Haimerej
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,083
- Reaction score
- 6,776
Well, it’s a starting point for negotiations .
Would you pay double to reach less people?
Well, it’s a starting point for negotiations .
You have to look at how to reach the largest segment viewing TV .Would you pay double to reach less people?
Newsflash: The Ravens are a team. They are going to do what is in their own best interest, and they are not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is Roger Goodell. He completely botched the biggest moment of his career.If I recall correctly it was the Ravens who swept it under the rug initially. It wasn’t until the video came out that exposed the mishandling of the situation.
No doubt the Ravens , the league and the Commish mishandled the situation. But that was early on in taking on these DV issues. That bundling of course set the stage for stricter decisions moving forward.
I’ve never seen that described as the biggest moment of his career. If you have something to document as such I’d love to see an article or quote supporting your claimNewsflash: The Ravens are a team. They are going to do what is in their own best interest, and they are not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is Roger Goodell. He completely botched the biggest moment of his career.
You have to look at how to reach the largest segment viewing TV .
If the pie is smaller in who’s viewing TV but the NFL take is a larger piece of the pie then yes, I could pay more.
What’s going to happen is the other sports and probably the regular programming is going to lose out for advertising dollars.
Because the rates would be higher to reach those viewers.Why would advertisers pay more money to reach less people? They already got free advertising due to underperforming ratings.
Because the rates would be higher to reach those viewers.
Unless the rates go up to reach that segment.That makes zero sense. The whole reason advertising/sponsorship costs what it does is because of the amount of people it reaches. That's the very reason behind, "make goods."
Unless the rates go up to reach that segment.
If the NFL is the Networks best customer attracting more sponsors and advertising dollars proportionately then the league could demand more money from the Networks which it appears they are going to do asking for an increase.
The league will throw in at least a week 17. A couple more playoff games and who knows what else . We had our first Tuesday game during pandemic. Just saying . They could offer the Networks more as well.
But if you noticed the article said they were gaining separation from the other live sports and programming. Meaning the competition was losing more viewers than them overall.Why would the rates go up if less people watch? The NFL has consistently been, "the best customer." That's not new territory. Every year there's a story about how much Super Bowl commercials cost.
But if you noticed the article said they were gaining separation from the other live sports and programming. Meaning the competition was losing more viewers than them overall.
That equates to more value was my take since they represent a bigger piece of the pie. Regardless if the pie is smaller overall. And why they will ask for more.
League lucked out more viewers have abandoned other programming more than theirs.
In one sense no, but if one entity has more market share in a declining market it could make their product more valuable in comparison.A bigger piece of a smaller pie doesn't equate to more value.
In one sense no, but if one entity has more market share in a declining market it could make their product more valuable in comparison.
I’d agree.Relative value isn't actual value.
I’d agree.
But it doesn’t change the fact the league will be in a position to generate more revenue without reaching as many fans.That wasn't so hard.
But it doesn’t change the fact the league will be in a position to generate more revenue without reaching as many fans.
This just in.Maybe