PDA

View Full Version : ALCS tv ratings


itsnotrequired
10-21-2007, 09:00 AM
Through four games, the ALCS on Fox is averaging 9.5 million viewers and a 6.3 household rating, up 21 percent and 17 percent, respectively, over the comparable number of games in the As-Tigers series last year.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003659744

Alas, a large market and star power once again draws in the national audience.

HerzogVon
10-21-2007, 09:13 AM
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003659744

Alas, a large market and star power once again draws in the national audience.

The media attention doesn't hurt, either. I wouldn't say that it's simply a case of one following the other, as it's highly doubtful that an LA team would attract the kind of fawning that the Sawx and Yorkies seem to be permanently blessed with.

DumpJerry
10-21-2007, 10:47 AM
Alas, a large market and star power once again draws in the national audience.
Another reason why Bud should make sure the White Sox are in the World Series every year.

PKalltheway
10-21-2007, 12:11 PM
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003659744

Alas, a large market and star power once again draws in the national audience.
The difference in ratings can also be attributed to the fact that last year's ALCS only went four games. But yeah, people aren't watching this ALCS because Cleveland's in it, they're watching it so they could see the Blow Sawks....I still wish that the Angels wouldn't have **** all over themselves in the first round so they could stick it to Fox with a Indians/Angels ALCS.

itsnotrequired
10-21-2007, 12:45 PM
The difference in ratings can also be attributed to the fact that last year's ALCS only went four games. But yeah, people aren't watching this ALCS because Cleveland's in it, they're watching it so they could see the Blow Sawks....I still wish that the Angels wouldn't have **** all over themselves in the first round so they could stick it to Fox with a Indians/Angels ALCS.

The numbers are only through the first four games. Tonight's game should get a huge draw.

Fenway
10-21-2007, 12:50 PM
Boston overnight numbers are staggering for Game 6

47.1 81 share

FedEx227
10-21-2007, 12:57 PM
Are any of you surprised?

It features one of the four marketed teams in the majors.

Bud should be VERY concerned if the ratings are only good when a series features: Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs or Mets.

CanBuehrleWait
10-21-2007, 12:58 PM
Are any of you surprised?

It features one of the four marketed teams in the majors.

Bud should be VERY concerned if the ratings are only good when a series features: Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs or Mets.


Indeed. Doubtful though.

itsnotrequired
10-21-2007, 02:19 PM
Are any of you surprised?

It features one of the four marketed teams in the majors.

Bud should be VERY concerned if the ratings are only good when a series features: Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs or Mets.

I'm not surprised. Fox pays a fixed amount for the right to broadcast the games. The longer the series and the bigger the teams, the more ad revenue they generate. MLB doesn't make any extra money though.

MLB should be concerned from a long-term-health-of-the-game standpoint but from a present financial standpoint, the concern isn't as great.

FedEx227
10-21-2007, 02:35 PM
I'm not surprised. Fox pays a fixed amount for the right to broadcast the games. The longer the series and the bigger the teams, the more ad revenue they generate. MLB doesn't make any extra money though.

MLB should be concerned from a long-term-health-of-the-game standpoint but from a present financial standpoint, the concern isn't as great.

Oh no financially it'll be fine. But eventually if the Red Sox and Yankees take a step back for a couple of years and you have teams like the Blue Jays or Tigers or even the White Sox dominating the AL for maybe 5-6 years, it could kill their popularity because casual fans have been told there are only two teams in the AL you should care about.

Thus, when those two teams aren't in there, casual fans don't care. Much like the problem the NBA faced post-Jordon. Casual fans were told, he is who you want to watch... then when he was gone they had to adjust their plan and say "Well there's all these young talents, etc" but nobody was buying it.

The NBA has gotten it right lately though as IMO they are one of the best sports from an all-around league-marketing standpoint in that they don't just shove one player or two teams down your throat but rather many different players and their teams (Obviously, the NFL is far and away number one in that category) If LeBron still goes down, they have Wade, Carmelo, Durant, the Suns, Duncan, McGrady, Kobe...

itsnotrequired
10-21-2007, 02:43 PM
Oh no financially it'll be fine. But eventually if the Red Sox and Yankees take a step back for a couple of years and you have teams like the Blue Jays or Tigers or even the White Sox dominating the AL for maybe 5-6 years, it could kill their popularity because casual fans have been told there are only two teams in the AL you should care about.

Thus, when those two teams aren't in there, casual fans don't care. Much like the problem the NBA faced post-Jordon. Casual fans were told, he is who you want to watch... then when he was gone they had to adjust their plan and say "Well there's all these young talents, etc" but nobody was buying it.

The NBA has gotten it right lately though as IMO they are one of the best sports from an all-around league-marketing standpoint in that they don't just shove one player or two teams down your throat but rather many different players and their teams (Obviously, the NFL is far and away number one in that category) If LeBron still goes down, they have Wade, Carmelo, Durant, the Suns, Duncan, McGrady, Kobe...

Sounds like we are on the same page.

MLB and ownership have a long history of not looking at the sport from a long-term standpoint. When they were the only game in town, it wasn't that big a deal but now, a long-term vision is huge. The sport is starting to go that way but still has a long way to go. On the other hand, attendance records are getting broken each year.

Brian26
10-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Baseball has always been at its healthiest when there have been strong Yankees teams to take the antagonist role. This was the case years before ESPN took prominence. The only recent change with ESPN over the past decade is that the Red Sox have been bumped a tier higher, into the same echelon as the Yankees. It seems like the Yankees, and now the Red Sox, are a necessary evil for the growth and health of baseball.

The late 80s and early 90s saw great baseball teams and some outstanding World Series matchups. Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta and Toronto did well, but ratings and attendance generally seemed to suffer.

As long as there is some parity in terms of post-season outcomes (and that has been the case over the past seven years), I don't mind seeing NYY and Boston get extra coverage throughout the year. It brings people to the ballparks throughout the season, and it's gives casual fans a team to root against in the playoffs.

Also, keep in mind, just because NYY and Boston get high ratings, don't assume everyone watching wants them to win.