name, but pound NFL and the players into your mind.

Peyton Manning's commercial (the one with the mustache) says watch "All NFL games on your cell phone" I can almost guarentee you if Derek Jeter did a commercial of the such it would be "Catch the Yankees whenever you want".

the NFL has created a system that does not allow for there to be such a thing as large/small markets. Kudos to them again. If the Giants and the Jets miss the playoffs there is no huge deal. If the Raiders lose 16 games it's not a big deal to the NFL.

samram
10-21-2006, 05:55 PM
ahem :tongue:

The Boston market is known for not delivering ratings when a local team is not involved.

Another reason ratings are lower than years ago is Fox competes with the Big 3 ( NBC, CBS, ABC ) so that slices the audience somewhat.

Most baseball markets are, I would guess. Baseball is more local than any other major sport because the local teams play pretty much every night during the season. The NFL can do a lot more things with scheduling than baseball can and the NBA can get their marquee matchups on quieter nights, which can lead to better national ratings.

Your last sentence is also correct. There's way more options out there and more people watching TV. I wonder how many people who watched the World Series 10 (or 20 or 25) years ago are watching this year? That's the real test to see how much viewership is down.

MarySwiss
10-21-2006, 06:17 PM
Its irony and its good marketing. How many times have you seen the Valpo shot, the constant upsets, etc. College basketball does not advertise teams outside of Duke maybe, otherwise it's all teams all conferences.

You want a fantastic example of smart marketing. Watch an NFL Network or an NFL commercial, you will see barely any mention of a particular team. Instead players representing the underlying league of the NFL.

NFL Network commercials will NEVER mention a teams name, but pound NFL and the players into your mind.

Peyton Manning's commercial (the one with the mustache) says watch "All NFL games on your cell phone" I can almost guarentee you if Derek Jeter did a commercial of the such it would be "Catch the Yankees whenever you want".

the NFL has created a system that does not allow for there to be such a thing as large/small markets. Kudos to them again. If the Giants and the Jets miss the playoffs there is no huge deal. If the Raiders lose 16 games it's not a big deal to the NFL.

Very well said. :thumbsup:

1951Campbell
10-21-2006, 06:29 PM
So the game ends at close to midnight out east and at 9 out west?

I call BS. The east coast is denser and has more population than the west coast. There are more potential baseball watchers on the east coast than the west coast and not catering to them at least a little will not hurt.



I agree. It's ridiculous to have half the country turning off the game to go to bed to appease one sixth of the country, but MLB is run by a ridiculous fellow.

Eastern time zone: 49% of US pop
Central: 29% of US pop
Mountain: 6% of US pop
Pacific: 16% of US pop

FedEx227
10-21-2006, 06:31 PM
Maybe it makeup for having ALDS games on at 10 am for the West coast.

TDog
10-21-2006, 06:52 PM
Its irony and its good marketing. How many times have you seen the Valpo shot, the constant upsets, etc. College basketball does not advertise teams outside of Duke maybe, otherwise it's all teams all conferences.

You want a fantastic example of smart marketing. Watch an NFL Network or an NFL commercial, you will see barely any mention of a particular team. Instead players representing the underlying league of the NFL.

NFL Network commercials will NEVER mention a teams name, but pound NFL and the players into your mind.

Peyton Manning's commercial (the one with the mustache) says watch "All NFL games on your cell phone" I can almost guarentee you if Derek Jeter did a commercial of the such it would be "Catch the Yankees whenever you want".

the NFL has created a system that does not allow for there to be such a thing as large/small markets. Kudos to them again. If the Giants and the Jets miss the playoffs there is no huge deal. If the Raiders lose 16 games it's not a big deal to the NFL.


Watching NFL marketing would require me to watch the NFL, which is something I would never do. One would think it would be difficult to market individual players in a league where they wear so much gear that all but a few players are virtually anonymous to most of the people who watch. Promoting the league works if people will watch it regardless of quality. Of course, the NFL is more a cooperative than a competitive league, with salary caps and a leaguewide television contract. Every NFL game is a network television game, with regions defining most of the games available in your area. Regional baseball feeds just piss people off. While the NFL is a weekly event, baseball is the background of summer.

How pissed would White Sox fans have been last year if they had to go to New Orleans to see their team play in the World Series?

