(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

And yet what the guys on Madison Ave can't relate to is the fact that the SEC with its demographic out earned in total revenue the Big 10 by 5 million per school last year. Why? Gate, donations, concessions, merchandising, etc. So those stats don't jibe with what advertisers should want to pursue, because you are talking about niche markets with niche industries. I might also add that people who live in New York City relate better with those living in L.A. or San Francisco because they just can't grasp that the cost of living in lower Alabama or most of Florida is low enough that an income of 70,000 buys you more than an income of nearly 200,000 in one of those locations I mentioned.

Culture and commitment keep the SEC where it is. But, if the ad folks want to pursue disposable income they need to take note of just how much of it we have to be able to make up and surpass the difference in TV revenue of their Northern darlings where middle class families don't have the same disposable income that their peers in the South have.

That's how marketing frequently suffers from only looking at what's in the fishbowl they are studying, rather than in the ocean around them.

(08-17-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

And yet what the guys on Madison Ave can't relate to is the fact that the SEC with its demographic out earned in total revenue the Big 10 by 5 million per school last year. Why? Gate, donations, concessions, merchandising, etc. So those stats don't jibe with what advertisers should want to pursue, because you are talking about niche markets with niche industries. I might also add that people who live in New York City relate better with those living in L.A. or San Francisco because they just can't grasp that the cost of living in lower Alabama or most of Florida is low enough that an income of 70,000 buys you more than an income of nearly 200,000 in one of those locations I mentioned.

Culture and commitment keep the SEC where it is. But, if the ad folks want to pursue disposable income they need to take note of just how much of it we have to be able to make up and surpass the difference in TV revenue of their Northern darlings where middle class families don't have the same disposable income that their peers in the South have.

That's how marketing frequently suffers from only looking at what's in the fishbowl they are studying, rather than in the ocean around them.

Well, you know, advertisers like to pursue customers who live well beyond their means, and maybe there's more of us doing that in the northeast or Chicago or California. Got to sell those BMWs and Range Rovers to people who can barely afford their rent or mortgage.

(08-17-2016 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

And yet what the guys on Madison Ave can't relate to is the fact that the SEC with its demographic out earned in total revenue the Big 10 by 5 million per school last year. Why? Gate, donations, concessions, merchandising, etc. So those stats don't jibe with what advertisers should want to pursue, because you are talking about niche markets with niche industries. I might also add that people who live in New York City relate better with those living in L.A. or San Francisco because they just can't grasp that the cost of living in lower Alabama or most of Florida is low enough that an income of 70,000 buys you more than an income of nearly 200,000 in one of those locations I mentioned.

Culture and commitment keep the SEC where it is. But, if the ad folks want to pursue disposable income they need to take note of just how much of it we have to be able to make up and surpass the difference in TV revenue of their Northern darlings where middle class families don't have the same disposable income that their peers in the South have.

That's how marketing frequently suffers from only looking at what's in the fishbowl they are studying, rather than in the ocean around them.

Well, you know, advertisers like to pursue customers who live well beyond their means, and maybe there's more of us doing that in the northeast or Chicago or California. Got to sell those BMWs and Range Rovers to people who can barely afford their rent or mortgage.

We have our own micro version in the South. Where I live the cost of housing is high, for the South. If I spent the same amount in Southern Tennessee I could get about 7-10 acres of land along with the same house, and get it with a brick workshop, a barn, and a pond. Instead I have that house on a little of 3/4's of an acre with a garden and neighbors all around. Neighbors aren't what they used to be. Oh well!

UConn can't get a national following for football on tv. Their ratings are so bad on ESPN and the other Networks, they are not worth it joining a conference. They suck at football with hardly any fan support at all.

(08-17-2016 10:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  UConn can't get a national following for football on tv. Their ratings are so bad on ESPN and the other Networks, they are not worth it joining a conference. They suck at football with hardly any fan support at all.

Are Wednesday's internet night at the group home?


.

(08-17-2016 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

Yes, but thats Birmingham at peak viewership and NYC not really caring. When NYC actually has a good story that interests them they tune in like Rutgers/Louisville in 2006. NYC has a much larger upside.

