Twitter: NFL and new tv deals announced

[CouchCoach]

The nets didn't do this because they wanted to but because they had to to play defense. The ratings are down from where they were the last TV deal and they paid 80% more.

They're paying a combined number greater than the value of all 32 teams combined. Go ahead, add it up on Forbes.

The predictions of the decline and fall of the NFL are wrong. The NFL isn't dependent on the ratings, the TV nets are. But with this programming, it is not all about ratings points.

One bet you can take to the bank, the nets saw this coming and have already talked to the agencies for ATT, State Farm, Progressive, Allstate and every other habitual advertiser that is dependent on reaching the largest male audience available and this is a pass along and they are assured these people are staying with them. The cost of reaching 25-64 men will go up and the agencies will either get more budget from their client or make up the difference with some other medium.

The NFL sponsors will also being paying a likewise increase and the objection that the ratings are down will fall on deaf ears. It is simply take it or leave it and if they leave it, someone else will pick it up.....probably a competitor. The bigger the company the more they have to play defense and unlike the NFL, defense is much more expensive.

I know, you hate the NFL, me too. I am conflicted. I dislike the company but love the game they play. Why not? I am the fan of a team I both like and despise, might as well complete the picture.

Do not fault those that predicted the downfall of the empire, it made them feel good at the time.

 

[MarcusRock]

You would be right if they were measuring everyone individually. They aren't. They are estimated based upon the viewing habits of their sample size. Do you think illegal streamers have significantly different viewing habits than those who stream legally? Like all the illegal streamers happen to be watching NFL games instead of movies and the number of them is so significant it makes the Nielsen ratings untrustworthy?

I would guess the networks are willing to pay so much because the ratings (which apparently you don't trust very much) show that the NFL performs very well against the rest of the programming. It's just compared to itself, the numbers have been declining. Or does the positive news about the NFL ratings matter, but the negative aspect of the ratings don't matter?

But the thing about illegal streamers is they can download a movie to watch anytime. They don't need to stream a movie on broadcast TV that competes with football at the time. They can have both. Are the Nielsen's capturing that angle? Who knows? Illegal streaming came to pass BECAUSE of sports so I'd argue it's the number 1 thing used by illegal streamers. Everyone wants to watch a sporting event live versus on replay. Does that hold true for a broadcast movie in the world of "on demand?"

The negative aspect of NFL ratings do matter, especially when they're impacted by a major variable that's "not measureable" by the ratings system itself. It skews the numbers, especially since you don't know how many more illegal streamers there are than legal ones if that's the actual situation. In the end, the networks (and advertisers) don't care because the eyes are still out there. That's why the networks pay. An 80% increase ain't for nothing and it ain't just because of the Nielsens I'm pretty sure.

 

[Aviano90]

But the thing about illegal streamers is they can download a movie to watch anytime. They don't need to stream a movie on broadcast TV that competes with football at the time. They can have both. Are the Nielsen's capturing that angle? Who knows? Illegal streaming came to pass BECAUSE of sports so I'd argue it's the number 1 thing used by illegal streamers. Everyone wants to watch a sporting event live versus on replay. Does that hold true for a broadcast movie in the world of "on demand?"

The negative aspect of NFL ratings do matter, especially when they're impacted by a major variable that's "not measureable" by the ratings system itself. It skews the numbers, especially since you don't know how many more illegal streamers there are than legal ones if that's the actual situation. In the end, the networks (and advertisers) don't care because the eyes are still out there. That's why the networks pay. An 80% increase ain't for nothing and it ain't just because of the Nielsens I'm pretty sure.

I'm sure they are aware there are unmeasurables. I'm also pretty sure they know a portion of those unmeasurables are putting eyes on their product. However, Nielsen has been the standard for ratings for many, many years. While unperfect, it's the best way to gauge viewership until something better comes along and as long as they measure consistently then you can make a comparison from one year to the next. Based upon their sample and coming up with ratings which is calculated based upon the percentage of households viewing a certain program, the ratings are declining. Joe Blow watching legally on TV last year but illegally streaming this year won't impact the ratings unless he is part of the Nielsen family who has agreed to have their viewing habits monitored.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm sure they are aware there are unmeasurables. I'm also pretty sure they know a portion of those unmeasurables are putting eyes on their product. However, Nielsen has been the standard for ratings for many, many years. While unperfect, it's the best way to gauge viewership until something better comes along and as long as they measure consistently then you can make a comparison from one year to the next. Based upon their sample and coming up with ratings which is calculated based upon the percentage of households viewing a certain program, the ratings are declining. Joe Blow watching legally on TV last year but illegally streaming this year won't impact the ratings unless he is part of the Nielsen family who has agreed to have their viewing habits monitored.

Sure, but these estimates don't account for a rising metric that are evident even in the link you presented. Take a look at the 18-49 total viewership numbers in the far right column. The numbers peaked the year right before legal streaming was introduced as a metric and has fallen every single year since then. If you look at the streaming column, that number has increased every single year since introduced. Do you think that's coincidence for a system that doesn't account for illegal streaming numbers at all? But you would have me believe that ratings troubles only started a few years ago? Which is the more likely effect? If ratings don't account for a rising metric that would positively impact ratings if measured, they have to decline. In the world of streaming, a Nielsen family can have a movie on their TV and have 3 kids in their rooms separately illegally streaming sports. Who would advertisers care more about? So while Nielsen is still the standard and imperfect, it is increasingly becoming more imperfect if it's ignoring an emerging metric of viewers. I sense the networks know this when it comes to sports hence the ratings matter less when handing out the cash. 80% don't lie.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/super-bowl-ratings-historical-viewership-chart-cbs-nbc-fox-abc/

 

[Aviano90]

Sure, but these estimates don't account for a rising metric that are evident even in the link you presented. Take a look at the 18-49 total viewership numbers in the far right column. The numbers peaked the year right before legal streaming was introduced as a metric and has fallen every single year since then. If you look at the streaming column, that number has increased every single year since introduced. Do you think that's coincidence for a system that doesn't account for illegal streaming numbers at all? But you would have me believe that ratings troubles only started a few years ago? Which is the more likely effect? If ratings don't account for a rising metric that would positively impact ratings if measured, they have to decline. In the world of streaming, a Nielsen family can have a movie on their TV and have 3 kids in their rooms separately illegally streaming sports. Who would advertisers care more about? So while Nielsen is still the standard and imperfect, it is increasingly becoming more imperfect if it's ignoring an emerging metric of viewers. I sense the networks know this when it comes to sports hence the ratings matter less when handing out the cash. 80% don't lie.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/super-bowl-ratings-historical-viewership-chart-cbs-nbc-fox-abc/

Seems like you are stuck on the exception rather than rule and worried more about illegal streamers who aren't being counted rather than the measured people who are tuning out. No big deal. Go be beat your chest over that new NFL TV contract and act like you won something over them grandstanders who apparently weren't tuning out when they said they were.

 

[MarcusRock]

Seems like you are stuck on the exception rather than rule and worried more about illegal streamers who aren't being counted rather than the measured people who are tuning out. No big deal. Go be beat your chest over that new NFL TV contract and act like you won something over them grandstanders who apparently weren't tuning out when they said they were.

The exception is probably bigger than one of the metrics that actually goes into these ratings. But let's just ignore it.

And I wouldn't be the only one acting like I won something. Sure know I didn't lose anything. I love football. LOL.

 

[Aviano90]

The exception is probably bigger than one of the metrics that actually goes into these ratings. But let's just ignore it.

And I wouldn't be the only one acting like I won something. Sure know I didn't lose anything. I love football. LOL.

 

[Section446]

It's criminal that DirecTV gets to keep Sunday Ticket.