Thursday, February 21, 2008
Just How Many Fans Does the NHL Have?
by Jes
Our Southern correspondent checks in with an interesting link to a Wall Street journal post. The topic? Just how many fans does the NHL actually have?
The NHL claims it has 50 million fans, and cites the results of one particular survey to help back up its claim.
The Numbers Guy delves into the pool, and claims the NHL is full of crap.
It is obvious that The Numbers Guy isn't much of an NHL fan, and doesn't really understand the nature of the sport or its fans. I know the NHL is exaggerating the numbers, as they tend to do. Still, let me defend the NHL a little bit.
1. Unlike the Super Bowl, the NHL Stanley Cup Finals aren't always a 'must-watch' one-time event. By the time the finals roll around, most of us have experienced at least a tinge of hockey burnout. It's spring, it's sunny, and most people aren't in a hockey mood. Unless your team is involved, it is quite hard to really get into the Stanley Cup Finals at times.
2. There are plenty of non-American hockey fans, especially in Canada and in Europe. The 50 million figure is, more realistically, a worldwide figure, and could also be derived from many other things (hits on NHL.com, for example). Why do you think the NHL bothers to do exhibition games in Europe?
3. It's kind of hard to watch the NHL when it's on a network that many people can't access (Versus).
4. Having a 'little bit' of interest certainly doesn't mean that the particular fan is going to tune into the Stanley Cup Finals. Likely, any fan that says a 'little bit' of interest is more into their local team once in awhile, or they enjoy watching hockey highlights, fights, and the like. I have very little interest in the CFL, but I do watch the occasional BC Lions game from time to time.
In the end, the NHL is pretty much full of it when it claims it has 50 million American fans. I'm sorry, but TV ratings would be a lot better if that was the case. The proof is in that pudding, I would say.
What can't be discounted is how many fans the NHL has outside of the USA. The NBA is not doing too well in the USA, but they have awesome numbers from around the world, and their viewership from other places is growing rapidly.
Perhaps the NHL will take lessons, and realize that there is a friendlier market outside of the disinterested American audience that would prefer slow sports like baseball and football.
Our Southern correspondent checks in with an interesting link to a Wall Street journal post. The topic? Just how many fans does the NHL actually have?
The NHL claims it has 50 million fans, and cites the results of one particular survey to help back up its claim.
The Numbers Guy delves into the pool, and claims the NHL is full of crap.
[The NHL] cited a 2006 study from Scarborough Research’s sports-marketing division that found 49.2 million Americans had some interest in the NHL. Scarborough randomly dialed American phone numbers to recruit more than 200,000 people to fill out and mail in a survey. As part of a broad survey on consumer habits, respondents were directed to “check how interested you are in these sports.” The NHL was one of them. Responses were then extrapolated to adults nationwide.
Scarborough found just 8.3 million American adults were “very” interested in the NHL. Another 13.5 million were “somewhat” interested. To approach 50 million requires counting the other 27.5 million who said they are “a little bit” interested. Apparently a little bit of interest doesn’t translate into switching on the television to watch free broadcasts of the season’s most important games. (By the NHL’s definition, Scarborough numbers show the NBA has 86 million fans, Major League Baseball has 114 million and the NFL has 135 million — including 55 million who are “very” interested in the pro-football league.)
It is obvious that The Numbers Guy isn't much of an NHL fan, and doesn't really understand the nature of the sport or its fans. I know the NHL is exaggerating the numbers, as they tend to do. Still, let me defend the NHL a little bit.
1. Unlike the Super Bowl, the NHL Stanley Cup Finals aren't always a 'must-watch' one-time event. By the time the finals roll around, most of us have experienced at least a tinge of hockey burnout. It's spring, it's sunny, and most people aren't in a hockey mood. Unless your team is involved, it is quite hard to really get into the Stanley Cup Finals at times.
2. There are plenty of non-American hockey fans, especially in Canada and in Europe. The 50 million figure is, more realistically, a worldwide figure, and could also be derived from many other things (hits on NHL.com, for example). Why do you think the NHL bothers to do exhibition games in Europe?
3. It's kind of hard to watch the NHL when it's on a network that many people can't access (Versus).
4. Having a 'little bit' of interest certainly doesn't mean that the particular fan is going to tune into the Stanley Cup Finals. Likely, any fan that says a 'little bit' of interest is more into their local team once in awhile, or they enjoy watching hockey highlights, fights, and the like. I have very little interest in the CFL, but I do watch the occasional BC Lions game from time to time.
In the end, the NHL is pretty much full of it when it claims it has 50 million American fans. I'm sorry, but TV ratings would be a lot better if that was the case. The proof is in that pudding, I would say.
What can't be discounted is how many fans the NHL has outside of the USA. The NBA is not doing too well in the USA, but they have awesome numbers from around the world, and their viewership from other places is growing rapidly.
Perhaps the NHL will take lessons, and realize that there is a friendlier market outside of the disinterested American audience that would prefer slow sports like baseball and football.
Labels: NHL, NHL Economics, tv
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Weekend Wayne's World: TV Ratings
by Jes
Our Southern correspondant is back with his thoughts and musings on recent TV ratings for the NHL, in reference to a recent article by The Globe and Mail.
To which Wayne remarks: "When your ratings were 0.0, 32% DOES seem impressive..."
Zing!
"On the downside, audiences for the Atlanta Thrashers have dropped 50 per cent. On the downside, audiences for the Atlanta Thrashers have dropped 50 per cent."
Wayne: As a Thrasher die-hard, I must admit the Thrash have been hard to watch this season; this may dovetail with Tim Tucker's column in the AJC after the Thrashers were eliminated after the playoffs about the miniscule TV audiences they got...
Jes: I'd figure the Thrash would be a fairly good draw because they play an offensive style of game and have exciting players like Hossa and Kovalchuk. Sure, the Thrash don't win a LOT of games, but at least they don't trap and trap and trap
"Why are the numbers up? The absence of prime-time content, as a result of the Hollywood writers' strike, is driving audiences to sports programming. Versus showcases Pittsburgh Penguins star Sidney Crosby at every opportunity."
Wayne: Is anyone else sick and tired of the Pittsburgh Crosbys? Besides, we've seen every rerun of "CSI", "CSI: Miami", "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit", etc...
Jes: Who would ever get sick of Sidney Crosby? yeesh. Well, it's good to see the NHL capitalize on someone else's suffering. Any break the NHL can get ...
Wayne: One day, when I get the time (and a new computer), I'll write WHY Versus sucks, but I think you can probably figure it out on your own...
Jes: Fortunately, Canadian coverage will always be far superior and easily accessible. From what I've ever seen VERSUS gives the NHL great coverage, and respects the sport, but just can't get through to enough eyeballs.
Our Southern correspondant is back with his thoughts and musings on recent TV ratings for the NHL, in reference to a recent article by The Globe and Mail.
At the midway point of this season, national audiences on Versus are up 32 per cent from this time last year.
Versus is drawing numbers comparable with ESPN2's viewership in 2003-04, which was the last year of its deal with the NHL.
To which Wayne remarks: "When your ratings were 0.0, 32% DOES seem impressive..."
Zing!
"On the downside, audiences for the Atlanta Thrashers have dropped 50 per cent. On the downside, audiences for the Atlanta Thrashers have dropped 50 per cent."
Wayne: As a Thrasher die-hard, I must admit the Thrash have been hard to watch this season; this may dovetail with Tim Tucker's column in the AJC after the Thrashers were eliminated after the playoffs about the miniscule TV audiences they got...
Jes: I'd figure the Thrash would be a fairly good draw because they play an offensive style of game and have exciting players like Hossa and Kovalchuk. Sure, the Thrash don't win a LOT of games, but at least they don't trap and trap and trap
"Why are the numbers up? The absence of prime-time content, as a result of the Hollywood writers' strike, is driving audiences to sports programming. Versus showcases Pittsburgh Penguins star Sidney Crosby at every opportunity."
Wayne: Is anyone else sick and tired of the Pittsburgh Crosbys? Besides, we've seen every rerun of "CSI", "CSI: Miami", "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit", etc...
Jes: Who would ever get sick of Sidney Crosby? yeesh. Well, it's good to see the NHL capitalize on someone else's suffering. Any break the NHL can get ...
Wayne: One day, when I get the time (and a new computer), I'll write WHY Versus sucks, but I think you can probably figure it out on your own...
Jes: Fortunately, Canadian coverage will always be far superior and easily accessible. From what I've ever seen VERSUS gives the NHL great coverage, and respects the sport, but just can't get through to enough eyeballs.
Labels: tv, versus, Wayne's World
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
The NHL's Winter Classic Is a Grand Success
by Jes
It's nice to see the NHL get some good news for a change, and the NHL's Winter Classic provided some much needed positive buzz with the American audience. For once, it wasn't some random incident of violence that got the screeching ravens off of their usual beer coolers and ranting about how Hockey is simply a bloodbath played by toothless goons.
No, the Winter Classic was treated with respect by NBC, and now the ratings are in ...
The NHL Winter Classic, broadcast New Year's Day on NBC, earned a 2.6 overnight rating and a 5 share (1-4:45 p.m. ET), the best overnight NHL regular season rating in more than a decade (Feb. 3, 1996 on Fox, six-game regional, 3.0/7). The Pittsburgh Penguins defeated the Buffalo Sabres 2-1 in the first U.S. outdoor game in NHL history. Twenty-year-old Sidney Crosby, the NHL's reigning MVP, scored the game-winning goal in a shootout.
The overnight rating also surpasses Wayne Gretzky's last game, which was broadcast on Fox (April 18, 1999, 2.5/6).
Top Ten Metered Markets:
1. Buffalo 38.2/58
2. Pittsburgh 17.7/30
3. Minneapolis 5.1/11
4. Denver 3.7/7
T5. Providence 3.5/7
T5. Las Vegas 3.5/6
7. St. Louis 3.3/5
8. Boston 3.2/6
9. Sacramento 2.9/6
T10. Richmond 2.8/5
T10. Hartford 2.8/5
Even up against college football games, the NHL still did well. As they say in Kazakhstan, "Niiice!"
Also, I order you to go and check out the photo gallery I cobbled together over at The NHL FanHouse, or you will be execute!
Jodie over at The Sidney Crosby Show will have her thoughts over the next 24-48 hours.
It's nice to see the NHL get some good news for a change, and the NHL's Winter Classic provided some much needed positive buzz with the American audience. For once, it wasn't some random incident of violence that got the screeching ravens off of their usual beer coolers and ranting about how Hockey is simply a bloodbath played by toothless goons.
No, the Winter Classic was treated with respect by NBC, and now the ratings are in ...
The NHL Winter Classic, broadcast New Year's Day on NBC, earned a 2.6 overnight rating and a 5 share (1-4:45 p.m. ET), the best overnight NHL regular season rating in more than a decade (Feb. 3, 1996 on Fox, six-game regional, 3.0/7). The Pittsburgh Penguins defeated the Buffalo Sabres 2-1 in the first U.S. outdoor game in NHL history. Twenty-year-old Sidney Crosby, the NHL's reigning MVP, scored the game-winning goal in a shootout.
The overnight rating also surpasses Wayne Gretzky's last game, which was broadcast on Fox (April 18, 1999, 2.5/6).
Top Ten Metered Markets:
1. Buffalo 38.2/58
2. Pittsburgh 17.7/30
3. Minneapolis 5.1/11
4. Denver 3.7/7
T5. Providence 3.5/7
T5. Las Vegas 3.5/6
7. St. Louis 3.3/5
8. Boston 3.2/6
9. Sacramento 2.9/6
T10. Richmond 2.8/5
T10. Hartford 2.8/5
Even up against college football games, the NHL still did well. As they say in Kazakhstan, "Niiice!"
Also, I order you to go and check out the photo gallery I cobbled together over at The NHL FanHouse, or you will be execute!
Jodie over at The Sidney Crosby Show will have her thoughts over the next 24-48 hours.
Labels: heritage classic, NBC, Outdoor games, tv, Winter Classic
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Blah Blah, Buttman, Blah!
by Jes
The Canadian Press recently had an interview with Der Kommissar, Count Gary Bettman.
Let's read in between the lines, shall we?
On crappy ratings in the USA:
"Our TV at the local level is strong - both in Canada and in the United States," said Bettman. "And the U.S. (national TV) is something that will continue to require our attention and work but we like our partnerships and our relationships with NBC and Versus. ... But that's only one metric. If you look at attendance, if you look at the digital space and people who are connecting to us on NHL.com and the club websites, if you look at what we're doing through technology and streaming - all the vital signs are good.
"The metric where we happen to get the most criticism happens to be the metric that is declining over time in importance."
Declining in time?
While it may not matter to the owner of the Nashville Predators that some schmuck in Eugene, Oregon, isn't watching the games, but it certainly is important.
The sport, overall, makes more money if its popular outside of the actual markets. The NFL? The MLB? They have fans all across the country, and they rake in big bucks because of it. While attendance may or may not be strong, the low national ratings are a great indicator that the game means very little outside of the markets, and the NHL isn't cashing in on a large portion of the American audience.
Bettman's flippant dismissal of national TV ratings is disturbing.
On the NHL playing games in Europe:
"This is a good opportunity to dip our toe in the water," Bettman said. "A third of our players come from outside of North America and the hockey fans in those countries like to follow their players."
Translation: Expect more of these games.
On NHL expansion to Europe:
" It's nothing we're planning on, but by the same token I'll never say never," Bettman said. "There are many, many, many things that we have to do and have to happen before we can consider it. And there are logistical issues.
"There are arena issues, there are travel issues, and also there is the existing infrastructure of hockey particularly in Europe and we need to be respectful of all of those considerations."
Translation: There is no way in hell it'll happen in my lifetime. The NHL owners won't allow it, and it's too much of a hassle.
On salaries:
"The average payroll with a $50.3-million cap is $42.3 million," said Bettman. "So that at the end of the year, on average, our teams will have spent $42.3 million - not $50 million."
Bettman continues by pointing back to the 2001-02 season, when the average team payroll was also $42.3 million.
"At the time our revenues were $1.875 billion," he said. "This year the average team payroll - with the $50.3-million cap - will be $42.3 million on revenues of about $2.4 billion. ...
OK, so we're back to square one, except the owners make more money?
Couldn't the owners have increased revenues without missing a whole year of hockey? If GM's and owners were prudent, they could have kept their costs at the same level and worked on improving revenues WITHOUT MISSING A SEASON.
Sorry, Buttman, but we see salaries escalating back to where they were before, and will only continue to get worse.
The Canadian Press recently had an interview with Der Kommissar, Count Gary Bettman.
Let's read in between the lines, shall we?
On crappy ratings in the USA:
"Our TV at the local level is strong - both in Canada and in the United States," said Bettman. "And the U.S. (national TV) is something that will continue to require our attention and work but we like our partnerships and our relationships with NBC and Versus. ... But that's only one metric. If you look at attendance, if you look at the digital space and people who are connecting to us on NHL.com and the club websites, if you look at what we're doing through technology and streaming - all the vital signs are good.
"The metric where we happen to get the most criticism happens to be the metric that is declining over time in importance."
Declining in time?
While it may not matter to the owner of the Nashville Predators that some schmuck in Eugene, Oregon, isn't watching the games, but it certainly is important.
The sport, overall, makes more money if its popular outside of the actual markets. The NFL? The MLB? They have fans all across the country, and they rake in big bucks because of it. While attendance may or may not be strong, the low national ratings are a great indicator that the game means very little outside of the markets, and the NHL isn't cashing in on a large portion of the American audience.
Bettman's flippant dismissal of national TV ratings is disturbing.
On the NHL playing games in Europe:
"This is a good opportunity to dip our toe in the water," Bettman said. "A third of our players come from outside of North America and the hockey fans in those countries like to follow their players."
Translation: Expect more of these games.
On NHL expansion to Europe:
" It's nothing we're planning on, but by the same token I'll never say never," Bettman said. "There are many, many, many things that we have to do and have to happen before we can consider it. And there are logistical issues.
"There are arena issues, there are travel issues, and also there is the existing infrastructure of hockey particularly in Europe and we need to be respectful of all of those considerations."
Translation: There is no way in hell it'll happen in my lifetime. The NHL owners won't allow it, and it's too much of a hassle.
On salaries:
"The average payroll with a $50.3-million cap is $42.3 million," said Bettman. "So that at the end of the year, on average, our teams will have spent $42.3 million - not $50 million."
Bettman continues by pointing back to the 2001-02 season, when the average team payroll was also $42.3 million.
"At the time our revenues were $1.875 billion," he said. "This year the average team payroll - with the $50.3-million cap - will be $42.3 million on revenues of about $2.4 billion. ...
OK, so we're back to square one, except the owners make more money?
Couldn't the owners have increased revenues without missing a whole year of hockey? If GM's and owners were prudent, they could have kept their costs at the same level and worked on improving revenues WITHOUT MISSING A SEASON.
Sorry, Buttman, but we see salaries escalating back to where they were before, and will only continue to get worse.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Video of the Day: Honey Nut Cheerios Does Hockey
... and does it badly
What's with the JASON mask/helmet combo, kid? Trying for a weird Darth Vader look?
What's with the JASON mask/helmet combo, kid? Trying for a weird Darth Vader look?
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
HNIC: Now with 15% Less Maple Leafs!
by Jes
Some big news in the world of broadcasting this week as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) extended their deal to host Hockey Night in Canada on Saturdays.
From the Mother Ship:
The Don is right, though, that HNIC does belong on CBC and some traditions should never die.
The best part is now that us non-Leafs lemmings won't have to subjected to seeing Toronto EVERY FRICKIN WEEK!
Still, if the CBC is going to make tweaks to HNIC, perhaps Gary Bettman can force the following...
1. Retire Bob Cole and Harry Neale out to pasture. Bob is still catching up from plays made in 2001, and Harry is more concerned about giving the Leafs verbal BJs and telling you how many millimeters Bryan McCabe was away from the goal when he shot the puck wide of the net.
2. Fire Greg Millen. For entertainment value, have Don McLean announce it publicly so that the whole country can celebrate.
3. Bring back Al Strachan vs. Brian Burke. If you want entertainment, this is it! Who doesn't like seeing Al being torn apart like Christmas wrapping?
4. More K-Fed. Always more K-Fed.
Given how much the CBC has lost in the past few years (CFL, Olympics, etc...), the CBC really needed to cement this deal to retain any relevance. What other shows on this network are worth watching? The Mercer Report? This Hour has 22 minutes? ...that's about it...
Some big news in the world of broadcasting this week as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) extended their deal to host Hockey Night in Canada on Saturdays.
From the Mother Ship:
The CBC and the NHL announced a new television deal Monday that will keep Hockey Night in Canada on the air until 2014.Seven more years of Donald S. Cherry? *headdesk*
The six-year broadcast deal, which includes national English-language broadcast and multimedia rights to NHL games in Canada, will begin when the current agreement between the CBC and the league expires after the 2007-08 season. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed.
"Can you imagine seven more years of me? How can it get any better?" Don Cherry, co-host of Coach's Corner, told CBC Sports Online.
"I'm very happy. [Hockey Night in Canada ] should be on the CBC. It's been on the CBC [since the 1950s] and this is where it belongs."
The Don is right, though, that HNIC does belong on CBC and some traditions should never die.
The best part is now that us non-Leafs lemmings won't have to subjected to seeing Toronto EVERY FRICKIN WEEK!
Bettman said the new deal will feature fewer Toronto Maple Leafs games during the regular season, with more dates being allocated for other Canadian teams.Some have complained that the CBC is a dinosaur and wouldn't be missed in hockey broadcasting. Well, phooey to them, because I like the way CBC respects the game of hockey (just see Hockey Day in Canada) and presents a product that is lower on frills than the bombasts at TSN and Sportsnet. I need Pierre McGuire's "Monsters" as much as I need a colon cleansing.
"The mix is not going to be what it's been in previous years," Bettman said. "We decreased the number of the Leaf games and increased the number of games of the other Canadian teams that can be made available."
Still, if the CBC is going to make tweaks to HNIC, perhaps Gary Bettman can force the following...
Given how much the CBC has lost in the past few years (CFL, Olympics, etc...), the CBC really needed to cement this deal to retain any relevance. What other shows on this network are worth watching? The Mercer Report? This Hour has 22 minutes? ...that's about it...
Labels: CBC, Don Cherry, HNIC, marketing, NHL, tv
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Der Kommisar's in town, whoa uh oh..
If Gary Buttmann were shot in the head, he'd probably turn the situation around and say that the extra oxygen getting into his brain was a good thing.
From tsn.ca, Buttman is up to his old shtick
On a day in which the NHL announced a U.S. TV contact with NBC that has no money up front and a new cable agreement with ESPN worth half the former deal, the league's commissioner was all smiles.
``The future for us on (U.S.) national television couldn't be more bright,'' Bettman said. ``We couldn't be more thrilled.''
The NHL's two-year deal with NBC is the same type of revenue-sharing agreement the network has with the Arena Football League. NBC will take the first chunk of income from advertising to cover production expenses, the NHL takes the next chunk and the two split additional revenue equally.
Couldn't be more bright?
No guarantee money, and a television contact on par with the Arena Football League??
There is no way that hockey can be considered on par with Baseball, Football, or Basketball in the USA.
I just hope NBC decides to make a real go of this thing and plough some serious marketing into there NHL games. If they do, then NBC can profit big and the NHL can get some $$ back.
Otherwise, this is a big step backwards, no matter how much Glade Buttmann sprays on the media.
From tsn.ca, Buttman is up to his old shtick
On a day in which the NHL announced a U.S. TV contact with NBC that has no money up front and a new cable agreement with ESPN worth half the former deal, the league's commissioner was all smiles.
``The future for us on (U.S.) national television couldn't be more bright,'' Bettman said. ``We couldn't be more thrilled.''
The NHL's two-year deal with NBC is the same type of revenue-sharing agreement the network has with the Arena Football League. NBC will take the first chunk of income from advertising to cover production expenses, the NHL takes the next chunk and the two split additional revenue equally.
Couldn't be more bright?
No guarantee money, and a television contact on par with the Arena Football League??
There is no way that hockey can be considered on par with Baseball, Football, or Basketball in the USA.
I just hope NBC decides to make a real go of this thing and plough some serious marketing into there NHL games. If they do, then NBC can profit big and the NHL can get some $$ back.
Otherwise, this is a big step backwards, no matter how much Glade Buttmann sprays on the media.
NHL to switch to NBC
TSN.ca reports that the NHL will be signing a new TV deal with NBC starting 'next' season (04 or 05, whenever they play hockey. No $ figures have been given yet.
Under the deal, the league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts. Instead, the NHL and NBC will share revenue, with the network covering its production and distribution costs.
Yikes! In addition to the fact that the NHL is going to take a big paycut, the NHL isn't even guaranteed a dollar figure from this deal.
But I'm sure Der Kommisar Gary Buttmann is loving this...he can cry 'poor' even more, claiming that the NHL is getting greatly reduced revenues.
I'd love to see how Buttmann puts his usual positive spin on this situation.
Probably something along the lines that this new TV deal is revolutionary because it 'shares' revenue (More like the network gives the NHL the spare change).
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (Although maybe not Leafs fans, j/k), that the NHL has not made gains in the US TV market, and has actually gone backwards.
The deal is only for 6-7 regular season games and playoff games...so it's not as if that kind of contract is going to bring in the 'bling bling' anyhow.
Under the deal, the league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts. Instead, the NHL and NBC will share revenue, with the network covering its production and distribution costs.
Yikes! In addition to the fact that the NHL is going to take a big paycut, the NHL isn't even guaranteed a dollar figure from this deal.
But I'm sure Der Kommisar Gary Buttmann is loving this...he can cry 'poor' even more, claiming that the NHL is getting greatly reduced revenues.
I'd love to see how Buttmann puts his usual positive spin on this situation.
Probably something along the lines that this new TV deal is revolutionary because it 'shares' revenue (More like the network gives the NHL the spare change).
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (Although maybe not Leafs fans, j/k), that the NHL has not made gains in the US TV market, and has actually gone backwards.
The deal is only for 6-7 regular season games and playoff games...so it's not as if that kind of contract is going to bring in the 'bling bling' anyhow.
Labels: marketing, NBC, NHL, tv
