GG Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Again, that's a Saturday Prime Time show. What else are they competing with? Answer: nothing. It's the cheapest slot to purchase ads for a reason. That was the same argument against the MLB data ,and it's completely relevant to this conversation. Monday Night, Sunday Night, Thursday Night Football, all of these are competing with networks that are introducing new content OR have established content in those slots. That it's down relative to itself is not a surprise, again. This all ties back to the original point that eyeballs are spread insanely thin these days. This is no new revelation. Also that's a self-touting press release from the Disney Corporation who denies any dip in MNF. So take it at face value. All those numbers and stats are fluffed to the nth degree. If you think that the Internet committees are about to replace the $10 billion that the traditional media companies are paying the nfl, you are mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 You are reaching. I gave you a much better comparison than the ESPN argument you made. If you want to believe that only Football out of the big three sports is effected by this new phenomena that involves the internet and cell phones, that's fine, you are entitled to that. I don't think that argument has been articulated at all, really. I think you provided poor apples to apples comparisons for MLB/NBA prime time numbers. I do, however, think the MLB/NBA are doing more to expand their audiences. The NFL is absolutely impacted by mobile/online proliferation because--unlike the other major sports, particularly the MLB/NBA--they have not made their content available on those platforms...until Twitter took up TNF this year and until they let Yahoo stream last year's London Debacle. If you think that the Internet committees are about to replace the $10 billion that the traditional media companies are paying the nfl, you are mistaken. No I'm not. Not at all. The biggest media companies in the world will soon be Facebook, Google and Apple--if they're not already. They are gaining media share while the old dogs are scrambling to cling to what they once had. And, oh yeah, they also provide delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 You have an argument for the NBA, not so much for MLB. But here you go for the NBA, shows growth from the previous year. Look at the 20-year numbers for *nationally televised* MLB games - playoffs, WS, all star game, etc. It's a swan dive into the abyss. I do agree that local ratings seem to be OK (speaking as someone who watches parts of about 100 or so Yankees game per year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The argument was: A drop in traditional television ratings will not have a negative impact on the next round of bids for NFL exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 You are reaching. I gave you a much better comparison than the ESPN argument you made. If you want to believe that only Football out of the big three sports is effected by this new phenomena that involves the internet and cell phones, that's fine, you are entitled to that. Baseball isn't a good comparison because it has fallen so much already. Football is a bit of a unique case because it's *so, so, so* much more popular than basketball and baseball as a nationally televised sport. It appeals to a huge mainstream rather than just a hardcore base plus a fringe of the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Baseball isn't a good comparison because it has fallen so much already. Football is a bit of a unique case because it's *so, so, so* much more popular than basketball and baseball as a nationally televised sport. It appeals to a huge mainstream rather than just a hardcore base plus a fringe of the mainstream. This also an excellent point. Baseball's growth is inevitable. It's working up from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Look at the 20-year numbers for *nationally televised* MLB games - playoffs, WS, all star game, etc. It's a swan dive into the abyss. I do agree that local ratings seem to be OK (speaking as someone who watches parts of about 100 or so Yankees game per year). I understand, and I know that MLB has seen a gradual decline over the past 20 years or so but that isn't what we are seeing with the NFL. The NFL's drop is the only major sport out of the big three where we have seen a sudden drop over the past year. The argument you made was that more people are watching sports over the phone etc, I agree with that, but that argument would apply to the other major sports as well and that hasn't happened. So just going by basic logic, this implies that there is another force at play that is contributing to the sudden precipitous drop in the NFL's viewership. We can debate what that outside force is, but the idea that was brought forth by you doesn't logically apply, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Also the NBA is definitely growing in popularity. But it sure as **** isn't the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 It's awfully disingenuous to compare the first four weeks in the NFL to the NBA finals...don't you think? Likewise, MLB, in the summer time, doesn't compete with new television programming. Like hell it wasn't. I cut the cord six years ago. A lot of people my age started around then. It's just only recently started to take hold. It didn't happen suddenly. It just hit its critical mass in the past few years. Yeah, I'm talking about critical mass. I should have been clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I understand, and I know that MLB has seen a gradual decline over the past 20 years or so but that isn't what we are seeing with the NFL. The NFL's drop is the only major sport out of the big three where we have seen a sudden drop over the past year. The argument you made was that more people are watching sports over the phone etc, I agree with that, but that argument would apply to the other major sports as well and that hasn't happened. So just going by basic logic, this implies that there is another force at play that is contributing to the sudden precipitous drop in the NFL's viewership. We can debate what that outside force is, but the idea that was brought forth by you doesn't logically apply, imo. Right, it made the drop because it had a lot to lose and because it's waited until the last minute to figure out ways to get live content online. How will this impact rights negotiations negatively for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) I understand, and I know that MLB has seen a gradual decline over the past 20 years or so but that isn't what we are seeing with the NFL. The NFL's drop is the only major sport out of the big three where we have seen a sudden drop over the past year. The argument you made was that more people are watching sports over the phone etc, I agree with that, but that argument would apply to the other major sports as well and that hasn't happened. So just going by basic logic, this implies that there is another force at play that is contributing to the sudden precipitous drop in the NFL's viewership. We can debate what that outside force is, but the idea that was brought forth by you doesn't logically apply, imo. Yeah, but my point, I guess, is that the NFL is unique in appealing to a huge audience of casual viewers. That's not the case with MLB and the NBA, particularly at the local contract level. MLB lost those viewers decades ago, the NBA never had them, and the NHL is a cult sport. The NFL is completely different from them. Edited October 4, 2016 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Well, another way to look at it is that no other NFL team has sold for more money than the Pegulas paid for The Bills. And no teams have been sold since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Baseball isn't a good comparison because it has fallen so much already. Football is a bit of a unique case because it's *so, so, so* much more popular than basketball and baseball as a nationally televised sport. It appeals to a huge mainstream rather than just a hardcore base plus a fringe of the mainstream. When people make comparisons, you have to consider relativity, that is simply a basic point in how arguments are constructed. So relatively speaking, how will you make a comparison? You use the other major sports, specially considering that the other sports are just as accessible to being viewed through streaming coverage or cellphones what have you. So the idea that "well it's at a bottom it can only go up". There are two problems with that statement. A) You don't know that. B) Even if it were at a bottom, if the argument you are making holds true, it still would create further room for a drop because there are more outlets for viewing the sport such as what you had originally mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tierlifer Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 As usual, many many excellent points on here. For me personally the product itself is watered down. Too many flags, replays, antics and other shenanigans are my guesses. When I talk to people "at the water cooler" it seems to be what others are saying too. MNF used to be a ratings gold mine and must see TV. I remember looking forward all day to coming home and watching that. Can't remember the last time I watched one beyond halftime. Netflix, HBO and other outlets are producing some of the best shows in recent memory (Game of Thrones, The Wire, House of Cards). There's more talk of that than the NFL anymore. I still watch, but not at the level I did in the late 80's and 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I don't think that argument has been articulated at all, really. I think you provided poor apples to apples comparisons for MLB/NBA prime time numbers. I do, however, think the MLB/NBA are doing more to expand their audiences. The NFL is absolutely impacted by mobile/online proliferation because--unlike the other major sports, particularly the MLB/NBA--they have not made their content available on those platforms...until Twitter took up TNF this year and until they let Yahoo stream last year's London Debacle. No I'm not. Not at all. The biggest media companies in the world will soon be Facebook, Google and Apple--if they're not already. They are gaining media share while the old dogs are scrambling to cling to what they once had. And, oh yeah, they also provide delivery. The reason they are so profitable use that they don't want to pay for content. That won't change. Twitter is paying a fraction for the NFL streaming rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Yeah, but my point, I guess, is that the NFL is unique in appealing to a huge audience of casual viewers. That's not the case with MLB and the NBA, particularly at the local contract level. MLB lost those viewers decades ago, the NBA never had them, and the NHL is a cult sport. The NFL is completely different from them. Ok, but now you are making an abstract argument that really cannot be measured. I'm a data driven individual, I go where data and logic dictate. Maybe you are right, I cannot say with 100% certitude that you aren't. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The reason they are so profitable use that they don't want to pay for content. That won't change. Twitter is paying a fraction for the NFL streaming rights That's correct. Twitter is paying a LAUGHABLY small amount for their rights. Whose profits are you referring to? Google, Apple, Facebook? If so, yes. But rest assured they: Have the cash Know that challenging the dinosaurs for their most valuable assets could be the first in a series of death blows The sooner they can dispatch the dinosaurs, the better for them Ok, but now you are making an abstract argument that really cannot be measured. I'm a data driven individual, I go where data and logic dictate. Maybe you are right, I cannot say with 100% certitude that you aren't. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I think we're all sort of feeling our way around this discussion, each with a vague understanding of the numbers. I'm with you. I wish we could have some clean, meaningful data to back up a lot of these suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 That's a paper valuation, not what somebody will actually pay for the team. Part of that valuation was derived based on his purchase of the Bills, which set the floor with the increase over the last year attributed to expectations of higher ratings. If ratings continue to fall by double digits, next TV contracts won't be as lucrative, which will lead to franchise value declines. Pegula paid more than the paper valuation which kinda shoots a hole in the that's not what someone will pay for the team. The reason they are so profitable use that they don't want to pay for content. That won't change. Twitter is paying a fraction for the NFL streaming rights Google pays out more for music than any other singular entity. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) When people make comparisons, you have to consider relativity, that is simply a basic point in how arguments are constructed. So relatively speaking, how will you make a comparison? You use the other major sports, specially considering that the other sports are just as accessible to being viewed through streaming coverage or cellphones what have you. So the idea that "well it's at a bottom it can only go up". There are two problems with that statement. A) You don't know that. B) Even if it were at a bottom, if the argument you are making holds true, it still would create further room for a drop because there are more outlets for viewing the sport such as what you had originally mentioned. Re: A) I didn't say that. The Big Cat did. What I'm trying to say, albeit only obliquely up to this point, is that ratings problem currently facing the NFL, which was an outlier in mass network entertainment, has the feel of a canary in the coal mine. It's not even right, in my opinion, to compare the NFL with baseball or basketball, the ratings of which are negligible compared to genuinely prime time shows like the NFL. It's better to compare the NFL to The Big Bang Theory and other shows at the top of the ratings because that's really like to like. Those top-rated shows all have far smaller numbers than ratings leaders years ago. The only one to escape this trend was the NFL, whose ratings just kept going up despite the wreckage around it. The marked decline we've seen so far suggests that perhaps we're seeing a notable intensification of the changes that have already begun in how people consume entertainment. Now it could be the effects of lousy games, the lack of Brady/Manning, and a crazy presidential election. We'll know better once the post-election games come around and the suspensions are over with. Ok, but now you are making an abstract argument that really cannot be measured. I'm a data driven individual, I go where data and logic dictate. Maybe you are right, I cannot say with 100% certitude that you aren't. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I can provide data on this point. The ratings for the NFL completely blow away these other sports. Edited October 4, 2016 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Here's a math exercise. Assume Apple pays the same amount that DTV is paying for Sunday Ticket - $2 billion, and it doesn't have an existing subscriber base for its basic tv service, and assume that there are 2 million Sunday Ticket subscribers. How much will Apple charge for the service if it wants to maintain its 38% operating margin. Careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts