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

2017 TV Ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[quote="pilight" The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.[/quote]

Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The WNBA is a farm system for players to develop and monetize their skills for overseas teams that pay well and the various national teams.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
josephkramer44 wrote:
I have discovered one of the reasons a lot of people don't care for the WNBA is the fact that it is dependent upon subsidies from the NBA. "You call it a subsidy, I call it charity" is how one person I asked responded. The linking of the WNBA with the NBA in advertisement and events and so on actually has an opposite effect. "If I can't get paid to do what I love because it isn't profitable then why should they (the players in the WNBA) be able to?" It is a bit on the bitter side but there is some truth to these statements.


That's not the real reason they're not watching. That's just the business casual version of misogyny. The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


I just went looking for info on the D-league (now G for Gatorade league) and found a 2015 article by an agent that says the league’s salaries range from $13,000 to $25,500. They play a 50 game winter schedule, so the players give up playing in Europe to play in the D league.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 10:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Somehow I doubt that showing off new uniforms is going to make more people buy tickets or watch on TV.

And the WNBA is neither new nor particularly hip. Yes, it's heavily populated by black women and lesbians, but the demographic mix (and better unis) are not what people pay to see. The product is the game on the court, and in the end, any industry is selling its product, not its accessories.

I do agree about the smaller venues, though. I think if the league played in 8,000-seat arenas it would improve the look significantly -- but the problem there is that NBA-affiliated teams pretty much have to fill those 17 summer dates in the NBA arenas. That's one of the major attractions for an NBA owner.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 12:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Somehow I doubt that showing off new uniforms is going to make more people buy tickets or watch on TV.

And the WNBA is neither new nor particularly hip. Yes, it's heavily populated by black women and lesbians, but the demographic mix (and better unis) are not what people pay to see. The product is the game on the court, and in the end, any industry is selling its product, not its accessories.

I do agree about the smaller venues, though. I think if the league played in 8,000-seat arenas it would improve the look significantly -- but the problem there is that NBA-affiliated teams pretty much have to fill those 17 summer dates in the NBA arenas. That's one of the major attractions for an NBA owner.


The new motivation, if Leonsis is any indication, is to provide cheap content for his streaming service during the slow summer months.

Oh, and as a bargaining chip to trade for Government subsidies for his "serious" businesses.

Either way, selling tickets or filling off season his big downtown arena seems far down the list.

The problem I have with smaller arenas is that it caps future growth. Now maybe that's just being realistic and I'm dreaming to think that in ten years WNBA games might attract 10 or 12 thousand, but if you lock them in to long term leases on 6 or 8 thousand seat arenas (and I'll ignore 4200 as hopefully an aberration), then they aren't ever going to draw more than that. And if ticket sales are capped, realistically so are the absurdly low player salaries. I'd be willing to trade half full arenas today to at least keep alive the possibility of significant future growth. It's pretty depressing to think the status quo is also the upper limit.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA. I find that a somewhat bizarre excuse.

But I also think comparing the financial situation of the WNBA to the D League is equally far fetched.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.



Since you felt compelled to butt in, maybe you can show me where exactly in this post was Pilght's reply 'I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W" addressed to josephkramer.

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 6:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.



Since you felt compelled to butt in, maybe you can show me where exactly in this post was Pilght's reply 'I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W" addressed to josephkramer.

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


He made a response to something josephkramer44 said, which was that some people don't watch the WNBA because it is subsidized. You don't agree with the position of josephkramer44 but still want to debate his response to josephkramer44. He wasn't swayed by your argument that his argument was invalid.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 4:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Don't underestimate what a good campaign and re-branding can accomplish. A great example from the early 1990s is Kentucky Fried Chicken. They were on their way out and with a whimper. However a careful combination of a new name that made the fried aspect of their food less obvious and some new fashion and a renewed effort towards customer satisfaction and outreach brought them back. Their food was the same as before (disgusting), nothing changed except for a few different names and combinations. But they rescued themselves (there was also a legal aspect to the name change as well). So don't be too dismissive.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 6:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 11:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


Good! We can have Griner, Fowles, Jones, and Charles foul out in the first quarter and watch a slugfest between Pedersen, George, Zahui B, and Howard! Exactly what the league needs to bench the biggest stars!

I'm not sure that reducing the number of fouls is the way to go especially with the number of questionable calls that can happen in a game.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 12:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
tfan wrote:
My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


Good! We can have Griner, Fowles, Jones, and Charles foul out in the first quarter and watch a slugfest between Pedersen, George, Zahui B, and Howard! Exactly what the league needs to bench the biggest stars!

I'm not sure that reducing the number of fouls is the way to go especially with the number of questionable calls that can happen in a game.


The women of the WNBA are allocated the most fouls per minute. More than NBA, and NCAA. And not surprisingly, they commit the most fouls per minute. I suspect that given the lowest foul allocation, the WNBA players would commit the least fouls per minute. The top players would adjust their play to commit less fouls. And if they somehow found that impossible, I think the average fan enjoys watching Pedersen, George, Zahui B and Howard as much as they do the Olympians. Less fouls allocated would mean more scoring by all players on all teams as defenders would have to back off and not be "physical".

Or alternatively, you could get an even greater speed up of the game by eliminating foul shots. Just award points and continue play. There's a lot of complaining here about fouls slowing down the game (always attributed to the refs and not the players), in addition to the normal complaints that the rooted-for team didn't commit a lot of the fouls that were called.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 7:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would definitely go for 5 fouls per game. Same per minute as the NBA. I don't care if the stars foul out or not. Most star players are playing around 30-34 minutes anyway.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 10:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
Don't underestimate what a good campaign and re-branding can accomplish. A great example from the early 1990s is Kentucky Fried Chicken. They were on their way out and with a whimper. However a careful combination of a new name that made the fried aspect of their food less obvious and some new fashion and a renewed effort towards customer satisfaction and outreach brought them back. Their food was the same as before (disgusting), nothing changed except for a few different names and combinations. But they rescued themselves (there was also a legal aspect to the name change as well). So don't be too dismissive.


An excellent point ... but that example is from 25 years ago. In that span, how many marketing plans have failed to move the needle? McDonald's has been trying to shift its market base to 20somethings for a while now, but they're still struggling.

It might be possible for the WNBA to rebrand and re-emphasize, but what precisely would that rebranding and re-emphasis change? Though the KFC model is a nice one, it also could be that people began to believe that chicken was a lot healthier than beef, and there was much more cultural emphasis on healthy eating than a few years before. It could be that the marketing did it all by itself.

Still, though, we've seen a lot of different marketing efforts from the WNBA over the years, from sex appeal to skilled play to hard work ... maybe the magic wand is out there waiting to be waved, but it's not like the league has been run by idiots who have just done the same thing for 20 years.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 10:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

McDonalds is a good example of a very small change making a big difference. In the past year they went to an all day breakfast menu. Has helped them a lot. As for the WNBA, I don't think there are many silver bullets out there, but I think maybe the Daily Fantasy and Twitter deals may help generate more fan interest. They ought to push than angle a lot. Nothing better than an addiction (like gambling) to keep people interested. Perhaps your ticket number can be worth some amount of $ on Fan Duel/Draft Kings.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12493
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.



Years ago ? You mean like a decade plus ago Laughing The WNBA is not going anywhere and there is no ceiling to peak or fall . The league is still young has been around twice as long as anyone expected and will still be here for year 50 so please calm calm



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 9:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.


I think the entire sports industry will face long-term problems, given not only the steadily advancing age of the audience, but also the impact of drug and genetic modifications to human performance. When CRISPR/Cas9 starts being used on humans (if it isn't already), the fundamental nature of competitive sports will change completely.

But that's long-term. Short term, I don't see the WNBA going anywhere because regardless of the form of the broadcast industry, content is still king, and the WNBA is cheap content.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 1:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If ESPN2 goes off the air then that could be the silver bullet. ESPN has made several big mistakes in the last few years and their ratings (even on their more popular programs) are sinking like a rock. Downsizing will probably continue there. Unless there is enough demand that real money can be made off of streaming services. I think that for the less popular sports in the world that is the wave of the future. Stuff like soccer, lacrosse and so on won't be broadcast on tv at all, because the advertising dollars won't be there.
If the NBA wants it the WNBA can be supported for as long as it wants. The costs aren't too great. But it will be as a charity case. Which is sad. It will be hard to find anyone willing to independently finance a team that will at very best break even.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 1:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
If ESPN2 goes off the air then that could be the silver bullet. ESPN has made several big mistakes in the last few years and their ratings (even on their more popular programs) are sinking like a rock. Downsizing will probably continue there. Unless there is enough demand that real money can be made off of streaming services. I think that for the less popular sports in the world that is the wave of the future. Stuff like soccer, lacrosse and so on won't be broadcast on tv at all, because the advertising dollars won't be there.
If the NBA wants it the WNBA can be supported for as long as it wants. The costs aren't too great. But it will be as a charity case. Which is sad. It will be hard to find anyone willing to independently finance a team that will at very best break even.


I think the NBA will likely continue to require the WNBA be televised as part of its contract.

One reason is that the NBA-owned teams use up 17 arena dates in the summer, which are hard to come by. Having 4,500 people in the arena is better than having it dark.

Another reason is that if the WNBA dies another women's league -- albeit at a lower financial level -- would appear, and though it seems remote, the threat of any other professional league forming in the U.S. outside the NBA's control is a serious danger to the NBA monopoly. Any pro league could wind up being a springboard for a challenge to the NBA (think ABA and AFL), and a very expensive challenge to thwart.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 3:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK I think you have hit the nail on the head. The NBA would rather the WNBA didn't need support, but they would much rather have that than another women's league spring up in the regular NBA season. Even if it wasn't very good it would be in competition with the NBA for fans $. No team wants another sports team in town during their season. Only a small single digit % drop in ticket sales would likely cost the NBA far more than the WNBA does. Further, by linking the NBA and WNBA TV contracts the owners effectively cut the cost in half because half of NBA revenue goes to players under the CBA. On top of that there is the tax effect to boot. So it ends up costing NBA teams very little to support the WNBA.

Now, ESPN probably doesn't like this at all, which is why they do such a crappy job of covering the WNBA and go out their way at times to make the league look bad.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 11:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that ESPN's coverage of the league is not very flattering and downright damn terrible to say the least.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 10:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that ESPN's coverage of the league is not very flattering and downright damn terrible to say the least.


By now you know I'm a contrarian ...

I watch the NBA and the summer league pretty regularly, and I notice that ESPN has one of its main NBA guys doing play-by-play for the W, and Rebecca Lobo is a good analyst.

The production values aren't the same as the NBA, but they aren't bad either (it's cheap to do basketball once you have the truck).

I don't notice anything particularly unflattering or negative about the ESPN coverage, but maybe I'm missing some things. What specifically is ESPN doing that's bad for the WNBA?



_________________
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  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
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