Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Did not read. You're a ****ing idiot. 100%.
The NBA has a ratings problem
- Thread starter oneye
- Start date
Did not read. You're a ****ing idiot. 100%.
Lol. Some of you really live in fantasy worlds. No. Treating your customers and the people that make your business work well....is smart business. Treating 90% of your potential customers as if they don’t exist or aren’t worthy of your service....is exactly why you don’t reach those customers. It’s not that deep, despite how much you want to twist to make it. My life would be perfectly fine, exactly the same, and un-impacted if the state didn’t have an NBA team. It would save me money a few times a year lol. I live nowhere near SLC.
I will say this. This is my last season of league pass and after 6 years of having it I turned off auto-renew just a few weeks ago. The NBA is a league full of self-entitled babies who don’t appreciate their customers. Don’t be mad when you alienate 90% of markets by having that attitude. It’s not a disdain for the league. There just becomes little to no reason to pay attention to it. The thing is, the NBA has a much more fun and interesting product than the NFL....and the NFL is a dumpster fire terrible league...yet it will always outperform the NBA until the NBA learns the value of ALL it’s customers and potential customers.
Ratings were down last season and from that they have been down double digits on many nights this season. It won’t end up being that bad as the year goes on but they will end up down yet again.
Youre a cry baby.
Oneye, you literally obsess over Donovan's twitter feed and complain that he liked a picture of himself in a Mets uniform. You have a mental issue and the NBA cant do anything to appease you.
The irony is that oneye provides more ratings than I do.
I pay for an illegal service. LP sucks ***. That's where the NBA needs to respect it's customers.
I pay for an illegal service. LP sucks ***. That's where the NBA needs to respect it's customers.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
The midseason tournament should have no impact whatsoever on the playoffs. It's perfectly fine for both to coexist.
The stakes for the tournament should be tons of money, the first pick of the 2nd round, stuff like that.
Teams like the Lakers or Clippers won't dwell on the tourney but teams like Atlanta and NY will go all in just to try to win something. It would be intriguing. Win or go home would be fun to watch.
Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
The stakes for the tournament should be tons of money, the first pick of the 2nd round, stuff like that.
Teams like the Lakers or Clippers won't dwell on the tourney but teams like Atlanta and NY will go all in just to try to win something. It would be intriguing. Win or go home would be fun to watch.
Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
Game6Conley
Well-Known Member
It's because the NFL airs on Local channels and people are 'cutting the cord' on cable, where a vast majority of the the NBA's national broadcasts games are shown...
Game6Conley
Well-Known Member
What are y'all shareholders? TV execs? Can't think of a more dull basketball topic than ratings. Yuck.
No. You simply don’t like it’s true.
I follow him....do you have twitter? Things people you follow like show up in your feed. People you follow tend to also show up in your feed. You act as though I’m having to go through back channels to get this information lol.
If you have such a problem with NBA players, why follow them? Just watch the game.
I don’t have a problem with him......
If you have The Athletic, here’s a great article....and yes, ratings being down like they are is a big concern. The article mentions how sure the current TV deal is good until 2025, but negotiations for the next are going on now, and if the trend continues how games are broadcast, even how many teams the league can support can be impacted by what’s currently happening with TV ratings.
https://theathletic.com/1443125/201...looking-for-a-solution/?source=shared-article
https://theathletic.com/1443125/201...looking-for-a-solution/?source=shared-article
Last edited:
Here's some of pieces from the article:
Ratings Myth No. 1: This isn’t a big deal
I’ve seen the ratings slide dismissed in some media quarters as something not worth caring about unless you work for TNT or ESPN. Not quite, not if you have an intense interest in the league as a whole. This slide has the potential to impact the entire NBA, dramatically so. The early evidence is reflected in the NBA seriously floating a midseason tournament, a huge departure from decades of tradition.
Yes, the NBA’s $24 billion national TV deal isn’t up until 2025, but negotiations and agreements occur far in advance. These talks are happening now, with an eye toward the precarious present. If the sport is about to take a multi-billion dollar haircut, so much can change. If the next deal completely crashes? Well, corporations are structured based on embedded assumptions of continued growth. A massive contraction tends to kick off a cascading, destructive effect. Certain markets might not be viable. It’s one thing to have a team in, say, New Orleans, when owners are splitting that huge deal 30 ways. It’s another thing when the money spigot stops. If that happens, everything is on the table, including how many teams exist, how many games they play and the nature of how those games are broadcast. There’s a lot at stake.
Ratings Myth No. 2: LeBron moved West
You see this explanation a lot, and it was floated by Silver himself: “LeBron is one of the biggest stars in the world and he also played in the East. The reason I look a little bit tired is a lot of our games are on the West and it’s late at night and I recognize most people choose to go to sleep at a reasonable time.”
Look, maybe the NBA believes this, but on its face, I find this explanation to be ridiculous. The NBA is arguing that ratings dropped because their sport’s biggest star moved to their version of the Dallas Cowboys, but if the Cowboys played in a far bigger market. Yes, the Lakers are on later at night. But the NBA saw surging ratings during the rise of the Warriors dynasty and the Warriors had the league’s latest average start times. Before that, Magic Johnson took the NBA from niche to national product in his first season as a rookie for the Lakers. Yes, more people live on the East Coast, but Los Angeles is America’s second-largest city and the Lakers’ local media reach extends to 30 million people. If your biggest star joining the Lakers explains a ratings slide, you have problems bigger than his move to the Lakers. Also, currently, the Lakers get the best national ratings of any team.
Really, the question isn’t “Is LeBron’s Laker move depressing league ratings?” The question is, “Why isn’t LeBron’s Laker move a bigger deal for the league?” James and company have pulled off an incredible feat, even if they don’t win the championship this season. They rejuvenated a Laker franchise that appeared to be spinning into disaster if not decades-long irrelevance. LeBron looks like the best 17th-season player the sport has ever seen and Anthony Davis is playing the best defensive basketball of his career. This should be one of the biggest stories in sports.
I think we all know why this isn’t fueling the league quite like it should, though, and it’s not about start times. The arrangement is awkwardly mercenary. Nobody buys that LeBron has some organic connection to Los Angeles beyond wanting to make movies and TV shows. Throw in the bizarre China controversy, in which James appeared to back America’s strongest rival against Daryl Morey, and you have more reason for why the public has been cool to his greatness. The public might warm up to the Lebron Laker situation eventually. Really, the league desperately needs it to. Outside of the Lakers, there isn’t a story this season that has much potential to reach casual fans.
Ratings Myth No. 3: No Zion, no ratings
NBA officials have leaned on the injury explanation and they aren’t entirely wrong. Our Steve Berman has noted the “No Steph, no ratings” phenomenon. The slide preceded the Warriors falling apart, but their gap year certainly isn’t helping matters for the league.
I just find it strange when Zion Williamson’s injury is held up as an explanation for bad ratings this season. Yes, he’s an unusually captivating force who drew eyeballs at Duke. Yes, he has the potential to be a big draw at the NBA level and, yes, the NBA has New Orleans games on the national schedule. But we’ve seen many a hyped rookie get mired in NBA obscurity in his first season. Really, it already happened to Anthony Davis, the preceding No. 1 pick franchise savior. There’s a lot of excitement about a rookie, and then they’re playing 82 games for a non-playoff team. The novelty tends to wear off, up until that player blossoms into a superstar who can do some serious winning. I don’t dispute that Zion’s injury was bad for the league. But, in the same theme as the LeBron move explanation, if you’re blaming a rookie’s injury for lowered interest, you’ve got bigger issues.
Ratings Myth No. 4: Streaming salvation
TV is dead, you hear. Why even base judgments on those numbers? For NBA partisans, it’s comforting to believe that all these ratings drops are offset by millennials watching the game on streaming devices. If this was true, the NBA would be trumpeting such numbers. They aren’t because the ratings decline isn’t offset by streaming.
As I wrote back in October, there aren’t many publicly available measures of how many people are streaming NBA games versus watching them on traditional television, but the last NBA Finals gave an indicator when Canada’s TSN released their TV versus streaming stats. It turns out that 111 times more Canadians watched the Raptors win their first championship on television versus on the TSN feed. If streaming gains are going to offset TV losses, it will take awhile.
Ratings Myth No. 5: Don’t worry, the NBA has never been more popular
There was a persistent narrative of ascendence when it came to the NBA, an assumption that “cool” equals “growth.” Yes, NBA players are cool. That doesn’t mean their cachet scales. Plenty of cool things stay rather niche.
The high-water mark for American NBA viewership was the Bulls-Jazz Finals in 1998, which averaged 29 million viewers. Modern NBA Finals, at their absolute peak, top out at around 20 million. So, even though the U.S. added 50 million people between 1998 and today, the NBA lost the equivalent of New York City’s entire population in terms of peak viewership. Meanwhile, modern Super Bowls added about 20 million viewers since 1998. In short: The NFL grew while the NBA sputtered. The current predicament isn’t just a couple year issue; it’s been decades in the making. So the question is: How does the NBA win back some American consumers?
Ratings Myth No. 1: This isn’t a big deal
I’ve seen the ratings slide dismissed in some media quarters as something not worth caring about unless you work for TNT or ESPN. Not quite, not if you have an intense interest in the league as a whole. This slide has the potential to impact the entire NBA, dramatically so. The early evidence is reflected in the NBA seriously floating a midseason tournament, a huge departure from decades of tradition.
Yes, the NBA’s $24 billion national TV deal isn’t up until 2025, but negotiations and agreements occur far in advance. These talks are happening now, with an eye toward the precarious present. If the sport is about to take a multi-billion dollar haircut, so much can change. If the next deal completely crashes? Well, corporations are structured based on embedded assumptions of continued growth. A massive contraction tends to kick off a cascading, destructive effect. Certain markets might not be viable. It’s one thing to have a team in, say, New Orleans, when owners are splitting that huge deal 30 ways. It’s another thing when the money spigot stops. If that happens, everything is on the table, including how many teams exist, how many games they play and the nature of how those games are broadcast. There’s a lot at stake.
Ratings Myth No. 2: LeBron moved West
You see this explanation a lot, and it was floated by Silver himself: “LeBron is one of the biggest stars in the world and he also played in the East. The reason I look a little bit tired is a lot of our games are on the West and it’s late at night and I recognize most people choose to go to sleep at a reasonable time.”
Look, maybe the NBA believes this, but on its face, I find this explanation to be ridiculous. The NBA is arguing that ratings dropped because their sport’s biggest star moved to their version of the Dallas Cowboys, but if the Cowboys played in a far bigger market. Yes, the Lakers are on later at night. But the NBA saw surging ratings during the rise of the Warriors dynasty and the Warriors had the league’s latest average start times. Before that, Magic Johnson took the NBA from niche to national product in his first season as a rookie for the Lakers. Yes, more people live on the East Coast, but Los Angeles is America’s second-largest city and the Lakers’ local media reach extends to 30 million people. If your biggest star joining the Lakers explains a ratings slide, you have problems bigger than his move to the Lakers. Also, currently, the Lakers get the best national ratings of any team.
Really, the question isn’t “Is LeBron’s Laker move depressing league ratings?” The question is, “Why isn’t LeBron’s Laker move a bigger deal for the league?” James and company have pulled off an incredible feat, even if they don’t win the championship this season. They rejuvenated a Laker franchise that appeared to be spinning into disaster if not decades-long irrelevance. LeBron looks like the best 17th-season player the sport has ever seen and Anthony Davis is playing the best defensive basketball of his career. This should be one of the biggest stories in sports.
I think we all know why this isn’t fueling the league quite like it should, though, and it’s not about start times. The arrangement is awkwardly mercenary. Nobody buys that LeBron has some organic connection to Los Angeles beyond wanting to make movies and TV shows. Throw in the bizarre China controversy, in which James appeared to back America’s strongest rival against Daryl Morey, and you have more reason for why the public has been cool to his greatness. The public might warm up to the Lebron Laker situation eventually. Really, the league desperately needs it to. Outside of the Lakers, there isn’t a story this season that has much potential to reach casual fans.
Ratings Myth No. 3: No Zion, no ratings
NBA officials have leaned on the injury explanation and they aren’t entirely wrong. Our Steve Berman has noted the “No Steph, no ratings” phenomenon. The slide preceded the Warriors falling apart, but their gap year certainly isn’t helping matters for the league.
I just find it strange when Zion Williamson’s injury is held up as an explanation for bad ratings this season. Yes, he’s an unusually captivating force who drew eyeballs at Duke. Yes, he has the potential to be a big draw at the NBA level and, yes, the NBA has New Orleans games on the national schedule. But we’ve seen many a hyped rookie get mired in NBA obscurity in his first season. Really, it already happened to Anthony Davis, the preceding No. 1 pick franchise savior. There’s a lot of excitement about a rookie, and then they’re playing 82 games for a non-playoff team. The novelty tends to wear off, up until that player blossoms into a superstar who can do some serious winning. I don’t dispute that Zion’s injury was bad for the league. But, in the same theme as the LeBron move explanation, if you’re blaming a rookie’s injury for lowered interest, you’ve got bigger issues.
Ratings Myth No. 4: Streaming salvation
TV is dead, you hear. Why even base judgments on those numbers? For NBA partisans, it’s comforting to believe that all these ratings drops are offset by millennials watching the game on streaming devices. If this was true, the NBA would be trumpeting such numbers. They aren’t because the ratings decline isn’t offset by streaming.
As I wrote back in October, there aren’t many publicly available measures of how many people are streaming NBA games versus watching them on traditional television, but the last NBA Finals gave an indicator when Canada’s TSN released their TV versus streaming stats. It turns out that 111 times more Canadians watched the Raptors win their first championship on television versus on the TSN feed. If streaming gains are going to offset TV losses, it will take awhile.
Ratings Myth No. 5: Don’t worry, the NBA has never been more popular
There was a persistent narrative of ascendence when it came to the NBA, an assumption that “cool” equals “growth.” Yes, NBA players are cool. That doesn’t mean their cachet scales. Plenty of cool things stay rather niche.
The high-water mark for American NBA viewership was the Bulls-Jazz Finals in 1998, which averaged 29 million viewers. Modern NBA Finals, at their absolute peak, top out at around 20 million. So, even though the U.S. added 50 million people between 1998 and today, the NBA lost the equivalent of New York City’s entire population in terms of peak viewership. Meanwhile, modern Super Bowls added about 20 million viewers since 1998. In short: The NFL grew while the NBA sputtered. The current predicament isn’t just a couple year issue; it’s been decades in the making. So the question is: How does the NBA win back some American consumers?