Goodell a great Commish for the times

Haimerej · Feb 25, 2021

Diehardblues said:
Well, it’s a starting point for negotiations .

Would you pay double to reach less people?

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Haimerej said:
Would you pay double to reach less people?

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.

Ghost12 · Feb 25, 2021

Diehardblues said:
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.

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.

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Ghost12 said:
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.

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 claim

Because before the video came out the leagues stance was much different on DV. That video changes the whole perception and leagues stance.

Haimerej · Feb 25, 2021

Diehardblues said:
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.

Why would advertisers pay more money to reach less people? They already got free advertising due to underperforming ratings.

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Haimerej said:
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.

Haimerej · Feb 25, 2021

Diehardblues said:
Because the rates would be higher to reach those viewers.

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."

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Haimerej said:
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.

Haimerej · Feb 25, 2021

Diehardblues said:
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.

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.

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Haimerej said:
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.

Diehardblues · Feb 25, 2021

Sounds like advertising with the NFL will cost more reaching less people than it used to simply cause they’re market share with remaining audience is growing. Along with additional games.

Looks like the NFL got lucky that other live sports and programming is losing millions more viewers. And have plans to negotiate a bigger deal.

Haimerej · Feb 26, 2021

Diehardblues said:
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.

A bigger piece of a smaller pie doesn't equate to more value.

Diehardblues · Feb 26, 2021

Haimerej said:
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.

Haimerej · Feb 26, 2021

Diehardblues said:
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.

Relative value isn't actual value.

Diehardblues · Feb 26, 2021

Haimerej said:
Relative value isn't actual value.

I’d agree.

Haimerej · Feb 26, 2021

Diehardblues said:
I’d agree.

That wasn't so hard.

Diehardblues · Feb 26, 2021

Haimerej said:
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.

Haimerej · Feb 26, 2021

Diehardblues said:
But it doesn’t change the fact the league will be in a position to generate more revenue without reaching as many fans.

Maybe

Blackspider214 · Feb 26, 2021

Goodell works for the owners. He is their mouthpiece and errand boy. His decisions are exactly what the owners want.

Diehardblues · Feb 26, 2021

Haimerej said:
Maybe

This just in.

“Sources said Disney is expected to pay an increase of up to 30% from its current deal, which based on an average of $2B per year would equate to around $2.6B.”

"Sources said that CBS, Fox and NBC will be paying around $2B per year for their packages, a massive increase essentially doubling their current deals."
https://t.co/DXbZRGuPXH?amp=1

Apparently the reports were correct. The networks are willing to pay more for less viewers because of the market share they increased over other programming. Disney initially was balking but the NFL threw ESPN back in the rotation for broadcasting the Super Bowl .

Theres a new thread in main forum on it. Disney and new NFL deal.

Goodell a great Commish for the times

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member