Vs Portland
87k on TSN main
Chris offers those numbers and not so flattering commentary on TFC's tv appeal
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh...162215214.html
Vs Portland
87k on TSN main
Chris offers those numbers and not so flattering commentary on TFC's tv appeal
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh...162215214.html
Just a bit of context here.
Steven Goff @SoccerInsider 2m2 minutes ago Premier League matches on NBC Sports Network averaging 432,000 viewers, up 13%, network says.
The goal posts on what TFC viewership should be is probably a lot less then we wish it was and what some are suggesting it should be judged against.
Chris is nobody! (He's just a blogger on Yahoo Canada)Originally Posted by Pookie
I am sure MLSE aren't stupid enough to compare TFC ratings to other sports. Most likely, they will look at past TFC TV ratings and compare it to this year's ratings. If ratings are better this year than last few years, then TFC are on right track, but if their ratings are worst this year compare to previous years, then that's when you start asking questions.
I bet you not even 20% of posters here get Sportsnet 360. Cable is dead for anyone under 40. I either watch MLS live with a VPN or steal it, like everyone else. I have basic, but it doesn't include sports channels and I'm not paying 15.95 for a tier just to watch TFC games when I can give that money to MLS directly and get EVERY game.
EDIT: Seriously, MLS soccer is, relatively speaking, a newer option for people on TV. IF they're a hardcore, there's a chance they can get it from free sources and know that, and if they're not a hardcore... why would they?
Last edited by jloome; 10-01-2014 at 12:32 PM.
Zelcovich has been reporting on sports media ratings since the 90's. His blogs are basically what he used to write in the Star.
My issue with him is he compares everything on #'s only. There is a time and place for that. But, sports outside of hockey and CFL in Canada, and in the US, the NBA, MLB, College Football or Basketball and the NFL, are just not going to get those #'s. IF the EPL in the US is getting less then half a million, then the judgement of whether the product is relevant can't be based on straight eyeballs.
Agreed.
Cable TV is pretty much dead.
Live Sports is only thing that has any real value for cable providers these days (Example: Rogers spending $5.2 billion to save their channels like CityTV)
However, I except sports will eventually catch up with rest of TV programs and become more online/mobile friendly in the near future.
No offence, the Star is awful place to get sports news. To be honest, Canadian media in general is crap when comes to sports reporting outside of hockey (which no one even cares outside of Canada)
i cant remember the last time I channel surfed
I cant believe people still PVR things.
but then again, people still haev bank books
hell I know somone that doesnt even have a debit card.
Having all the remaining games on TSN will give a big boost to ratings.
come'on, let stop making excuses.
If you don't have TSN at home ... your one step from living in a tent/box in the park or becoming the unibomber.
The EPL on weekend MORNINGS are kicking the crap out of TFC in AFTERNOON and NIGHT games. Where are the soccer fans.
I see MLS game ads on TSN all the time. TSN is pushing it ... but no one is watching it.
MLSE poor marketing? Euro soccer snobs? TV Networks? Who's to blame?
Last edited by Qman; 10-01-2014 at 03:26 PM.
You may want to look into that a bit deeper.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cord...ines-1.2601373
lol. It's the opposite. Usually the people with the most high-tech stuff are the first to drop cable television. I haven't had cable for 5 years. I don't miss that crap at all.
but your point about the ratings still stands. They are terrible. And you could probably apply them to people streaming the games and they would still be bad.
TFC have been a depressing story lately. Until last Saturday.
None of the LA, Houston, NY games will have good numbers - late night, mid week against hockey opener, Thanksgiving weekend against HNIC. Those games will all suck TV wise.
I think a much more interesting test will be the Montreal game on Oct 18.
If TFC have more than a remote shot at getting in at that point, there will be some buzz around the team. If they can draw 500K for that, that would say something to me. 150K would say something else.
Too bad Montreal aren't in the playoff chase, that game could've really been something for TSN.
Last edited by ensco; 10-01-2014 at 04:59 PM.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Montreal doesn't attract a lot of viewers on English TSN (probably worst draw between Canadian teams on TV), so don't except huge ratings.
I agree. It won't draw because of Montreal.
It could if there is a lot of latent TFC interest sitting out there willing to come back if the team is good, and the games matter. This team drew 300K+ a lot the first 2-3 years. We'll see.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
When you say cable is dead… it isn't dead for NHL viewers. It isn't dead for NBA viewers. It isn't dead for NFL viewers. It isn't even dead for CFL viewers. According to Chris, it isn't dead for viewers of Lumberjack Challenges either.
So essentially, is the hypothesis that only MLS viewers have opted to ditch cable and take the legal risk in accessing "free" tv? Because virtually all of those other sports have maintained or grown viewership.
And the second part to that is that despite the piss poor ratings thus far, TFC actually set viewership records this year on cable. 300k plus. That came off the heels of a 290k+ in game 1. So what happened to those viewers? Did they opt to ditch cable by game 3?
I'm sorry, but the cable cutter hypothesis doesn't explain what we have seen this year. The simple truth is that TFC was and is a novelty. Enough to attract fans to a game or two but not enough to convert them. The quality of the team/MLS isn't enough to sustain interest amongst the mainstream sports viewer. It is a "fringe" sport in the eyes of the mainstream.
It isn't a top quality league but it is a great bit of fun for you and I and the thousands of local fans that have adopted the team.
Chris is not nobody, long time veteran Sports writer at the Star including time doing a media column .
Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!
You can watch all of the Reds and Whitecaps games on Sportsnet or TSN but the Impact do not have an English TV deal for the rest of the games.
Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!
That's based on a paradigm which states TV through cable is what is important.
Tell me this:
IF the TV numbers are the be all and end all, and the EPL is up with less then 500K in viewers in the US,
how come EPL teams keep coming back to the US and Canada every summer?
Probably the same reason that bands have concerts, to sell tickets.
I don't think that anyone is saying TV numbers are the be all and end all. However, what I am challenging is the hypothesis that TFC numbers are lower relative to other North American sports BECAUSE people don't have cable.
As the hypothesis goes, fewer people have cable, therefore fewer viewers.
That isn't what we see though.
We see a high of 300k+ viewers in March to 87k viewers on the same network (TSN Main) in September. Now, if the hypothesis is that cable cutters explain that, that must mean that over 200k MLS viewers cut their cables between then and now.
That simply isn't plausible. And it certainly isn't plausible when you consider that other sports maintained their cable viewership.
If TFC was a sitcom, it would be in danger of being cut from cable.
The drop from 300k to 87k is best explained by lack of sustainable interest.
That isn't to say that cable is the be all and end all but in terms of popular sports on cable TV, MLS/TFC isn't one of them.
I don't really get the debate about cable affecting TFC per se. Over the top viewing is hitting all sports. How is it affecting TFC differently?
The numbers are beyond terrible and are too small to deserve analysis.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
toronto argos: high tv ratings, bankrupt
toronto fc: low tv ratings, make profit
hmmmm.........
Well according to TL, they won't make a profit with this current revenue:expenditure ratio.
I'd prepare for a different sort of team building plan in the future.
Soccer terms, he's no body. Besides, the Star is awful when comes to sports reporting.
CBC gets higher ratings than TSN because far more Canadians have CBC. So it isn't far comparison to make here!
Yes, this year, but in the long term TFC will be profitable again while Argos will still be losing money until they get their own stadium where they can keep all their gate revenue and other revenue coming from owning a stadium.
You have a point.
I still think the horrible numbers this year are saying something. But it's not apples to apples.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
CBC vs TSN aside, 300k people tuned into TSN for game 1. 350k tuned into TSN for game 2.
Somewhere between there and here only 87k people tuned into TSN for game 29.
Team is in a playoff hunt. With Bradley and Gilberto playing.
Forget the Argo sidebar pissing match. Forget Sportsnet 360. Forget all that.
What happened to those +200k viewers on TSN that aren't watching anymore?
TFC is not promoted as much like the Whitecaps are and that might be a part of the reason. To me there seems to be a Whitecap bias from TSN, not sure about SN.
I can also see how most viewers tuning in the early portion of the season weren't MLS fans, most subsequently stopped watching after realising the football being played isn't up to their expectations. We aren't exactly playing beautifully.
Last edited by Richard; 10-01-2014 at 10:09 PM.
How much more are they spending this year than in 2012 on players?
2012 profit was 4.5 mill or smthing. Lets say were paying 20 million more on players (doubt it) than thats just 4 years of profit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote