So many words, and even some numbers..........
Printable View
So many words, and even some numbers..........
Joel, they gained 2.2 million viewers. The TV ratings have 19 of the 20 top shows as the NFL. Any advertisers canceled were immediately replaced by other companies standing in line to get a commercial during an NFL game.
Sorry, but just like your football analysis, statistical "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story.
Attachment 7993
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...metime/348433/
Some people live in an alternate universe.
Just a quick parting shot:
More and more people are moving away from traditional TV suppliers (i.e. satellite or cable providers) and streaming games and other content from "illegal" sources. Take a look at this site alone. How many people here seek out streaming options to watch the Broncos' games?
Here's the only number that matters in terms of television coverage: $2.55 Billion in revenue per year through the year 2022.
So many words.......
And the US gained 2.4 million: Is that more than 2.2 million?
The NFL was ALREADY on top though; SHRINKING shares are a bad thing even if they just cut into a huge lead. Remember when the US had the largest GDP by a huge margin? Now it's 2nd to the EU, and will soon be THIRD behind the EU and China unless it stops coasting on its laurels and resumes actual progress. Perhaps it's no surprise Americas new national pasttime is similarly fading amid the same delusional fixation on PAST glorys briefly lingering legacy.
Some people prefer pleasant falsehoods enabling indolence rather than harsh truths demanding effort and change.
The NFLs slice of the US viewing pie has SHRUNK in the past 5 years, NOT grown: Why do you trust Nielsen when they tell you what you want to hear, but dispute them when they say the opposite? Nielsen says ratings are higher than last year, when they were higher than the year before, which is true—Nielsen ALSO says ALL THREE NFL SEASONS HAD LOWER RATINGS THAN 2011. Recovery=/=progress, and doesn't change the physical reality that Sunday Night Football Ratings peaked in 2011.
How much money do the NFL, networks and advertisers make off pirate streams, Mr. Personal Attack? Those only REDUCE advertiser (and so network) incentive to tolerate and associate with all the NFL scandals that have gotten the Commissioner subpoenaed in THREE DIFFERENT TRIALS! Further, pirate streams are ALSO available for MOST OTHER network shows, so an ebbing tide sinks all ships: It doesn't effect the NFL any more than anyone, so its smaller percentage of all viewers remains just that.
Ah, well, far be it from me to dispute PROJECTED FUTURE numbers with CONCRETE PAST ones; presumably you believe all 2022 projections of federal revenue and federal deficits, too? Even though they vary wildly depending on whose partys they are?
No one know what NFL ratings or ad revenue will be in 2016, let alone 2022. What we DO know is that the numbers peaked before and just after the lockout and have only recently bounced back to around that level, let alone SURPASSED it. $2½ billion is a lot of money, even for the NFL: But if the NFL were content with FLAT billion dollar profits it wouldn't turn the field pink ¼ of every year and bombard us with Play60 ads while trying to downplay the OTHER billion dollars it'll have to GIVE UP to avoid a CTE trial.
Know what else the NFL'll do no later than 2018? Play AT LEAST 6 gms/year in the UK and possibly send the Pro Bowl to Brazil. Maybe ya'll think a shrinking largest piece of a growing pie is enough, but the NFL clearly doesn't, because it's doing everthing it can think of in (its warped way) to expand its large-but-shrinking share.
The television contract isn't projected. It's signed.
Just as in other football discussions, kool-aid drinkers need to stop cherry-picking a few facts but ignoring many inconvenient ones, especially high profile ones and league response to them. If SOP is working SO well, why is the NFL changing the game SO radically in SO MANY ways?
So were contracts national advertisers opted out of over Ray Rice. And while they were replaced, prominently reduced demand didn't replace them at the SAME PRICE. NBC and ABC signed a six-year contract on The Baseball Network, too: BOTH quit after ONE year $95 million LOSS, still better than CBS' $5000 million LOSS riding out the previous four-year exclusive MLB deal. The Baseball Network ultimately devolved into a cut rate ESPN showing only selected regional games instead of the nearly 5000/yr planned.
Yes: Ignoring statistics=accepting reality; "don't confuse me with facts!" Except convenient ones: THOSE are gospel, even while ignoring inconvenient ones from the SAME SOURCE. Don't let PHYSICAL OCCURRENCES "opinions" shake what you FEEL in your heart to be "fact." So why's Goodell keep changing so much of what's working so well?
Comparing the MLB to the NFL is asinine. They aren't even on the same ballpark in terms of viewership, let alone planet.
I'm not comparing the games, but comparing network sports contracts as if they were written in stone. They're not, as the Ray Rice fiasco proved about football specifically: The networks didn't drop out, but many of their ADVERTISERS (i.e. the place they make up the billions they pay the NFL for broadcast rights) did. And contracts didn't stop them, because PLAYERS aren't the only NFL affiliates whose contracts have a morals clause.
We can compare the NFL to MLB in one critical way though: Once upon a time, any suggestion MLB could be replaced as "national pasttime" was laughable. "Stuff happens." Once again: If the NFLs MO is working SO well, why does Goodell keep changing football SO much in SO MANY ways? Just likes to needlessly risk screwing up perfection?
Joel, I want to specifically know which advertisers dropped their sponsorship of NFL broadcasts over Ray Rice.
And not 10 billion words. A list of the advertisers.