" Going down the tubes" (a.k.a ABC/ESPN Presents: Basketball T.V...FROM ! )

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

" Going down the tubes"

by Bob Raissman

Stern's league in ratings crisis

Sunday, June 17th 2007, 4:00 AM

Back in April 2003, during the first season of the NBA's current six-year TV deals with TNT and ESPN/ABC, Greg Winik, an NBA suit, explained the cable-heavy contract.

"This (TV contract) model was based on squeezing more dollars out of potentially less viewers," Winik said.

He was right. For a total of $4.6 billion ($2.2 from TNT, $2.4 from ESPN/ABC) David Stern left NBC. He brought home the bacon for his owners, but gambled that the cable platform, which plays and promotes to a captive audience, would produce TV ratings that would allow the league to grow as a product while also appealing to the widest possible audience.

Stern's gamble has not paid off. The anemic ratings of the postseason, punctuated by the Spurs' sweep of Cleveland in the Finals, proves that the NBA has become marginalized as a TV product. The Finals finished with a record-low 6.2 rating, marking the fourth time in five years it has received a single-digit rating.

Stern is in the process of doing a new TV deal, most likely with the in bents. He might want to revisit its structure. Under the current contract, the road to ABC's Finals telecasts is pitted with potholes of confusion.

Who is carrying the games on a particular night? ESPN? TNT? A local regional sports network? Some combination? Finding an NBA playoff game is like trying to win at Three-card Monte. Not exactly a great strategy if the ultimate goal is to build viewer consistency and continuity.

[The absurdity crested a few weeks ago when a friend settled in on a Saturday night looking for a Spurs-Jazz conference final game. After surfing across all ESPN's channels, as well as checking TNT and TBS, he figured he misread the schedule. A half-hour later, while looking for an entertainment show, he stumbled across the game on a local ABC affiliate.

The idea that the ratings slide (ratings were down double-digit percentages from the 2006 Dallas-Miami Finals) has everything to do with a terrible matchup in the Finals, a night of compe ion from the final episode of HBO's "The Sopranos," and the after-9 o'clock starts, simply does not address the root of the problem. And it's a problem that will continue to keep NBA TV ratings down no matter how compe ive the matchup.
Stern traded a strong over-the-air network platform, which the NBA had on NBC, for 1) niche promotion, 2) a select and limited audience and 3) an infrequent "free" TV presence on ABC.

Without the presence of a dedicated network TV partner, most of the promotion for the postseason was seen on cable. While the league and its TV partners thought they might have struck gold with LeBron James making his Finals debut, the casual fan, critical to maximizing ratings, was neither enthused nor interested.

Going into Game 1, only hardcore NBA fans heard the LeBron buzz. Game 1 ratings were down 20% from the Dallas-Miami Game 1. If the NBA had a strong "free" TV presence during the regular season, the casual fan would have already been familiar with Mr. James. They would have felt compelled to check him out in the Finals.

Stern acknowledged the ratings shortfall but, as usual, spun it by pointing to the demographics the NBA attracts and how the TV ratings don't reflect a "new" audience, which accesses the product through NBA.com and other Internet sites.

The bet here is the commish would trade all those Internet hits for a double-digit NBA rating on ABC.

Poor Finals grades

If you did tune into the Finals, and contributed to ABC's ratings, you were stuck - literally.

Stuck with a very shaky production. ESPN, which produced the games on ABC, was on a mission to distract. Take Tuesday, Game 3, with 5.5 seconds left in the fourth, and Cleveland down three. During a timeout, viewers got a nice closeup of Cavs coach Mike Brown engaged in an animated discussion with James.
The audio was clear. Viewers were seeing and hearing them draw up a play for the final shot. Instead of staying with this inside look, the camera moved to a vanity closeup of the three announcers - Mike Breen, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy - who speculated on the strategy Brown might use.

This was absurd, but expected. There was no flow to ABC's coverage. The three-man booth was annoying, especially Van Gundy. For reasons known only to him, the coach decided he could make his points better if he screamed them. The only viewer option was to hit the mute button.

Which leads to this question: What was worse, the NBA Finals or ESPN's production?


