NFL TV Partners Set To Lose Up To $500 Million On Ratings Decline

[dorquemada]

33 minutes ago, KingRex said:

This thread is based on an incorrect comparison as to what motivates buying decisions for commercial buyers.  The decision driver is NOT simply how do NFL TV ratings compare to last year's TV ratings.  What is most relevant is how do TV ratings compare to what's #2 in TV ratings and how much is the cost for showing nmy commercial to eyeballs I want to reach.

 

I do not care if the Oscar's are more highly rated than a particular NFL game.  ff the NFL game remains a greater assemblage of folks who buy beer I'm buying NFL commercials rather than Oscar commercials.

 

I want to pay less for reaching fewer eyeballs, but I still pay.

 

Buyers aren't going to pay the same rate for fewer and fewer eyeballs.  a small ratings reduction wont matter but what we're seeing isn't a 'small' reduction.  Also, this isn't the day of one game in town, a lot of people watch youtube instead of TV.  Internet advertising has been draining dollars away from TV forever, which is one of the reasons why we've seen massive consolidation in the radio and tv space

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

21 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The KB touchdown overturn irks me to this day, and it is symptomatic of one of the reasons I don't go out of my way to watch more games. The maddening thing about is I rationally would have understood a "no TD" call (upon replay any way) and 'not enough to overturn'.  I don't get it, won't get it and understand that replay doesn't prove it was a catch. Multiply that by the number of times these things happen and it takes away enjoyment of the game. Same with the fumble TD return, exactly the same reasoning and same process. Add to that the abject failure of the NFL to send a meaningful message on the gronk cheap shot...hard to think the scale isn't tilted toward Massachusetts.

 

Personally speaking, the protests are a factor as well.  I don't think protesting at your place of work is wise, I think doing so when people who might give a ----- that you are protesting on their dime is even sillier. Actions have consequences.  How significant the consequences are is of course, debatable.

 

The Ground Can Not Cause a Fumble used to be a rule, but now with the "Process of being a runner" after the catch throws that out the window. 

 

Call it consistently. Do not rob the Bills and give it to the Pats!!! 

 

The Gronk non flag (on a Pats player) should have been an immediate ejection from that game.  

Edited January 29, 2018 by ShadyBillsFan

[boyst]

1 hour ago, dorquemada said:

 

They apparently never heard the economist's phrase "Get Woke, Go Broke"

I don't trust economists. They're idiots. 

[Batman1876]

The protests during the anthem point to the real problem with the NFL audience, they were already looking for an excuse to tune out.  In weeks one and two, before the president commented on the issue, 5 players knelt or sat during the anthem, 32 teams with a 53 man roster means there are over 1600 players each week.  5 players is .3% of players. So many fans were willing to get upset over such a small portion of players, and many tuned out over that small percentage. Fans are looking for a reason to stop watching, and they are more and more likely to find one.

[dorquemada]

41 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I don't trust economists. They're idiots. 

 

perhaps, but look at the track record of organizations that 'get woke' i think you'll find the economist's rule of thumb is indeed accurate.  you can only piss on the people that pay your bills for so long before they catch on to the scam

[Xwnyer]

16 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

The protests during the anthem point to the real problem with the NFL audience, they were already looking for an excuse to tune out.  In weeks one and two, before the president commented on the issue, 5 players knelt or sat during the anthem, 32 teams with a 53 man roster means there are over 1600 players each week.  5 players is .3% of players. So many fans were willing to get upset over such a small portion of players, and many tuned out over that small percentage. Fans are looking for a reason to stop watching, and they are more and more likely to find one.

had to find some excuse to quit watching.   A friend quit watching claiming over disrespect of vets and the flag but its because he nephew is no longer playing pure and simple

[Doc Brown]

19 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

The protests during the anthem point to the real problem with the NFL audience, they were already looking for an excuse to tune out.  In weeks one and two, before the president commented on the issue, 5 players knelt or sat during the anthem, 32 teams with a 53 man roster means there are over 1600 players each week.  5 players is .3% of players. So many fans were willing to get upset over such a small portion of players, and many tuned out over that small percentage. Fans are looking for a reason to stop watching, and they are more and more likely to find one.

You can stop watching with any consequence at any time so I don't buy that.  Yes, Trump exasperated the problem because he's Donald Trump, bug Goodell could of put out a memo after Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem that said any player that does not stand during the National Anthem would be suspended three games without pay.  That would of put an end to it right there.  He either didn't have the cajones to do it or didn't realize it would escalate to the point he's losing a significant number of viewers over it.  Either way he was incompetent and cost the league money.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You can stop watching with any consequence at any time so I don't buy that.  Yes, Trump exasperated the problem because he's Donald Trump, bug Goodell could of put out a memo after Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem that said any player that does not stand during the National Anthem would be suspended three games without pay.  That would of put an end to it right there.  He either didn't have the cajones to do it or didn't realize it would escalate to the point he's losing a significant number of viewers over it.  Either way he was incompetent and cost the league money.

that is a bit harsh imo

 

Go back to what it used to be.  Players were in the locker room or in the tunnel until after the anthem played. 

[dorquemada]

11 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You can stop watching with any consequence at any time so I don't buy that.  Yes, Trump exasperated the problem because he's Donald Trump, bug Goodell could of put out a memo after Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem that said any player that does not stand during the National Anthem would be suspended three games without pay.  That would of put an end to it right there.  He either didn't have the cajones to do it or didn't realize it would escalate to the point he's losing a significant number of viewers over it.  Either way he was incompetent and cost the league money.

 

Goodell and the others that run the league (not the owners, the ppl in NYC) are more concerned with pleasing their neighbors in the upper east side than pleasing football fans.  no matter how woke the try to make the NFL, those people aren't about to turn into rabid NFL fans, and will never make up for Lunchpail Stan in Cleveland that's now turned off from the league forever 

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

that is a bit harsh imo

 

Go back to what it used to be.  Players were in the locker room or in the tunnel until after the anthem played. 

Or that

[boyst]

33 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

perhaps, but look at the track record of organizations that 'get woke' i think you'll find the economist's rule of thumb is indeed accurate.  you can only piss on the people that pay your bills for so long before they catch on to the scam

The economist is befuddled by tom Brady's existence. He should not exist. And he does because of Belichick and sheer luck and most importantly the NFL bias and their cheating

[Batman1876]

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You can stop watching with any consequence at any time so I don't buy that.  Yes, Trump exasperated the problem because he's Donald Trump, bug Goodell could of put out a memo after Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem that said any player that does not stand during the National Anthem would be suspended three games without pay.  That would of put an end to it right there.  He either didn't have the cajones to do it or didn't realize it would escalate to the point he's losing a significant number of viewers over it.  Either way he was incompetent and cost the league money.

 Habits die hard, thats why people buy the same brand of dish soap for decades, thats why some people buy the same car brand over and over, its not a simple change.  If the League tried your approach it would have been a disaster. According to the CBA any punishment is subject to arbitration, and can subsequently be challenged in court, as we saw with Zeke this year. On top of that "Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands explains, an athlete hired to a contract for a term of years cannot simply be fired for exercising political speech unless exercising that speech violates the terms of the underlying contract."  So you would have a series of arbitrations and court hearings that debate if this political speech is in some way a violation of player contracts while other forms of political speech are not. So after dozens of court cases all sides would be stuck with a new precedent that opens up a whole host of problems that would be detrimental to everyone involved. In short your suspension policy would be the largest sports legal battle in history and the NFL would likely lose, and even if they won the damage to player owner relations would be catastrophic, just look how damaging their legal battles with Brady and Zeke were, now imagine that with the hundreds of players who protested in week 3. 

 

[ddaryl]

24 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Goodell could of put out a memo after Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem that said any player that does not stand during the National Anthem would be suspended three games without pay. 

 

 

That statement flies in the face of every single thing this country does represent.

 

If you are an American you accept the peaceful protest at its face value, a truely American thing to do. Maybe you do not beleive in the reasoning but that does change the fact that that it was a very American thing to do Those players made a statement, and it worked well because people are stil discussing it.. Mission accomplished

Funny how people get upset over the very thing that brought this nation into being.. Freedom of expression freedom to peacefully protest, and freedom in general.... Why should anyone blindly swear allegiance to the USA if they have issues with how the country is being run.. Protests force conversation and change and thats is very much American

 

DO you, or anyone dare suggest a law forcing people to stand during the national anthem... What would be the consequence. Doesn't sound like freedom to me

 

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Batman1876 said:

 Habits die hard, thats why people buy the same brand of dish soap for decades, thats why some people buy the same car brand over and over, its not a simple change.  If the League tried your approach it would have been a disaster. According to the CBA any punishment is subject to arbitration, and can subsequently be challenged in court, as we saw with Zeke this year. On top of that "Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands explains, an athlete hired to a contract for a term of years cannot simply be fired for exercising political speech unless exercising that speech violates the terms of the underlying contract."  So you would have a series of arbitrations and court hearings that debate if this political speech is in some way a violation of player contracts while other forms of political speech are not. So after dozens of court cases all sides would be stuck with a new precedent that opens up a whole host of problems that would be detrimental to everyone involved. In short your suspension policy would be the largest sports legal battle in history and the NFL would likely lose, and even if they won the damage to player owner relations would be catastrophic, just look how damaging their legal battles with Brady and Zeke were, now imagine that with the hundreds of players who protested in week 3. 

 

That case had to do with an endorsement contract, but I see your point.  However, the league’s collective bargaining agreement does give the commissioner broad powers to impose punishments “for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”  That's how Brady's suspension ultimately held up.  It would have been a messy case with Kaepernick, but the majority of NFL fans would of sided with Goodell.  A more competent commissioner would have nipped this in the bub and discussed with player representatives about how they could protest in other ways besides standing for the National Anthem.

1 hour ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

That statement flies in the face of every single thing this country does represent.

 

If you are an American you accept the peaceful protest at its face value, a truely American thing to do. Maybe you do not beleive in the reasoning but that does change the fact that that it was a very American thing to do Those players made a statement, and it worked well because people are stil discussing it.. Mission accomplished

Funny how people get upset over the very thing that brought this nation into being.. Freedom of expression freedom to peacefully protest, and freedom in general.... Why should anyone blindly swear allegiance to the USA if they have issues with how the country is being run.. Protests force conversation and change and thats is very much American

 

DO you, or anyone dare suggest a law forcing people to stand during the national anthem... What would be the consequence. Doesn't sound like freedom to me

 

 

The NFL is a private business so they have every right to impose whatever policies they want on their employees.  Jerry Jones said if you kneel you don't play.  I personally have no problem with players kneeling, but obviously a lot of people do and it's hurt the league's viewership.

[Batman1876]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

That case had to do with an endorsement contract, but I see your point.  However, the league’s collective bargaining agreement does give the commissioner broad powers to impose punishments “for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”  That's how Brady's suspension ultimately held up.  It would have been a messy case with Kaepernick, but the majority of NFL fans would of sided with Goodell.  A more competent commissioner would have nipped this in the bub and discussed with player representatives about how they could protest in other ways besides standing for the National Anthem.

I don't know that most fans would have Supported Goodell and it would have let to problems down the line whenever a player made a political statement. I also don't know if a negotiation would have been possible. Kaep obviously wanted to make a statement, what forum and protest would have given him this big of a pulpit? 

[Doc Brown]

Just now, Batman1876 said:

I don't know that most fans would have Supported Goodell and it would have let to problems down the line whenever a player made a political statement. I also don't know if a negotiation would have been possible. Kaep obviously wanted to make a statement, what forum and protest would have given him this big of a pulpit? 

There's polls out that show most fans disapprove of players not standing for the National Anthem.  It was a tough situation for Goodell and he did nothing.  Now he's paying the consequences.  There was no bigger forum for Kaepernick to make his statement and that's why it was wise of him to do it.

[ddaryl]

29 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

That case had to do with an endorsement contract, but I see your point.  However, the league’s collective bargaining agreement does give the commissioner broad powers to impose punishments “for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”  That's how Brady's suspension ultimately held up.  It would have been a messy case with Kaepernick, but the majority of NFL fans would of sided with Goodell.  A more competent commissioner would have nipped this in the bub and discussed with player representatives about how they could protest in other ways besides standing for the National Anthem.

The NFL is a private business so they have every right to impose whatever policies they want on their employees.  Jerry Jones said if you kneel you don't play.  I personally have no problem with players kneeling, but obviously a lot of people do and it's hurt the league's viewership.

 

 

Small minority may have issues with the protest. The majority of issues stems from a generation of people no longer using traditional TV outlets to get their sports news etc...

 

As for a private business it still belongs under the umbrella of the constitution of the United States, so unless we're going to allow each corproation to become its own Country they don't have a pot to piss in this regards. You are correct they can terminate an employee or bench that player.. but in the end that player will stil be paid via what they are owed in contract and that player would become a FA. I would think the majority of fans would be upset if their team was benched for practicing their rights as Ameircans.

 

Now if people are really upset then they are not making that big of a deal about it because overall stadiums are still full and message boards are still busy

Edited January 29, 2018 by ddaryl

[Batman1876]

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There's polls out that show most fans disapprove of players not standing for the National Anthem.  It was a tough situation for Goodell and he did nothing.  Now he's paying the consequences.  There was no bigger forum for Kaepernick to make his statement and that's why it was wise of him to do it.

35%  support kneeling 50% disapprove.  However a vast majority of people support freedom of speech even if they don't agree with what the person is saying (75%).  So some of those who disapproved of the kneeling would also disapprove of the limit put on free speech to stop it.  So doing nothing makes half the people angry and doing something would have made the other half angry. And Goodell had no leverage to convince Kaep to give up his protest and even if he did have some leverage stepping in to stop a political statement (which I don't think the NFL has ever done) about racial injustice would have been a nightmare. 

[Fadingpain]

On November 28, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Gugny said:

I agree with most of it.

 

I think horrible officiating is another factor that I would have included.

 

I like that they minimized the impact of the protests.  I think any decline in viewership due to the protests has been very small.  Obviously, that's just my opinion.

 

Lastly, I think social media has had an impact - and it's the players, themselves who have hurt the league.  I think players like Richard Sherman, voicing his displeasure with the league and - pretty much - telling us how much he hates his job, hurts viewership.  I'm not saying Sherman doesn't have legitimate gripes.  I'm simply opining that the more fans see how unhappy the players are, the less fun it is to watch.

 

This is why I think bringing back TD celebrations was a good idea.

 

People want to watch good football (playing and officiating) and they want to see players having fun.

 

Agree totally with your paragraph 3.

 

Disagree with paragraph 4.  

 

I still think the decline in the NFL is simply cyclic.  Everything in life has a cycle and things are either on their way up, or on their way down.  Things usually don't hang around for long at any point on the cycle.

 

The NFL has enjoyed a historic run "at the top" and that is not sustainable.

 

 

[Chicken Boo]

On 11/28/2017 at 11:02 AM, Chuck Wagon said:

I think it's Redzone.

 

It's a fantastic product, no commercials, you can sit down on a Sunday afternoon and soak up the vast majority of the football for that week in a neat and tidy seven hour window. 

 

It makes the lack of flow in the primetime games that much more obvious.  After getting seven hours of nonstop action, it's painful to watch a primetime game full of commercials, random stoppages and several bad matchups.  As Redzone's prevalence grows, the gap between watching in that window and the viewing experience of of a single game widens.  Add in that Fox and CBS aren't getting all the eyes for their premier weekly matchups anymore and it's all a snowball.

 

It got so bad DirecTV pulled free viewing of the Redzone channel 3 weeks into the season.