|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| When it comes to the week-in, week-out NFL ratings, skilled P.R. professionals know how to make bad numbers look good and/or good numbers look bad. Cumulative, all-encompassing numbers are more difficult to spin. And here are the cumulative, all-encompassing numbers for NFL ratings through six weeks, via Darren Rovell of ESPN.com: The audience is down by 7.5 percent. Specifically, 15 million people on average watched games for the first six weeks of the year. Last year, the number was 16.2 million. |
Don't believe me, take a look at voter turnout and get back to me.
And it is possible the demographics that aren't watching do turn out to vote and do turn off their TV's on Sundays.
I know you feel people will rush to the anthem protests, and sometimes occam's razor is occam's razor for a reason.
1.) Officials affect the outcome of the game far too often.
2.) Nobody knows what a catch is anymore.
3.) Too many commercials.
4.) Oversaturation of the product (TNF, SNF, MNF, London games etc.)
5.) Players offending it's customers by kneeling for our National Anthem.
There response to all of this?
A statement basically saying they're now Social Justice Warriors.
Stick to football!
How about people who stream the games? I streamed this Sunday nights game from Canada.. Nielsen is also horrible at estimating total number of people that view something as Football more and more is being watched at bars and with friends..
And it is possible the demographics that aren't watching do turn out to vote and do turn off their TV's on Sundays.
I know you feel people will rush to the anthem protests, and sometimes occam's razor is occam's razor for a reason.
Occam's razor in this case would imply people are just watching less TV. With all the cord cutting going on, there's bound to be an impact to the ratings (let alone to the NFL, where they keep introducing new channels like streaming via Twitter or Amazon that they might not track as effectively).
The NFL would be lucky to have all of their viewership issues tied into that political mess. It's much worse than that - concerns over CTE, people being reluctant to pay money for sports packages or cable, people losing interest in the game, etc. There have been people pointing out for years that the moves that the NFL was making would eventually cost them - it's possible we're starting to see some of that come to light.
Quote:
and watching TV require the same level of apathy?
And it is possible the demographics that aren't watching do turn out to vote and do turn off their TV's on Sundays.
I know you feel people will rush to the anthem protests, and sometimes occam's razor is occam's razor for a reason.
Occam's razor in this case would imply people are just watching less TV. With all the cord cutting going on, there's bound to be an impact to the ratings (let alone to the NFL, where they keep introducing new channels like streaming via Twitter or Amazon that they might not track as effectively).
The NFL would be lucky to have all of their viewership issues tied into that political mess. It's much worse than that - concerns over CTE, people being reluctant to pay money for sports packages or cable, people losing interest in the game, etc. There have been people pointing out for years that the moves that the NFL was making would eventually cost them - it's possible we're starting to see some of that come to light.
People are watching less football (if you believe the poll to be accurate and for the record I've seen similar polls that factor in streaming and viewership is down similarly from last year even with streaming).
To say people are watching less TV in general wouldn't be the simplest explanation, it would require an assumption that hasn't been provided.
CTE could be one legit reason, but I have heard very few people who said they'd boycott the NFL because of CTE. I've heard people say they wouldn't let their kids play but I don't believe the impact of those who wouldn't watch explains a ratings drop.
While on the other hand, many people said they'd boycott because of the protests.
The simplest reason that requires the fewest assumptions is most often the correct reason.
. Through Week 6, in-game commercial inventory in the NFL broadcast windows has generated an estimated $1.24 billion in revenue, up 14 percent from the equivalent period last year. (It's worth noting that, to the networks' delight, a ratings dip coupled with flat or increased demand leads to an increase in the price of buying time in any TV program.)
many other factors - people can watch and rewatch games after the fact without commercials. are the legal streamers being taken into consideration? illegal streamers?
how are the cable subscription numbers doing? DirecTV?
I dont think one reason ever adequately explains everything, but it is a very overexposed product already and there are far too many reasons to not watch on trackable channels these days instead of living your life.
People might not be watching less TV, but they're sure as hell paying less for it, and as that 18-49 demographic that these ratings are focused on continues to lose less tech savvy members on the older end and get new viewers who were born with a computer in one hand on the other, that's only likely to get much worse for them.
Biggest factor is that the quality of the football is the lowest I've ever seen. Most of these games are garbage.
People might not be watching less TV, but they're sure as hell paying less for it, and as that 18-49 demographic that these ratings are focused on continues to lose less tech savvy members on the older end and get new viewers who were born with a computer in one hand on the other, that's only likely to get much worse for them.
Many polls take streaming into account and viewership is still down.
. Through Week 6, in-game commercial inventory in the NFL broadcast windows has generated an estimated $1.24 billion in revenue, up 14 percent from the equivalent period last year. (It's worth noting that, to the networks' delight, a ratings dip coupled with flat or increased demand leads to an increase in the price of buying time in any TV program.)
yep thats the number that matters because at the end of the day.. ESPN analyst reading from a free service provided by Nielsen doesn't have all the relevant facts.. The advertisers and the cable companies on the other hand know whats happening.. and at the end of the day they all agree that advertising during NFL games is worth more today than it was yesterday.. Now the credit suisse analyst probably has a much more detailed analysis but I am not sure its for public viewing...
Biggest factor is that the quality of the football is the lowest I've ever seen. Most of these games are garbage.
My father was an usher at Yale Bowl (not as a full time job but just for the Giants games as a way to get to see the games) when the Giants played there and my father tells me we are not witnessing anything remotely close to the worst football he's ever seen (of course you and I didn't see that era), but just as a reference, the 70's by and large was worse than now in many regards.
I only say this because when we were talking last week I said the same thing you did and he said "not even close"
Quote:
Just take a look at what cable providers are reporting and forecasting as far as their financials go and you'll know it all as fact.
People might not be watching less TV, but they're sure as hell paying less for it, and as that 18-49 demographic that these ratings are focused on continues to lose less tech savvy members on the older end and get new viewers who were born with a computer in one hand on the other, that's only likely to get much worse for them.
Many polls take streaming into account and viewership is still down.
You do realize a lot of cord cutters view games in ways that aren't captured in that number? OTA, illegal streaming.
There's very little great football being played today.
I think the much more likely reason is a combination of many different things. Some of them out of the NFL's control and some of them directly because of the NFL and the sport itself.
Quote:
In comment 13655028 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Just take a look at what cable providers are reporting and forecasting as far as their financials go and you'll know it all as fact.
People might not be watching less TV, but they're sure as hell paying less for it, and as that 18-49 demographic that these ratings are focused on continues to lose less tech savvy members on the older end and get new viewers who were born with a computer in one hand on the other, that's only likely to get much worse for them.
Many polls take streaming into account and viewership is still down.
You do realize a lot of cord cutters view games in ways that aren't captured in that number? OTA, illegal streaming.
Of course, I just think dismissing the anthem protests completely as a factor is probably wrong.
I believe it is a factor and more than many people may realize. the vice president of the country walked out of a game after the national anthem. It's a big deal to a bigger percentage of the NFL viewing population than some people want to admit.
And I make no comment on the protests, simply the ratings.
1.) Officials affect the outcome of the game far too often.
2.) Nobody knows what a catch is anymore.
3.) Too many commercials.
4.) Oversaturation of the product (TNF, SNF, MNF, London games etc.)
5.) Players offending it's customers by kneeling for our National Anthem.
There response to all of this?
A statement basically saying they're now Social Justice Warriors.
Stick to football!
You forgot the part about their media cohorts shoving this crap down our throats when all we want is refuge to watch a sporting event. Even the players need to get in on it and their union accepting funds from Soro's organizations. Tuning out more lately, college football is more entertaining anyway as they put out effort instead of collecting a paycheck for half ass effort most of the time
Quote:
In comment 13655043 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13655028 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Just take a look at what cable providers are reporting and forecasting as far as their financials go and you'll know it all as fact.
People might not be watching less TV, but they're sure as hell paying less for it, and as that 18-49 demographic that these ratings are focused on continues to lose less tech savvy members on the older end and get new viewers who were born with a computer in one hand on the other, that's only likely to get much worse for them.
Many polls take streaming into account and viewership is still down.
You do realize a lot of cord cutters view games in ways that aren't captured in that number? OTA, illegal streaming.
Of course, I just think dismissing the anthem protests completely as a factor is probably wrong.
I believe it is a factor and more than many people may realize. the vice president of the country walked out of a game after the national anthem. It's a big deal to a bigger percentage of the NFL viewing population than some people want to admit.
And I make no comment on the protests, simply the ratings.
First off, it's already been proven that his 'walk out' was a staged event. He's the LAST person I'd use as any indication of anything regarding what most of Americans feel about the protests. His boss has had a hard on for the NFL since they denied him the right to become an owner (Rozell told him to his face that he'd NEVER become an NFL owner) and this was another staged event in order to start getting folks who go to the games to start walking out as well. Doesn't appear to be working though...
Secondly, I don't think the NFL really much cares about those that are upset about anyone protesting anything when it comes to their product. They're not making any sweeping changes so... as someone said above... it's pretty apparent to me that they're not the least bit concerned about losing too many 'loyal' customers.
The problem with that is that these players (especially star players) are associated with their employers whenever they engage the public arena in any way. There's really no way for them to publicly express their political beliefs fully "away from their jobs."
Wherever they go, and whatever they do, their jobs go with them. (For a completely non-political example, look no further than how last January's infamous boating excursion caused PR problems for the Giants organization.)
And even if players do take political stands outside of the team uniform, we'll still have plenty of yahoos saying, "The only reason we know who the hell you are is because of your football team. So shut up and don't make them look bad."
It's just like Hollywood celebrities. They take political stances in their personal time, and people hate them for it anyway. "That's it! I'll never watch [so-and-so]'s movies ever again!", even though so-and-so might make some pretty damned good movies.
It all comes down to this, "If your politics don't agree with mine, get them out of my face." If all of these NFL players took the protest elsewhere -- even to, say, a public march or something -- once that is broadcast to the masses, there will still be a significant public backlash against them. The anthem/flag component is just a really convenient (and self-righteous) excuse.
I believe players are. With the Eagles, the owner and Malcom Jenkins (one of the very first to kneel) are doing this in the community.
But I guess, since many people don't know that, you could say the kneeling part at least gets the conversation started so to speak - and even people to join the cause.
Not sure I agree with that. If a media provider can detect when you changed channels when a protest started and never came back I find your comment ridiculous that they do not care about that. Netflix detects frame by frame scenes to create new content for their audience? Why do you think media now attempts to not show the kneels and cuts away...its called damage control and limiting an audience that may flee, as "they don't get paid either"....Those commercials are then a sunk cost. Its the money man. Its not the cause.
Quote:
Last year, it was easy to blame the decline on election coverage.
Can someone explain why it was easy to blame the decline on the election?
I never understood this. WTF did the election have to do with NFL ratings?
Maybe there was one debate that occurred the same time as one game, but that can't explain the overall decline.
Are they trying to say people were watching CNN or Fox News coverage of the election on Sunday afternoons instead of football? Who the hell did that?!
if you don't believe there are an impactful number of people (NFL fans) who are unhappy enough about the players protesting during the National Anthem that it would make a difference in ratings by not watching, that's your prerogative to believe and you'll search for other reasons for the lower ratings.
reality is there is more likely than not an impact to ratings because of people who no longer watch because they find the Anthem protests disrespectful.
I also agree with this. My lil brother... who was not watching because of the Kaep situation... lasted a month. Then suddenly had a change of heart.
. Through Week 6, in-game commercial inventory in the NFL broadcast windows has generated an estimated $1.24 billion in revenue, up 14 percent from the equivalent period last year. (It's worth noting that, to the networks' delight, a ratings dip coupled with flat or increased demand leads to an increase in the price of buying time in any TV program.)
Follow the money.............good post.
MLB prime time ratings were down in 2017 by 6% compared to last year.
Quote:
but the NFL and its players should separate themselves from politics and potentially negative social activities. You want to protest as a player? Figure out a platform away from doing your job.
The problem with that is that these players (especially star players) are associated with their employers whenever they engage the public arena in any way. There's really no way for them to publicly express their political beliefs fully "away from their jobs."
Wherever they go, and whatever they do, their jobs go with them. (For a completely non-political example, look no further than how last January's infamous boating excursion caused PR problems for the Giants organization.)
And even if players do take political stands outside of the team uniform, we'll still have plenty of yahoos saying, "The only reason we know who the hell you are is because of your football team. So shut up and don't make them look bad."