...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...the_tubes.html



[this was also part of the article...]


Dude of the Week
Tim Duncan
For being about one, and only one, thing - performance. His contributions this season, which ended with the Spurs winning the NBA le, speak for themselves. That is Duncan's way. No boasts. No bravado. No in-your-face ads from Gatorade or Nike. Just four championship rings. Duncan does not blend in with NBA players who are more about chest thumping, talking and whining. The league will spend more time hyping Greg Oden and Kevin Durant than saluting its quiet superstar - the one with all those rings.




..

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Good that they're pointing their fingers at someone else other than the Spurs, and/or a watered down league. No matter how ho-hum the compe iveness of the series was, ABC's promos/coverage sucked just as bad in between, and sometimes during the games.
Also, I really dislike the way they have that moving camera during games.
It's like an itch you can't scratch, you wanna move around to get a better view, but you have to wait til' they switch the darn camera back.

IMO Van Gundy was the only plus about ABC's finals coverage, though.

[boutons_]

"moving camera during games"

It's technical masturbation.

"See how cool we are with our grandstand technical trick."

The wire-cam is distracting, violates our visual habits, and is motion-sickness inducing.

On my 65" TV, the image quality of the wire-cam is noticeably worse than the stationary cameras.

Wire-cam loses all the way around, but the techies insist on keeping their ugly baby.

[ChumpDumper]

They're making their money with the international viewers.

Just like ty movies.

Monday Night Football isn't even on broadcast stations anymore. Why are we all acting surprised at this?

[Extra Stout]

Every newspaper in America can write an article about low ratings, and insist Stern is destroying his league's ability to draw in TV revenues, but the following items still stand:

1) Disney and Turner are going to pay more to extend their NBA deals, not less.

2) The NBA Finals has gone from a USA-only TV event to one of the most watched sporting events worldwide.

[MadDog73]

Tony Parker will save the NBA.

[Spurminator]

This article is off on almost every point it tries to make.

The Conference Finals have always been broadcast on the network station, even when NBC was carrying them. The regular season schedule is really not very random at all. Thursdays on TNT, Fridays on ESPN, then ABC on Sundays. What's so difficult about that? I know the casual fan may not have that memorized, but that's still only three channels (not counting NBATV) that you'd have to check to find a game... not all that different from any other professional sport.

And then he goes after Van Gundy, who was by far the best thing about the Finals broadcast. This was easily the best game crew since ABC took over the NBA Finals, even with Mark Jackson.

[Spurminator]

Also, the low ratings compared to 2006 has a lot to do with the comparative size of Dallas vs. San Antonio. The Finals averaged 6.9 million viewing households this year compared to 9.4 million last year, a difference of 2.5 million.

The Dallas metro area has 2.4 million households compared to 774 thousand in San Antonio, a difference of about 1.6 million. If San Antonio was the same size as Dallas, that would probably amount to an entire rating point increase nationally (a rating point is about 1.1 million households), and no one would be talking about record lows.

This is an underlooked factor in this year's ratings, but it doesn't make for good sports analysis, which seems increasingly designed to somehow comfort fans of teams who failed this year.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Every newspaper in America can write an article about low ratings, and insist Stern is destroying his league's ability to draw in TV revenues, but the following items still stand:

1) Disney and Turner are going to pay more to extend their NBA deals, not less.

2) The NBA Finals has gone from a USA-only TV event to one of the most watched sporting events worldwide.

Just because there has been a growing market internationally, doesn't mean, the declining interest in the domestic markets, should be accepted, and continually marginalized. Even if Stern continues to increase payroll, with the television deals, and continual marketing (through the internet, etc..

I think the point of articles such as these are not to argue that the league hasn't been making money and are losing revenue due to ratings.
I think it's just highlighting the issue that less and less people in the U.S. are interested in the NBA, most of what is irksome to NBA consumers, is a matter of pride. Nobody in the U.S. wants to be watching a sport that's unpopular in its own country.
It's more of a sense that ratings are indicative, that the NBA trend might follow the way of Hockey in terms of popularity.
Just because the global market provides a lot of convenience for Stern and the league, in terms of revenue, doesn't mean he should ignore maximizing more profit, by regaining some of that domestic interest that they once had, Jordan's day. And with the Lebron example, you can't deny that everyone expected a higher turn out or interest in the crowned 'face of the league" --even the player's (like Tony Parker) expected more of a turn out or interest in Lebron, as good for the league. That didn't happen.
It might not be due to lack of promotion or the fault of ABC, but I guess it's more of an issue of how these networks ARE in a position to promote the game and attract viewers, AND get some of the domestic market back.

Instead of turning to other venues, why not consider continued efforts towards gaining both?

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Also, the low ratings compared to 2006 has a lot to do with the comparative size of Dallas vs. San Antonio. The Finals averaged 6.9 million viewing households this year compared to 9.4 million last year, a difference of 2.5 million.

The Dallas metro area has 2.4 million households compared to 774 thousand in San Antonio, a difference of about 1.6 million. If San Antonio was the same size as Dallas, that would probably amount to an entire rating point increase nationally (a rating point is about 1.1 million households), and no one would be talking about record lows.

This is an underlooked factor in this year's ratings, but it doesn't make for good sports analysis, which seems increasingly designed to somehow comfort fans of teams who failed this year.

Yeah, but in this specific case, Lebron's hype was supposed to make up for the small-market size, in attracting interest in beyond the team's fanbases. And that's why the "record low" is being written about, and using it to punctuate the ongoing trend.

The Conference Finals have always been broadcast on the network station, even when NBC was carrying them. The regular season schedule is really not very random at all. Thursdays on TNT, Fridays on ESPN, then ABC on Sundays. What's so difficult about that? I know the casual fan may not have that memorized, but that's still only three channels (not counting NBATV) that you'd have to check to find a game... not all that different from any other professional sport.

I think the article was addressing the listings during weekend games, especially during the Playoffs--and less of the typical TNT tues-thurs, and ESPN Fridays of the regular season. Sometimes on Saturdays, and Sundays games would be held on ABC, yet listed on ESPN in the local newspaper, and then, be playing on ABC. And sometimes on the ESPN webpage, a game would be listed nationally on ABC but then changed to ESPN. There's been too much leeway in anticipated rescheduling due to the convenience of ESPN. As opposed to NBC, when they were more fixed and standardized. Triple headers etc.

[Soul_Patch]

Charles barkley brought up a good point.


Do you know anyone that is a nielson rater?


Do you know any black people that are neilson raters?


Out of all the people on spurstalk...i wonder how many are neislon houses? Id venture to guess none.

[DarkReign]

Look at ratings for every show, every sporting event on every network across the country.

Theyre all markedly down.

Its called Market Saturation. With 303 channels to choose from, I could do any number of things with that time. The least of which was watching a forgone conclusion to the NBA Finals.

Im an NBA fan. I post regularly at a site called SpursTalk. And I didnt watch more than 20 mins of the 4 games played because the outcome was set in Moses stone. I have yet to watch a movie I already knew the outcome for, same goes for everything.

[Spurminator]

Do you know anyone that is a nielson rater?


Do you know any black people that are neilson raters?

Well, it's a sample. But they do have a fairly diverse sample and they weight results based on demographics. It's not a perfect system, but it's actually getting more accurate as Nielsen switches from a Diary system to electronic measurement in some of the bigger markets (this also contributes to "lower ratings").

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

How hard is it to look for a schedule online, in the newspaper or on a digital guide? The reporter's "friend" is an idiot.

Oh, and I used to be a Neilsen household for two years when I lived in San Marcos (24-25 year-ol Hispanic male).

[RonMexico]

Yeah, Van Gundy was the bright spot of the coverage... Breen was weak and unenthused and they spent too much time on tangents rather than the coverage.

Who wouldn't want the All-Star team of Marv Albert, Bill Walton, and Snapper Jones back (the banter between Jones and Walton was both funny and topical)?

ABC has too many cut scences (and by "too many" I mean, all the time) and the use of the wire cam is terrible. Basketball fans like consistency in the production (so we can see ALL the action on the floor instead of a pic of Eva in the stands) and all these little "sidebars" do not grab the casual fan like I suppose ABC/ESPN think they will.

The triple-headers on NBC ruled, as did NBC's devotion to providing BASKETBALL coverage instead of stories about Eva Longoria and annoying songs by the Pussycat Dolls. Oh, John Tesh - where have you gone? Ever remember when the Prudential at the Half actually provided knowledge about the league and it's players instead of random stories ESPN and John Saunders have culled from the headlines? Oh, but we have Shawn Marion's T-Mobile Top 5 Dunkers coming up!!!

Again, it comes back to personalities - I guarantee you more viewers would have tuned in if the "Inside the NBA" crew was available because those guys are entertaining and intelligent when they speak about basketball (not say Wilbon and Barry aren't intelligent, but they're just so wooden out there that I'm not entertained).

Seriously - NBA on NBC.... bring it back... save the network from the NHL!

[Extra Stout]

Just because there has been a growing market internationally, doesn't mean, the declining interest in the domestic markets, should be accepted, and continually marginalized. Even if Stern continues to increase payroll, with the television deals, and continual marketing (through the internet, etc..

I think the point of articles such as these are not to argue that the league hasn't been making money and are losing revenue due to ratings.
I think it's just highlighting the issue that less and less people in the U.S. are interested in the NBA, most of what is irksome to NBA consumers, is a matter of pride. Nobody in the U.S. wants to be watching a sport that's unpopular in its own country.
It's more of a sense that ratings are indicative, that the NBA trend might follow the way of Hockey in terms of popularity.
Just because the global market provides a lot of convenience for Stern and the league, in terms of revenue, doesn't mean he should ignore maximizing more profit, by regaining some of that domestic interest that they once had, Jordan's day. And with the Lebron example, you can't deny that everyone expected a higher turn out or interest in the crowned 'face of the league" --even the player's (like Tony Parker) expected more of a turn out or interest in Lebron, as good for the league. That didn't happen.
It might not be due to lack of promotion or the fault of ABC, but I guess it's more of an issue of how these networks ARE in a position to promote the game and attract viewers, AND get some of the domestic market back.

Instead of turning to other venues, why not consider continued efforts towards gaining both?

ESPN, enormous "Worldwide Leader" that it is, has finite resources to promote its coverage. It can either throw lots of resources at an already-saturated US market, to squeeze out 2 or 3 million more households for an NBA Finals telecast, or it can spread those resources out to places like China, and garner 50 million new viewers with lots of newfound disposable income, and there isn't near as much compe ion for the fan dollar.

The resources ESPN does throw at the U.S. are going into things like broadband and streaming video, which will give the hardcore fan another medium to consume the NBA, and have a greater impact than trying to wring more viewers out of the conventional ABC telecast.

This is why the telecast so often seems like an afterthought. That is because it is an afterthought.

We get fixated on U.S. viewership because 1) we aren't visionary business leaders who can break free of existing paradigms, and 2) we don't understand that the U.S. isn't as singlehandedly important as it used to be.

The NBA is following the example of the English Premier League, whose worldwide popularity brings in revenue streams unthinkable were the breadth of their draw limited only to Western Europe. While it might be nice if the NBA were in fact popular in its home country, that is not the big picture for the business.

The talk about ratings is sort of like the talk about immigration reform. It is a euphemism. "Immigration reform" means, "Why isn't anybody doing anything about all these damn Mexicans?" Likewise, "ratings" talk really means, "Why isn't the NBA doing anything about these damn Spurs?"

[Borosai]

TNT

[Bob Lanier]

Going into Game 1, only hardcore NBA fans heard the LeBron buzz.

[timvp]

During a timeout, viewers got a nice closeup of Cavs coach Mike Brown engaged in an animated discussion with James.

The audio was clear. Viewers were seeing and hearing them draw up a play for the final shot. Instead of staying with this inside look, the camera moved to a vanity closeup of the three announcers - Mike Breen, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy

Uh that's because ABC isn't supposed to show teams drawing up plays ... especially late game plays. If ABC was allowed to do that, the Spurs would just watch ABC instead of listen to Pop during the timeouts.

