Right on cue. Article in this weeks Sports Business Journal on FS1 trends
(http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/03/Media/~/media/7CFA3D4D9FF04F9996A1F7E0A5D9A390.ashx?h=729&w=300)
(http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/03/Media/~/media/C2C36D6B6D5847C3B0F429F13950411F.ashx?h=299&w=600)
(http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/03/Media/~/media/DCF06E22BD764D33B4EFEDF7C142FC52.ashx?h=385&w=600)
(http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/03/Media/~/media/B62582DFDCA94BD39DDC45D363606897.ashx?h=475&w=600)
One week before the launch of Fox Sports 1 last August, the channel's most recognizable talent, Regis Philbin, told the Los Angeles Times, "I think it's time for ESPN to get a little competition, don't you?"
That theme of Fox Sports 1 competing with ESPN proved to be irresistible to members of the business press, many of whom drew parallels with Fox News' 1996 launch that took on an entrenched CNN.
Six months later, though, it's clear that Fox Sports 1 isn't ESPN — not by a long shot. It's not even ESPN2 yet.
But its audience is bigger and better than its predecessor Speed, and Fox Sports executives say that they are encouraged by the viewership trends they've seen during the last month as it has started to produce live NASCAR races on the channel for the first time.
"Our first goal was to do better with Fox Sports 1 than we were doing with Speed," said Bill Wanger, Fox Sports Media Group's executive vice president of programming, research and content strategy. "We achieved that."
Wanger noted a number of other benefits to Fox Sports 1's launch: added distribution and a younger, more advertiser friendly audience.
He pointed to Fox Sports 1's distribution as a sign of where Fox Sports 1 is delivering more value than Speed. Fox Sports 1 is in 87 million homes and has signed long-term carriage deals with Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse. That's a healthy increase from the beginning of 2013, when Speed was in 81 million homes.
Wanger also cited viewership and demographic comparisons with Speed that tell a good story for the new channel. Fox Sports 1 has a bigger, younger, more affluent and more diverse audience than the former motorsports channel.
Fox Sports 1 is averaging 292,000 viewers in prime time from its Aug. 17 launch through Feb. 23, a figure that's up 70 percent versus Speed from a corresponding time period a year earlier. Fox Sports 1's viewership in the 18-to-49 prime-time demo averages 98,000 viewers, up 96 percent over Speed. The channel's median age in prime time has dropped by more than three years to 47.7. And the median income of its prime-time audience is up 9 percent over Speed to $60,800.
Most encouraging to Fox Sports executives was the channel's performance the week before the Daytona 500, when it posted its three biggest audiences and saw bigger numbers than the same programming on Speed last year.
"We've actually improved the performance of things like NASCAR," Wanger said. "That's always an important thing, to make sure you can get those key audiences to find the channel and to like the channel."
Fox Sports 1 made a lot of noise in the run-up to its August launch, celebrating the launch of the country's newest all-sports channels with parties, press conferences and daily announcements. Fox Sports 1's first night of programming averaged 1.78 million viewers for a UFC event, out-rating ESPN on the night.
The ensuing months were much more subdued for the network, as it launched shows and produced events that drew relatively small audiences and studio shows that received mixed reviews. It's no secret that the best TV ratings come from live events, and Fox Sports still has the rights to a lot of live sports that have yet to make an appearance on the channel. As those sports find their way onto Fox Sports 1's schedule, executives expect to see ratings continue to increase.
"We've rolled out maybe half of our programming," Wanger said. "We still have MLB to go. We still have Sprint Cup and Nationwide races next year. We get the U.S. Open and the other USGA events. We get the Women's World Cup in 2015 and the men's World Cup in 2018. We're just getting started."
But not all live events have performed well on the channel, particularly in college. This past season, its college football games averaged 529,000 viewers. Last season, a smaller package of games aired on FX and averaged 611,000 viewers.
Its college basketball numbers have been underwhelming, too. ESPNU has produced twice as many games as FS1 (260 to 126), and its viewership is 49 percent higher (138,383 versus 92,790). Fox Sports 1's college basketball numbers illustrate some of the problems the network is having as it tries to break viewer habits and promote the network effectively to bring college basketball fans over to FS1.
Since its mid-August launch, Fox Sports executives have produced studio programming with the mandate to be different. Its studio shows have a different look and feel to the ones on ESPN or NBCSN.
Not all of them have found an audience, and Fox executives have not been shy about tinkering with them. Late last year, it took "Fox Soccer Daily" off its schedule. A spokesman said Fox is "still evaluating the show." Fox also has tinkered with "Fox Sports Live," which looks vastly different today from when it launched in August. It's now more focused on highlights and less focused on panel discussions.
Fox executives say they are still committed to the studio shows, even though they haven't registered with viewers yet. Through Feb. 16, the 11 p.m. ET edition of "Fox Sports Live" averaged just 83,000 viewers. During that same time period, the least-viewed 11 p.m. edition of "SportsCenter" still drew four times as many viewers to ESPN. That Nov. 17 edition of "SportsCenter" went up against the "Sunday Night Football" Chiefs-Broncos game and averaged 349,000 viewers.
Even its most heavily hyped shows have fallen flat, as during a Super Bowl week that was envisioned as a coming out party for the network, Philbin's show, "Crowd Goes Wild," averaged just 58,200 viewers per show.
"It's too early to say that something hasn't worked or something has definitively worked because we're six months into this," said David Nathanson, Fox Sports 1's general manager and chief operating officer. "At this point, I don't think the runway is long enough to make an accurate determination."
Fox executives expect studio show viewership to increase, as the channel continues to roll out more high-profile live sports events. Following a NASCAR race last month, "Fox Sports Live" drew 2.2 million viewers and beat "SportsCenter" for the first time. Fox executives hope to have similar successes around additional NASCAR races and later this summer when it carries MLB games. Fox is committed to the channel and its executives stress that they plan to be patient with it. By the time the World Cup rolls around in 2018, they hope the channel will be part of every sports fan's rotation.
"We knew that this would be a long haul in terms of establishing ourselves and becoming a viable alternative," Wanger said. "We're in the infant stage of this whole thing."
Its a start. I especially like it because I feel like 6 months is way past the "honeymoon stage" of the fact that it is a new station. I no nothing about TV ratings but the fact that its growing after 6 months looks good.
Yee haw
(http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp353/CathertonTTU/1408_poor-and-stupid_1024x768.jpg?t=1286424717)
was ESPN's dip in february due to the end of football? Just curious why their numbers went down so much
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 04, 2014, 12:26:04 PM
was ESPN's dip in february due to the end of football? Just curious why their numbers went down so much
Yes, plus Olympics pulls viewers away from many other networks, including ESPN.
Chicos:
These articles make is sound like it's a failure because it did not open its doors with the same numbers as ESPN. Did Fox really expect this? I'm sure that had internal projections before they started. Do we know what they were?
Other than Big East basketball, I have seen nothing to make me watch FS1 over ESPN.
No interest in fightin' or car racin' so it's got nothing for me. And Fox Sports Live doesn't measure up to Sportscenter . NFL coverage? Not even close.
On the bright side, they have time to improve.
Quote from: brandx on March 04, 2014, 12:51:27 PM
Other than Big East basketball, I have seen nothing to make me watch FS1 over ESPN.
No interest in fightin' or car racin' so it's got nothing for me. And Fox Sports Live doesn't measure up to Sportscenter . NFL coverage? Not even close.
On the bright side, they have time to improve.
See I much perfer Fox Sports Live. Jay and Dan are so much better then any of those scrubs they have doing sportscnter.
As someone that is watching college football morning till late night. The batch of games they got this year were not as good compared to 2012. The Pac-12/Big12 deal is split with ESPN and FOX.
FS1 will have 40+ MLB games this summer.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-on-fox-releases-2014-tv-schedule-with-games-on-fs1-too-022714
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 04, 2014, 12:45:58 PM
Chicos:
These articles make is sound like it's a failure because it did not open its doors with the same numbers as ESPN. Did Fox really expect this? I'm sure that had internal projections before they started. Do we know what they were?
As I stated last summer, it was NEVER going to be a competitor to ESPN out of the gate and they knew this from the start. They publicly said this. It takes years to build up the content, the platform, etc. They expect to lose money the first few years. They've had growing pains, perhaps more than they thought, but everyone knew what the expectations were.
I know I'm probably not the exact demographic, but I loathe when ESPN, etc. hire "big name" athletes as analysts - it's as much a PR stunt as it is for good coverage. Give me advanced stats guys, people who breakdown plays, etc.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 04, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
I know I'm probably not the exact demographic, but I loathe when ESPN, etc. hire "big name" athletes as analysts - it's as much a PR stunt as it is for good coverage. Give me advanced stats guys, people who breakdown plays, etc.
Totally agree. How cool would it be to get Nate Silver his show on FS1 for a half hour everyday?
Its all about the NFL.
They should be big time bidders if Thursday nights expand.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 04, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
I know I'm probably not the exact demographic, but I loathe when ESPN, etc. hire "big name" athletes as analysts - it's as much a PR stunt as it is for good coverage. Give me advanced stats guys, people who breakdown plays, etc.
Moss, Urlacher, Barber, Fujita
I'll take the ESPN jocks over these guys.
Quote from: bradley center bat on March 04, 2014, 12:56:23 PM
FS1 will have 40+ MLB games this summer.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-on-fox-releases-2014-tv-schedule-with-games-on-fs1-too-022714
This is the big one until there is bidding on the new NFL deal. And it also is an area where they can beat ESPN - at least for those who don't live in NYC or Boston.
Looks like a pretty good representation of the good teams in both leagues. Every game will not involve either the Red Sox or Yankees.
Quote from: Knight Commission on March 04, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
Its all about the NFL.
They should be big time bidders if Thursday nights expand.
I'm pretty sure Thursday night games are moving to CBS this Fall
Quote from: Knight Commission on March 04, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
Its all about the NFL.
They should be big time bidders if Thursday nights expand.
Already expanded....CBS got them a few weeks ago.
Quote from: brandx on March 04, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
Moss, Urlacher, Barber, Fujita
I'll take the ESPN jocks over these guys.
I don't want any jocks on any network. Dilfer, Ray Lewis, Schefter? Please. They all suck. Granted, some do work out, but far frequently it's just another "name".
Quote from: chapman on March 04, 2014, 12:22:36 PM
Yee haw
(http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp353/CathertonTTU/1408_poor-and-stupid_1024x768.jpg?t=1286424717)
NASCAR, College Football, NFL, UFC.... what's the common thread? The very foundation of their business model depends upon the blind loyalty and/or ignorance of undereducated populations throughout the country. Can't blame Fox Sports for going down the path of capitalism; you go to any trailer park, and you'll have a heck of time finding a home without a dish installed or a upper-tier digital cable package.
Cable ratings are meaningless... you just need to have exclusive access to the right program or lineup that will be so in demand that the cable provider will have no choice but to add you to the lineup - then you collect your subscriber fees from everyone. Undereducated people are bread-and-butter for cable channels... these are the people who lack the critical thinking & cost-benefit skills that would typically preclude a consumer from paying for a channel (or package) just so they can watch one or two programs all year on it.
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:10:30 PM
Cable ratings are meaningless... you just need to have exclusive access to the right program or lineup that will be so in demand that the cable provider will have no choice but to add you to the lineup - then you collect your subscriber fees from everyone. Undereducated people are bread-and-butter for cable channels... these are the people who lack the critical thinking & cost-benefit skills that would typically preclude a consumer from paying for a channel (or package) just so they can watch one or two programs all year on it.
You are forgetting about the other huge revenue stream...advertisers. Ratings are not meaningless to them.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 04, 2014, 02:13:00 PM
You are forgetting about the other huge revenue stream...advertisers. Ratings are not meaningless to them.
http://billniemeyer.tv/2009/05/10/todays-cable-tv-revenue-split-and-why-over-the-top-likely-cant-be-ad-supported-only/
Chicos probably has some better numbers, but one industry estimate is that over half of revenues come from subscriber fees, not from advertising revenue.
For ESPN, 60% comes from subscription fees.
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51d1bfceeab8ea9124000010-608-457/untitled-2-219.jpg)
FSL has replaced Sportscenter for me. I can't stand a show that spends more time covering Lebron James in a year than it does all of the NHL.
And I'm a Miami Heat fan. And I don't like hockey. But that breakdown is ridiculous.
