Local tv ratings down 29 per cent

[Oz27]

According to Forbes, we ranked 27th out of 29 for local tv ratings ... down from 25th the previous year. This year, only the White Sox and A's were behind us. We are behind the Dodgers, too, even though so much of LA can't see their games.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/28/here-are-the-2016-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#2c860f446f41

[Amazing Larry]

It's all good. We had over 3 million fans in attendance this season supposedly. 

[Troll Daddy]

9 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

It's all good. We had over 3 million fans in attendance this season supposedly. 

Let's not forget the $3B dollar contract  over 20 years.

 

[ScottT]

Poor Arte.  The fans dont appreciate his efforts 

[Second Base]

Arte gets the money from that TV contract whether people tune in or not.

It will be interesting to see what happens if cable in general goes under in the future and everything is streaming. Still paid content I suppose.

[ten ocho recon scout]

11 minutes ago, ScottyA_MWAH said:

Arte gets the money from that TV contract whether people tune in or not.

It will be interesting to see what happens if cable in general goes under in the future and everything is streaming. Still paid content I suppose.

Ive been wondering about that for a while, not just with us. More and more people seem to be getting rid of cable, i wonder if at some point these megadeals for sports sink the cable providers

[Oz27]

The contrast between the ratings and team revenue generated from the TV contracts is interesting. Here is what each team is getting from its contract and we are right up there - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/

It's still obviously a bad thing that so few people were watching. Less people watching means less people interested and would eventually lead to lower merchandise, revenue sales etc. 

[Inside Pitch]

8 hours ago, Oz27 said:

The contrast between the ratings and team revenue generated from the TV contracts is interesting. Here is what each team is getting from its contract and we are right up there - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/

It's still obviously a bad thing that so few people were watching. Less people watching means less people interested and would eventually lead to lower merchandise, revenue sales etc. 

https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/file/DMA/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf

So, Im sure the guys who are in TV and get how these things work can enlighten us on the correct numbers, but if ratings share is a straight % of TV sets then basically 60K people are tuning in to watch Angels baseball in a market they share with the Dodgers and various other sports teams in a year where the Angels were absolute trash.   Meanwhile the KC Royals lead MLB in ratings pulling in 100K viewers in the season after they won the WS.  Last year the Angels' 1.6 share meant they were drawing 88K per broadcast.. 

Not sure this is as big of an issue as some might think.

[gotbeer]

I'd be interested in seeing what KTLA's ratings were for the last 6 Doggie games.  Was it on par with what Sportsnet gets, a little higher, or much much higher. 

[Blarg]

I have very little faith in ratings numbers but our show lives by those and demographics. When our show takes the night it has numbers like 2.4 rating/8 share which means about 8.5 million viewers. There are @325 million people in the US, so that is such a small fraction you would think the highest rated show for any given hour would have more eyeballs and it probably does but the method of culling those numbers are suspect. 

It is probably more accurate to zero in on a single cable network sports show and see the cable box pings because of direct subscription, the games are not antennae fed,  but I don't think these numbers included Fox Sports Go that I use at work. 

Still, there is no justification for the amount of money advertisers are spending to reach a defined market that is getting only 60k in audience. Regardless if that number is inaccurate you are not doing a multiplier of 5 to rationalize it. 

[Troll Daddy]

Now we know why rebuilding isn't the way to go. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

51 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I have very little faith in ratings numbers but our show lives by those and demographics. When our show takes the night it has numbers like 2.4 rating/8 share which means about 8.5 million viewers. There are @325 million people in the US, so that is such a small fraction you would think the highest rated show for any given hour would have more eyeballs and it probably does but the method of culling those numbers are suspect. 

It is probably more accurate to zero in on a single cable network sports show and see the cable box pings because of direct subscription, the games are not antennae fed,  but I don't think these numbers included Fox Sports Go that I use at work. 

Still, there is no justification for the amount of money advertisers are spending to reach a defined market that is getting only 60k in audience. Regardless if that number is inaccurate you are not doing a multiplier of 5 to rationalize it. 

I don't think it's advertisers, it's cable providers. If your channel can get on the basic tier, it doesn't matter how many people tune in, your channel is drawing a fee per subscriber. Advertising is just gravy. So rather than looking at the number of nightly viewers, look at how many people get FSN.

[Adam]

I don't think our ratings were ever in the top half of teams. Anyone have historicals?

[California Cajun]

I think that's to be expected given the pool W-L record.

This was my 50th season as an Angels fan and I still say this franchise has incredible support, considering the tough times it has endured.  I left Southern California 44 years ago and could never give up Angel fandom.

[VariousCrap]

2 hours ago, gotbeer said:

I'd be interested in seeing what KTLA's ratings were for the last 6 Doggie games.  Was it on par with what Sportsnet gets, a little higher, or much much higher. 

 

Most likely much higher and that would be only because on Vin Scully.

[70runner]

23 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

Most likely much higher and that would be only because on Vin Scully.

Yea, as a lifelong dogs hater, I watched the last couple innings of Sunday's dogs/SF game for Vin's last call.  A true legend, even if for the wrong team.

[Second Base]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

I have very little faith in ratings numbers but our show lives by those and demographics. When our show takes the night it has numbers like 2.4 rating/8 share which means about 8.5 million viewers. There are @325 million people in the US, so that is such a small fraction you would think the highest rated show for any given hour would have more eyeballs and it probably does but the method of culling those numbers are suspect. 

It is probably more accurate to zero in on a single cable network sports show and see the cable box pings because of direct subscription, the games are not antennae fed,  but I don't think these numbers included Fox Sports Go that I use at work. 

Still, there is no justification for the amount of money advertisers are spending to reach a defined market that is getting only 60k in audience. Regardless if that number is inaccurate you are not doing a multiplier of 5 to rationalize it. 

I'm also curious to see how MLB.tv is accounted for.  That's my predominant source of Angels baseball, and I'm guessing it doesn't count as an affiliation with FSW. 

[yk9001]

Get rid of Gubicza

[disarcina]

The Dodgers can't be seen by most of the LA Basin and they beat us in the ratings?

The Angels can be seen by everyone from OC to Santa Barbara County and no one is watching their games?

GEEZ.

A real turning point for Arte (and one reason why he was so insistent on recapturing the LOS ANGELES ANGELS name) was when then KCAL-9  switched to the Dodgers (from the Angels) for the over-the-air channel and not only did KCAL pay almost three or four times more for the Dodgers games than the Angels games, but the Angels got relegated to KCOP channel 13 as their over the air station which has crummy reception and is just basically terrible.

not this latest news of the Angels cable ratings on FSN being less than the Dodger ratings on their own Time Warner channel has to really sting.

Not only because half of LA Basin can't get the Dodgers and they still topped the Halos in ratings -- but because the Dodgers with their TV deal and all the revenue really could care less about the TV ratings and viewership (and their actions show it) -- they've got their money.

Meanwhile, not sure when the next TV contract is up for the Halos but right now they would have a tough time just keeping the TV revenue where it is now.