Is ESPN Killing the National Hockey League by Influencing Public Attitude?-Article

[Crease]

From its inception, SportsCenter aired highlights, irrespective of whether or not the network carried it...and when it started, it didn't have much to offer for a 24-hour service. Obviously, now they're going to pay extra attention to sports/particular games or matches that are carried on their affiliated networks (think college football) but that doesn't mean that major events aren't going to receive attention. The Indy 500 is always shown on parent, ABC, so there's no conflict. The final rounds of The Masters are usually on CBC and the Kentucky Derby was NBC.

It's not as if they're going to deliberately ignore the NHL, just because there's no longer an NHL package. It just means that there will be no more dedicated programs, like NHL2Tonight.

ESPN is to sports as MTV is to music. Love it or hate it, they influence general public focus on their respective subject matter. If ESPN paid good money to broadcast NHL games on ESPN and ABC, it would be bad asset allocation and a terrible business decision not to push compelling story lines on PTI, Around the Horn, and Sportscenter. Regardless as to how they treated hockey in the past, they have no vested interest right now to push our ratings on someone elses network. Versus does a great job giving us hockey coverage and the respect we want, but the network doesn't have nearly the clout and strength to give us the ratings ESPN could.

 

[angry_treefrog]

ESPN is to sports as MTV is to music. Love it or hate it, they influence general public focus on their respective subject matter. If ESPN paid good money to broadcast NHL games on ESPN and ABC, it would be bad asset allocation and a terrible business decision not to push compelling story lines on PTI, Around the Horn, and Sportscenter. Regardless as to how they treated hockey in the past, they have no vested interest right now to push our ratings on someone elses network. Versus does a great job giving us hockey coverage and the respect we want, but the network doesn't have nearly the clout and strength to give us the ratings ESPN could.

It always amazes me how repeating a myth again and again somehow makes people believe in it.

ESPN can't give you ratings. They couldn't do it before, remember? It may seem logical to everyone that greater attention from ESPN would lead to more interest, but it's simply not true. If they COULD get ratings for hockey, don't you think they would have made a little more effort to get the contract?

Everyone likes to bash Bettman, but he is right about one thing (oddly enough the one thing everyone bashes him for.) The only way to make hockey more popular in the USA is to show it to people live.

 

[Timmy]

The only way to make hockey more popular in the USA is to show it to people live.

I think that the only way to make hockey more popular in the USA is to show it to people live, and tell them that the losing captain may well lose his life tonight in the Alligator Cage of Death.

 

[Patman]

ESPN can't give you ratings. They couldn't do it before, remember? It may seem logical to everyone that greater attention from ESPN would lead to more interest, but it's simply not true. If they COULD get ratings for hockey, don't you think they would have made a little more effort to get the contract?

Stop assuming that businesses are in it strictly for the money. These places are made up of people with opinions. While they are in it, by and large, for the money, they are not efficient by any means and in the end its politics that also includes money. They are made up of people with opinions and biases with people who produce things who don't particularly care for the sport. While it would be in their best interest to promote certain aspects when they had the contract they made it a point not to do so... moreover their non-hockey talent poked fun at the sport whenever they could.

 

[Takeo]

Unfortunately, ESPN for sports in the USA is like MTV for music. Without the top notch media exposure and public accessibility, the athletes and the artists will struggle. Bands like Guns N' Roses and Kid Rock would have never emerged without MTV. The same goes for the NHL without ESPN.

 

[Whiplash27]

I don't understand how hockey's so "unwatchable" on TV. I sure don't have any problem. Yes, it's 100 times better live (and IMO the best sport live), but what sport isn't?

The NHL sucks at marketing its teams and players, that's a major reason for the lack of interest.

 

[RangersMoogle]

It's a Canadian sport. It will never be big in America. Deal with it. Be glad it's on TV. Watch it, and shut up.

 

[Big Country]

ESPN = Clear Channel

Yes, you're totally right. How could they be so "shortsighted"?

The NHL definitely should've stuck with the network that treats it like the punchline of a joke, and done it for free. The one that cancelled all auxilliary hockey programming (NHL2Nite) and shoved hockey games over to obscurity on "the Deuce" every time there was a dog show or rerun of a pool tournament that needed higher priority on the main channel.

After all, why should the NHL go to a network that actually wants the rights to broadcast NHL games, as demonstrated by a willingness to (gasp) pay for those rights? A network that produces hours of pre-game and post-game coverage as well as other hockey programming? One that actually advertises its hockey coverage and promotes the game and its players?

Definitely shortsighted. It's not in anybody's long-term interest to develop and grow a viable competitor to ESPN in national cable sports. Competition is bad. Best if ESPN keeps their monopoly. That way they can tell us what we should like.

It's difficult to state the case against ESPN better than this (ironic) post does.

I sense in ESPN's arrogance today, the seeds of what eventually happened to Clear Channel Radio, the once dominant American music and talk radio giant. Five years ago, Clear Channel ruled the roost and could bludgeon artists into booking concerts only with its live entertainment division.

Listeners who called in requesting to hear more from this or that band were arrogantly told by program directors that they should listen to college radio if they wanted to hear anything but their limited list of 40 songs in each format. Their employees were paid crap and in many markets, live DJs were replaced by taped or satellite programing sent in from distant locals. (The latter practice resulted in the city of Minot, ND's inability to communicate with citizens about a dangerous chemical spill because no human being could be contacted at any of the six Clear Channel stations in town.)

The firm has been accused of dumbing down musical tastes by Rolling Stone and Forbes called it the "evil empire." They are facing a variety of anti-trust probes that allege that Clear Channel radio stations limited airplay for bands that did not book concerts with its own promotion company.

What has been the result of all this arrogance and stupidity. Clear Channel's concert promotion business is in a shambles and has reduced the use of the "Clear Channel" name (it's now considered a damaged brand) in its public promotion of the entity. The radio business has been seriously hurt by new media, including Internet radio and satellite radio. It's revenue growth rate, once at 20% a year, is now down to four percent, thanks to what Business Week referred to as consistent "bumbling" by management.

It also didn't help that some of Clear Channel's staple of frequently played, sure-bet artists that they played continuously (e.g., Brittney Spears) crashed and burned. Now Clear Channel is working to build new business models in a changed media environment.

I see a lot of parallels here to ESPN. Arrogant management and on-air talent that believe be as insulting as they desire. New media entering the scene, including satellite radio and TV, easier-to-use pay per view, YouTube, and individual sports channels (NFL, golf, college sports TV, etc.). And, like Clear Channel, ESPN has a stable of sports, some of which may never make it (e.g., arena football), and some of which may already have hit their high water mark and deliver only diminishing returns for ever increasing marketing expenses (e.g., NASCAR).

Although ESPN still has enormous business strengths, the primary of which being the NFL, and although it's impossible now to imagine them being the brunt of some sort of fan backlash, that's probably how Clear Channel felt five years ago.

I think the move to try and help build Versus into an ESPN competitor will take years to pay off, if it ever does. But, in my humble opinion, it was the only reasonable response to ESPN's hatred of hockey (which was going on well before the lockout, by the way) and its insufferable arrogance.

 

[c-carp]

ESPN does nothing to help the game, I think we can all agree on that. But if this sport dies there are many people who were much more responsible than ESPN. The Sport has been marketed piss pore nationally for as long as I can remember. The markering would be where I would start.

 

[angry_treefrog]

It's difficult to state the case against ESPN better than this (ironic) post does.

I sense in ESPN's arrogance today, the seeds of what eventually happened to Clear Channel Radio, the once dominant American music and talk radio giant. Five years ago, Clear Channel ruled the roost and could bludgeon artists into booking concerts only with its live entertainment division.

Listeners who called in requesting to hear more from this or that band were arrogantly told by program directors that they should listen to college radio if they wanted to hear anything but their limited list of 40 songs in each format. Their employees were paid crap and in many markets, live DJs were replaced by taped or satellite programing sent in from distant locals. (The latter practice resulted in the city of Minot, ND's inability to communicate with citizens about a dangerous chemical spill because no human being could be contacted at any of the six Clear Channel stations in town.)

The firm has been accused of dumbing down musical tastes by Rolling Stone and Forbes called it the "evil empire." They are facing a variety of anti-trust probes that allege that Clear Channel radio stations limited airplay for bands that did not book concerts with its own promotion company.

What has been the result of all this arrogance and stupidity. Clear Channel's concert promotion business is in a shambles and has reduced the use of the "Clear Channel" name (it's now considered a damaged brand) in its public promotion of the entity. The radio business has been seriously hurt by new media, including Internet radio and satellite radio. It's revenue growth rate, once at 20% a year, is now down to four percent, thanks to what Business Week referred to as consistent "bumbling" by management.

It also didn't help that some of Clear Channel's staple of frequently played, sure-bet artists that they played continuously (e.g., Brittney Spears) crashed and burned. Now Clear Channel is working to build new business models in a changed media environment.

I see a lot of parallels here to ESPN. Arrogant management and on-air talent that believe be as insulting as they desire. New media entering the scene, including satellite radio and TV, easier-to-use pay per view, YouTube, and individual sports channels (NFL, golf, college sports TV, etc.). And, like Clear Channel, ESPN has a stable of sports, some of which may never make it (e.g., arena football), and some of which may already have hit their high water mark and deliver only diminishing returns for ever increasing marketing expenses (e.g., NASCAR).

Although ESPN still has enormous business strengths, the primary of which being the NFL, and although it's impossible now to imagine them being the brunt of some sort of fan backlash, that's probably how Clear Channel felt five years ago.

I think the move to try and help build Versus into an ESPN competitor will take years to pay off, if it ever does. But, in my humble opinion, it was the only reasonable response to ESPN's hatred of hockey (which was going on well before the lockout, by the way) and its insufferable arrogance.

Excellent post - agree 100%.

 

[Connorrhea]

I don't think it's just ESPN killing the game in the U.S, I think it's all the media outlets. How is the game gonna get exposure when shows like the Best Damn Sports (which loves to have shows about non-sports), Pardon the Interuption and anything ESPN spews out, doesn't talk about the NHL or show highlights unless there is a negative reason to.

Changing the rules of the game is a minor problem with the NHL, but in my opinion, is the fault of television shows and radio talk shows that don't give hockey even 5 minutes a day, yet spend whole segments talking about hot dog eating contests, spelling b's, dog shows and poker.

 

[Pariseisgod*]

Hockey is sooo much better than both baseball and basketball, i judt dont know why they care about those sports more than the great sport off hockey.

 

[Connorrhea]

Hockey is sooo much better than both baseball and basketball, i judt dont know why they care about those sports more than the great sport off hockey.

Well the easy answer is it's a Canadian sport, but another reason is that many Canadians add to the problem (not just fans but media as well) by always referring to hockey as "Canada's" game and shoving it down other countries throats everytime we win a tournament or have a Canadian player do something special.

Instead of acknowledging how great it is for California to have its first hockey championship, here in Canada, the focus was on "look how many Canadians are on the Ducks"....like that's really gonna help things.

Oh, and maybe there is another reason...the majority of hockey players are good people, they don't get arrested every second day and that's another reason why the American media doesn't care about hockey, because it provides positive role models.

Another thing I can't stand is people like Don Cherry who goes on national television and promotes violence. Let's see, the other 3 major sports are hugely popular and they contain hardly any fighting whatsoever, maybe the image of hockey being so violent turns off a lot Americans...I mean, the Paper, Rock Scissor championships is the kind of athleticism and skill that gets you t.v. time.

 

[Hemi-Cuda]

Well the easy answer is it's a Canadian sport, but another reason is that many Canadians add to the problem (not just fans but media as well) by always referring to hockey as "Canada's" game and shoving it down other countries throats everytime we win a tournament or have a Canadian player do something special.

Instead of acknowledging how great it is for California to have its first hockey championship, here in Canada, the focus was on "look how many Canadians are on the Ducks"....like that's really gonna help things.

Oh, and maybe there is another reason...the majority of hockey players are good people, they don't get arrested every second day and that's another reason why the American media doesn't care about hockey, because it provides positive role models.

well said. all the Canadians *****ing about how the southern teams are terrible hockey markets are part of the problem. i loved seeing Carolina and Anaheim win the cup, we've seen how much a championship has grown the game in Dallas and Tampa so i'm excited to see how it will help those two areas

you can't have it both ways, complaining about the lack of interest in hockey in the states and at the same time lambasting all the american franchises. and if the "die hard" fans had their way and the NHL was strictly a canadian game then we'd be stuck with another bush league like the CFL. i certainly don't want that