Knicks · New TV contract dollars are nuts (page 1)
Conclusions
The point of this examination is not to argue that the NBA is in a particularly strong position right now. It is hard to imagine that the league wants to be in the same viewership range it was in 20 years ago, when perceptions surrounding the game were perhaps even more negative than they are today, especially given the contribution from out-of-home viewing that did not exist back then. With that said, the NBA’s current viewership situation is frankly par for the course for the league in the post-Jordan era and to no small extent unavoidable given the decline in television viewing.It may be cold comfort that the league has been in far worse situations before — the 16% decline from 2017-18 to the current season pales in comparison to the 49% plunge from 1998-99 to 2002-03 or even the 26% drop from the 2001-02 to 2006-07 — but that does not make it any less true. It is not exactly saying much that the league is outdrawing baseball, hockey and college basketball, but again that does not make it any less true.
The reality is that the league’s downturn is both real and exaggerated. The NBA may not be faring as well as five, ten or certainly 25 years ago, but it is faring far better than what seems to be the popular perception.
Global viewer ship is driving valuations of team prices and the predictable increase of this TV deal was evident.
So if PhilC is correct, why have valuations been going in the face of "declining viewership"?
If one was to meet philc at the place he resides with simple brevity then the answer is: "its the revenue".
Huh?
It's been increasing.
Jordan era viewership was high due to cable and terrestrial broadcast factors of that time. Simple, the peak was not 20 years ago, its closing in on 30. To be a snit, viewership is about the same from 20 years ago. What about the world wide? Penetration of of other markets and the ages of that viewership as a demographic and the potential that lies in it. This just scratches the surface.
New revenue sources and abilty to raise prices on sponsorships and ad rates matter. At least to the NBA, the accountants, the owners, the players the ad buyers, and the sponsors. Just not to PhilC.
Nalod wrote:
Conclusions
The point of this examination is not to argue that the NBA is in a particularly strong position right now. It is hard to imagine that the league wants to be in the same viewership range it was in 20 years ago, when perceptions surrounding the game were perhaps even more negative than they are today, especially given the contribution from out-of-home viewing that did not exist back then. With that said, the NBA’s current viewership situation is frankly par for the course for the league in the post-Jordan era and to no small extent unavoidable given the decline in television viewing.It may be cold comfort that the league has been in far worse situations before — the 16% decline from 2017-18 to the current season pales in comparison to the 49% plunge from 1998-99 to 2002-03 or even the 26% drop from the 2001-02 to 2006-07 — but that does not make it any less true. It is not exactly saying much that the league is outdrawing baseball, hockey and college basketball, but again that does not make it any less true.
The reality is that the league’s downturn is both real and exaggerated. The NBA may not be faring as well as five, ten or certainly 25 years ago, but it is faring far better than what seems to be the popular perception.
Global viewer ship is driving valuations of team prices and the predictable increase of this TV deal was evident.
So if PhilC is correct, why have valuations been going in the face of "declining viewership"?If one was to meet philc at the place he resides with simple brevity then the answer is: "its the revenue".
Huh?
It's been increasing.Jordan era viewership was high due to cable and terrestrial broadcast factors of that time. Simple, the peak was not 20 years ago, its closing in on 30. To be a snit, viewership is about the same from 20 years ago. What about the world wide? Penetration of of other markets and the ages of that viewership as a demographic and the potential that lies in it. This just scratches the surface.
New revenue sources and abilty to raise prices on sponsorships and ad rates matter. At least to the NBA, the accountants, the owners, the players the ad buyers, and the sponsors. Just not to PhilC.
Rookie wrote:Philc1 wrote:Rookie wrote:Philc1 wrote:No one below 60 is watching regular tv anymore. People above 60 only watch Fox News. The sports leagues in particular NFL and NBA have all the leverage because people still watch sports on tvI’m not sure many ‘people’ are actually tuning in. The games however are on in every bar across America. If 2M tune in, more than likely 1.5M of those are bars and sports bars.
You should cite me how great tv ratings are now compared to 20 years ago.
no thanks, but you do you. I will leave you with this
Is YouTube TV losing money on Sunday Ticket?
Last week, Sportico had an interesting piece that highlighted Morgan Stanley's equity research unit projecting that YouTube TV would lose $8.86 billion on Sunday Ticket between now and 2029, with yearly declines averaging out to $1.27 billion.
Ball don’t lie nalod. You can pretend I’m wrong all you want tv viewership is down and sports is one of the few things keeping conventional tv alive
Now go back to crying about how all my posts aren’t 72 paragraph essays about how great the Obi and OG trades were
Philc1 wrote:Nalod wrote:
Conclusions
The point of this examination is not to argue that the NBA is in a particularly strong position right now. It is hard to imagine that the league wants to be in the same viewership range it was in 20 years ago, when perceptions surrounding the game were perhaps even more negative than they are today, especially given the contribution from out-of-home viewing that did not exist back then. With that said, the NBA’s current viewership situation is frankly par for the course for the league in the post-Jordan era and to no small extent unavoidable given the decline in television viewing.It may be cold comfort that the league has been in far worse situations before — the 16% decline from 2017-18 to the current season pales in comparison to the 49% plunge from 1998-99 to 2002-03 or even the 26% drop from the 2001-02 to 2006-07 — but that does not make it any less true. It is not exactly saying much that the league is outdrawing baseball, hockey and college basketball, but again that does not make it any less true.
The reality is that the league’s downturn is both real and exaggerated. The NBA may not be faring as well as five, ten or certainly 25 years ago, but it is faring far better than what seems to be the popular perception.
Global viewer ship is driving valuations of team prices and the predictable increase of this TV deal was evident.
So if PhilC is correct, why have valuations been going in the face of "declining viewership"?If one was to meet philc at the place he resides with simple brevity then the answer is: "its the revenue".
Huh?
It's been increasing.Jordan era viewership was high due to cable and terrestrial broadcast factors of that time. Simple, the peak was not 20 years ago, its closing in on 30. To be a snit, viewership is about the same from 20 years ago. What about the world wide? Penetration of of other markets and the ages of that viewership as a demographic and the potential that lies in it. This just scratches the surface.
New revenue sources and abilty to raise prices on sponsorships and ad rates matter. At least to the NBA, the accountants, the owners, the players the ad buyers, and the sponsors. Just not to PhilC.Rookie wrote:Philc1 wrote:Rookie wrote:Philc1 wrote:No one below 60 is watching regular tv anymore. People above 60 only watch Fox News. The sports leagues in particular NFL and NBA have all the leverage because people still watch sports on tvI’m not sure many ‘people’ are actually tuning in. The games however are on in every bar across America. If 2M tune in, more than likely 1.5M of those are bars and sports bars.
You should cite me how great tv ratings are now compared to 20 years ago.
no thanks, but you do you. I will leave you with this
Is YouTube TV losing money on Sunday Ticket?
Last week, Sportico had an interesting piece that highlighted Morgan Stanley's equity research unit projecting that YouTube TV would lose $8.86 billion on Sunday Ticket between now and 2029, with yearly declines averaging out to $1.27 billion.
Ball don’t lie nalod. You can pretend I’m wrong all you want tv viewership is down and sports is one of the few things keeping conventional tv aliveNow go back to crying about how all my posts aren’t 72 paragraph essays about how great the Obi and OG trades were
The ball? Its revenue and profit.