[timvp]

1) Disney and Turner are going to pay more to extend their NBA deals, not less.

Exactly. Stations would still give up their first born to get the NBA. With 500 channels and the internet, there's no way anyone could expect ratings to go back to those of the mid-90's. The Jordan Bulls could play the Bird Celtics and the ratings wouldn't compare to earlier standards.

The last time the TV contract was up, TNT was actually outbid by a couple other stations. However, the NBA values TNT's broadcast so they stuck with them even though they could have gotten more money elsewhere.

[LEONARD]

Mma > Nba

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

ESPN, enormous "Worldwide Leader" that it is, has finite resources to promote its coverage. It can either throw lots of resources at an already-saturated US market, to squeeze out 2 or 3 million more households for an NBA Finals telecast, or it can spread those resources out to places like China, and garner 50 million new viewers with lots of newfound disposable income, and there isn't near as much compe ion for the fan dollar.

The resources ESPN does throw at the U.S. are going into things like broadband and streaming video, which will give the hardcore fan another medium to consume the NBA, and have a greater impact than trying to wring more viewers out of the conventional ABC telecast.

This is why the telecast so often seems like an afterthought. That is because it is an afterthought.

We get fixated on U.S. viewership because 1) we aren't visionary business leaders who can break free of existing paradigms, and 2) we don't understand that the U.S. isn't as singlehandedly important as it used to be.

The NBA is following the example of the English Premier League, whose worldwide popularity brings in revenue streams unthinkable were the breadth of their draw limited only to Western Europe. While it might be nice if the NBA were in fact popular in its home country, that is not the big picture for the business.

The talk about ratings is sort of like the talk about immigration reform. It is a euphemism. "Immigration reform" means, "Why isn't anybody doing anything about all these damn Mexicans?" Likewise, "ratings" talk really means, "Why isn't the NBA doing anything about these damn Spurs?"

Thanks, you make good points.

I'm not familiar with how much revenue is brought in in telecasts, but in a sense this issue at hand. In essence, the internet saved the NBA.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Yeah, Van Gundy was the bright spot of the coverage... Breen was weak and unenthused and they spent too much time on tangents rather than the coverage.

Who wouldn't want the All-Star team of Marv Albert, Bill Walton, and Snapper Jones back (the banter between Jones and Walton was both funny and topical)?

ABC has too many cut scences (and by "too many" I mean, all the time) and the use of the wire cam is terrible. Basketball fans like consistency in the production (so we can see ALL the action on the floor instead of a pic of Eva in the stands) and all these little "sidebars" do not grab the casual fan like I suppose ABC/ESPN think they will.

The triple-headers on NBC ruled, as did NBC's devotion to providing BASKETBALL coverage instead of stories about Eva Longoria and annoying songs by the Pussycat Dolls. Oh, John Tesh - where have you gone? Ever remember when the Prudential at the Half actually provided knowledge about the league and it's players instead of random stories ESPN and John Saunders have culled from the headlines? Oh, but we have Shawn Marion's T-Mobile Top 5 Dunkers coming up!!!

Again, it comes back to personalities - I guarantee you more viewers would have tuned in if the "Inside the NBA" crew was available because those guys are entertaining and intelligent when they speak about basketball (not say Wilbon and Barry aren't intelligent, but they're just so wooden out there that I'm not entertained).

Seriously - NBA on NBC.... bring it back... save the network from the NHL!

Amen, NBC triple headers were good times. I really hated it when they actually tied-in a promotion during the game, to watch "Desperate Housewives" in the middle of commentating. They said, "did you say Desperate Housewives??"

It's too bad, because ABC's leverage over the NBC, is having ESPN....

[jaespur21]

YEAH duncan is the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RonMexico]

Amen, NBC triple headers were good times. I really hated it when they actually tied-in a promotion during the game, to watch "Desperate Housewives" in the middle of commentating. They said, "did you say Desperate Housewives??"

It's too bad, because ABC's leverage over the NBC, is having ESPN....

Oh yeah - they had to love the fact that Tony was in there so they could show Eva and keep promoting next season's DVD.