(06-30-2015 01:18 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2015 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Fox has no coherent vision for FS1/FS2, no effective plan for drawing viewers in to watch the channels regularly, and now we see that they give up easily and don't have the persistence to keep investing the money needed to build the channels as a viable alternative to any ESPN channels.
I thought FS1/FS2 college football content and quality was good, but I really struggle to understand how a major broadcast network failed to understand its target demographic as badly as Fox did with FS1/FS2. Doesn't every network try to maximize carryover viewership by clustering like programming, probably best exemplified by NBC's "Must See TV" Thursday night lineup? Did Fox actually buy PAC12 content because they thought that the typical Stanford fan would stick around after the game to watch Nascar and UFC? Nothing like a four hour Nascar lead in to your 10 PM PAC game seeing as how widely popular Nascar is in among college educated left coasters. It is simply mysterious to me what collection of assumptions they were operating under which made this seem like a good programming arrangement.
Very well said. And the problem as well is the UFC/NASCAR gets good ratings for FS1, so they are going to get the priority time slots as well.
(06-30-2015 01:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/is-espn-...-line.html
A few years back one of the radio conglomerates (ClearChannel I think) made the decision to not bid on the radio rights for a local pro team. The area manager said that they let the rights go not because it wasn't profitable but because the chain was trying to get their return on investment numbers looking better. They made a somewhat better profit on the games but the overhead was high with rights fees, production costs, the announcers, their travel, and the higher commissions paid to sales people selling the more expensive ads. They could run canned satellite syndicated content at far less cost with nearly the same profit.
That's similar to the problem ESPN is facing. ESPN is going to be profitable but the investment to make the profit is going to be higher so the number crunchers on Wall Street look and say hey you spent two billion and brought in three billion, now you are spending three billion to bring in 4.2 billion you aren't as good of an investment.
(06-30-2015 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2015 10:38 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]For a network with "no vision" they must be doing something right, they passed ESPN2 on viewers this past month due to the Women's World Cup and US Open. Just takes time to build a network up and FOX has a pretty decent lineup of sports properties to build around while more will be acquired in the future. FOX knew this wasn't going to be a quick process.
2-3 weeks due to the world cup/us open doesn't make a channel. They may have more viewers for a 2-3 week period, but that's not passing ESPN2 by any stretch.
The problem that Fox has with FS1 is the current group of properties isn't enough to make any sort of long term dent.. No NBA, NHL, NFL, and not enough of college football by any means. And way too much UFC which turns casual fans off quite a bit.
And while it's easy to say Fox knew this wasn't going to be a quick process, I don't think they expected to get totally shut out of the NBA at all.
The interesting thing is that FS1 actually does have sports properties that are more valuable than the NBCSN properties as a whole (at least in terms of casual fan interest): MLB, Pac-12, Big 12, Big East, US Open, FIFA, Champions League, etc.
The difference, though, is that NBCSN truly *owns* the niches that they have with the NHL, English Premier League and Olympic sports. If you're a fan of those properties, then you have *have* to turn to NBCSN. At the same time, those niches are large enough to garner viable audiences.
FS1 doesn't really have that - ESPN covers MLB and college sports in a more comprehensive manner while the US Open and FIFA events are infrequent. Thus, FS1 is largely an appendage to what ESPN already has, while NBCSN is truly completely different from ESPN's offerings. UFC is probably the one area where FS1 is a differentiator, but that property is considered to be "empty calories" from a value standpoint (similar to the WWE in the past), where they draw high ratings and a great male 18-49 demo on paper but the audience as a whole is downscale and doesn't attract very good advertising rates. (It's basically the opposite of golf, which might have lower overall viewership but the upscale audience means that they get a high advertising premium.)
I don't think a focus on the G5 conferences really is going to move the needle for Fox. If they're not drawing college football audiences with the Pac-12 and Big 12, then the G5 isn't going to do much for them outside of filler programming (similar to CBSSN). Going after English Premier League rights that are coming up again soon, on the other hand, could be a massive game changer for FS1. With FIFA, UEFA, MLS, Bundesliga (new contract starting this year) and EPL (plus other events like the Gold Cup), FS1 can legitimately be branded as the top soccer channel for America. That gives them a go-to base of fiercely loyal fans of a growing sport that will turn into FS1 constantly with a built-in audience for ancillary programs (as opposed to the piecemeal approach that's occurring now, where the average sports fan might turn on FS1 for a specific event like the US Open or a particular MLB game but quickly switch it off).
NBCSN will fight hard for the EPL, though. They've really done an incredible job in turning it into a legit sports property in America.
(06-30-2015 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2015 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2015 10:38 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]For a network with "no vision" they must be doing something right, they passed ESPN2 on viewers this past month due to the Women's World Cup and US Open. Just takes time to build a network up and FOX has a pretty decent lineup of sports properties to build around while more will be acquired in the future. FOX knew this wasn't going to be a quick process.
2-3 weeks due to the world cup/us open doesn't make a channel. They may have more viewers for a 2-3 week period, but that's not passing ESPN2 by any stretch.
The problem that Fox has with FS1 is the current group of properties isn't enough to make any sort of long term dent.. No NBA, NHL, NFL, and not enough of college football by any means. And way too much UFC which turns casual fans off quite a bit.
And while it's easy to say Fox knew this wasn't going to be a quick process, I don't think they expected to get totally shut out of the NBA at all.
The interesting thing is that FS1 actually does have sports properties that are more valuable than the NBCSN properties as a whole (at least in terms of casual fan interest): MLB, Pac-12, Big 12, Big East, US Open, FIFA, Champions League, etc.
The difference, though, is that NBCSN truly *owns* the niches that they have with the NHL, English Premier League and Olympic sports. If you're a fan of those properties, then you have *have* to turn to NBCSN. At the same time, those niches are large enough to garner viable audiences.
FS1 doesn't really have that - ESPN covers MLB and college sports in a more comprehensive manner while the US Open and FIFA events are infrequent. Thus, FS1 is largely an appendage to what ESPN already has, while NBCSN is truly completely different from ESPN's offerings. UFC is probably the one area where FS1 is a differentiator, but that property is considered to be "empty calories" from a value standpoint (similar to the WWE in the past), where they draw high ratings and a great male 18-49 demo on paper but the audience as a whole is downscale and doesn't attract very good advertising rates. (It's basically the opposite of golf, which might have lower overall viewership but the upscale audience means that they get a high advertising premium.)
I don't think a focus on the G5 conferences really is going to move the needle for Fox. If they're not drawing college football audiences with the Pac-12 and Big 12, then the G5 isn't going to do much for them outside of filler programming (similar to CBSSN). Going after English Premier League rights that are coming up again soon, on the other hand, could be a massive game changer for FS1. With FIFA, UEFA, MLS, Bundesliga (new contract starting this year) and EPL (plus other events like the Gold Cup), FS1 can legitimately be branded as the top soccer channel for America. That gives them a go-to base of fiercely loyal fans of a growing sport that will turn into FS1 constantly with a built-in audience for ancillary programs (as opposed to the piecemeal approach that's occurring now, where the average sports fan might turn on FS1 for a specific event like the US Open or a particular MLB game but quickly switch it off).
NBCSN will fight hard for the EPL, though. They've really done an incredible job in turning it into a legit sports property in America.
NBCSN has done a dandy job with EPL and the NHL. A friend at the NBC affiliate in Little Rock told me they had planned to pre-empt soccer and NHL because they were struggling to sell both but NBC squeezed hard and they gave it a shot and they were very happy with the data they get from the service they use that monitors satellite and cable boxes. Now they can show advertisers that there are people watching and they stay through commercial breaks.