However, I still go to espn.com for all my sports info.
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:10:30 PM
NASCAR, College Football, NFL, UFC.... what's the common thread? The very foundation of their business model depends upon the blind loyalty and/or ignorance of undereducated populations throughout the country. Can't blame Fox Sports for going down the path of capitalism; you go to any trailer park, and you'll have a heck of time finding a home without a dish installed or a upper-tier digital cable package.
Cable ratings are meaningless... you just need to have exclusive access to the right program or lineup that will be so in demand that the cable provider will have no choice but to add you to the lineup - then you collect your subscriber fees from everyone. Undereducated people are bread-and-butter for cable channels... these are the people who lack the critical thinking & cost-benefit skills that would typically preclude a consumer from paying for a channel (or package) just so they can watch one or two programs all year on it.
I think an awful lot of stereotyping going on with this one. The demographics for NASCAR are better than you think, lots of disposable income especially when you adjust it for where fans live. Just because NASCAR fans tend to be in the south, they over index vs the general population on income and their income goes a lot farther there than NYC, Madison, San Fran, Chicago or Los Angeles.
College football demos are through the roof, as are NFL and UFC.
Here's a fun test for some of you
Identify the correct sports fan with the correct column based on HH income. Sports are MLS, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, NFL, and MLB (these may or may not be in the correct order ;)).
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2rgm5xu.jpg)
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 04, 2014, 01:59:49 PM
I don't want any jocks on any network. Dilfer, Ray Lewis, Schefter? Please. They all suck. Granted, some do work out, but far frequently it's just another "name".
Dilfer is one of the better analists, IMO, Schefter is so-so and Lewis is terrible. I just think the mix is better on ESPN.
Will be interested to see what they do for baseball talk. Long way to go to equal MLB network or even ESPN..
Quote from: brandx on March 04, 2014, 03:43:54 PM
Dilfer is one of the better analists, IMO, Schefter is so-so and Lewis is terrible. I just think the mix is better on ESPN.
Will be interested to see what they do for baseball talk. Long way to go to equal MLB network or even ESPN..
I actually was mistaken. Didn't mean to put Schefter. Meant to include Schlereth on that list. Cannot stand that guy.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 04, 2014, 03:01:34 PM
FSL has replaced Sportscenter for me. I can't stand a show that spends more time covering Lebron James in a year than it does all of the NHL.
And I'm a Miami Heat fan. And I don't like hockey. But that breakdown is ridiculous.
However, I still go to espn.com for all my sports info.
funny you should mention that..
http://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/super-page/anyone-know-where-i-can-find-some-lebron-highlights/
also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/bob-ley-lebron-james-twitter-romo-espn_n_4818254.html
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:10:30 PM
NASCAR, College Football, NFL, UFC.... what's the common thread? The very foundation of their business model depends upon the blind loyalty and/or ignorance of undereducated populations throughout the country. Can't blame Fox Sports for going down the path of capitalism; you go to any trailer park, and you'll have a heck of time finding a home without a dish installed or a upper-tier digital cable package.
Cable ratings are meaningless... you just need to have exclusive access to the right program or lineup that will be so in demand that the cable provider will have no choice but to add you to the lineup - then you collect your subscriber fees from everyone. Undereducated people are bread-and-butter for cable channels... these are the people who lack the critical thinking & cost-benefit skills that would typically preclude a consumer from paying for a channel (or package) just so they can watch one or two programs all year on it.
That's funny. I love NASCAR fans! My dad and I go to Charlotte and Bristol races every year. Go Kyle Busch!
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 04, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
I actually was mistaken. Didn't mean to put Schefter. Meant to include Schlereth on that list. Cannot stand that guy.
Yeah - definitely agree on Schlereth.
When I say I prefer ESPN, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of garbage there too.
But overall, I don't think there is any comparison when taken as a whole. There is nothing innovative at FS1, but hopefully it will come over the next couple years.
There's only so much you can do on the MLB, NBA, & NFL talk shows, so it really comes down to the quality of the people and I just feel that ESPN is light years ahead right now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 04, 2014, 03:26:57 PM
I think an awful lot of stereotyping going on with this one. The demographics for NASCAR are better than you think, lots of disposable income especially when you adjust it for where fans live. Just because NASCAR fans tend to be in the south, they over index vs the general population on income and their income goes a lot farther there than NYC, Madison, San Fran, Chicago or Los Angeles.
