(01-08-2016 06:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think they have any interest in having them before the bowls. I mean, they could have the playoffs semifinals in your thing as early as December 27. I don't think they want it that early at all.

And I do think like the Big Ten/Pac 12 will always push to have the bowls included in the playoff.....

Perhaps. But college football's known day is Saturday. People always have those Sat off, whether it's the one after Xmas or the one after Xmas or the one after NY.

Bowls are tied to their traditional dates, but standalone CFP semi games can move.

Sorry no chance in hell there would be any playoff game on Dec 27. That's just complete lunacy.

Because?

(01-08-2016 04:04 PM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't ESPN control the Dec. 31 kickoff times? The first two games that day should be the semifinal games. Cotton or Orange should get the 8 pm ET start.

I'm guessing they do to an extent. They're really stuck between a rock and a hard place for 2016-17 with 37 bowl games to fit in between December 17 and Jan 2 while having Christmas Eve and NYE both falling on Saturdays and New Year's Day on a Sunday.

If I'm ESPN, I'm looking to maximize Dec 31, 2016 and Jan 2, 2017 with a schedule like this (all times EST):

Saturday Dec 31, 2016

11am - ESPN - Orange Bowl - ACC vs. Big Ten/SEC
11am - ESPN2 - TaxSlayer Bowl - Big Ten vs. SEC
11am - ESPNU - St. Petersburg Bowl - AAC vs. CUSA

3pm - ESPN - Peach Bowl - Playoff Semi-final

7pm - ESPN - Fiesta Bowl - Playoff Semi-final

10:30pm - ESPN2 - Foster Farms Bowl - Big Ten vs. Pac 12


Monday Jan 2, 2016

11am - ESPNU - Birmingham Bowl - AAC vs. SEC
11am - ESPN2 - Outback Bowl - Big Ten vs. SEC
12pm - ABC - Citrus Bowl - Big Ten vs. SEC
1pm - ESPN - Cotton Bowl - NY6 at-large vs. NY6 at-large

5pm - ESPN - Rose Bowl - Big Ten vs. Pac 12

8:30pm - ESPN - Sugar Bowl - Big 12 vs. SEC


That leaves them with 25 bowls to spread over 12 days for the rest.

The Orange Bowl has historically been a night time bowl game. The bowl would be better off playing Friday night or Sunday evening during Prime time.

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:38 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  They guarantee a ratings range. Obviously a higher rating means higher ad revenue. It is a way to maximize ad revenue. It sometimes fails, but works more often that not.

If you were an advertiser, why would you advertise with a broadcaster that couldn't guarantee a minimum audience? You might, but you aren't going to pay a premium price for it.

Guy selling you a used car tells you "I guarantee you'll get at least 100,000 mi out of this baby! *giant, fake tooth smile* "

Who's the fool?


I mean ... am I really about to quote Tommy Boy?? "Look, if you want a guaranteed piece of ****, I can take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed."

The problem is your response doesn't exist in the real world. Without an audience guarantee, ESPN sells the adspace for FAR LESS than they could with the guarantee. The guarantee sets the rate the advertiser pay, and if they don't deliver they "make-good." Without the guarantee, they make less. per commercial. That is why EVERY network does this.

(01-08-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So what was the problem, again? I know you laid it out in another thread, but I don't remember.

Because the Sunday after NYD (usually) is Week 17, when all the teams just play on Sunday (to even things up). So it would (almost) always work to have the standalone CFP semi's on that Saturday.

This works good for TV, but the bowls themselves absolutely do not want the games past NYD, to protect their own interests. This year is probably the only time the Saturday date would have worked, with it being on the second and NFL week 17, but just about every other year, they want the game the day of the NYD holiday or before. Having the games after New Year was one direct cause for the bowls to agree to a playoff, because the BCS having games on Jan 2, 3, and 4 was killing them.

(01-08-2016 04:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's about 50/50 it being Week 17.

What is?

Week 17 is always a Sunday. I'm proposing the standalone CFP semi games are always the Saturday. Where's the conflict?

He is saying it is 50/50 that the Sunday after NYD is week 17. If it is not week 17, you run into the issue of competing with the NFL playoffs. And no they will not change that for the CFP. Not only will they not change it, they actually mentioned possibly having a Monday Night playoff game, if they expanded the playoffs, which would fall on the day the CFP has scheduled the national championship game. That is how little the NFL cares.

But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You don't understand how TV works.

Thanks to many posters on this thread, I do very much understand how it currently works.

It always amuses me to no end when someone presents something, as an idea for the future, and the response is "huh?? that's not how it works now"

Duh!

The challenge with the Rose Bowl is that it is more than just the game. From the parade to all the events surrounding the game, the week of events is well supported. Unlike the made-for-tv bowl games that lead up to Jan 1, the Rose Bowl committee has the political clout to fight back.

I don't know why the Rose Bowl Parade and game have to be on the same day. Trying to make both is not easy and makes for a very long day.

(01-08-2016 06:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Guy selling you a used car tells you "I guarantee you'll get at least 100,000 mi out of this baby! *giant, fake tooth smile* "

Who's the fool?


I mean ... am I really about to quote Tommy Boy?? "Look, if you want a guaranteed piece of ****, I can take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed."

The problem is your response doesn't exist in the real world. Without an audience guarantee, ESPN sells the adspace for FAR LESS than they could with the guarantee. The guarantee sets the rate the advertiser pay, and if they don't deliver they "make-good." Without the guarantee, they make less. per commercial. That is why EVERY network does this.

(01-08-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So what was the problem, again? I know you laid it out in another thread, but I don't remember.

Because the Sunday after NYD (usually) is Week 17, when all the teams just play on Sunday (to even things up). So it would (almost) always work to have the standalone CFP semi's on that Saturday.

This works good for TV, but the bowls themselves absolutely do not want the games past NYD, to protect their own interests. This year is probably the only time the Saturday date would have worked, with it being on the second and NFL week 17, but just about every other year, they want the game the day of the NYD holiday or before. Having the games after New Year was one direct cause for the bowls to agree to a playoff, because the BCS having games on Jan 2, 3, and 4 was killing them.

(01-08-2016 04:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  What is?

Week 17 is always a Sunday. I'm proposing the standalone CFP semi games are always the Saturday. Where's the conflict?

He is saying it is 50/50 that the Sunday after NYD is week 17. If it is not week 17, you run into the issue of competing with the NFL playoffs. And no they will not change that for the CFP. Not only will they not change it, they actually mentioned possibly having a Monday Night playoff game, if they expanded the playoffs, which would fall on the day the CFP has scheduled the national championship game. That is how little the NFL cares.

But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You don't understand how TV works.

Thanks to many posters on this thread, I do very much understand how it currently works.

It always amuses me to no end when someone presents something, as an idea for the future, and the response is "huh?? that's not how it works now"

Duh!

The customers are the AD agencies. Telling them "Tough, this is the price" will just push them off to other networks and other events to advertise their wares. Also, while carriage fees bring in more money advertising still brings a substantial amount of their income. Telling advertisers to sign on the line or F off is bad business. Your new way would never work. Why would they pay superbowl rates for round 1 NBA playoff ratings?

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You are trying to reinvent the wheel in an industry you admittedly don't understand. Why? As you can see, if the guarantees meant they had to give back $20 million in free ads, they obviously are making a lot more than that. 9 figures. You are suggesting they just leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for no reason.

(01-08-2016 02:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:03 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  a shame that almost certainly the Big Ten won't be morons and leave ESPN completely.

B1G and their digging in on Rose Bowl time slot is big reason for the ratings disaster. Losses, like taxes are passed on. B1G will lighten stance on Rose time slot or pay price in bidding. Just my opinion.

Uh, it has nothing to do with that here and it's quite unfair to single out the B1G when the Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 (the latter 2 via their protected Sugar Bowl time slot) have the exact same incentives. The Big Ten is going to get paid quite handsomely regardless of the CFP ratings - those two issues have nothing to do with each other.

Not to mention that the Rose Bowl isn;t actually part of the Big Ten TV package.

Yes, that's also a basic fact. It just seemed like yet another Big Ten haterade comment (even though the Big Ten will very likely destroy all of the haterade opinions when their new TV contract is signed).

I have strongly disliked the Big Ten for about fifty years, but know that the Rose Bowl/Big Ten is not the main culprit here.

(01-08-2016 03:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what motivation would the Big 12 and SEC have to move their game to the worst slot? That's just ******* stupid and a complete non starter. Yeah, screw the SEC/Big 12, but let the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac 12 get their flaunted slot. And yes, I do think the SEC is thinking this more and more.

Well, the Rose Bowl IS the significantly more valuable property. The SEC can deny it and not want it to be the case, but it's a simple fact. They're lucky that they're getting paid an equal amount for the much less valuable Sugar Bowl. Now, I agree that the SEC and Big 12 aren't going to move the Sugar Bowl out of the goodness of their hearts for free, though. The only motivation is if ESPN ponies up even more money to be able to move the date of the game.

The question though is would the money that it would take to do that- it would be significant- 2 things. 1- would the Big Ten/Pac 12 want more money at that point- and 2- would it at that point not be worth it to ESPN to move things?

Also, I think if the Sugar got moved, it would be to after New Years and not NYE. That would be a complete and total non starter. I mean- ESPN comes to the SEC/Big 12. Hey we want you to move off of New Years night, and the reason is we don't want the semifinals on New Years eve night, but hey, we want to stick you there.

I've read complaints about low ratings on this board in the following ways:

a) ratings were down because NYE is obviously a worse day than NYD to play the game

b) ratings were down because the game was played before the playoff games, so the playoff games stole focus away from the game

c) ratings were down because the game was played after the playoff games, so the people didn't care about college football anymore at that point


Seems to me that you're screwed, any way you go. Unless you're a playoff game, on NYD.


I think it has a lot more to do with the teams involved. I can't guarantee that Ohio St v Alabama on NYE this season would've got the ratings that Ohio St v Alabama got on NYD last season. But I'm sure it would've been a more competitive game and it would've been between two mega-ratings teams, rather than just one.

The ratings for the CFP natty will be telling. I wouldn't say that Oregon is a mega-ratings team. And neither is Clemson. Then again, the midwest + the west is bigger/more populated than just the southeast.

Maybe the "casual fan" or general public just doesn't care quite as much for these playoff games as some people thought they might?

(01-08-2016 07:52 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The problem is your response doesn't exist in the real world. Without an audience guarantee, ESPN sells the adspace for FAR LESS than they could with the guarantee. The guarantee sets the rate the advertiser pay, and if they don't deliver they "make-good." Without the guarantee, they make less. per commercial. That is why EVERY network does this.


This works good for TV, but the bowls themselves absolutely do not want the games past NYD, to protect their own interests. This year is probably the only time the Saturday date would have worked, with it being on the second and NFL week 17, but just about every other year, they want the game the day of the NYD holiday or before. Having the games after New Year was one direct cause for the bowls to agree to a playoff, because the BCS having games on Jan 2, 3, and 4 was killing them.


He is saying it is 50/50 that the Sunday after NYD is week 17. If it is not week 17, you run into the issue of competing with the NFL playoffs. And no they will not change that for the CFP. Not only will they not change it, they actually mentioned possibly having a Monday Night playoff game, if they expanded the playoffs, which would fall on the day the CFP has scheduled the national championship game. That is how little the NFL cares.

But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You don't understand how TV works.

Thanks to many posters on this thread, I do very much understand how it currently works.

It always amuses me to no end when someone presents something, as an idea for the future, and the response is "huh?? that's not how it works now"

Duh!

The customers are the AD agencies. Telling them "Tough, this is the price" will just push them off to other networks and other events to advertise their wares. Also, while carriage fees bring in more money advertising still brings a substantial amount of their income. Telling advertisers to sign on the line or F off is bad business. Your new way would never work. Why would they pay superbowl rates for round 1 NBA playoff ratings?

Like I said, let them walk. See who breaks first. I contend the ad sellers will care more about getting their adds on the biggest games, than anything else.

And they were already willing to pay those prices. If the ratings had been higher, nothing would've happened. And it might not have resulted in more sales, anyway. That's the thing that I think is ridiculous about this whole deal.

Sales are all that ultimately matters. Trying to pretend that X ratings = Y sales is bogus.


To your last question: then it simply becomes a matter of taking the risk and having a memory.

Say they paid the big bucks to get the add on the CFP semi game. Well, ratings were lower than expected. So they got "burned". Remember that. Perhaps don't make the same mistake twice. Or justify it.

But the price stays the same.

(01-08-2016 07:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You are trying to reinvent the wheel in an industry you admittedly don't understand. Why? As you can see, if the guarantees meant they had to give back $20 million in free ads, they obviously are making a lot more than that. 9 figures. You are suggesting they just leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for no reason.

They wouldn't be leaving that money on the table.

As I said, the price stays the same.


The "risk" now goes on the ad seller.

Which is a bunch of crap anyway, because it's laughable to think that X ratings automatically gives Y sales. What if the ad was crappy? Etc.

(01-09-2016 09:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what motivation would the Big 12 and SEC have to move their game to the worst slot? That's just ******* stupid and a complete non starter. Yeah, screw the SEC/Big 12, but let the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac 12 get their flaunted slot. And yes, I do think the SEC is thinking this more and more.

Well, the Rose Bowl IS the significantly more valuable property. The SEC can deny it and not want it to be the case, but it's a simple fact. They're lucky that they're getting paid an equal amount for the much less valuable Sugar Bowl. Now, I agree that the SEC and Big 12 aren't going to move the Sugar Bowl out of the goodness of their hearts for free, though. The only motivation is if ESPN ponies up even more money to be able to move the date of the game.

The question though is would the money that it would take to do that- it would be significant- 2 things. 1- would the Big Ten/Pac 12 want more money at that point- and 2- would it at that point not be worth it to ESPN to move things?

Also, I think if the Sugar got moved, it would be to after New Years and not NYE. That would be a complete and total non starter. I mean- ESPN comes to the SEC/Big 12. Hey we want you to move off of New Years night, and the reason is we don't want the semifinals on New Years eve night, but hey, we want to stick you there.

I've read complaints about low ratings on this board in the following ways:

a) ratings were down because NYE is obviously a worse day than NYD to play the game

b) ratings were down because the game was played before the playoff games, so the playoff games stole focus away from the game

c) ratings were down because the game was played after the playoff games, so the people didn't care about college football anymore at that point


Seems to me that you're screwed, any way you go. Unless you're a playoff game, on NYD.


I think it has a lot more to do with the teams involved. I can't guarantee that Ohio St v Alabama on NYE this season would've got the ratings that Ohio St v Alabama got on NYD last season. But I'm sure it would've been a more competitive game and it would've been between two mega-ratings teams, rather than just one.

The ratings for the CFP natty will be telling. I wouldn't say that Oregon is a mega-ratings team. And neither is Clemson. Then again, the midwest + the west is bigger/more populated than just the southeast.

Maybe the "casual fan" or general public just doesn't care quite as much for these playoff games as some people thought they might?

But then why were the ratings so high last year? Was it because it was the Rose/Sugar on NYD? Was it the novelty? Did it have to do with the teams?

I think we won't know for sure until after two full cycles.


But it could well be that we only see mega-ratings when the semi's are on NYD, in the Rose/Sugar with mega-ratings teams playing.

(01-09-2016 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 07:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You are trying to reinvent the wheel in an industry you admittedly don't understand. Why? As you can see, if the guarantees meant they had to give back $20 million in free ads, they obviously are making a lot more than that. 9 figures. You are suggesting they just leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for no reason.

They wouldn't be leaving that money on the table.

As I said, the price stays the same.


The "risk" now goes on the ad seller.

Which is a bunch of crap anyway, because it's laughable to think that X ratings automatically gives Y sales. What if the ad was crappy? Etc.

ESPN can't just unilaterally state the price. Telling the entities that spend the most on ads throughout the year, such as car companies, cell phone providers, insurance companies, and fast food chains to "take it or leave it" simply doesn't work because they have a lot of leverage and established course of business, too.

In fact, it's not "laughable" about the effectiveness of ads. That's actually TV's biggest weakness - you can't *directly* tie a sale to an ad in the way that you can do on the Internet. As a result, advertisers actually have *more* leverage right now with TV networks. They can say that they're going to take their ad dollars to the Internet (which they have increasingly done). There just isn't a way for ESPN to say "take it or leave it" - it's a 2-way street and if ESPN charges a high ad rate, the it's going to have to deliver a certain number of viewers to justify it. It's just business.