Based on the numbers I can find, it looks like ESPN makes more in carriage fees for ESPN3 than FS2 makes in fees.
ESPN primarily uses G5 content to reinforce the viewing habit. Now there are a handful of G5's they can put on who will hit three quarters of a million viewers and maybe 5 that will post a million viewers. So most of it exists because it can be purchased cheaply and reinforce to viewers that tuning to an ESPN branded channel means seeing live games.
FS1 and 2 don't seem to have such a coherent strategy. The 7pm eastern MLS Sunday night game is one of the steps in the right direction.
ESPN has taken notice of FS1 though. Notice how different the SportsCenter is before they switch it over to the Los Angeles studios. That 10 CST/11EST show. The anchors aren't wearing ties as much, more loose flowing, etc.
Like I said. Fox took a hit with a bunch of the small cable companies completely dropped them because they were demanding too much for their channels. Some of these cable companies are located in the PAC 12, ACC, Big 12 and Big 10 areas. The problem that ESPN needs to learn is that they could lose the small cable providers who may not be able to afford the risen costs of the sports channels.
(06-30-2015 02:59 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN has taken notice of FS1 though. Notice how different the SportsCenter is before they switch it over to the Los Angeles studios. That 10 CST/11EST show. The anchors aren't wearing ties as much, more loose flowing, etc.
Yes, that's an unfortunate byproduct. I remember in one of FS1's first press releases that it wanted to emphasize "fun" and "not be so serious", which suggested to mean that ESPN was somehow *too* analytical and high-brow. Ugh. The last thing that ESPN needed to do was get more loose and casual with more HOT TAKES and populist Twitter votes. What's dejecting is that ESPN is quite capable of finding people with great analytical skills, as shown by many of the writers at Grantland. For instance, Bill Barnwell knows more about the NFL and Zach Lowe knows more about the NBA than literally any other national analyst covering those leagues. They could legitimately be running NFL and NBA championship-level franchises. The problem is that they don't put these guys on TV at all. Instead, they go back to the well of HOT TAKE guys like Stephen A. Smith and, even worse, Skip Bayless. Out of all of the things to "learn" from Fox, the worst is appealing to the lowest common denominator instead of the high end.
Give me the equivalent of NPR for sports and I'd be all over that. Unfortunately, Fox (and News Corp. worldwide) doesn't have a great track record of going for the high-end at all.
(06-30-2015 04:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2015 02:59 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN has taken notice of FS1 though. Notice how different the SportsCenter is before they switch it over to the Los Angeles studios. That 10 CST/11EST show. The anchors aren't wearing ties as much, more loose flowing, etc.
Yes, that's an unfortunate byproduct. I remember in one of FS1's first press releases that it wanted to emphasize "fun" and "not be so serious", which suggested to mean that ESPN was somehow *too* analytical and high-brow. Ugh. The last thing that ESPN needed to do was get more loose and casual with more HOT TAKES and populist Twitter votes. What's dejecting is that ESPN is quite capable of finding people with great analytical skills, as shown by many of the writers at Grantland. For instance, Bill Barnwell knows more about the NFL and Zach Lowe knows more about the NBA than literally any other national analyst covering those leagues. They could legitimately be running NFL and NBA championship-level franchises. The problem is that they don't put these guys on TV at all. Instead, they go back to the well of HOT TAKE guys like Stephen A. Smith and, even worse, Skip Bayless. Out of all of the things to "learn" from Fox, the worst is appealing to the lowest common denominator instead of the high end.
Give me the equivalent of NPR for sports and I'd be all over that. Unfortunately, Fox (and News Corp. worldwide) doesn't have a great track record of going for the high-end at all.
FOX is going to go more of the hot take route with Jamie Horowitz in charge now.
The NPR equivalent would be a perfect niche market for NBCSN to go after IMO. Hockey, EPL, etc are the more higher end sports fans would fit the demo and probably fit the mold better.