College football demos are through the roof, as are NFL and UFC.
Here's a fun test for some of you
Identify the correct sports fan with the correct column based on HH income. Sports are MLS, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, NFL, and MLB (these may or may not be in the correct order ;)).
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2rgm5xu.jpg)
answers please
FS1 is a nice alternative, but they need to spend some money to draw in some more viewers.
- in game announcers need to have done their research and not sound like they missed all 11 coffees they normally drink. Channel surfers will be drawn in by excitement, and most of these announcers hardly have a pulse
- pre-game/ half time with Austin Crosher is mind-numbing. Sometimes I miss the start of either half because I forget to switch back from more interesting programming
- Leverage BEAST to improve quality - better game venues, better officiating, better profiles of teams and coaches... not 3rd grade level "3 things to know about Davante Gardner" . (If I was Villanova AD, I would absolutely NOT have wanted that MU game off campus)
- Better planning so they don't have to start the 2nd game on channel 3211 which 0.00000067% of the viewing universe subscribes to. Games at 2:30 intervals rather than 2:00? Duh, it's not that hard!
The biggest thing FoxSports can do is win the Big Ten rights when they come due in a couple of years. No other major conference comes due for awhile after that, and I can see Fox breaking the bank for those.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on March 04, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
The biggest thing FoxSports can do is win the Big Ten rights when they come due in a couple of years. No other major conference comes due for awhile after that, and I can see Fox breaking the bank for those.
If they bid for the big10, I hope the matchups are at least entertaining. I find that a lot of fs1's games are crappy. I watch MU and then switch over to espn immediately after. I'm not interested in Washington state vs Oregon state. Brutal.
If the BE weren't on fs1, I would never watch it. Ever.
Quote from: WarriorFan on March 04, 2014, 05:43:02 PM
- pre-game/ half time with Austin Crosher is mind-numbing. Sometimes I miss the start of either half because I forget to switch back from more interesting programming
If there is a male equivalent to a Stepford wife, Austin is it. Mind-numbing is the perfect term for him.
Quote from: Atticus on March 04, 2014, 05:52:33 PM
If they bid for the big10, I hope the matchups are at least entertaining. I find that a lot of fs1's games are crappy. I watch MU and then switch over to espn immediately after. I'm not interested in Washington state vs Oregon state. Brutal.
If the BE weren't on fs1, I would never watch it. Ever.
If FS gets the B10, they could really fill up their college football schedules in the fall, and put together really good slates of basketball games in the spring. The original Big Monday could return!
Doesn't Fox have a 49% share of the BTN? Would make for the perfect marriage. ....and the folks on the west coast would probably rather watch Oregon vs Washington than say Ohio State vs. Nebraska.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on March 04, 2014, 06:53:15 PM
Doesn't Fox have a 49% share of the BTN? Would make for the perfect marriage. ....and the folks on the west coast would probably rather watch Oregon vs Washington than say Ohio State vs. Nebraska.
Fox also owns the rights to the Big Ten Championship Game.
EA joining Gus and Raft!!
FOX Sports 1 puts the full-court press on college basketball, presenting live coverage of the BIG EAST and Pac-12 men's basketball tournaments next week. Home to the BIG EAST all season long, FOX Sports 1 has the entire BIG EAST Tournament from tip-off on Wednesday, March 12, until the champion is crowned on Saturday, March 15. America's new sports network also has three nights of Pac-12 Tournament action, including Saturday's championship game. FOX COLLEGE HOOPS TIP-OFF is on site at Madison Square Garden for full pregame, halftime and postgame highlights and analysis.
FOX Sports' lead college basketball broadcast team of play-by-play announcer Gus Johnson and analyst Bill Raftery bring their unique brand of exciting calls to seven of the BIG EAST Tournament's nine games, while Erin Andrews reports the latest news from behind the benches. Johnson, Raftery and Andrews call the prime-time contests each night, while Justin Kutcher and Tarik Turner have Thursday's afternoon matchups all live from Madison Square Garden in the heart of New York City.
Across the country in Las Vegas, play-by-play announcer Aaron Goldsmith, analyst Sean Elliott and reporter Molly McGrath call three Pac-12 Tournament contests live from the MGM Grand Garden beginning with the fourth quarterfinal on Thursday, Mach 13 (11:30 PM ET). Pac-12 coverage continues with the second semifinal on Friday, March 14 (11:30 PM ET) and concludes with the championship game on Saturday, March 15 (6:00 PM ET).
In addition, FOX Sports 1 airs the semifinals and finals of the Big 12 and BIG EAST women's basketball tournaments. Semifinals of the Big 12 women's tournament tip off Sunday, March 9, at 3:00 and 5:00 PM ET, with the championship game set for Monday, March 10, at 9:00 PM ET. Ron Thulin and Brenda VanLengen have the call live from Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City. FOX Sports 1's coverage of the BIG EAST women's tournament begins Monday, March 10 with semifinal action at 4:00 and 6:30 PM ET. The championship game gets underway at 9:00 PM ET on Tuesday, March 11 with Tiffany Greene and LaChina Robinson live from Allstate Arena in Chicago.
FOX COLLEGE HOOPS TIP-OFF host Rob Stone and analysts Austin Croshere and Turner are on site at Madison Square Garden, from Tuesday through Saturday, March 11-15, to break down all the action on and off the court. The crew also checks in with FOX Sports 1's signature nightly news, highlights and opinion show, FOX SPORTS LIVE, for regular updates beginning Tuesday, March 11. Villanova head coach Jay Wright joins Stone, Croshere and Turner for the pregame show on Wednesday, March 12 (6:30 PM) before the BIG EAST Tournament tips off.
Throughout its tournament coverage next week, FOX COLLEGE HOOPS TIP-OFF presents exclusive behind-the-scenes access to one of the top teams in the country. CREIGHTON ALL-ACCESS is a series of backstage features chronicling the Bluejays' journey during their first BIG EAST Tournament, with one feature running each night of the tournament. Additional stories airing during the week include PLAYING IN THE GARDEN, voiced by Brooklyn Nine-Nine's Andre Braugher, and a conversation between legendary Georgetown head coach John Thompson and his son, FOX Sports 1 college basketball analyst Ronny Thompson.
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:44:32 PM
http://billniemeyer.tv/2009/05/10/todays-cable-tv-revenue-split-and-why-over-the-top-likely-cant-be-ad-supported-only/
Chicos probably has some better numbers, but one industry estimate is that over half of revenues come from subscriber fees, not from advertising revenue.
For ESPN, 60% comes from subscription fees.
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51d1bfceeab8ea9124000010-608-457/untitled-2-219.jpg)
Both are important numbers, but for someone like your ESPN example the carriage (subscription) fees are more important. Don't forget the television ad dollars are linked as well. Digital ad revenue is still peanuts in the grand scheme of things. For other channels, the ad revenue can be higher than the subscription fees.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 04, 2014, 03:01:34 PM
FSL has replaced Sportscenter for me. I can't stand a show that spends more time covering Lebron James in a year than it does all of the NHL.
And I'm a Miami Heat fan. And I don't like hockey. But that breakdown is ridiculous.
However, I still go to espn.com for all my sports info.
cbssportline is better for college hoops!
Quote from: WarriorFan on March 04, 2014, 05:43:02 PM
FS1 is a nice alternative, but they need to spend some money to draw in some more viewers.
- in game announcers need to have done their research and not sound like they missed all 11 coffees they normally drink. Channel surfers will be drawn in by excitement, and most of these announcers hardly have a pulse
- pre-game/ half time with Austin Crosher is mind-numbing. Sometimes I miss the start of either half because I forget to switch back from more interesting programming
- Leverage BEAST to improve quality - better game venues, better officiating, better profiles of teams and coaches... not 3rd grade level "3 things to know about Davante Gardner" . (If I was Villanova AD, I would absolutely NOT have wanted that MU game off campus)
- Better planning so they don't have to start the 2nd game on channel 3211 which 0.00000067% of the viewing universe subscribes to. Games at 2:30 intervals rather than 2:00? Duh, it's not that hard!
MU at Nova had over 15,000 with their students on break. Why do you want that at campus that seats 6,500?
I don't need 30 minutes between games. 14 minutes is more than fine. just flip on FS2.
I'm sure they spent money on some guys. Raft cost a pretty penny!! ;)
Quote from: esard2011 on March 05, 2014, 06:51:01 PM
Truth
But the reality is that most people go to ESPN.com as their one stop sports website. It has been hard to break the habit of going there to check scores. Though, the fact that BE scores are buried for non top 25 games has helped me stop...
Quote from: bradley center bat on March 05, 2014, 07:02:06 PM
MU at Nova had over 15,000 with their students on break. Why do you want that at campus that seats 6,500?
I don't need 30 minutes between games. 14 minutes is more than fine. just flip on FS2.
I'm sure they spent money on some guys. Raft cost a pretty penny!! ;)
maybe there were over 15k tickets sold, but the upper deck was mostly empty.
I doubt Raf is an expensive fs1 employee. ESPN didnt renew his contract and let him walk.
Aren't most of the announcers in essence contractors, I see Rafferty is still doing games on CBS and when the tournament starts a bunch that do games on ESPN will be on CBS/TNT.
Quote from: chuncken on March 05, 2014, 07:09:25 PM
But the reality is that most people go to ESPN.com as their one stop sports website. It has been hard to break the habit of going there to check scores. Though, the fact that BE scores are buried for non top 25 games has helped me stop...
I used foxsports.com as my primary sports website for 8 years, way before they picked up the Big East or even talked about starting FS1. Then, right before basketball season, they changed the whole website. I can't stand it there now. Especially the scoreboard thing they have. Still watch mainly FS1 for my sports, but I've been using ESPN for my web info.
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:44:32 PM
http://billniemeyer.tv/2009/05/10/todays-cable-tv-revenue-split-and-why-over-the-top-likely-cant-be-ad-supported-only/
Chicos probably has some better numbers, but one industry estimate is that over half of revenues come from subscriber fees, not from advertising revenue.
For ESPN, 60% comes from subscription fees.
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51d1bfceeab8ea9124000010-608-457/untitled-2-219.jpg)
Right, but that's a little different than saying "ratings are meaningless."
Plus, what do you think drives subscription fees?
Quote from: Benny B on March 04, 2014, 02:44:32 PM
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51d1bfceeab8ea9124000010-608-457/untitled-2-219.jpg)
I found a similar chart for Fox Sports revenue projections in 2013. I think we were all forgetting about their biggest cash cow...
Click the image below to enlarge.
Quote from: Atticus on March 05, 2014, 07:26:13 PM
maybe there were over 15k tickets sold, but the upper deck was mostly empty.
All attendance are tickets sold, but that arena holds almost 22,000. The upper deck was empty behind the baskets. Most of the seating is in the lower bowl.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 06, 2014, 09:16:44 AM
Right, but that's a little different than saying "ratings are meaningless."
FS1 doesn't need daily ratings
right now, ratings & advertising revenue isn't going to keep them in business and get them off the ground; what will get them off the ground is subscription fees. Ergo, they simply need to achieve a certain threshold of demand that will allow them 1) favorable placement in cable/sat packages, and 2) the ability to negotiate a higher per subscriber fee. Once they have solidified their position in cable/sat lineups, they will hit a point of diminishing returns/revenues on the subscriber fee side, at which time, they can focus more on the ratings/advertising side.
Sure, there's a correlation, but ratings
per se are meaningless right now because the goal is achieved through different means. If ratings come along with it, gravy.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 06, 2014, 09:16:44 AM
Plus, what do you think drives subscription fees?
Demand drives subscription fees, plain and simple, and in this case, demand ≠ ratings. Demand comes from people whose cable/sat decision is influenced by the availability of a particular channel even if they might not watch a material portion of that channel's programming.
Take AMC for instance... there are people out there who tune into AMC only to watch the new episodes of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, whatever. Now take away those shows, and AMC's daily ratings suck royally because a significant portion of their audience only tunes in 13 times a year. That's 13 hours, or less than two-tenths of 1% of their entire programming year, that they score big ratings - a mere blip on average daily ratings numbers if you don't have anything else to draw millions of eyeballs every day. But if, for example, DirecTV eliminated AMC from their lineup, you would have hundreds of thousands of households, perhaps millions, switching to cable (or vice versa) simply based on their "need" to have AMC.
That's what drives subscription fees... having that one program, event, or series - even if it only airs 13 times a year - that is going to cause consumers to change their mind if you take the channel away from them, not whatever programming you use to fill the other 8,747 hours of the year.
Quote from: Benny B on March 06, 2014, 12:37:26 PM
Demand drives subscription fees, plain and simple, and in this case, demand ≠ ratings. Demand comes from people whose cable/sat decision is influenced by the availability of a particular channel even if they might not watch a material portion of that channel's programming.
Take AMC for instance... there are people out there who tune into AMC only to watch the new episodes of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, whatever. Now take away those shows, and AMC's daily ratings suck royally because a significant portion of their audience only tunes in 13 times a year. That's 13 hours, or less than two-tenths of 1% of their entire programming year, that they score big ratings - a mere blip on average daily ratings numbers if you don't have anything else to draw millions of eyeballs every day. But if, for example, DirecTV eliminated AMC from their lineup, you would have hundreds of thousands of households, perhaps millions, switching to cable (or vice versa) simply based on their "need" to have AMC.
That's what drives subscription fees... having that one program, event, or series - even if it only airs 13 times a year - that is going to cause consumers to change their mind if you take the channel away from them, not whatever programming you use to fill the other 8,747 hours of the year.
I agree with this. I don't think you need to have high ratings 12 hours a day. But you still need to have high ratings for those big events.
I think we are splitting hairs.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 06, 2014, 01:49:36 PM
I agree with this. I don't think you need to have high ratings 12 hours a day. But you still need to have high ratings for those big events.
I think we are splitting hairs.
Non subscription fees still account for over 40% of ESPN's revenue, so I would consider that quite substantial. And you need the ratings in order to get advertising revenue.
Quote from: esard2011 on March 04, 2014, 12:52:59 PM
See I much perfer Fox Sports Live. Jay and Dan are so much better then any of those scrubs they have doing sportscnter.
100% correct. It's not close. However, when they break away to "experts" Sportscenter blows Fox away. Donovan McNabb and Gary Peyton are dreadful, and they talk about every sport. I don't want to listen to McNabb break down basketball.
Quote from: brandx on March 06, 2014, 02:20:45 PM
Non subscription fees still account for over 40% of ESPN's revenue, so I would consider that quite substantial. And you need the ratings in order to get advertising revenue.
With the Dish deal announced two days ago and Directv deal next, the sub fees are going to increase quite a bit
Quote from: brandx on March 06, 2014, 02:20:45 PM
Non subscription fees still account for over 40% of ESPN's revenue, so I would consider that quite substantial. And you need the ratings in order to get advertising revenue.
And if you don't have a channel, you can't get the ratings.
I doubt Raf is an expensive fs1 employee. ESPN didnt renew his contract and let him walk.
[/quote]
Because he's brain-dead.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on March 06, 2014, 02:35:23 PM
100% correct. It's not close. However, when they break away to "experts" Sportscenter blows Fox away. Donovan McNabb and Gary Peyton are dreadful, and they talk about every sport. I don't want to listen to McNabb break down basketball.
McNabb played high school ball with Antoine Walker at Mount Carmel in Chicago. I think he also played 2 or 3 seasons in college.
I can't watch FS1 online but I can watch ESPN3 online.
I don't have cable and haven't seen an MU game this whole season without heading to a bar, restaurant, or a buddy's house.
Homer and Mac are just suiting me fine.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on March 06, 2014, 02:35:23 PM
100% correct. It's not close. However, when they break away to "experts" Sportscenter blows Fox away. Donovan McNabb and Gary Peyton are dreadful, and they talk about every sport. I don't want to listen to McNabb break down basketball.
McNabb knows basketball:
http://www.youtube.com/v/VxcpImdcEIA?version=3&hl=en_US">
Quote from: The Love House on March 06, 2014, 10:00:14 AM
I found a similar chart for Fox Sports revenue projections in 2013. I think we were all forgetting about their biggest cash cow...
Click the image below to enlarge.
Nicely played Love House.