(01-09-2016 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 07:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You are trying to reinvent the wheel in an industry you admittedly don't understand. Why? As you can see, if the guarantees meant they had to give back $20 million in free ads, they obviously are making a lot more than that. 9 figures. You are suggesting they just leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for no reason.

They wouldn't be leaving that money on the table.

As I said, the price stays the same.


The "risk" now goes on the ad seller.

Which is a bunch of crap anyway, because it's laughable to think that X ratings automatically gives Y sales. What if the ad was crappy? Etc.

ESPN can't just unilaterally state the price. Telling the entities that spend the most on ads throughout the year, such as car companies, cell phone providers, insurance companies, and fast food chains to "take it or leave it" simply doesn't work because they have a lot of leverage and established course of business, too.

In fact, it's not "laughable" about the effectiveness of ads. That's actually TV's biggest weakness - you can't *directly* tie a sale to an ad in the way that you can do on the Internet. As a result, advertisers actually have *more* leverage right now with TV networks. They can say that they're going to take their ad dollars to the Internet (which they have increasingly done). There just isn't a way for ESPN to say "take it or leave it" - it's a 2-way street and if ESPN charges a high ad rate, the it's going to have to deliver a certain number of viewers to justify it. It's just business.

GOOD! Take the damn ads to the internet. That's a good place for them. Get rid of damn commercials. Hate watching them anyway. Never have bought something because I watched a commercial on TV. Never in my life.

Let carriage fees (or the equivalent for streaming) be the future of pay TV and let "commercial breaks" within telecasts go the way of the dodo.


And in regards to portraying ESPN as helpless: that's a load. ESPN has the big games. If advertisers think that they don't need to have their ads on the big games, then bless their hearts. Hope it works out for them. See ya.

(01-09-2016 02:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 07:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But ESPN (and FOX, etc.) should be the ones setting terms.

So don't sign any new contracts with guaranteed ratings as a component of the deal. Then demand the same money from the ad sellers. If they say "no! That's not how it's been done!" then you reply "tough s___t, this is the new deal. If you want your ad for this big game, then you pay this much money and the actual ratings don't matter ... we can't force people to watch!". They can walk, but we'll see who breaks first.

ESPN has another, more important revenue stream in carriage fees. Advertisers are second fiddle.


I'm talking standalone games, separate from bowls. Let the bowls have the dates and time slots they think are so critical to their success (superstition).

You are trying to reinvent the wheel in an industry you admittedly don't understand. Why? As you can see, if the guarantees meant they had to give back $20 million in free ads, they obviously are making a lot more than that. 9 figures. You are suggesting they just leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for no reason.

They wouldn't be leaving that money on the table.

As I said, the price stays the same.


The "risk" now goes on the ad seller.

Which is a bunch of crap anyway, because it's laughable to think that X ratings automatically gives Y sales. What if the ad was crappy? Etc.

ESPN can't just unilaterally state the price. Telling the entities that spend the most on ads throughout the year, such as car companies, cell phone providers, insurance companies, and fast food chains to "take it or leave it" simply doesn't work because they have a lot of leverage and established course of business, too.

In fact, it's not "laughable" about the effectiveness of ads. That's actually TV's biggest weakness - you can't *directly* tie a sale to an ad in the way that you can do on the Internet. As a result, advertisers actually have *more* leverage right now with TV networks. They can say that they're going to take their ad dollars to the Internet (which they have increasingly done). There just isn't a way for ESPN to say "take it or leave it" - it's a 2-way street and if ESPN charges a high ad rate, the it's going to have to deliver a certain number of viewers to justify it. It's just business.

GOOD! Take the damn ads to the internet. That's a good place for them. Get rid of damn commercials. Hate watching them anyway. Never have bought something because I watched a commercial on TV. Never in my life.

Let carriage fees (or the equivalent for streaming) be the future of pay TV and let "commercial breaks" within telecasts go the way of the dodo.


And in regards to portraying ESPN as helpless: that's a load. ESPN has the big games. If advertisers think that they don't need to have their ads on the big games, then bless their hearts. Hope it works out for them. See ya.

You got to love idiots who have no idea how a business works who comes in and just says "Derp it's just this simple!" No, it's not. It's business and one you clearly don't understand. They can take that money to Fox for NFL playoffs who have higher viewership. Thats an actual option. Any business who tells their customers to take it or leave it when the customer actually has other options won't stay in business for long.

(01-09-2016 04:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 02:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  GOOD! Take the damn ads to the internet. That's a good place for them. Get rid of damn commercials. Hate watching them anyway. Never have bought something because I watched a commercial on TV. Never in my life.

Let carriage fees (or the equivalent for streaming) be the future of pay TV and let "commercial breaks" within telecasts go the way of the dodo.


And in regards to portraying ESPN as helpless: that's a load. ESPN has the big games. If advertisers think that they don't need to have their ads on the big games, then bless their hearts. Hope it works out for them. See ya.

You got to love idiots who have no idea how a business works who comes in and just says "Derp it's just this simple!" No, it's not. It's business and one you clearly don't understand. They can take that money to Fox for NFL playoffs who have higher viewership. Thats an actual option. Any business who tells their customers to take it or leave it when the customer actually has other options won't stay in business for long.

Exactly. Let's put it this way: NO ONE has more leverage than the NFL. And CBS has ratings baseline guarantees on the Super Bowl. Especially for second half ads. It is simple: if you don't guarantee certain ratings for a price, the ad agencies, who actually have the leverage, will set their own prices based on what they think they will get. It will be a much more conservative number than ESPN wants to base the price on.

(01-10-2016 07:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 04:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 02:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  GOOD! Take the damn ads to the internet. That's a good place for them. Get rid of damn commercials. Hate watching them anyway. Never have bought something because I watched a commercial on TV. Never in my life.

Let carriage fees (or the equivalent for streaming) be the future of pay TV and let "commercial breaks" within telecasts go the way of the dodo.


And in regards to portraying ESPN as helpless: that's a load. ESPN has the big games. If advertisers think that they don't need to have their ads on the big games, then bless their hearts. Hope it works out for them. See ya.

You got to love idiots who have no idea how a business works who comes in and just says "Derp it's just this simple!" No, it's not. It's business and one you clearly don't understand. They can take that money to Fox for NFL playoffs who have higher viewership. Thats an actual option. Any business who tells their customers to take it or leave it when the customer actually has other options won't stay in business for long.

Exactly. Let's put it this way: NO ONE has more leverage than the NFL. And CBS has ratings baseline guarantees on the Super Bowl. Especially for second half ads. It is simple: if you don't guarantee certain ratings for a price, the ad agencies, who actually have the leverage, will set their own prices based on what they think they will get. It will be a much more conservative number than ESPN wants to base the price on.

Just a question and it is above my pay grade......why not let advertisers set minimum and let viewership determine "bonus"?

At that point, it is up to the network. What impact would Network Tv have on viewership?

The bottom line here is that a New Year's Eve double header which begins at 4:30 PM Eastern before people are off from work and on a night traditionally reserved for family and parties, and a work day on which the better game is the one that the audience can only catch the second half of once they get home (foregoing dinner) is a very very bad idea!

Had the games been terrific they still wouldn't have had the shares they did on the Holiday. Add to the horrible date the fact that both were essentially over by midway of the third quarter and yikes!

(01-10-2016 07:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Just a question and it is above my pay grade......why not let advertisers set minimum and let viewership determine "bonus"?

At that point, it is up to the network. What impact would Network Tv have on viewership?

As a network, you are selling the ads for the show or event, more or less the conversation goes like this:

Net: you can buy ad time on show Z for $X per 30 seconds.

buyer: Why so much?

N:Because it will draw Y viewers.

B:How do you know?

N: Well I guarantee it will. Tell you what if it doesn't draw Y-A (some number slightly lower than the target number) I will make it up to you.

********

The guaranteed viewership is not the same as the estimated viewership or the price the ads were sold at. They just put a floor on it. Sort of like a return policy at Wal-mart. If the show draws more viewership, the ad agency got more than their money's worth. If it comes in less, they didn't. But if it comes in too low, the network make good to keep them coming back. Note that this agreement is more common with new shows with no track record and special events such as the Oscars, Super Bowls, series finales of major shows, etc, which tend to have premium prices, than run of the mill every day ads.

saw this:
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espn-rat...ary-3.html

that's right Dec 28-Jan 3 was ESPN's most watched prime time week. EVER.