ESPN argues against a la carte television programming | Page 2 | The Boneyard

ESPN argues against a la carte television programming

Status
Not open for further replies.
whaler11 said:
Only 4% of households watch any sports outside of the NFL? Come on, there is no way that's true. Individual teams pull that in their markets. Hell we have a women's basketball team that pulls higher ratings than that. Ohio State pulls 20 ratings for games against Akron in Columbus.

Game 7 of the NBA Finals just got a 17.7 rating nationally.

I doubt that's what the WSJ article says but it's behind the pay wall.
Expand ...

It actually does say it:

>>It is a well-kept secret of sports on television: Aside from the National Football League and the biggest games of the year in a handful of other sports, such as Tuesday night's Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the TV audience for sports is tiny, amounting to about 4% or less of households on average, according to media-research firm Nielsen's data provided by a major media company. Less than 3% of households with television in any given market, on average, will tune in to watch their hometown National Basketball Association teams play, and less than 2% will watch their National Hockey League teams.

Yet in the average market, sports channels such as ESPN and regional sports networks account for 19.5% of fees paid by cable and satellite operators, according to media-research firm SNL Kagan. The average monthly cable bill in the U.S., before taxes, is now $73.44, Kagan estimates.<<

Interview and WSJ Story. Not a SME to vouch for accuracy or how they compiled data from Nielsen.
 
Saying that only 4% of households tune into sports that aren't the NFL and saying the average rating for other sports is around 4 aren't even close to the same thing.

I'm not sure you could come to a more incorrect conclusion.
 
whaler11 said:
Saying that only 4% of households tune into sports that aren't the NFL and saying the average rating for other sports is around 4 aren't even close to the same thing.

I'm not sure you could come to a more incorrect conclusion.
Expand ...

Write the WSJ... ;)
 
itgoeslike said:
Consumers and most content owners want a-la-cart programming.
Expand ...

I don't. I discover new channels and new shows all the time. If the biz goes a la carte, all the smaller and niche channels will die.
 
whaler11 said:
If you think you'd get the volume and quality of content a-la-carte that you get today...

If you think you'll be able to stream programming paying what you pay for the internet today...

Be careful what you wish for.
Expand ...
Volume and quality of content... like what? I know there are folks out there who still watch sitcoms, melodrama, and reality TV, but the only things I find worthwhile to watch are a handful of "golden age of TV" shows like Mad Men or Walking Dead in addition to live sports. I suppose I'd watch some PBS shows if I had cable but a lot of those you can even watch on their website. Now - I would revive my comcast subscription, or get satellite if I buy a house, if I can get a package of internet and TV including sports channels for ~100 bucks. $130-150 a month is too much, (at least as long as episodes of Mad Men and Game of Thrones are available through alternate means).
 
.-.
junglehusky said:
Volume and quality of content... like what? I know there are folks out there who still watch sitcoms, melodrama, and reality TV, but the only things I find worthwhile to watch are a handful of "golden age of TV" shows like Mad Men or Walking Dead in addition to live sports. I suppose I'd watch some PBS shows if I had cable but a lot of those you can even watch on their website. Now - I would revive my comcast subscription, or get satellite if I buy a house, if I can get a package of internet and TV including sports channels for ~100 bucks. $130-150 a month is too much, (at least as long as episodes of Mad Men and Game of Thrones are available through alternate means).
Expand ...

Everyone has their own threshold. I'd much rather keep the current system and access from one place rather than piecing together a bunch of online subscriptions.

As for what will be gone. Anything quality dies on the vine. The things that survive are the mass market dregs like American Idol and Big Bang Theory.

Shows like Mad Men work no differently than sports. They can be created because the masses bear the cost for the tiny minority to enjoy.
 
huskymedic said:
...according to media-research firm Nielsen's data provided by a major media company. Less than 3% of households with television in any given market, on average, will tune in to watch their hometown National Basketball Association teams play, and less than 2% will watch their National Hockey League teams.
Expand ...


They're not looking at the Neilsen data directly but a subset provided by another company - and they only look at the stats for people tuning into their howetown team vs tuning into a game in general.

For example, if someone into Oakland tuned into a Giants game instead of the A's it won't be part of that metric. I guess that's useful data for some advertisers but it seems like a pretty poor way to look at overall popularity.
 
Valid point about Mad Men... some articles are saying those handful of shows are not sustainable. So that's why I'm bailing now:)
 
junglehusky said:
Valid point about Mad Men... some articles are saying those handful of shows are not sustainable. So that's why I'm bailing now:)
Expand ...

Bail away, to each their own. Just don't expect to get the same or more for less in the future. If you like watching sports the numbers show the opposite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,328
Messages
4,564,277
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom