I'm sorry but 14K cannot be correct. TFC is in the middle of a playoff fight so I don't believe for a second that that is the interest level that can be generated.Originally Posted by mr k
I'm sorry but 14K cannot be correct. TFC is in the middle of a playoff fight so I don't believe for a second that that is the interest level that can be generated.
Actually, i was surprised they could measure that low. PPMs are very accurate even catch people watching in bars and at the gym.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote