USA Today: NHL TV Contract Deadline is June 1st

[Hockeyfan02]

There will be plenty of others lining up to take their place at such a bargain price.

Thats right. I remember all those networks that were jumping on broadcasting the World Championships for free. They were lined up to turn them down. What makes you think that these same networks will pay money for the NHL at a reduced price?

 

[ladybugblue]

People here are saying..who cares..2 million less a team blah...So then WHERE is the NHL going to broadcast there games? On TNN? Where they average .8 million viewers...and 75% of them im sure arent even sport fans? If the NHL does not come up with a way to stall ESPN or have a deal by June 1st then hockey in America will be dead.

It is already near dead as it is. ESPN barely covered hockey as it was and I for one subscribed to NHL Center Ice last year since the coverage was so bad. Don't know what the solution is but I don't think ESPN is the answer unless the NBA goes with a lockout then they may be asking for the NHL to be shown next year. Otherwise ESPN has shown very little interest and I don't see it changing.

 

[Weary]

Most gamblers are NOT in the demographic of the NHL. Hockey has the highest income earning demographic than any other sport. Most gamblers are lower/middle income spending money on HOPE, not on tangiable items.

Median household income for 2004 World Series of Poker ESPN viewers: $62,200
Median household income for 2004 Stanley Cup ESPN viewers: $64,663

Poker on tv appeals to the casual viewer. No sport does, not even the NHL. Remember, it's poker. Everyone knows the rules.

But the NHL is the worst at attracting the casual viewer. That's the problem.

 

[mooseOAK*]

TV networks, licensees win big with poker from washingtontimes.com:

However, it is clear that advertising on poker tournament shows is hot. New York-based media buying firm Initiative Media's spokeswoman Anaka Kobzev said that while normally the company would love to comment about what "has really become a mini-phenomenon in advertising," it couldn't because the company is currently in negotiations with one of the poker TV shows.​

It seems that chasing "less desirable" viewers has turned into a "mini-phenomenon."

Any show that has a lot of viewers will be able to attract advertisers but the point is, how much money will they spend on it? The article shows that poker is getting casinos, a playing card company, an apparel company, and a couple of liquor ones. Compare them to companies that have advertised on hockey like Chrysler, Nike, IBM, Budweiser, and Nextel and there is no contest.

 

[kdb209]

Sports became attractive to advertisers because of a few crucial demographic facts. To begin with, American males between 18 and 49 don't watch as much television as other groups. But they do watch sports. Therefore sports have become a palatable and profitable way to capture their attention.

http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article206.html

If ESPN wants to dick around over $2 million a team, let 'em. There will be plenty of others lining up to take their place at such a bargain price.

Did you notice that the article you quoted did not mention the NHL or hockey at all.

Sports became attractive to advertisers because of a few crucial demographic facts. To begin with, American males between 18 and 49 don't watch as much television as other groups. But they do watch sports. Therefore sports have become a palatable and profitable way to capture their attention.

This crucial audience, then, is further subdivided into sports for the masses (the big three — football, baseball and basketball), and sports for the classes — "upper crust" activities like tennis and golf which provide a berth for life insurance and personal computer ads aimed at the middle and upper class.

Yes Sports in general have and Hockey had better than average demographics, but the abysmally low NHL ratings have severly undermined any benefit they can get from those demographics. And who knows how badly th eratings and demographic advantage have been damaged by the cancelled season.

If the NHL was such a bargain with such great demographics, and there were a whole raft of others just waiting to snap it up, how do you explain the NBC deal. The NHL could not find any takers to pay any up-front money.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Thats right. I remember all those networks that were jumping on broadcasting the World Championships for free. They were lined up to turn them down. What makes you think that these same networks will pay money for the NHL at a reduced price?

C'mon. Since there was no salary cap in the World Championships, the tournament wasn't fair and the small market countries didn't have a chance. Their fans weren't interested. If France or Denmark had a real chance, ESPN would've been all over it. Competitive balance, man.

 

[WC Handy*]

Median household income for 2004 World Series of Poker ESPN viewers: $62,200
Median household income for 2004 Stanley Cup ESPN viewers: $64,663

But the NHL is the worst at attracting the casual viewer. That's the problem.

Advertisers don't want casual viewers. They want VERY SPECIFIC demographics.

 

[Morbo]

I don't think this is really a big deal, since the money involved is pretty minimal.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Oh course remember when we were hearing this **** about pro wrestling?

As far as WWE's popularity has fallen in the last 4 years, they still get about triple the cable rating the NHL does, and they're on a far weaker station than ESPN. They also have a network TV deal, which unlike the NHL's, pays them money. The drawback with wrestling is that they cannot get ad money to reflect their ratings.

 

[Weary]

VERY distorted logic. You may question whether people who watch celebrity poker are all gamblers, but the above is pretty much nonsensical. Obviously the 63% of Americans who have gambled are not hard core or even habitual gamblers, and obviously even with all but a few hard core gambler, not ALL of their discretionary income goes towards gambling.

I was not the one arguing these points. I was merely taking mooseOAK's opinions and testing them against the real world. He took the position that only gamblers watch poker on TV. He followed that up by saying gamblers spend their disposable income on gambling. So it's not the logic that's distorted -- it's the foundations upon which the logic rests.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I was not the one arguing these points. I was merely taking mooseOAK's opinions and testing them against the real world. He took the position that only gamblers watch poker on TV. He followed that up by saying gamblers spend their disposable income on gambling. So it's not the logic that's distorted -- it's the foundations upon which the logic rests.

There's a reason why there is a Gambler's Anonymous and not a Hockey Fan's Anonymous group. Vegas is full of midwestern Americans who save money all year just to go there to gamble.

 

[txomisc]

In a government survey, 63% of Americans said they had gambled in the past year. Do you expect me to believe that 63% of discretionary income in the United States went to gambling?

Having gambled in the last year does not put you in the "gambler" demographic.

 

[Weary]

There's a reason why there is a Gambler's Anonymous and not a Hockey Fan's Anonymous group. Vegas is full of midwestern Americans who save money all year just to go there to gamble.

With those people spending all their time gambling and working to get more gambling money, I doubt they even watch TV at all. How does poker on TV get those "100% gambler ratings" when the gamblers are so doggone busy?

 

[PecaFan]

There's a *huge* difference between gamblers like little old ladies playing bingo, slots, or buying massive numbers of lottery tickets, and the recent poker boom.

It's not the little old ladies watching poker on tv.

 

[jamiebez]

Getting off the gambling thing for a second....

Another thing to consider in ESPN's decision on hockey vs. poker (or whatever) is the cost involved with the broadcast. A typical NHL game has, what, 10-12 cameras, a play-by-play and color guy, a reporter, a studio set and hosts, etc etc. Plus, it's broadcast live, which is much more expensive to produce than a taped show.

You've got to figure anything they put on that's taped (like poker) is going to result in less cost for them than a live, national NHL broadcast. Whether that offsets a drop in revenue based on different advertising demographics is another story, but its something else to consider.

 

[Hasbro]

There's a *huge* difference between gamblers like little old ladies playing bingo, slots, or buying massive numbers of lottery tickets, and the recent poker boom.

It's not the little old ladies watching poker on tv.

Or the office football and final four pools

 

[nyrmessier011]

With that deadline staring them in the face perhaps they could come back after Memorial Day and close the deal Tuesday.

 

[Weary]

There's a *huge* difference between gamblers like little old ladies playing bingo, slots, or buying massive numbers of lottery tickets, and the recent poker boom.

It's not the little old ladies watching poker on tv.

Exactly. The 2004 WSOP and the 2004 Stanley Cup had nearly the same demographics on ESPN. Both have appeal within the same core groups. It's a pretty good bet that even though only 2% of households tune into NHL hockey games, more than 2% of poker watchers are also NHL watchers.

One of the world's best poker players, Daniel Negreanu, is also a hockey fan. You'll even see him wearing a hockey sweater when playing. It makes no sense to attempt to denigrate poker fans just because poker gets better ratings.

 

[Winger98]

As far as WWE's popularity has fallen in the last 4 years, they still get about triple the cable rating the NHL does, and they're on a far weaker station than ESPN. They also have a network TV deal, which unlike the NHL's, pays them money. The drawback with wrestling is that they cannot get ad money to reflect their ratings.

and they may not be a bad leadin to a hockey game...

 

[futurcorerock]

I think there's another compromise at heart in all of this:

Give ESPN something June 1st. Obviously it may not be hockey, but you could always feed ESPN's original programming department with a documentary-style series on the inner workings of these meetings. Show the world why Hockey is almost out right now. I guarantee you such a show would not only draw ratings, but also help to get the game some much-needed attention.

On a side note, we could also have them participate in challenges and vote off members of the Bargaining unit. Too Reality Tv?

 

[hockeytown9321]

and they may not be a bad leadin to a hockey game...

Won't happen, WWE is moving back to USA in the fall. Spike TV is going to build around the UFC show.(which wouldn't be a bad lead in for hockey either)

 

[GSC2k2*]

I think there's another compromise at heart in all of this:

Give ESPN something June 1st. Obviously it may not be hockey, but you could always feed ESPN's original programming department with a documentary-style series on the inner workings of these meetings. Show the world why Hockey is almost out right now. I guarantee you such a show would not only draw ratings, but also help to get the game some much-needed attention.

On a side note, we could also have them participate in challenges and vote off members of the Bargaining unit. Too Reality Tv?

I think Bob Goodenow before a firing squad might draw a pretty good number ...

 

[Benji Frank]

The people in LA wet themselves over Crosby? Really? I must have missed that...maybe about 300 fans did that showed up for the rookie camp, but that's it.

LA does draw pretty well in LA. SOld out 26 games last year. However, the Kings are mostly overshadowed in a Lakers city. Everything is Lakers w/ MAJOR bandwagoning too.

Now, the Lakers are not the same draw w/o Shaq/Kobe/Phil show. Kobe is being exposed that he can't carry a team and the Lakers fans were spoiled by having to excellent players lead them to rings. Kings do have a golden opportunity to strike deeper into the market because the Lakers are not going to get any better.

However, Gretzky worked in LA BECAUSE HE WAS GRETZKY when he was traded to LA. Crosby is a NOBODY. People are not going to come out in droves to see him. For that matter, in 90% of the US markets, he's NOT going to have an impact on the game because he IS not a proven commodity. CAN fans are more willing to support hope than US fans.

Too many people think this kid is going to strike gold for the NHL. Think again. How long did it take for Lemieux to have an impact in his playing city? Yzerman in DET?

Way too much stock in Crosby around here.

If Crosby does what he's done all his life and does it out of a market like LA or New York or Boston or chicago or some other big market, America will grow to love the sport. I'm not referring to him being a bonanza for the Kings, I'm talking about for hockey in general. Imagine how big hockey would have been if that Oilers team was in New York or La in the early 80's rather then the 90's when the 2 franchises decided to try to buy the Messier's Kurri's, Gretzky's, etc??? Those guys in their prime or growing up in a large market wheer fans could have fallen in love with them and the sport would have been huge for hockey!! Even now, Rick Nash, Kovalchuk, Heatley, Iginla ... whose heard of them in America?? If they're on a team that the people have actually heard of, then maybe they'll get a following which will spin off to the Nashville's, Thrashers, Blue JAckets, etc. gaining a few fans. You can't market a Rick Nash to America with a Clumbus Blue Jackets jersey until the people have actually heard of Columbus Blue Jackets!! At least a chunk of US knows The Rangers and Kings exist. It reminds me of the days when Winnipeg had Hawerchuk. He was probably the best kept secret in hockey!! Partly because he played in an era when Gretzky, Lemieux and Stevie Y were the dominant centers, but mainly cuz he was in Winnipeg a little small market town where most of America couldn't care less what he was accomplishing in a sport they could care less about!! FWIW, I'm not thinking the large markets should have the Rick Nash's Jerome Iginla's, Dany Heatley's, etc. I just think it'd be good for hockey if they can build around the faces in the large markets and work their way out and from all accounts Crosby might be the best opportunity from which to build......

 

[thinkwild]

Even now, Rick Nash, Kovalchuk, Heatley, Iginla ... whose heard of them in America?? If they're on a team that the people have actually heard of, then maybe they'll get a following which will spin off to the Nashville's, Thrashers, Blue JAckets, etc. gaining a few fans. You can't market a Rick Nash to America with a Clumbus Blue Jackets jersey until the people have actually heard of Columbus Blue Jackets!! At least a chunk of US knows The Rangers and Kings exist. It reminds me of the days when Winnipeg had Hawerchuk. He was probably the best kept secret in hockey!! Partly because he played in an era when Gretzky, Lemieux and Stevie Y were the dominant centers, but mainly cuz he was in Winnipeg a little small market town where most of America couldn't care less what he was accomplishing in a sport they could care less about!!

Winnipeg and Edmonton in the grand scheme of things are equally small market towns. The difference is: one was using its stars to win. Winning is everything. And worth lots of money. If Columbus uses its stars and develops a winner, everyone will have heard of them and know Rick Nash.

Star players are only valuable if they help you win. Crosby wouldnt do anything for hockey or the Rangers unless and until they win with him. Its just that, even under the old CBA, they have a better chance of developing a winner building slowly around Crosby than they do trying to buy a winner. Developing is more of an advantage than buying UFA's. When UFAs are 31 anyway

 

[bcrt2000]

Can anyone confirm if this is an official ESPN press release? it was posted on breakingsports.blogspot.com (which always links its stories, but this one is not linked, but it is said that ESPN released this to members of the media)

"ESPN has decided not to exercise its $60 million option to telecast National Hockey League games, regardless of whether professional hockey returns after a lockout scrapped the entire 2004-05 campaign.
ESPN hasn’t closed the door on pro hockey altogether, reporting in its statement that it “remain interested in a multimedia agreement that provides us with appropriate value.â€
In a statement released this morning, ESPN said that while it “would like to continue its long-term relationship with the NHL,†it was not interested in carrying games even if a new collective bargaining agreement can be hashed out.
The league had already been operating from a position of weakness before the cancellation of last season, as the network opted to shuffle its slate of NHL games over to ESPN2.
ESPN executive vp, programming and production Mark Shapiro is expected to offer further comment on the decision later today."

If that is true, it means that ESPN will not being showing the NHL on TV in the future.