It's just like Hollywood celebrities. They take political stances in their personal time, and people hate them for it anyway. "That's it! I'll never watch [so-and-so]'s movies ever again!", even though so-and-so might make some pretty damned good movies.
It all comes down to this, "If your politics don't agree with mine, get them out of my face." If all of these NFL players took the protest elsewhere -- even to, say, a public march or something -- once that is broadcast to the masses, there will still be a significant public backlash against them. The anthem/flag component is just a really convenient (and self-righteous) excuse.
Great post!
Look no further than the Jamele Hill suspension from ESPN.
I can share that for a lot of the people I’ve talked to about the NFL from those parts (maybe 20-25 or so, so consider the small sample size), kneeling for the anthem is a significant factor in their decisions to watch less NFL football. The overriding opinion I’ve heard is screw these spoiled athletes and the league that caters to them, we’re just going to watch our college football.
Not saying I agree with their opinions, personally I think it’s a shame a lot of people haven’t spent more time listening to what those protesting are actually saying, but this is the reality for a lot of people.
Things like lower quality of play, games with a zillion penalties, etc are a part of the equation too, for sure.
My take, which is just one mans opinion, FWIW...a lot of people in this country continue to underestimate or ignore how strong the opinions are of different parts of the country...call them middle America, the flyover states, whatever you want. Mock them, call them stupid, racist, whatever you want...but just bc a lot of us think and feel differently, doesn’t mean their opinions don’t have an effect.
Kinda similar to how last November turned out, but that’s for another time and place
if you don't believe there are an impactful number of people (NFL fans) who are unhappy enough about the players protesting during the National Anthem that it would make a difference in ratings by not watching, that's your prerogative to believe and you'll search for other reasons for the lower ratings.
reality is there is more likely than not an impact to ratings because of people who no longer watch because they find the Anthem protests disrespectful.
The next question is, how long do they stay away? As some have posted above...probably not long.
And the NFL knows it.
My stepfather said not only is he not watching, he doesn't even want it on in his house at all.
Yes this is anecdotal, but there are a lot of people that aren't watching any longer due to this issue. They are far from the only two.
Quote:
.. it's pretty apparent to me that they're not the least bit concerned about losing too many 'loyal' customers.
Not sure I agree with that. If a media provider can detect when you changed channels when a protest started and never came back I find your comment ridiculous that they do not care about that. Netflix detects frame by frame scenes to create new content for their audience? Why do you think media now attempts to not show the kneels and cuts away...its called damage control and limiting an audience that may flee, as "they don't get paid either"....Those commercials are then a sunk cost. Its the money man. Its not the cause.
Not sure what you're looking at but I'm still seeing them showing players that are kneeling, sitting or raising a fist during the anthem.
I myself ditched the tv packages for internet only from Comcast but I've been using streaming packages. I keep those mainly for sports (trying Fubo now).
Cord cutting has to be a factor.
There probably is no single factor so arguing about which one is the biggest is probably all of us fighting for our biases.
Biggest factor is that the quality of the football is the lowest I've ever seen. Most of these games are garbage.
B-I-N-G-O and Bingo was his name!
My stepfather said not only is he not watching, he doesn't even want it on in his house at all.
Yes this is anecdotal, but there are a lot of people that aren't watching any longer due to this issue. They are far from the only two.
AllStar - I respect your families beliefs on that - will be interesting to see how long it maintains, especially if the Steelers have a successful season...........
Winning cures all they say? LOL
if you don't believe there are an impactful number of people (NFL fans) who are unhappy enough about the players protesting during the National Anthem that it would make a difference in ratings by not watching, that's your prerogative to believe and you'll search for other reasons for the lower ratings.
reality is there is more likely than not an impact to ratings because of people who no longer watch because they find the Anthem protests disrespectful.
If you don't know what the 'difference' is then there's no point in trying to explain it. I'll move on from that.
I'm not searching for any other reasons... I"m just dismissing the idea that the number of people not watching is enough for the owners to really care about who's watching and who isn't. It's ok if you don't want to believe that... my little brother didn't believe it either when I told him the same thing for HIS reason for protesting.
Sure there's an 'impact'. Our argument is how great that impact is and whether it's big enough to worry the owners. I'm thinking not.