RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

TV ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 9:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
For reference

9/13 World Cup of Hockey (Finland vs US) ESPN - 439,000
9/13 WWE Smackdown (pro wrestling) USA Network - 2.66 millon


For me, at least, Art's reality checks, and mine, are a way to focus on the important issues in women's basketball. The WNBA marketing campaign, good, bad or indifferent, is not going to move the needle nearly enough to have a major impact -- so going off on Lisa Borders for doing a poor job (if indeed she is) isn't really the issue.

And again, these numbers show the attendance and ratings problems reflect a much bigger picture, of which the WNBA is a small part. Blaming ESPN, Adam Silver, the mainstream media, etc., for where the WNBA fits on the athletic entertainment scale may have a minor effect on the situation, but nothing any of them can, will or should do is going to get the WNBA to match the World Cup of Hockey, much less the WWE.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 11:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
For reference

9/13 World Cup of Hockey (Finland vs US) ESPN - 439,000
9/13 WWE Smackdown (pro wrestling) USA Network - 2.66 millon


For me, at least, Art's reality checks, and mine, are a way to focus on the important issues in women's basketball. The WNBA marketing campaign, good, bad or indifferent, is not going to move the needle nearly enough to have a major impact -- so going off on Lisa Borders for doing a poor job (if indeed she is) isn't really the issue.

And again, these numbers show the attendance and ratings problems reflect a much bigger picture, of which the WNBA is a small part. Blaming ESPN, Adam Silver, the mainstream media, etc., for where the WNBA fits on the athletic entertainment scale may have a minor effect on the situation, but nothing any of them can, will or should do is going to get the WNBA to match the World Cup of Hockey, much less the WWE.


Agreed, and I post some of these other sports numbers just to give some perspective. Numbers by themselves are meaningless unless they are viewed in relation to what is happening elsewhere. It seems sometimes there is lots of excitement because the ratings for a game rise from 25,000 to 50,000, or even to 250,000. But those increases don't affect the big picture. It may or may not be fair to compare the WNBA numbers to the NFL, but the reality is that whether the viewership is 20,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 doesn't really alter the WNBA's place in the universe compared to the NFL at 20 million.

I'd love to see the WNBA draw 500,000 for every televised game, but I can't even imagine what any of those in charge could do to generate a 1000% increase. That's just not very realistic on any short term basis.

Which is why, if it was me, I'd be focusing at this point on local advertising in cities with teams, centered on promoting specific upcoming games in an effort to generate increases in local ticket sales and attendance. I think building attendance will, over time, build interest which, over time, will build attention and visibility and credibility and TV audiences.

I just find most of the current vague "image" advertising to be a total waste. Just what is "Watch me work" supposed to accomplish?

And whatever has been done over the first 20 years seems to have hit a wall. Can't just keep doing the same thing and expect dramatically better results. A new focus and a new effort to start over from scratch to build an audience would seem to be in order. And I'm not an advertising expert, but personally, I'd start by building local audiences and attendance in the WNBA cities. I'd be using cheap local radio and TV ads to promote the next upcoming game. (And if you become one of the paying advertisers supporting the local sports radio station by running ads promoting "come see the Mystics take on the reigning WNBA league MVP and Olympic Gold medalist, Elaina Delle Donne, this Friday at 7pm at the Verizon Center. Tickets on sale now at Ticketmaster. Get a family pack for only $40" or whatever, they're a lot more likely to start including the team and the upcoming game in the sports talk and news. They'd probably even include segments with interviews and call ins with the coach, GM, or players about the upcoming game. They're certainly not doing that now in DC.)

Oh, BTW, that's also why I'm so pissed off about the Mystics upcoming move. It strikes me as simply waiving a white flag and preventing any possible future growth by capping attendance at 4200 for the next twenty years. It's like the Mystics have proclaimed "we're small time and we're going to stay that way, damnit!". If you expect your audience to be only 3-4000 per game, then I guess having only 25,000 watch on TV probably isn't all that surprising.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 12:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wait... 500,000 is only double a nice draw on ESPN2. That's only a 100% increase.

Maybe the Mystics and the Wings are content with smaller venues because they see the future of the real revenue being in television. Might as well be efficient until the situation changes.

If there becomes a big demand to watch the Mystics in person, that should drive up the ticket prices. If there's overwhelming demand I guess it would be worthwhile to go back to where they were. Contracts can be reworked.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 1:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Wait... 500,000 is only double a nice draw on ESPN2. That's only a 100% increase.


And how many of those games are there compared to the 15-40,000 viewer games?

Shades wrote:
Maybe the Mystics and the Wings are content with smaller venues because they see the future of the real revenue being in television. Might as well be efficient until the situation changes.


So you think that TV audiences are going to skyrocket while ticket sales stagnate at 4,000/game?

I doubt if the Mystics consider that any more likely to occur than I do.

It's really easy to throw out any "well maybe. . . ." fantasy, but that's not much of a basis for coming up with a real strategy.

Shades wrote:
If there becomes a big demand to watch the Mystics in person, that should drive up the ticket prices. If there's overwhelming demand I guess it would be worthwhile to go back to where they were. Contracts can be reworked.


And so you think WNBA ticket demand is completely inelastic. The Mystics can't sell tickets for $10, but people will eagerly pay $100 to be one of the 4200 who can get in the door.

If that happens, you'll have a ready topic for your Economics dissertation.

It takes two to agree to change contracts. Leonsis is not going to pay back the millions it would take to get out of the commitment he made to keep the Mystics in SE DC, and given the politics involved, there's approximately zero likelihood the city would ever agree in any event.

As I said, agreeing to put the Mystics in this shoebox for the next twenty years shouts what Leonsis believes is the future of his WNBA franchise. And what's his incentive to pay to promote ticket sales when there aren't a significant number of tickets to sell anyhow?




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 09/15/16 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 1:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Is there any demand for the WNBA in Canada? WC of hockey hasn't begun yet I thought. Or is that a pre tournament game?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 1:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
Is there any demand for the WNBA in Canada? WC of hockey hasn't begun yet I thought. Or is that a pre tournament game?


You're correct. That was the "final pre-tournament game in advance of the World Cup of Hockey 2016." Sorry.

Although that actually makes the viewership disparity even worse.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Deleted post. Irrelevant on my part.




Last edited by josephkramer44 on 09/15/16 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 5:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
I also don't think the WNBA has much appeal outside the US (except possibly Canada). Most americans are not super big into hockey (I'm from the far north so I am) but international hockey always does extremely well in Finland (go Suomi), Sweden and Eastern Europe (and Canada of course). Millions will be watching the WC Hockey I think. I'm off topic though.

ArtBest23 wrote:
josephkramer44 wrote:
Is there any demand for the WNBA in Canada? WC of hockey hasn't begun yet I thought. Or is that a pre tournament game?


You're correct. That was the "final pre-tournament game in advance of the World Cup of Hockey 2016." Sorry.

Although that actually makes the viewership disparity even worse.


These TV ratings are only for the US. Who's watching elsewhere is irrelevant.


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 6:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't see the Mystics' move as being fatal.
There's a fair comparison there with the NBL (aussies men's pro league). My team had to move when the nice stadium in the middle of the city got knocked down. They went from a nice 7800 seat centrally-located stadium to a basic 4200 seat stadium out in the suburbs with nothing else around it. But during their time there they were successful on the court, they did a good job of building up their brand locally even though the league as a whole was in decline, and after a few years they started selling out the place. It became a hot ticket as a result. And through those years the team had much lower stadium hire costs to deal with.

The Mystics attendance is pathetic. I attended a game there and was embarrassed for the team and the league about how sparse and lacking in atmosphere the game experience was as a fan. If they can find a way to get the same number of people into a more intimate venue it will be a more enjoyable fan experience than it currently is.
(and as I type this ... yikes ... this WAS @ ATL game looks exactly like the Mystics one I attended)

The Mystics out-growing their new stadium is not something to fear, it would be something to welcome IMO.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yep, it will be a better atmosphere than an empty Verizon Center.

That doesn't alter that the move screams "we know we can't draw and we don't expect any improvement in that for the next twenty years."

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's a total surrender. Among other things, there's no opportunity for increasing ticket revenue to pay higher player salaries.


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 7:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You call it surrender, I call it being realistic.
What do you think the chances are that they won't be able to fit all the fans into the new stadium? Pretty slim I'd say.

Yes, the move does indeed say "we can't draw"
And fair enough, because it is obvious to everyone that that is true. They can't draw. I don't see what denial of that is going to achieve.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 7:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Realistic? 4200 is fewer than their LOWEST game attendance of the season. No more occasional 10,000+ game, no more 6,000 average. It's not only a total declaration of failure, but it precludes any future improvement or success.

It's indefensible, so don't try.


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 8:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Realistic? 4200 is fewer than their LOWEST game attendance of the season. No more occasional 10,000+ game, no more 6,000 average. It's not only a total declaration of failure, but it precludes any future improvement or success.

It's indefensible, so don't try.

Laughing 4200 might be fewer than their lowest published "attendance" number, but 4200 seats is more than enough to accommodate any actual Mystics crowd I have seen this season, and I use the word crowd only because I can't think of a better word for a sparse gathering of people at one location.

I want nothing but success for every WNBA franchise, Mystics included, and I know you hate the move for a number of reasons - some of which are pretty rock solid. I just don't think this one is.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 9:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

They reported 12,000 for one game. Even with the usual Mystics inflation, they still had over double 4200.

They were well over 4000 virtually every game this year. And again, that's even factoring in their well-known exaggeration.

Maybe this looks like a good move from twelve thousand miles away. From ten miles away the contrary reality is glaringly obvious.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24327
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/16 11:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
They were well over 4000 virtually every game this year.

Actual humans? Have you watched any Mystics games? Anything in four figures is often generous.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/16/16 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Im very curious as to the experience in Dallas, well, Arlington, this year. How did that go? Was that a good experience for the fans? Did it make money for the Wings?

I really havent heard anything about how this worked in a smaller venue. I thought it was the best way to go, but you never know until you try.

Does anyone have any insight as to how the smaller arena affected the Wings this year, and how it affected the fan experience?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 4202



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/16/16 7:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

9/15 Washington vs Atlanta NBATV 54,000

The USWNT drubbing of Thailand averaged 266,000 on ESPN2. The first Drone Racing League broadcast on ESPN2 at 11pm ET averaged 106,000 viewers.


awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 4202



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

9/16 Minnesota vs Indiana NBATV 77,000
9/16 San Antonio vs Los Angeles NBATV 47,000

The E League Qualifier averaged 361,000 viewers on TBS at 10pm ET. Sure, it had a favorable and presumably compatible lead-in, but at the end of the day, it's people playing video games.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 9:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I can't imagine the first round games on ESPNEWS will be any better than any NBATV ratings.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66774
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 10:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

toad455 wrote:
I can't imagine the first round games on ESPNEWS will be any better than any NBATV ratings.


They'll be a little better because they're not competing with local broadcasts in the home markets.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 10:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I can't say I'm familiar with America's tv setup but ESPNEWS for the WNBA playoffs sounds pretty disrespecty to me.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 11:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
I can't say I'm familiar with America's tv setup but ESPNEWS for the WNBA playoffs sounds pretty disrespecty to me.


I'm curious.... do the international fans get all the live broadcasts on League Pass, no matter what station it's being broadcast on in the states?



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21903



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/16 11:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
I'm curious.... do the international fans get all the live broadcasts on League Pass, no matter what station it's being broadcast on in the states?

Australia gets them all.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 4202



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/16 8:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

9/17 Atlanta vs Minnesota NBATV 64,000
9/18 Dallas vs Indiana ESPN2 97,000
9/18 Chicago vs Seattle NBATV 47,000

toad455 wrote:
I can't imagine the first round games on ESPNEWS will be any better than any NBATV ratings.


Technically they will be zero, because ESPN stopped ordering Nielsen ratings for ESPNEWS a while ago. Before they stopped, the network was in around the same number of homes as ESPNU, so assume around 60%. NBATV is in around 46% of television households. For that reason, do not expect to find ratings for those two games.

Whether non-hardcore fans will be able to find ESPNEWS is a different question. It probably depends on where the channel is located in the wider lineup. On DirecTV for examples, ESPNEWS is on 207, between ESPN at 206 and ESPN2 at 209 (ESPNU at 208) so sports fans just surfing channels on the system would probably stumble on it if they are interested. The other issue of course is the 6pm ET start of the first game as the overall television audience at that hour is obviously much lower than later in the night even if that means less competition.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/21/16 9:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
9/17 Atlanta vs Minnesota NBATV 64,000
9/18 Dallas vs Indiana ESPN2 97,000
9/18 Chicago vs Seattle NBATV 47,000

toad455 wrote:
I can't imagine the first round games on ESPNEWS will be any better than any NBATV ratings.


Technically they will be zero, because ESPN stopped ordering Nielsen ratings for ESPNEWS a while ago. Before they stopped, the network was in around the same number of homes as ESPNU, so assume around 60%. NBATV is in around 46% of television households. For that reason, do not expect to find ratings for those two games.

Whether non-hardcore fans will be able to find ESPNEWS is a different question. It probably depends on where the channel is located in the wider lineup. On DirecTV for examples, ESPNEWS is on 207, between ESPN at 206 and ESPN2 at 209 (ESPNU at 208) so sports fans just surfing channels on the system would probably stumble on it if they are interested. The other issue of course is the 6pm ET start of the first game as the overall television audience at that hour is obviously much lower than later in the night even if that means less competition.


On our Comcast, ESPNews is 726, right after ESPN (724), ESPN2 (725) and just before NBATV (727).



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin