Your Ideas for TV Marketability in the NHL

[firstroundbust]

John Moag, head of the sports investment banking firm, Moag and Company in his June 2004 NHL report touched on this issue.

He believes that HDTV will likely enhance the watchability of hockey. Several other commentators have said the same thing pointing out with wider shots and increased screen resolution hockey will be more easily understood by people who have not grown up with the game as well as making it easier to follow the puck. Moag also recommends that the NHL needs to bring more of the "rink experience" into the television milieu.

I saw a hd broadcast of a bluejackets game, and for the 2nd period they cut the announcers, and just let the sounds of the game be the only audio...it was pretty cool...

 

[ScottyBowman]

I saw a hd broadcast of a bluejackets game, and for the 2nd period they cut the announcers, and just let the sounds of the game be the only audio...it was pretty cool...

I saw a few hd games last year and it still didn't improve the boring style of the game. People aren't going to watch hockey because its in hd, nor are they going to watch hockey because of some goalie cam, or cheerleaders, or any other zany idea that has been tried to death. Just face it, hockey is a sport watched by white males in cold regions.

 

[codswallop]

I saw a few hd games last year and it still didn't improve the boring style of the game. People aren't going to watch hockey because its in hd, nor are they going to watch hockey because of some goalie cam, or cheerleaders, or any other zany idea that has been tried to death. Just face it, hockey is a sport watched by white males in cold regions.

You can sell the sport, of that I have no doubt. It's dynamic, it's exciting; consumers who can will eat it up if given the right incentive. Now, it's a matter of how far the league and its players are willing to go to acheive a higher level of success in this area.

And by no means will that be easy. Anyone who is looking for a large spike in popularity (or even a moderate spike) are in for some heavy disappointment. Unless you get tremendously lucky, that just won't happen in this case. This will take a great amount of effort and creativity and luck.

Market research is a living thing, it changes often. You play to the strengths and constantly adapt. If you incorporate a bold and creative partner, you can grow in this industry. It will be a tentative, step by step, process given the current conditions. But it can happen if a commitment is made.

Even personally, I could give a few dozen different ideas off the top of my head to help market the game. And many have already been put forth in this thread. There are a multitude of ideas by those of us not in the business of marketing, just think what ideas could be brought about by those more in the know than us.

The possibilities are there. All we can hope is that the idea to aggressively market the NHL will happen.

 

[theoil]

There's nothing wrong with them. With no background understanding in the game, it can be difficult to follow the puck or the play.

If you play hockey, or played it at any level, you understand what's happening and where the puck should be as you watch it on tv. There are times when I can't see the puck at all, but I know what's going on and how the whole play is developing. We can all pick up where the puck is, even if we lose sight of it for a few seconds, because we know where it should be. It's also easy to see it if it's completely out of place because we know it shouldn't be there. And, there are times when watching the games on tv where I look at the screen and wonder where the hell the puck is.

I agree with you on this but think you didn't take it far enough. The problem for me is that the cameramen working the games on American TV don't know where the puck should be going. They lose the fans because they are lost themselves. I get frustrated watching and I know where the puck should be.

My suggestion is that the CBC train cameramen and second them to American broadcasters to shoot the game. I like a lot of the other suggestions but more cameras are not going to help until they learn to use the ones they've got and since CBC doesn't exactly have an over abundance of areas in which they are skilled you would think this is a natural export for them.

 

[Injektilo]

You can sell the sport, of that I have no doubt. It's dynamic, it's exciting; consumers who can will eat it up if given the right incentive. Now, it's a matter of how far the league and its players are willing to go to acheive a higher level of success in this area.

Excitement isn't all that people look for in a sporting event though. I'm not so sure that just because the sport is exciting that it guarentees people will watch, they only need to be told about it and have it delivered to them in the proper vehicle.


The sports market in North America (hell, the entertainment market in general) is already quite heavily saturated. I'm pretty wary of the NHL's chances of expanding into areas where it's unpopular, and I don't think it's just the boring games. Tampa and Calgary was one of the most exciting finals there's been in years, and yet it got some of the lowest ratings ever. People who are sports fans might follow a few sports, but are they gonna drop one that they've followed their whole life to pay attention to a game that's essentially foreign to them? Or are they gonna cram one more sport into their schedules? And are they gonna start paying to attend NHL games rather than NBA or NFL games?



All regions should be given a chance, sure, but surely everyone must agree that at some point you need to accept that it's not working and cut your losses. Has the NHL reached that point? Probably not yet. I think we'll be able to judge that a little better after this lockout ends and the league returns.

 

[codswallop]

Excitement isn't all that people look for in a sporting event though. I'm not so sure that just because the sport is exciting that it guarentees people will watch, they only need to be told about it and have it delivered to them in the proper vehicle.


The sports market in North America (hell, the entertainment market in general) is already quite heavily saturated. I'm pretty wary of the NHL's chances of expanding into areas where it's unpopular, and I don't think it's just the boring games. Tampa and Calgary was one of the most exciting finals there's been in years, and yet it got some of the lowest ratings ever. People who are sports fans might follow a few sports, but are they gonna drop one that they've followed their whole life to pay attention to a game that's essentially foreign to them? Or are they gonna cram one more sport into their schedules? And are they gonna start paying to attend NHL games rather than NBA or NFL games?



All regions should be given a chance, sure, but surely everyone must agree that at some point you need to accept that it's not working and cut your losses. Has the NHL reached that point? Probably not yet. I think we'll be able to judge that a little better after this lockout ends and the league returns.

I wasn't trying to say the NHL product should be instant entertainment for the public, something that should capture their attention and provoke a quick financial interest in the sport. My intention and thought behind the previous post was far from that.

I was merely trying to say that hockey has tremendous potential from a marketing standpoint. Obviously, the lockout has put a strain on its viability. But even in a muted form as it will be whenever the dispute is resolved, there are many ways to promote the sport in a very positive way. It will be an uphill climb no matter what. Even if the more experienced companies associated with the league decide to stay on and help, it will be a struggle.

All parties will have to help. Period. At this point, it has to be a group effort.

But it can be done. It will take a boatload of research, a boatload of ideas, a boatload of implementation strategies, a boatload of luck, etc, ect. The first and most important point is to set the league on the right path, then maybe we can hope that a smart marketing strategy can be followed by all involved.

Moot point at present, but at least we can hope. Personally, I have several dozen marketing ideas but it's pretty much wishful thinking in light of this dispute. Oh well...

 

[ScottyBowman]

One of the biggest problems in hockey is that they change the rules and teams that don't belong in the finals (Calgary, Carolina, Anaheim) make it their because the refs let them do whatever they want. If you look at the basketball standings and look at the finals, you will see that its usually the #1 or #2 seed every year because they don't change the rules in the playoffs to allow 2nd rate teams to foul star players and not call anything.

 

[thinkwild]

Real Hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio

One of the things the NHL has to do to re-market itself is to

STOP TRASHING THE PRODUCT!

"anti-marketing."
It's what MLB does when it tells fans in cities around the country that their team has no chance, when it goes before Congress and cries poor despite a legal monopoly, when it spends time, money, and energy telling the media that the product--the players--is the problem.

The NFL doesn't do any of those things, in part because the league and its owners have it made. There are a ton of things wrong with the NFL, the gap in stadium deals creates a competitive advantage for well-capitalized teams; the hard salary cap creates a tremendous amount of roster turnover; veteran players are often threatened with unemployment unless they restructure their contracts--but the coverage of the league is almost uniformly positive, even fawning.

If MLB wants to be like the NFL, the first thing it needs to do is start acting like the NFL. That means not b1tching and moaning about the way in which one of its franchises creates revenue and invests in its product, or the fact that teams have to pay players in a competitive market. It means putting out a consistent, positive message, instead of pretending that we should care that someone worth nine figures lost less than 1% of their capital for the privilege of owning a baseball team

Same for hockey. Owners threatening to move or fold all the time, emotional blackmail on the fans, is not good for the game. Fans are proposing solutions out of fear based on accounting profits, not whats best for the game. Change the mindset. Stop the complaining, whining, threats. That would help market the game. And forget this Any Given Sunday concept. It may work in a 16 game NFL season, but wont work in real sports. Learn how to market teams still striving for great.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Hard to come up with any good idea's for the New York Market. We can talk camera angles-HDTV but it has to be more easily accessible to the public. To find hockey here you have to be a die-hard looking for it.

Meanwhile Dolan has no clue how to market or program hockey and pays two (now three w/Buffalo) other teams to limit their television exposure on a station like Metro.
*All the money, interest and media are tied up in sports that dominate the public interest and there is no reason to change it during a six month regular season.

* Why are rich players (who are not going to be thrilled) after this bitter lockout ends going to be more visible or more available or be willing to do more to market hockey? Especially in a market where the teams have to beg, borrow and steal to get anyone to notice them now.

It seemed to work better on WOR in the seventies and eighties than now. I wish Dolan would sell his hockey rights and get the three teams back on free television for at least twenty road games a year. IMHO that is how you get folks interested.

How many other teams have limited cable coverage where they are not seen for weeks on end.

Eight weeks on NBC is not going to change anything during a season.

 

[Injektilo]

I wasn't trying to say the NHL product should be instant entertainment for the public, something that should capture their attention and provoke a quick financial interest in the sport. My intention and thought behind the previous post was far from that.

I was merely trying to say that hockey has tremendous potential from a marketing standpoint. Obviously, the lockout has put a strain on its viability. But even in a muted form as it will be whenever the dispute is resolved, there are many ways to promote the sport in a very positive way. It will be an uphill climb no matter what. Even if the more experienced companies associated with the league decide to stay on and help, it will be a struggle.

All parties will have to help. Period. At this point, it has to be a group effort.

But it can be done. It will take a boatload of research, a boatload of ideas, a boatload of implementation strategies, a boatload of luck, etc, ect. The first and most important point is to set the league on the right path, then maybe we can hope that a smart marketing strategy can be followed by all involved.

Moot point at present, but at least we can hope. Personally, I have several dozen marketing ideas but it's pretty much wishful thinking in light of this dispute. Oh well...

Ok, but still have to think that at some point you need to accept that it's just not working. Not right now, but prepare for the possibility. No amount of advertising could get me to go to a lacrosse game, I find it boring on TV and I just don't care how exciting it would be live.

Sure, they should go ahead and try to market it, but I don't know that the NHL can force itself into an already rather bloated sports landscape. If the NHL is the 10th most popular league/sport in the south, that's alot of other sports they need to move past to get to the point that they can make money with million dollar salaries.

You've gotta admit that at a certain point hockey just isn't catching on in certain areas, it may be the trendy thing for a certain period of time, but if it doesn't set down some real roots......

 

[Injektilo]

One of the biggest problems in hockey is that they change the rules and teams that don't belong in the finals (Calgary, Carolina, Anaheim) make it their because the refs let them do whatever they want. If you look at the basketball standings and look at the finals, you will see that its usually the #1 or #2 seed every year because they don't change the rules in the playoffs to allow 2nd rate teams to foul star players and not call anything.

I'd say in couple of those cases it was the fact that the team had an extremely hot goalie that won them 2-3 games per series.

But yeah, obstruction and playing the trap will get a mediocre team pretty far with some luck.....


I'm not sure what that has to do with selling the sport though, I think it could be argued that it should help because more teams have a chance to go far in the playoffs, and thier fans would realize this.

 

[VanIslander]

No glowing red pucks please.
Though it wasn't an idea that changed the game much.

Better camera angles in all major games. Some of the camera angles used for some telecasts, especially of the Sharks, was brutal: high up and distant, making it seem boring to even a hockey lover : as if one had the worst seat in the building.

Rangers games have had some awesome camera positioning and angles: I especially remember one game against Buffalo was so exciting simply by the good use of technology.

So, the NHL should demand/encourage good media coverage AT the games.

And improve pre-production: do more of those montages like to start the playoffs sometimes on CBC: emotional as hell.

 

[Profet]

3) Use the only redeeming part of the Foxpuck technology. Show us the speed of the shot - nothing else! No glowing trails of smoke, no explosions if there's a goal, no animated fireworks, and for gods sake no robots punching each other. The radar gun can register on the screen (perhaps under the score and timer already on the screen) for 2 or 3 seconds.

I rather like this idea. I would also want one other aspect of the Foxpuck technology.
Have the puck glow when it is against the boards and out of view of the camera.

This would be easily done. With some rudimentary geometry in each arena. (Same way the NFL draws their lines).

But again. Do not show any glowing or streaking when the puck is in a visible section of ice.

 

[helicecopter]

Traditions, eventual rules changes are mentioned aspects that have more impact than TV improvements on the audience. Still, NHL TV shots and TV marketing have a lot of room for improvement as they are so poor at the moment despite being very important for a sport that need commitment to be properly exploited on TV. So the argument is of course worth discussing.

Let's face it, even us hockey freaks we often lose the puck. How can we pretend that an unexperienced disinterested viewer can be caught by something he can't follow??

Several things suggested along this thread are interesting and would help, but i can't believe that what is always my biggest concern (as the quote in my profile shows) is not even mentioned here!
At too many NHL facilities shots are too low and away from the boards. When you see a game with those LOW far shots you almost lose one viewing dimension. Rinks are on two dimensions, lenght and width. As simple and stupid as this remark can look, it seems this is sadly forgotten by those who employ those shots that make the rink lose its width for viewers eyes!
For god's sake, bring SHOTS UP and over the rink as much as you can!
Higher shots let you 'appreciate' the other dimension (width) too.
This instantly brings some key results:
-a BETTER vision/reading of the play development.
-let you better realize where there actually is some room on the ice, while with low shots it seems all closed even more than what really is.(cause you fully perceive only the lenght of the rink).
-make it easier to see the puck! The more enlarged the ice surface on your screen is (i am talking of the ice largeness on the screen, not the real one that it's evidently always the same. The concept is that with lower shots 2 square metres of real ice surface are shown on, say, 3 square cms on the screen, instead of the 4 or 5 square cms you could have with higher shots. That increases proportionally with the perceived width), the less hidden the puck will be. Not only, given its shape on the ice (it's way wider than taller) the puck is more visible from over than from aside.


Another important thing has been mentioned before by HckyFght (btw, i completely agree on his critic against NHL typical shortsightedness that has been holding the league back forever.., they hurt the game to not give up on 25 seats or on 20 days of regular season every four years for the Olympics..):
Put one camera for each zone. One for the neutral and one for each offensive zone. The latters will be useful to better follow/watch most of the situations in the zones, especially those in the angles.

The third important thing is better image resolution, of course, and that has been already underlined along this thread.

So, reassuming, there are three achievable things that would improve a lot the quality of the product on TV (even with the same product on the ice):
1-HIGHER SHOTS
2-at least 3 lateral cameras (one for each zone)
3-better resolution



As for the generic 'INCREASE the number of cameras and shots available', that would be a good thing only if used properly. I mean, the more chances you have to shot the play, the more chances you have to miss the right shot, especially if you are not an hockey expert. To have particular, alternative shots would be interesting of course, but useful only if used with moderation, most of them only during replays.


Then there are a couple of things about TV marketing too.

-The first rule to follow for a non-traditional sport (as it is in US) to get any kind of popularity is visibility. How can you think to get more fans' interest when the games in certain areas are broadcasted only on pay Tvs??! That's the best way to hidden a sport and to inevitably make it even more a niche-sport.

-NHL worries are all for the US market, and that's perfectly understandable, but why not to exploit all what (whatever it is, probably more than many think) the European market could offer?
In Europe it's difficult to be able to watch any NHL games, let alone the teams you would really like to see. There are countries like Switzerland, with many hockey fans, where there are not any TV offers (center ice,..) that let the ones willing to watch to pay for the NHL games they wanted. NHL should not only worry about getting new fans, but also to at least being visible for the ones already willing to watch.

 

[helicecopter]

BTW..
Which is the current situation of NHL contracts with North American networks?
Anyone able to say which are, for how long they will last and how the lost season is (will) affecting them?
Also, how are the contracts with European TVs? I guess they are negotiated by American networks and not directly by the league... Are they all one year contracts or there will be some still running when the NHL will resume (supposing it will happen In October) ?

 

[I in the Eye]

-NHL worries are all for the US market, and that's perfectly understandable, but why not to exploit all what (whatever it is, probably more than many think) the European market could offer?
In Europe it's difficult to be able to watch any NHL games, let alone the teams you would really like to see. There are countries like Switzerland, with many hockey fans, where there are not any TV offers (center ice,..) that let the ones willing to watch to pay for the NHL games they wanted. NHL should not only worry about getting new fans, but also to at least being visible for the ones already willing to watch.

Great points... Many Europeans are already hockey fans (they don't need to be 'sold' the sport... IMO, it is much more difficult to sell an idea, than a new alternative to an already accepted idea... The NHL being more visible in Europe, IMO, should be considered and explored... Internet broadcast (with a marketing strategy directed to Europeans), may be a good place to start...

 

[kdb209]

BTW..
Which is the current situation of NHL contracts with North American networks?
Anyone able to say which are, for how long they will last and how the lost season is (will) affecting them?
Also, how are the contracts with European TVs? I guess they are negotiated by American networks and not directly by the league... Are they all one year contracts or there will be some still running when the NHL will resume (supposing it will happen In October) ?

I can't speak to the TV deals with the Canadian networks, but as far as US Network deals -

The 5 yr $600M ESPN deal expired after 03-04. They renewed it at a much lower value ($60M for 04-05 and an option for $70M for 05-06). ESPN hasn't decided yet to pick up the option for next season, but the doomsday speculation that they are looking to drop hockey has pretty much been shot down by ESPN, but the quotes I've seen from Bristol seem to indicate that they will probably be re-negotiating to a lower price for 05-06 (if there is an 05-06).

As for a major Broadcast Network contract, the old deal with ABC expired at the same time as the old ESPN deal. The new deal is with NBC - unlike the ABC deal there is no guaranteed money upfront - instead the league and NBC will split any advertising revenues after deduction production costs. I think NBC planned on showing the All Star Game, like 7 weeks of Sat afternoon games - 1 gm/week regional coverage - Sat games during the playoffs and the entire Cup Finals. But on the whole this deal is not expected to be much of a revenue generator - estimates I've read are like less than $1M per team.

The biggest chunk of broadcast revenues though comes not from the national broadcast contracts, but from all of the local team-by-team cable deals with the various Fox Sports affiliates, MSG, Comcast, etc. These are worth up to $20M+ for some teams and $5M or less for others. This is one of the biggest factors contributing to the disparity between the big and small market teams in terms of revenues.

 

[helicecopter]

I can't speak to the TV deals with the Canadian networks, but as far as US Network deals -

The 5 yr $600M ESPN deal expired after 03-04. They renewed it at a much lower value ($60M for 04-05 and an option for $70M for 05-06). ESPN hasn't decided yet to pick up the option for next season, but the doomsday speculation that they are looking to drop hockey has pretty much been shot down by ESPN, but the quotes I've seen from Bristol seem to indicate that they will probably be re-negotiating to a lower price for 05-06 (if there is an 05-06).

As for a major Broadcast Network contract, the old deal with ABC expired at the same time as the old ESPN deal. The new deal is with NBC - unlike the ABC deal there is no guaranteed money upfront - instead the league and NBC will split any advertising revenues after deduction production costs. I think NBC planned on showing the All Star Game, like 7 weeks of Sat afternoon games - 1 gm/week regional coverage - Sat games during the playoffs and the entire Cup Finals. But on the whole this deal is not expected to be much of a revenue generator - estimates I've read are like less than $1M per team.

The biggest chunk of broadcast revenues though comes not from the national broadcast contracts, but from all of the local team-by-team cable deals with the various Fox Sports affiliates, MSG, Comcast, etc. These are worth up to $20M+ for some teams and $5M or less for others. This is one of the biggest factors contributing to the disparity between the big and small market teams in terms of revenues.

Thanks a lot kdb209!

Anyone able to help on the question about European TVs NHL contracts?

 

[octopi]

Next on Springer: Men who wear garters, short pants and gloves!

But you guys have good ideas too

 

[Schlep Rock]

I agree with you on this but think you didn't take it far enough. The problem for me is that the cameramen working the games on American TV don't know where the puck should be going. They lose the fans because they are lost themselves. I get frustrated watching and I know where the puck should be.

My suggestion is that the CBC train cameramen and second them to American broadcasters to shoot the game. I like a lot of the other suggestions but more cameras are not going to help until they learn to use the ones they've got and since CBC doesn't exactly have an over abundance of areas in which they are skilled you would think this is a natural export for them.

Are you kidding me? You want Canada to export cameramen to the United States?

Explain to me the difference between a Canadian and American cameraman, please. Don't say hockey is bigger in Canada so automatically Canadian cameramen are better either.