On the other hand, while I haven't watched the NBA in years, I have read that the NBA has suffered from promoting individual players. It has hurt the quality of the league by diminishing the team concept. MLB would never be able to get away with promoting the league, and promoting individual players who are overhyped to begin with.

Lip Man 1
10-22-2006, 01:03 PM
A few points:

Jenn (and others) : I recently read a story that stated the Yankees / Mets series was the 3rd lowest in recent history. Apparently baseball fans West of the Alleghenies are sick and tired of having Yankees / Red Sox / Mets shoved down their throats by the Eastern networks. The story stated Fox was getting concerned about the possibility of another N.Y. series causing havoc with their ratings.

And as Fenway pointed out Boston isn't the only 'provincial' city out there. Chicago as well doesn't usually deliver big ratings unless a Chicago team is playing. I say 'good for Chicagoans!!!' If 'my' teams aren't playing I could care less.

Regarding announcers I still feel the networks need to go back to having a 'home team' announcer for every home game in a playoff game / series they way NBC used to do it during the 60's and 70's. As an announcer I can tell you there is absolutely no way, regardless of how much prep work you do, that you can know as much about a team in one week as a guy who calls every game for six months. It is simply impossible.

Lip

C-Dawg
10-22-2006, 01:51 PM
As an announcer I can tell you there is absolutely no way, regardless of how much prep work you do, that you can know as much about a team in one week as a guy who calls every game for six months. It is simply impossible.



Not to pick on Berman again so soon, but he's a good example of this. In the ALDS last year, he knew the Red Sox lineup backwards and forwards; all the players, their hometowns, nicknames, probably even their favorite foods. Even managed to work in the name of the hitting coach ("Pappa Jack") several times. But the White Sox lineup might as well been 9 complete strangers to him ("Next up is, uh, Joe Crede, who plays, uh, third base, I believe, for the White Sox). I'm sure if the sound were turned up loud enough, one could hear the papers shuffling as he searched his media guide trying to find out just who the heck was on this team.

Foulke You
10-22-2006, 02:37 PM
Not to pick on Berman again so soon, but he's a good example of this. In the ALDS last year, he knew the Red Sox lineup backwards and forwards; all the players, their hometowns, nicknames, probably even their favorite foods. Even managed to work in the name of the hitting coach ("Pappa Jack") several times. But the White Sox lineup might as well been 9 complete strangers to him ("Next up is, uh, Joe Crede, who plays, uh, third base, I believe, for the White Sox). I'm sure if the sound were turned up loud enough, one could hear the papers shuffling as he searched his media guide trying to find out just who the heck was on this team.
Absolutely correct C-Dawg. I just watched Game 3 of the ALDS from my DVD box set recently and he offered absolutely zero insight into the White Sox players other than El Duque who he knew from the Yankees. Everyone else on the White Sox were a faceless entity to him.

Foulke You
10-22-2006, 02:46 PM
They always predict that the Yankees and the Red Sox will bring the highest ratings.

But it's funny, I have never actually heard a true baseball fan say that she/he wants to watch a World Series that included the Yankees or the Red Sox. Okay, maybe never, but my point is that hardly anyone actually wants to watch them.

So, in theory the Yankees and the Red Sox are getting higher ratings, but where are the ratings coming from?

:dunno:
My theory is this: Not every state in the country has a professional baseball team. There are many states like Nebraska, Tenessee, Iowa, North Dakota, etc. that can only see the national broadcasts for baseball games on stations like ESPN and Fox. While these states aren't as densely populated as the coasts, they do provide valuable ratings gravy points to the networks.

Now, if you don't have a dish and the MLB extra innings package, the national broadcasted games on ESPN or Fox are the only ones you get. Now, you ask yourself, which teams are featured the most during these national broadcasts? Well, as we all know, ESPN broadcasts what seems to be at least 40 Yankees games and at least 35 Red Sox games. If you live in one of these states that doesn't have a baseball team, you get familiar with the teams that are shown on TV the most. These are the ones you care about. Now, if you're most familiar with the national darling teams like Boston or New York, when teams like the White Sox or Tigers go deep in the playoffs, you don't care as much because you've only seen a couple games involving those teams and nobody ever talks about them so people don't tune in as much as they would if the hyped teams were in. As people have pointed out, ESPN and Fox have only themselves to blame for not marketing the teams and the league more equally.