OC Register: Hoornstra: With ratings plummeting, what is the future of World Series broadcasts?

[AngelsWin.com]

Game 1 of the World Series between the Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks was, according to one headline, “the least-watched World Series game in recorded history.” Like many headlines, this one contained a nugget of truth but did not convey the whole story.

Tracing this particular slice of history, one must begin in 1969. That’s when average television ratings were first recorded. To understand the difference between average viewership then and now, start on Saturday, Oct. 11, 1969, the date of the first World Series game played in the Nielsen era.

Staging a prime-time sports telecast on that particular Saturday night meant, for rights-holder NBC, bumping off “The Andy Williams Show,” “Adam-12,” and “Saturday Night at the Movies.” It meant pitting your World Series broadcast against Jackie Gleason and Lawrence Welk and, well, nothing else, because there were only three networks at the time.

Did the strategy work? We’ll never know. The game began in the afternoon, long before prime time. And yet, Mike Cuellar’s complete game victory over the New York Mets still drew more viewers than the Rangers’ 11-inning win over the D-backs.

The record-low ratings beg a common question: So what?

The answer is nuanced and, hopefully, points to a future in which more and better World Series broadcast options exist for more fans. It’s also a litmus test for your opinion of the game of baseball. Your answer to “so what?” will tend to sort you into one of four camps.

Camp 1: Those who have no intention of watching the World Series under any circumstances.

Camp 2: Those who have every intention of watching the World Series because they’re diehard fans of baseball, or the teams involved.

Camp 3: Those who used to watch the World Series but for whatever reason no longer do so.

Camp 4: Those whose rooting interest is primarily financial, because you are a primary stakeholder for MLB, a major network, or one of its business partners.

Camps 1 and 2 are the constants. Camp 3 has the full and complete attention of Camp 4. People in Camp 3 are often opinionated. They’re quick to share their idea of how baseball “should” be played – ideas that might lead to such novel experiments as moving back the pitcher’s mound in the Atlantic League, or pitch clock ads featuring Bryan Cranston.

Really, though, Camp 4 should be listening to Camp 5. Camp 5 is younger than Camp 3. It hasn’t lived long enough to view the World Series through the lens of ratings, and we should hope they never become so jaded. Camp 5 is a lot like Rob Holub’s students at the University of New Haven.

“If I talk about baseball in my class, freshmen and sophomores know who Jomboy is,” Holub said, “but they can’t afford a cable subscription. (They watch) small clips that catch your attention.”

Holub, an adjunct faculty member of the Pompea College of Business for Sport Management, has a good reason to be jaded himself. He grew up a fan of the New York sports teams and was aghast when the MSG Network (regional broadcaster of New York’s Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, Giants, and others) disappeared from his Optimum cable package and moved to a pay-per-view model charging $10 per game.

For baseball, Holub could purchase YES, the Yankees’ regional network, for $240/year. But that package would not get him access to the World Series because those games were exclusive to Fox’s linear television channel. (Not a particular problem for a Yankees fan this year, of course.) For older millennial cord-cutters and non-cord-cutters alike, the cost of watching baseball has become prohibitive.

“I’m 37 and I’d rather watch Jomboy for 4 minutes,” Holub said. “I watched 10 minutes of (Game 2) the other night and fell asleep. Jomboy’s breakdown of someone getting tagged out on the batting glove was riveting.”

Ironically, an August 1969 cover of TV Guide asked the question, “Will Soaring Costs Knock Sports off TV?”

Finally, we have the answer: yes, in part.

Holub believes that’s where the interesting, nuanced part of the so-what-if-ratings-are-down question comes into play. It doesn’t mean that baseball is dying.

He contrasted Fox’s approach to this postseason with ESPN’s approach to football, where the Manning brothers and Pat McAfee have provided popular “alternative broadcasts.” In some cases, Holub believes, the “alternative” broadcasts have been more successful than the “primary” linear offerings.

“I’d much rather watch Brockmire call a game than Joe Buck,” he said.

TruTV and Max toyed with an alternative broadcast format during the National League Championship Series. Host Alanna Rizzo moderated a group discussion among Albert Pujols, Pedro Martinez, Yonder Alonso, Nestor Cortes and other players and former players alike. It was conversational. It ignored the play-by-play that anyone could observe for themselves on screen. It was easy to tune in and out. Unfortunately, it wasn’t available during the World Series.

Of course, that’s my own bias, and therein lies another litmus test. Some will view the suffering World Series ratings as the fault of the decline of the starting pitcher. Others will point to the teams involved, and the general lack of household names on either the Diamondbacks or Rangers. Or bat flips. Or John Smoltz’s commentary. Whatever you don’t like, blame that.

The death of cultural monoliths (like, say, “The Andy Williams Show”) is well-chronicled. Who can blame someone who simply enjoys having the television on in the background for choosing one of a hundred things other than the World Series when their options number in the triple digits? Heck, you could even have watched Game 1 of the 1969 World Series last Friday if that was your cup of tea. It’s on YouTube in its entirety.

But the networks are still married to old-school metrics, like Nielsen ratings, as a direct connection to advertising revenue. Holub believes the notion of spreading out a number of alternate game broadcasts over multiple corporate properties is the key to future success. Why expect one failing product to generate 10 million viewers when 10 products can give you one million viewers each? Or so the thinking goes.

In 2021, ESPN extended its contract with the NFL through 2033. Fox only holds the World Series rights through 2028. The need to cultivate more viewers over a 12-year period is enough to inspire more experimentation, Holub believes – hence the Manningcasts, he said.

If you’re in Camp 3 and you believe baseball is dying, that’s fine. Just don’t use the World Series ratings as definitive proof.

“I don’t think baseball is dying,” Holub said. “Interest is changing because society-wise we just have so many more options for what to do with our time.”

View the full article

[angelsfan100]

Usually I enjoy the post season quite a bit even if the Halos aren't in it. But for some reason it was hard for me to get into it this year. I personally feel a Braves/Phillies/Dodgers NLCS would have been much more exciting. I didn't watch much of the ALCS, but I felt that was however quite exciting after reviewing some of the games. I'm also from the Phoenix area, so on the ground there is almost zero hype for the Dbacks this post season. I'm sure in downtown Phoenix it's a little different, since that's where the game is being played. I'd like to see what Cali thinks too since I know he's from the same neck of the woods as well. While there's no denying the D-backs run is amazing, I don't think it has the same magic as that 2019 Nats run. The dbacks are a pretty dam boring team. 

I also think a possibility for the bad ratings this World Series could possibily be tied to current world events too. 

[Mark68]

I think, for starters, nobody cares outside of Arizona or North Texas. I mean, when you have the 6th and 10th best records in MLB playing each other, it's kind of a snooze fest outside of those markets. 

[disarcina]

Much like MLB ratings nationally overall - Baseball and particularly MLB remains a local/ regional draw NOT a national one.  This apparently now extends to the World Series (especially when you have teams like Texas and Arizona playing). The. World Series will always be televised nationally but MLB may be received less revenue for the demonstrated drop in viewership.  The. average viewership rate for advertising will likely be lower next season. MLB may have to refund some advertising revenue this year for failing to meet certain viewership levels.

The games may not be on major network channels - like FOX - but could be relegated to regional sports channels - those that still are financially afloat or other non-network type cable channels. (In other words, not FOX, ABC, NBC or CBS) perhaps MLB or maybe ESPN.

What astounds me for the ALCS and NLCS (and perhaps soon for the World Series) is that you can't get them over the air on radio.  "Back in the day" if you were out and about  driving around, you could get your local over the air radio station (not necessarily the all sports station) that  had the games on and listen as you went about your errand, whatever.  Today - especially for the ALCS and NLCS -- not so - need the MLB.com satelite feed.  Oh well.

This. year's World Series TV ratings destined to be the lowest ever.

Meanwhile, the NFL juggernaut continues on. At one time, the World Series and Super Bowl were somewhat on par.

Those days have long since been behind us.

[HaloBronco]

2 hours ago, disarcina said:

Much like MLB ratings nationally overall - Baseball and particularly MLB remains a local/ regional draw NOT a national one.  This apparently now extends to the World Series (especially when you have teams like Texas and Arizona playing). The. World Series will always be televised nationally but MLB may be received less revenue for the demonstrated drop in viewership.  The. average viewership rate for advertising will likely be lower next season. MLB may have to refund some advertising revenue this year for failing to meet certain viewership levels.

The games may not be on major network channels - like FOX - but could be relegated to regional sports channels - those that still are financially afloat or other non-network type cable channels. (In other words, not FOX, ABC, NBC or CBS) perhaps MLB or maybe ESPN.

What astounds me for the ALCS and NLCS (and perhaps soon for the World Series) is that you can't get them over the air on radio.  "Back in the day" if you were out and about  driving around, you could get your local over the air radio station (not necessarily the all sports station) that  had the games on and listen as you went about your errand, whatever.  Today - especially for the ALCS and NLCS -- not so - need the MLB.com satelite feed.  Oh well.

This. year's World Series TV ratings destined to be the lowest ever.

Meanwhile, the NFL juggernaut continues on. At one time, the World Series and Super Bowl were somewhat on par.

Those days have long since been behind us.

No doubt about it, MLB has a big issue and better figure it out fast.

As I see it the biggest issue is that it’s too hard to access it in most markets.

 

The regional sports channels have been a disaster for MLB. They need to broaden net by putting more games on broadcast TV (over the airway so that even people without cable could watch via antenna).

Even if it’s less money than Regional network is offering they need to look at it as a marketing investment to expand exposure to current and more importantly future fans. At least put some of games on broadcast TV

then the others games can be on the combination of regional sport networks and the MLB app but that local blackout restriction needs to be done away with so that anyone locally can access the broadcast.

 

Also why isn’t the MLB network available to stream via the MLB app to anyone, why do you or should you have to have a cable provider. It just limits access to your customers, just dumb.

For example the NFL network can now be streamed directly without a cable provider (NFL +).

 

MLB is going down the same road that boxing went down, it needs to address quickly or else it’s going to be fringe sport like boxing is now.    

[angelsfan100]

 

[angelsfan100]

1 hour ago, HaloBronco said:

No doubt about it, MLB has a big issue and better figure it out fast.

As I see it the biggest issue is that it’s too hard to access it in most markets.

 

The regional sports channels have been a disaster for MLB. They need to broaden net by putting more games on broadcast TV (over the airway so that even people without cable could watch via antenna).

Even if it’s less money than Regional network is offering they need to look at it as a marketing investment to expand exposure to current and more importantly future fans. At least put some of games on broadcast TV

then the others games can be on the combination of regional sport networks and the MLB app but that local blackout restriction needs to be done away with so that anyone locally can access the broadcast.

 

Also why isn’t the MLB network available to stream via the MLB app to anyone, why do you or should you have to have a cable provider. It just limits access to your customers, just dumb.

For example the NFL network can now be streamed directly without a cable provider (NFL +).

 

MLB is going down the same road that boxing went down, it needs to address quickly or else it’s going to be fringe sport like boxing is now.    

Don't forget the blackouts with MLB.tv Blackouts are just stupid. For example why on earth would a Cubs game be blacked out in Iowa? Do people actually expect a fan to think "awh shucks this game is blacked out! Guess I'll have to buy a ticket, drive a few hundred miles to watch my Cubbies play". 

Setting aside the flaws of regional brodcasts, I really do prefer regional brodcasts over national ones however. This is mostly due to the fact the announcers are going to be more familiar to with the respective teams they announce for. Hence why you said they need to broden the reach of regional brodcasts somehow or someway. 

Anyways, you might like this video. Relevant to the discussion at hand. 

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 hours ago, HaloBronco said:

No doubt about it, MLB has a big issue and better figure it out fast.

As I see it the biggest issue is that it’s too hard to access it in most markets.

 

The regional sports channels have been a disaster for MLB. They need to broaden net by putting more games on broadcast TV (over the airway so that even people without cable could watch via antenna).

Even if it’s less money than Regional network is offering they need to look at it as a marketing investment to expand exposure to current and more importantly future fans. At least put some of games on broadcast TV

then the others games can be on the combination of regional sport networks and the MLB app but that local blackout restriction needs to be done away with so that anyone locally can access the broadcast.

 

Also why isn’t the MLB network available to stream via the MLB app to anyone, why do you or should you have to have a cable provider. It just limits access to your customers, just dumb.

For example the NFL network can now be streamed directly without a cable provider (NFL +).

 

MLB is going down the same road that boxing went down, it needs to address quickly or else it’s going to be fringe sport like boxing is now.    

The problem is not that games aren’t on network television (that’s a symptom) it’s that the product is not easily accessible for people who do not have cable tv.

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 hours ago, angelsfan100 said:

Don't forget the blackouts with MLB.tv Blackouts are just stupid. For example why on earth would a Cubs game be blacked out in Iowa? Do people actually expect a fan to think "awh shucks this game is blacked out! Guess I'll have to buy a ticket, drive a few hundred miles to watch my Cubbies play". 

Setting aside the flaws of regional brodcasts, I really do prefer regional brodcasts over national ones however. This is mostly due to the fact the announcers are going to be more familiar to with the respective teams they announce for. Hence why you said they need to broden the reach of regional brodcasts somehow or someway. 

Anyways, you might like this video. Relevant to the discussion at hand. 

 

The blackouts aren’t about getting people to buy a ticket to the game.

The reason for the blackouts is because MLB sold its soul to the regional cable networks in exchange for billions of dollars.

Blackouts exist because MLB has sold exclusive rights to broadcast those games to the RSN. RSNs in turn are not in demand enough to be able to market themselves successfully outside of their core business model, local cable television subscriptions. The lack of availability is the one thing keeping the RSNs afloat. When that goes away so do the huge tv contracts.

[Taylor]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The blackouts aren’t about getting people to buy a ticket to the game.

The reason for the blackouts is because MLB sold its soul to the regional cable networks in exchange for billions of dollars.

Blackouts exist because MLB has sold exclusive rights to broadcast those games to the RSN. RSNs in turn are not in demand enough to be able to market themselves successfully outside of their core business model, local cable television subscriptions. The lack of availability is the one thing keeping the RSNs afloat. When that goes away so do the huge tv contracts.

Yep. The powers that be are still making billions of dollars, so there's very little incentive to change the system until it collapses on its own.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Casual fans are only going to watch if it involves one of the four or five teams that they have ever heard of.

[floplag]

Baseball and the MLB media have no one to blame but themselves... the foam at the mouth constantly talking about the same teams while ignoring the bulk of the league so when the also rans have success they generated no interest in them.
MLB network might as well be YES 2 most of the time when it should be going out of its way to talk about the entire league.. but that doesnt help their ratings, and thats all that matters even when they shoot themselves in the foot 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 11/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, floplag said:

MLB network might as well be YES 2 most of the time when it should be going out of its way to talk about the entire league.. but that doesnt help their ratings, and thats all that matters even when they shoot themselves in the foot 

We still got Yankees-Red Sox games on a fairly consistent basis even with both of them at or near the bottom of the division and nothing really at stake.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Angels 1961]

You will need a 9volt battery for your transistor radio.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

I was in and out of Baseball all season long. Due to work, the struggling Halos, then back for the Hope, then gonzo again. 

Playoffs the AL rolled the way I thought it would an all Texas ALCS. NL was hoping for a Braves/Phillies NLCS just due to the offenses.

The DBacks were a scrappy team. Meh. Which shows their toughness. All you need is to get there and they played their game and got to the World Series.

It was just a matter of games once the Rangers got by the Astros.

I watched a total of 6 innings through the first 4 games. Watched all of Game 5. It was a well played game until the end. Eovaldi battled and Gallen did his thing. Obviously, I enjoy well pitched games and pitchers who battle through it.

 

[steveuk]

17 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Casual fans are only going to watch if it involves one of the four or five teams that they have ever heard of.

Or two of the best four or five. After a long season, the 6th and 10th best teams to compete in a winner-takes-all final is crazy. They need to trim back the playoffs. This would also increase interest in the playoffs? I love the baseball season but it shouldn't finish in November! Most casuals lose interest I suggest?

[HaloBronco]

3 hours ago, steveuk said:

Or two of the best four or five. After a long season, the 6th and 10th best teams to compete in a winner-takes-all final is crazy. They need to trim back the playoffs. This would also increase interest in the playoffs? I love the baseball season but it shouldn't finish in November! Most casuals lose interest I suggest?

Completely agree the playoffs shouldn’t bleed into November....

However I am a fan of the current playoff format..... 

Maybe shorten the regular season by a few games, nothing extreme. 

[greginpsca]

I could see the WS game going back to non prime time. During the daytime, when most people are working. Just like back in the 50's & 60's.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

I could see the WS game going back to non prime time. During the daytime, when most people are working. Just like back in the 50's & 60's.

That 100% isn’t happening. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Yep.  Better off moving it to day time. 
 

here’s why it could happen.  Gambling at some point has more value than TV.   When you’ve got no betting competition, people will wager.  
 

The more wagering you have, the better off the TV will be.  Stack it against nothing else. 
 

people work from home now. They have the TV on.  
 

you also have less concern with east cost late games. If you have an east coast team in the playoffs, those games may start at 730 at the earliest.  
 

prime time isn’t what it used to be, especially with streaming challenges. 

2 hours ago, Stradling said:That 100% isn’t happening.