(08-17-2016 05:23 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Alaska is a big market but not a quality market.

Alaska might as well be Russia, that's how relevant it is to college sports. If there was an Alaskan team though, they may get special attention like Hawai'i does.

(08-17-2016 11:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

Yes, but thats Birmingham at peak viewership and NYC not really caring. When NYC actually has a good story that interests them they tune in like Rutgers/Louisville in 2006. NYC has a much larger upside.

It's just too late in the game for NYC. Rutgers had a chance to make NYC care about college sports but never delivered more than big upset a decade ago.

Ideally, there needed to be a flagship school on Long Island, just on the mainland or just west of the Hudson in the Meadowlands. Since NYU is taken by a private, Empire State U. or something, not something generic sounding like the actual flagship (Cornell) or for another place upstate (Syracuse).

So it's not gonna happen and NYC will remain a melting pot for college sports fans like every major, diverse city in the country.

(08-17-2016 05:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 03:05 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

UConn is dominant in his market. And there is ample evidence to prove this.

So I'm not sure why this guy is so dismissive.

When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

And they ramped up their monthly user fees to $2.60 per household.

Again, this was basic cable, 1.6 million households. And it's not just the Hartford / New Haven markets either, but also Fairfield County which is inside New York City's DMA. There too the monthly fee jumped $1.20, and there too they all went to basic cable.

I wish people like this reporter would do some research.

It's not like any of this is a mystery.

He's making a point that BYU gets higher ratings despite having a smaller market than UConn, Cincinnati, Houston, etc. It's a good point.

Look, he insulted my school by using inaccurate data too. But he's right about his main point. UConn/Cincy are not "dominant" in our markets in the way that Ole Miss or Alabama is dominant. Not even close. UConn & Cincy are both #1 in our markets, but "winning #1 in a market" or "being in a large market" isn't nearly as important as the total number of viewers.

UConn is by far the most popular of any sport in its market.

This is exactly what I showed with the numbers I provided.

And it doesn't matter. You're focusing on irrelevant details and ignoring the author's main point.

Total viewership is by far the most relevant statistic to the networks because that's what their advertisers care about. Oh sure, you can adjust the numbers for opponent / network / time slot. But whether you're looking at raw or adjusted numbers, UConn still lags behind BYU in total viewership.

(08-18-2016 03:14 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 05:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 03:05 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

UConn is dominant in his market. And there is ample evidence to prove this.

So I'm not sure why this guy is so dismissive.

When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

And they ramped up their monthly user fees to $2.60 per household.

Again, this was basic cable, 1.6 million households. And it's not just the Hartford / New Haven markets either, but also Fairfield County which is inside New York City's DMA. There too the monthly fee jumped $1.20, and there too they all went to basic cable.

I wish people like this reporter would do some research.

It's not like any of this is a mystery.

He's making a point that BYU gets higher ratings despite having a smaller market than UConn, Cincinnati, Houston, etc. It's a good point.

Look, he insulted my school by using inaccurate data too. But he's right about his main point. UConn/Cincy are not "dominant" in our markets in the way that Ole Miss or Alabama is dominant. Not even close. UConn & Cincy are both #1 in our markets, but "winning #1 in a market" or "being in a large market" isn't nearly as important as the total number of viewers.

UConn is by far the most popular of any sport in its market.

This is exactly what I showed with the numbers I provided.

And it doesn't matter. You're focusing on irrelevant details and ignoring the author's main point.

Total viewership is by far the most relevant statistic to the networks because that's what their advertisers care about. Oh sure, you can adjust the numbers for opponent / network / time slot. But whether you're looking at raw or adjusted numbers, UConn still lags behind BYU in total viewership.

And no college football team is going to be generating ads for Rolex like Golf does. It will be beer, whether it is UConn or Southern Miss or Alabama.

(08-18-2016 02:57 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 11:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

Yes, but thats Birmingham at peak viewership and NYC not really caring. When NYC actually has a good story that interests them they tune in like Rutgers/Louisville in 2006. NYC has a much larger upside.

It's just too late in the game for NYC. Rutgers had a chance to make NYC care about college sports but never delivered more than big upset a decade ago.

Ideally, there needed to be a flagship school on Long Island, just on the mainland or just west of the Hudson in the Meadowlands. Since NYU is taken by a private, Empire State U. or something, not something generic sounding like the actual flagship (Cornell) or for another place upstate (Syracuse).

So it's not gonna happen and NYC will remain a melting pot for college sports fans like every major, diverse city in the country.

I have to disagree with your assessment. The NYC metro area will always be a professional sports market, but the NYC DMA is so large and diverse, there is a significant college football following that can be tapped. Frank the Tank wrote an article about Big Ten expansion a few years ago and the main thrust of his article was that Rutgers may not carry the NYC market by itself, the addition of Rutgers (the largest university in the NYC market) could create a tipping point where New York City becomes a Big Ten city. Between Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland alumni alone, there is a significant audience for the Big Ten. And when you include the rest of the conference, I believe Frank was correct.

(08-17-2016 05:24 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  "Bummer"
- NIU

Basically haha

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

As I said, NYC will never reach a critical mass for college football. I realize a drop in the bucket there is more like a small puddle overall but the biggest problem for NYC is there is no home team. Rutgers had a chance to fill that void to a degree but even being in the Big East (and now B1G) has yielded nothing for football or men's basketball other than one big moment in 2006. Women's basketball doesn't move the needle (not even if Rutgers was on UConn's run), so NYC is just mostly vacant.

I mean, Rutgers would be HUGE in New York and New Jersey if they even went a big five year run and competed for national titles. Even college basketball isn't as big in NYC as it used to be aside from preseason tournaments, big Duke games and the Big East Tournament. St. John's is all but irrelevant now. Seton Hall is in New Jersey but close to invisible.

(08-19-2016 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  As I said, NYC will never reach a critical mass for college football. I realize a drop in the bucket there is more like a small puddle overall but the biggest problem for NYC is there is no home team. Rutgers had a chance to fill that void to a degree but even being in the Big East (and now B1G) has yielded nothing for football or men's basketball other than one big moment in 2006. Women's basketball doesn't move the needle (not even if Rutgers was on UConn's run), so NYC is just mostly vacant.

I mean, Rutgers would be HUGE in New York and New Jersey if they even went a big five year run and competed for national titles. Even college basketball isn't as big in NYC as it used to be aside from preseason tournaments, big Duke games and the Big East Tournament. St. John's is all but irrelevant now. Seton Hall is in New Jersey but close to invisible.

Discussing "market" or "delivering one's market" requires context. If the Big 12 had a conference cable channel, the best posible adds would be San Diego State, Central Florida, Temple and Northern Illinois. That would be a windfall of carriage fees from the States of California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Big bucks. But, alas, no Big 12 Network.
JRSEC often alludes to the "saturation" of markets as the key to success after the carriage fee racket dries up. (Won't happen overnight, BTW) And this is the context in which the Big12 must consider expansion candidates. So the discussion goes to: which available G5 schools can deliver the most viewers? We quickly arrive at: it doesnt't matter, because none delivers enough market pay its own P5 salary.
And now we have begun to examine the importance of a school's appeal to advertisers. It was overlooked, or, at least little discussed how great a role advertising played in the ESPN-B1G media deal. All the attention was on the relative value of the B1G content. It was generally overlooked that without the B1G, ESPN would have explain to national advertisers that they had a void in their footprint from NYC to Minnesota/ DC to Lincoln. It wasn't a particular school, city, or market that mattered; it was the conference footprint. Again, none of the Big 12 expansion candidates adds enought to the overall conference ad footprint.
There is no good reason to add teams to the Big 12.

The Big 12 will remain a regional conference outside of UT, OU until They expand East where the largest population base is. Adding Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, and even Houston( farthest East in Texas) will vastly improve Their coverage into the Eastern time zone. It is the only life boat left for the conference.

That was a long post a couple posts ago but more or less alludes to what I've said earlier. The B1G is doing the most it can for a slice of NYC, the most anyone will do unless Rutgers stands up as a power. You can get some people in NYC to bite and be customers but to get people engaged, to get Times Square videos, to get the ESB to light up in a certain color, to get the mayor and the Today Show among other entertainment personalities as well as businessmen to be casual fans like they are for the Yankees, you need a regional power to stand up.

That's exactly what I mean by capturing New York, not just a Michigan-Penn State game getting high ratings in NYC and Newark. I just don't see anyone that can do that unless (cue the Rutgers refrain), not even Notre Dame. And it's so late in the game that anyone that wants to be established as a power already is or is in the process of being one, so even if Stony Brook or Seton Hall tried to start something up, it's far too late to matter. St. John's dropped football about a decade ago, so they're out.

(08-19-2016 01:52 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  As I said, NYC will never reach a critical mass for college football. I realize a drop in the bucket there is more like a small puddle overall but the biggest problem for NYC is there is no home team. Rutgers had a chance to fill that void to a degree but even being in the Big East (and now B1G) has yielded nothing for football or men's basketball other than one big moment in 2006. Women's basketball doesn't move the needle (not even if Rutgers was on UConn's run), so NYC is just mostly vacant.

I mean, Rutgers would be HUGE in New York and New Jersey if they even went a big five year run and competed for national titles. Even college basketball isn't as big in NYC as it used to be aside from preseason tournaments, big Duke games and the Big East Tournament. St. John's is all but irrelevant now. Seton Hall is in New Jersey but close to invisible.

Discussing "market" or "delivering one's market" requires context. If the Big 12 had a conference cable channel, the best posible adds would be San Diego State, Central Florida, Temple and Northern Illinois. That would be a windfall of carriage fees from the States of California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Big bucks. But, alas, no Big 12 Network.
JRSEC often alludes to the "saturation" of markets as the key to success after the carriage fee racket dries up. (Won't happen overnight, BTW) And this is the context in which the Big12 must consider expansion candidates. So the discussion goes to: which available G5 schools can deliver the most viewers? We quickly arrive at: it doesnt't matter, because none delivers enough market pay its own P5 salary.
And now we have begun to examine the importance of a school's appeal to advertisers. It was overlooked, or, at least little discussed how great a role advertising played in the ESPN-B1G media deal. All the attention was on the relative value of the B1G content. It was generally overlooked that without the B1G, ESPN would have explain to national advertisers that they had a void in their footprint from NYC to Minnesota/ DC to Lincoln. It wasn't a particular school, city, or market that mattered; it was the conference footprint. Again, none of the Big 12 expansion candidates adds enought to the overall conference ad footprint.
There is no good reason to add teams to the Big 12.

Even if they had a network, Temple might not even deliver Philadelphia for the network, let alone the whole state. NIU would not deliver Chicago. And SDSU and UCF would only deliver their own metro areas, not Los Angeles or Miami.

(08-19-2016 05:32 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The Big 12 will remain a regional conference outside of UT, OU until They expand East where the largest population base is. Adding Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, and even Houston( farthest East in Texas) will vastly improve Their coverage into the Eastern time zone. It is the only life boat left for the conference.

Nearly all the Big 12 broadcasts are already national. The only game on the ESPN/Fox contracts each week that is ever regional is the 2:30 ESPN broadcast. Typically they will split that broadcast 3 ways-between the ACC, B1G and Big 12 and the Big 12 game will be on ESPN2 in most of the Big 10 area.

Have to disagree. For example, if NIU were added, the Big XII would undoubtedly get more coverage via Chicago and other midwest media. There are tons of Big XII alums in the Chicago area. Viewership of their games would go up. In fact, of all the potential expansion candidates, NIU offers exposure to more eyeballs than any of the other candidates, plus it is geographically located so as to make trips to Ia. St. and W. Va. easier.

The caveat would be that NIU would have to be any good. I'm not sure how much being in the Big Ten is doing for Rutgers and their coverage in New Jersey. That and DeKalb is not Chicago. It's like College Station to Houston with the small detail that Texas A&m is a flagship/big school or whatever exact phrase you want to describe them.