MLS TV Schedule

[sbrylski]

Inspired by the terrible ratings MLS has received since the Olympics began, I want to start a discussion of MLS's TV schedule. The NFL season is rapidly approaching, so things aren't going to get better the rest of the year.

My main question is whether it's worth it for MLS to even try to compete heads up with the NFL. The NFL plays their games on Thursday, Sunday, and Monday of each week. Sunday and Monday are the biggest TV viewing days in the US: http://www.statista.com/statistics/299397/numver-primetime-tv-viewers-day-of-the-week-usa/

But how much of those number are simply due to the massive numbers of people that would tune in to NFL games no matter what day of the week they are on? And the difference between the days isn't drastic, it's 14% at most.

MLS seems to want Sundays because it rates as the highest TV day of the week. But if it's close to a zero-sum competition, that should drastically reduce the attractiveness of Sunday, no?

Now, the MLS and NFL seasons only cross for a few weeks a year, but they are major weeks for MLS as the season winds down and the playoff race heats up. Because of that, and for consistency's sake, my weekly calendar proposal in ET is as follows:

Wednesday - 9:00 pm national game
Friday - 9:00 pm national game
Saturday - 1:00 pm local games, 4:00 pm local/national games, 7:00 pm national game

This would accomplish a couple different things. First, it completely avoids NFL days of Monday, Thursday, and Sunday. Second, it concentrates games on Saturday afternoon which can use EPL and European leagues as a lead-in. Third, it established Wednesday as a regular soccer night instead of just occasional midweek matches. (You know those Monday Night Football commercials that market Monday nights as bonus weekend nights? MLS could market Wednesday as weekend previews, or hump day celebrations, etc.)

Finally, I wish they would put some effort into playing the MLS Cup on Black Friday. Such a perfect calendar day with many people off of work.

Thoughts?

 

[Seth]

On Saturdays you're going up against college football so that's still some competition for eyeballs. And baseball's still going on as well, probably the playoffs. Basketball and hockey are starting up around then as well but I'm not sure there's that much overlap.

Point is, there's so much sports on TV in October that there may not be all that much we can do about it.

 

[mgarbowski]

Inspired by the terrible ratings MLS has received since the Olympics began, I want to start a discussion of MLS's TV schedule. The NFL season is rapidly approaching, so things aren't going to get better the rest of the year.

My main question is whether it's worth it for MLS to even try to compete heads up with the NFL. The NFL plays their games on Thursday, Sunday, and Monday of each week. Sunday and Monday are the biggest TV viewing days in the US: http://www.statista.com/statistics/299397/numver-primetime-tv-viewers-day-of-the-week-usa/

But how much of those number are simply due to the massive numbers of people that would tune in to NFL games no matter what day of the week they are on? And the difference between the days isn't drastic, it's 14% at most.

MLS seems to want Sundays because it rates as the highest TV day of the week. But if it's close to a zero-sum competition, that should drastically reduce the attractiveness of Sunday, no?

Now, the MLS and NFL seasons only cross for a few weeks a year, but they are major weeks for MLS as the season winds down and the playoff race heats up. Because of that, and for consistency's sake, my weekly calendar proposal in ET is as follows:

Wednesday - 9:00 pm national game
Friday - 9:00 pm national game
Saturday - 1:00 pm local games, 4:00 pm local/national games, 7:00 pm national game

This would accomplish a couple different things. First, it completely avoids NFL days of Monday, Thursday, and Sunday. Second, it concentrates games on Saturday afternoon which can use EPL and European leagues as a lead-in. Third, it established Wednesday as a regular soccer night instead of just occasional midweek matches. (You know those Monday Night Football commercials that market Monday nights as bonus weekend nights? MLS could market Wednesday as weekend previews, or hump day celebrations, etc.)

Finally, I wish they would put some effort into playing the MLS Cup on Black Friday. Such a perfect calendar day with many people off of work.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure it helps to avoid NFL football only to go head-to-head with college football. Outside of NYC it's kind of a big deal.

 

[Gene]

IIRC, I do believe they have the schedule finagled so that there is a college game almost every night of the week. I'm pretty sure at least ESPN airs games from the MAC on an odd night (Tuesday? Wednesday?)

 

[sbrylski]

Point is, there's so much sports on TV in October that there may not be all that much we can do about it.

Probably the truth. Maybe one day we can hear from NFL fans, "at least the MLS season is over," as they lament over falling TV ratings.

 

[LionNYC]

I can't see any East Coast team (in any sport) having their game start at 9 PM.

 

[Ulrich]

I can't see any East Coast team (in any sport) having their game start at 9 PM.

I said the same thing about an 8pm Friday game and yet we have one.... Wtf to do between the end of work and that game???? Don't want to be so drunk before kickoff

 

[413Blue]

Those times would be terrible for attendance.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I think it is an interesting idea, but let's also remember that the league's broadcast times aren't just based on the competition. They are also based on what the league's partner networks happen to be showing on any given day and time. Remember that ESPN and FoxSports1 each carry a ton of college football games on fall Saturdays. I doubt that either is willing to shrink their college football commitment in order to add an MLS game.

I would also wager to guess that there is more overlap between college football fans and MLS fans than their is between NFL fans and MLS fans. In other words, there is less direct competition on Sundays, even though the NFL is currently the 800-pound gorilla of televised sports.

I do like the idea of a midweek game and a Friday night game, however. I also like the idea of a Monday night game at 7 that could lead into Monday Night Football at 9.

 

[sbrylski]

I think it is an interesting idea, but let's also remember that the league's broadcast times aren't just based on the competition. They are also based on what the league's partner networks happen to be showing on any given day and time. Remember that ESPN and FoxSports1 each carry a ton of college football games on fall Saturdays. I doubt that either is willing to shrink their college football commitment in order to add an MLS game.

Yeah this is definitely something I overlooked when I threw up this thread.

It may be a ways off yet, but I still believe that eventually a company like Netflix is going to make a major play for live sports. And MLS is going to be the perfect target - less expensive than the other four major sports and with the youngest demographic, which overlaps with the demographic that uses streaming services like Netflix.

I used to have ESPN SportsCenter on in the background of my day all the time. By the time it became the Tebow Network, I was cutting the cord, and haven't looked back. Imagine a Netflix Sports Hub channel that serves the same purpose but isn't beholden to the lowest common denominator and produces better quality content. And imagine that channel has MLS as its primary driver. After proof of concept, Netflix also steps in for DirectTV and serves up the Sunday Ticket package, bringing millions of new viewers to an established show emphasizing MLS.

Today, it appears that moving to a streaming service would entrench MLS as a niche sport. Fast forward a few years, however, and a shifting media landscape (streaming more normal than cable) could lead MLS to the top of the totem pole.

 

[joe]

It may be a ways off yet, but I still believe that eventually a company like Netflix is going to make a major play for live sports.

Twitter and Yahoo have both tried, though who knows if Yahoo will continue to post-sale.

 

[Ulrich]

Yeah this is definitely something I overlooked when I threw up this thread.

It may be a ways off yet, but I still believe that eventually a company like Netflix is going to make a major play for live sports. And MLS is going to be the perfect target - less expensive than the other four major sports and with the youngest demographic, which overlaps with the demographic that uses streaming services like Netflix.

I used to have ESPN SportsCenter on in the background of my day all the time. By the time it became the Tebow Network, I was cutting the cord, and haven't looked back. Imagine a Netflix Sports Hub channel that serves the same purpose but isn't beholden to the lowest common denominator and produces better quality content. And imagine that channel has MLS as its primary driver. After proof of concept, Netflix also steps in for DirectTV and serves up the Sunday Ticket package, bringing millions of new viewers to an established show emphasizing MLS.

Today, it appears that moving to a streaming service would entrench MLS as a niche sport. Fast forward a few years, however, and a shifting media landscape (streaming more normal than cable) could lead MLS to the top of the totem pole.

But isn't the lure of Netflix a combination of low cost and no commercials? How could Netflix ever pay MLS enough for the contract rights without jacking up either the membership fee or adding media marketing content? Maybe they eventually go that route, but if they do then they'll be no better than the current cable providers/networks.

 

[Seth]

But isn't the lure of Netflix a combination of low cost and no commercials? How could Netflix ever pay MLS enough for the contract rights without jacking up either the membership fee or adding media marketing content? Maybe they eventually go that route, but if they do then they'll be no better than the current cable providers/networks.

Maybe you'd have to pay extra for it. Like CBS is going to do with the new Star Trek. Wanna watch it, pay for the privilege.

 

[mgarbowski]

Yeah this is definitely something I overlooked when I threw up this thread.

It may be a ways off yet, but I still believe that eventually a company like Netflix is going to make a major play for live sports. And MLS is going to be the perfect target - less expensive than the other four major sports and with the youngest demographic, which overlaps with the demographic that uses streaming services like Netflix.

I used to have ESPN SportsCenter on in the background of my day all the time. By the time it became the Tebow Network, I was cutting the cord, and haven't looked back. Imagine a Netflix Sports Hub channel that serves the same purpose but isn't beholden to the lowest common denominator and produces better quality content. And imagine that channel has MLS as its primary driver. After proof of concept, Netflix also steps in for DirectTV and serves up the Sunday Ticket package, bringing millions of new viewers to an established show emphasizing MLS.

Today, it appears that moving to a streaming service would entrench MLS as a niche sport. Fast forward a few years, however, and a shifting media landscape (streaming more normal than cable) could lead MLS to the top of the totem pole.

This would really upend the current model for sports TV. Which is fine, except it destroys the major strategy for leveraging a sports fanbase into getting money from lots of people who don't care.

Almost all sports networks are part of the basic tier packages. Sports fans hate "paying" extra for their games, and there are enough of them to get their way. So ESPN charges cable and satellite provides an insane fee for every customer on their system. So do - to lesser extents but similar models - FS1, and all the regionals like YES and MSG. That's why every fee battle turns into a PR war where the sport network says "Tell evil cable company to give you your team." and the cable company says "we're trying to keep rates down for all customers."

But that's only the first bit of leverage. Then they spread the games on multiple networks, so now a NYCFC fan needs YES, ESPN, FS1, Unimas and maybe even Univision Deportes. Think about the last bit. Univsion not only gets to provide valued content to its core market, but gets a small but passionate number of people who don't even speak Spanish clamoring to have their channels included in the English basic packages -- just to watch maybe 2 games a year. But they get to charge $ to every subscriber every month.

Then the more established leagues make their own network to get in on the action. The NFL has Thursday night games which nobody really likes, but if you want to see the occasional Thursday game you make sure your cable package gets the NFL network and again every subscriber pays $ every month so a subset of people can watch a handful of games every year.

Going to Netflix destroys all that leveraging. And as Ulrich mentioned if they charge all their non MLS subscribers for the privilege they'll just get pissed off because half of them cut cable and joined Netflix to evade that type of leveraging. If you make it a separate service you have to raise the rights fees by vast multiples to make up for the inability to force people who don't watch subsidize those who do.

It's the whole bundling/unbundling debate just limited to sports. Some people clamor for cable unbundling expecting their bill will go down when they don't have to pay for all the crap they don't watch. But without all those other subscribers now not subsidizing your crap, the fees for your favored stuff has to go up. A lot.

 

[jerseyhotspur]

But isn't the lure of Netflix a combination of low cost and no commercials? How could Netflix ever pay MLS enough for the contract rights without jacking up either the membership fee or adding media marketing content?

and don't we already have MLS LIVE?

I'd much rather pay extra for a MLS LIVE "premium" or "premier" or "pro" membership that gets rid of regional blackouts. And I don't even get YES on Comcast so I can't even watch live games unless they're on ESPN.

 

[sbrylski]

This would really upend the current model for sports TV. Which is fine, except it destroys the major strategy for leveraging a sports fanbase into getting money from lots of people who don't care.

Almost all sports networks are part of the basic tier packages. Sports fans hate "paying" extra for their games, and there are enough of them to get their way. So ESPN charges cable and satellite provides an insane fee for every customer on their system. So do - to lesser extents but similar models - FS1, and all the regionals like YES and MSG. That's why every fee battle turns into a PR war where the sport network says "Tell evil cable company to give you your team." and the cable company says "we're trying to keep rates down for all customers."

But that's only the first bit of leverage. Then they spread the games on multiple networks, so now a NYCFC fan needs YES, ESPN, FS1, Unimas and maybe even Univision Deportes. Think about the last bit. Univsion not only gets to provide valued content to its core market, but gets a small but passionate number of people who don't even speak Spanish clamoring to have their channels included in the English basic packages -- just to watch maybe 2 games a year. But they get to charge $ to every subscriber every month.

Then the more established leagues make their own network to get in on the action. The NFL has Thursday night games which nobody really likes, but if you want to see the occasional Thursday game you make sure your cable package gets the NFL network and again every subscriber pays $ every month so a subset of people can watch a handful of games every year.

Going to Netflix destroys all that leveraging. And as Ulrich mentioned if they charge all their non MLS subscribers for the privilege they'll just get pissed off because half of them cut cable and joined Netflix to evade that type of leveraging. If you make it a separate service you have to raise the rights fees by vast multiples to make up for the inability to force people who don't watch subsidize those who do.

It's the whole bundling/unbundling debate just limited to sports. Some people clamor for cable unbundling expecting their bill will go down when they don't have to pay for all the crap they don't watch. But without all those other subscribers now not subsidizing your crap, the fees for your favored stuff has to go up. A lot.

All that leveraging is going to come undone either way. I think it's a better business plan to get out ahead of that and pioneer.

And regarding pricing, I think Netflix could eventually tier their offerings just like cable does. $9.99 for base Netflix - select movies and TV shows on demand. Individual offerings like MLS Live for addition $9.99 a month. Or Netflix Sports Live package for $19.99 a month that gets you a platter of sports feeds.

Similar to cable, but better and with more options for the consumer.

 

[Ulrich]

All that leveraging is going to come undone either way. I think it's a better business plan to get out ahead of that and pioneer.

And regarding pricing, I think Netflix could eventually tier their offerings just like cable does. $9.99 for base Netflix - select movies and TV shows on demand. Individual offerings like MLS Live for addition $9.99 a month. Or Netflix Sports Live package for $19.99 a month that gets you a platter of sports feeds.

Similar to cable, but better and with more options for the consumer.

When MLS goes looking for $500M+/year tv deal, $9.99/subscriber won't cut it. The model just doesn't work without media money.

 

[joe]

Univision Deportes.

This actually could be interesting. Univision was just announced as the high bidder for Gawker, and they own a couple other US media properties that would surprise a lot of people. I could see them being a player in the next round of tv negotiations.

 

[Ulrich]

This actually could be interesting. Univision was just announced as the high bidder for Gawker, and they own a couple other US media properties that would surprise a lot of people. I could see them being a player in the next round of tv negotiations.

That's only a good thing if the SAP button actually works. Sometimes yes, sometimes no....

 

[joe]

That's only a good thing if the SAP button actually works. Sometimes yes, sometimes no....

Yeah, I would expect it to be English-forward if they were going to do it.

(This is all entirely speculative on my part)