FS1 progress

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right on cue.  Article in this weeks Sports Business Journal on FS1 trends












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."

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[chapman]

Yee haw

[jesmu84]

was ESPN's dip in february due to the end of football? Just curious why their numbers went down so much

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[brandx]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[bradley center bat]

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.

[bradley center bat]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[jesmu84]

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.

[Coleman]

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?

[Knight Commission]

Its all about the NFL.  

They should be big time bidders if Thursday nights expand.

[brandx]

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.

[brandx]

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.

[swoopem]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

Its all about the NFL.  

They should be big time bidders if Thursday nights expand.

Already expanded....CBS got them a few weeks ago.

[jesmu84]

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".

[Benny B]

Yee haw

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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   ).

[brandx]

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..