Christy from Behind the Jersey left a message on VancouverCanucksOpEd (did you follow that) which got me ranting a bit. Before I posted my comment there, I decided to use my own soapbox, rather than clog up VCOE's comment section. Full credit to both of them for the inspiration on this one. (Read how it all started here)
Christy wrote:
It's because ESPN is changing how people view sports. I just don't get how poker, spelling bees, etc do better on ESPN than hockey - it's just sad. And it pisses me off when people say poker is a sport or billiards.
Here's the deal (a lot of what follows is pure speculation, and has no real hard numbers to back it up. I do not have that kind of access. Work with me here):
Spelling bees, poker, darts, eating (did you know they have their own federation?), billiards, the key component to all of these is that they come cheap. They cost little or nothing to get the rights to, and are very cheap to produce. A few cameras, a minimal crew, many broadcasts don't go out live, so you can edit later, all of that adds up to huge savings. Compare that to the high price of broadcasting hockey, and the limited ability to place commercials. Hockey has too many commercial breaks for all of us, but not for the broadcaster. Look at MLB, and all the commercial breaks they have, and nobody minds watching, because that's the pace of baseball.
What about the ratings? Sure, poker, eating, all that. They get some numbers, but that's for now. I truly believe those numbers will plummet, especially when people understand the formula of these shows. For instance, if someone in poker goes "all in" with five minutes left in the hour, they lose. It's really predictable, which hockey isn't. It can't be molded by ESPN. It just happens, and then ends. Most of this ESPN programming is circus. And after a while, it gets boring.
I want to pour my support behind OLN (I refuse to call them Versus, and would have hoped they'd come to their senses by now). They vastly improved the quality of the broadcast, hired some decent people (Eddie O. is a favorite, now they should hire Cammi Granato), the camera operators got better, and provided programming beyond the game, which ESPN does not have the time, space, or caring to do. OLN also started to be less of a pain about broadcasting into markets like New York on certain providers (DISH?). They seemed to get their s#!+ together, and look to only improve. If hockey has a lot of "small market" teams (something I'll get into one day), OLN is the right size for that. They also have the room to expand on hockey. Classic games (if they can get the rights), original programs, Slapshot late at night once a month. OLN does seem to care.
ESPN is no longer the place for the NHL. ESPN continued to squeeze hockey around the NBA as they got more popular, and things would be even worse with MNF. The NHL needed somebody to bring hockey back to the fans, before bringing it back to the masses. ESPN can't do that. They may have College hockey (do they have it again next year) on ESPNU, but that is a little different, for a different market.
All ESPN has to offer is distribution. As the 2003-04 season proved, that did not equate to a large audience. But is it that America didn't care about hockey? Or ESPN not caring about hockey? I don't tolerate the America doesn't care argument, and will rant at another time about that, too. For instance, the WJC held in North Dakota a few years ago, mid lockout, and there was virtually no promotion on ESPN about it. The only hockey going all season, and it got neglected. That wasn't "America," that was ESPN.
ESPN has bought the rights for MLS soccer (26 games on Thursday nights, 3 playoff games). This is the first time ESPN will pay for MLS. This is all about capitalizing on the World Cup.
Oh, by the way, don't be too surprised if the Monday Night Football was in the plans long before the lockout, or the Bettman greed.
If you want any insight into what happened to ESPN, and how they operate under the Disney Corp., check out "Disney War," by James B. Stewart. It's thick, but a page turned. What happened to ESPN management is just amazing.
Like I said, most of that is just a rant. I don't have numbers, nor a ton of insight (maybe a little). You are more than welcome to disagree. Maybe you know something I don't (and, yes, I know there are probably some hard feelings both ways). But next time you see poker, or one of these type of shows, take a look at how easy it is to do. And how cheap. And think of how easy it was to let hockey take a walk.
Wow, that was a rant. I feel a little better, now. Back to the jocularity tomorrow.
6 comments:
One fact you don't mention is that a Girl's softball game on ESPN2 outdrew (got a better market share) than one of the Stanley Cup Finals games this year. So did the WNBA. Shudder.
Hockey isn't all that great on TV. That's what I think. And although hockey has an incredibly loyal following, the numbers just aren't there to merit the coverage. The NHL was on ESPN. It was a losing propsition for them. They cut it.
As you stated, its a money thing. If advertisers thought there was a decent market and the viewership was there, it would be back on FOX or ESPN. But the numbers aren't there.
I don't think pointing fingers at the NFL or any other sports is helpful.
Not enough people watch hockey on TV.
BR:
Girls softball? Got numbers? Was that on OLN or NBC? (That whole deal for the SCF is screwed up)
ESPN never did half as much for the NHL as OLN. The ratings were similar from ESPN to OLN as far as rating to percentage of homes covered. A small cable channel did a better job (at least later in the season. Compare to ESPN's first season of NHL) of making hockey a contender, if not presentable. Look at what Fox did for hockey promotion (not the glowing puck, but still).
Hockey looks good on TV, when it's done well. If you have a chance, check out a CBC broadcast. Good cameramen make all the difference.
Also, I'm not pointing fingers at "your" NFL. I'm pointing fingers at ESPN. The NFL is interested in money, just like the NHL.
Didn't you ever see all those NHL commercials on ESPN? They advertised the shit out of those games. They hoped that by paying for all those ads, the people would actually tune in and get into the games. They didn't.
And no, I don't like hockey on TV. You don't get to see the shift changes, I can't see the puck, etc, etc. That's why it didn't work. Like Richard Nixon, its bad on TV.
And listen, I hate Disney as much as the next guy and ESPN has a bunch of empty suits like any other network. They didn't have it out for Hockey though, it just didn't make money for them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which commercials? The 10 secind spots?
Um, who has it out for hockey? ESPN doesn't have TIME for hockey.
The "Hockey: Made in America" spots. There were a ton of them. They were funny too.
And they have time for what makes money. Hockey doesn't.
Hockey makes money. Hockey in America makes money. 24 of 30 NHL teams being in America, continued sponsorship for hockey in America, attendance up in America, hockey makes money. Hockey on TV in America makes money, otherwise, NOBODY would do it.
Does it make enough for ESPN? No. Enough to displace the cheaper "circus" programming? No. Enough for OLN? You bet.
Yes, it's all about money. It's TV. Time is money in TV, and ESPN has only so much air time available.
Hockey isn't cheap. It's expensive to produce (unless it's college, where broadcast standards can be lowered), expensive to sustain (ice making alone is a chunk of change), expensive to play (at any level).
Hockey makes money, just not enough for ESPN. Of course, ESPN wants a return on their investment, but ask OLN, and they will tell you they are getting that back in spades. OLN gets more than money, they are getting on the map (solid number 3 is better than solid nothing)
"Hockey: Made in America" - Didn't see them. I'm not trying to be snarky, I just didn't see them.
Post a Comment