NFL's Declining Viewership: One Slice at a Time

[Tony C]

Should I check the soccer game threads for comparison?

Kidding. These factors are all possible contributors, and I think the Sox playoff run is significant. The ITP effect contributes too.

It's weird, because the threads on DFG were epically huge and part of the explanation for why the NFL did what it did was it wanted to create off-season drama to keep fans engaged. In a sense they succeeded, right? Am guessing that off-season traffic at BbtL was higher than previous seasons. Not just that but, once the season started, I personally found the debuts of both JG and JB to be fascinating to watch -- those sorts of debuts are classic message board fodder, let's face it more intriguing than commenting on whether or not this is the season TB will decline

(btw, I don't see the ITP connection -- does it generate much traffic? I just popped over there and, while some good articles, it seems like a bit of a vacuum. I'd think if it did (or does) generate a lot of traffic, that'd increase rather than decrease BbtL traffic...but just speculation.)

There is something about just hating the league. There is something about a more fractured media environment. Both of those could play into the NFL's slight decline. But BbtL's decline is so dramatic that it's hard to correlate with anything, though definitely agree the Sox probably has something to do with it (agree V&N has little relevance).

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

It's weird, because the threads on DFG were epically huge and part of the explanation for why the NFL did what it did was it wanted to create off-season drama to keep fans engaged. In a sense they succeeded, right? Am guessing that off-season traffic at BbtL was higher than previous seasons. Not just that but, once the season started, I personally found the debuts of both JG and JB to be fascinating to watch -- those sorts of debuts are classic message board fodder, let's face it more intriguing than commenting on whether or not this is the season TB will decline

(btw, I don't see the ITP connection -- does it generate much traffic? I just popped over there and, while some good articles, it seems like a bit of a vacuum. I'd think if it did (or does) generate a lot of traffic, that'd increase rather than decrease BbtL traffic...but just speculation.)

There is something about just hating the league. There is something about a more fractured media environment. Both of those could play into the NFL's slight decline. But BbtL's decline is so dramatic that it's hard to correlate with anything, though definitely agree the Sox probably has something to do with it (agree V&N has little relevance).

Its not just stealing eyeballs, it took the most frequent dozen or so posters away from the board. If you took the 12 most frequent posters from RMPS, it would be a fucking wasteland.

 

[cornwalls@6]

So through the first 4 weeks, my non-Patriots viewing is way down. Haven't, start to finish, watched any of the prime time games that didn't involve the Pats. I still go out most Sunday afternoons to watch the games with a group of friends, but other then Pats games, that has become much more socializing, and much less close watching of the games. I follow results to keep track of office pools, but really digging in and watching games, like I always did as recently as last year, just isn't happening yet this season. Probably some combination of everything that's already been discussed here.
But a couple of things are sticking out: deflategate has left a sour taste in my mouth longer than I thought it would. With full disclosure and acknowledgement of being a butt- hurt Pats fan, the whole affair has really diminished my view of the league at large. Making it smell vaguely of pro wrestling. Second: There just don't seem to be very many good, compelling, interesting teams right now. The entire product has left me indifferent, again other than the Pats, at the moment.
Cold weather, bigger playoff implication games, the end of the Red Sox run, could, I suspect, re-kindle my previous interest level. But it's not there yet.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

The game thread stats are for the overall NFL game thread, not the Pats.

Well then. Ignore my idiocy.

 

[dbn]

I'd be very surprised if there were a substantial number of potential NFL viewers outside of NE and possibly NO that hate Goodell enough to stop watching. Even in those two markets, the GHL (Goodell Hattred Level) probably correlates with how hard-core a fan one is, making them also less likely to stop watching.

I'm still watching every minute of every NE game, and other games about as much as I used to. That said, I think I enjoy the games a little less because of the officiating. I mean, holding has always been difficult to get right, but defining a reception and defensive PI/holding/illegal contact wasn't broken (until the Colts broke it, for the latter).

 

[Stitch01]

Patriots TV numbers have been pretty good, I dont think deflategate is much of a factor.

 

[bosoxsue]

I was just reading today that the number of 1-3 teams is unusually large. That doesn't explain Week 1 ratings or even Week 2, but maybe having the team you root for being in a big hole while the weather is still fairly nice makes staying in to watch them play less attractive.

 

[ZMart100]

Some related polling from Rasmussen.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that nearly one-third (32%) of American Adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of Black Lives Matter protests by players on the field. Only 13% say they are more likely to watch a game because of the protests. Just over half (52%) say the protests have no impact on their viewing decisions.

I have a hard time believing that the protests are really driving viewing habits to this extent. It seems likely that asking whether protests are changing the likelihood of watching NFL would get less honest responses than asking what is driving decisions to watch or not watch NFL games.

 

[troparra]

-Red Sox one of best teams in baseball and playoff bound, not dumpster fire, so traffic diverted to main board

I think this is the problem, at least when it comes to the NFL game thread.

Here's info on Red Sox game threads from the last 2 seasons, using one specific weekend (Thurs-Monday) that corresponded to week 3 of the NFL season each year.

Dates: 9/24-28/2015; Posts: 82, 242, 130, 94, 222
Dates: 9/22-26/2016: Posts: 791, 542, 660, 660, 950

There were way more posts to the Red Sox game threads in 2016 than in 2015.
Similar numbers can be found for other weekends.

I guess we'll see if the NFL game thread numbers go up once the Sox season is over.

 

[Dotrat]

Some related polling from Rasmussen.
I have a hard time believing that the protests are really driving viewing habits to this extent. It seems likely that asking whether protests are changing the likelihood of watching NFL would get less honest responses than asking what is driving decisions to watch or not watch NFL games.

Given Rasmussen's long-running right-wing slant, I call BS on this.

 

[dbn]

Some related polling from Rasmussen.
I have a hard time believing that the protests are really driving viewing habits to this extent. It seems likely that asking whether protests are changing the likelihood of watching NFL would get less honest responses than asking what is driving decisions to watch or not watch NFL games.

I think the %s would be very different if the question was "have you not watched a NFL game specifically because of the protests"?

Would you be surprised if most if not practically all of that 32% were people who were really saying "I guess I don't endorse the protests, so sure, they make me less likely I guess - but really I'm going to watch anyway"?

 

[mauf]

Some related polling from Rasmussen.
I have a hard time believing that the protests are really driving viewing habits to this extent. It seems likely that asking whether protests are changing the likelihood of watching NFL would get less honest responses than asking what is driving decisions to watch or not watch NFL games.

I said upthread that I believe the national anthem protests are the single biggest driver of this season's decline in viewership, but @Dotrat has bingo -- this is a conservative, agenda-driven polling outfit up to its usual shit-stirring act.

 

[Van Everyman]

Do they even show the anthem on any of these broadcasts? If not, are people really that upset about it?

 

[Red Right Ankle]

Its not just stealing eyeballs, it took the most frequent dozen or so posters away from the board. If you took the 12 most frequent posters from RMPS, it would be a fucking wasteland.

That would be all the posters in that forum. You got a camp in mind to send us to?

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Some related polling from Rasmussen.
I have a hard time believing that the protests are really driving viewing habits to this extent. It seems likely that asking whether protests are changing the likelihood of watching NFL would get less honest responses than asking what is driving decisions to watch or not watch NFL games.

As someone who now lives (not that far) south of the Mason-Dixon line, I don't have a hard time believing it at all. It's a big deal down here.

Growing up in MA, I didn't realize how much of an issue race is down south.

 

[rymflaherty]

There was a time, not too long ago, where every NFL Sunday felt like Christmas morning, but I find myself watching less and becoming indifferent toward the product.

Things that I can point to.
Thursday Night Football - I don't even turn it on now. The games are abominations and an embarrassment to the league.
I'm a lifelong Dolphins fan - I'm not kidding in the slightest when I say that being a Dolphins fan is causing me to hate the sport...it stops being fun when the team you love has been an embarrassment for nearly two decades.
Quality of the product - I feel as if it has been a bit better this year, but for years it seems the overall quality of play has trended down. Lots of reasons come into this - Officiating, rules and interpretations, the insane amount of injuries and the lack of depth on rosters, etc. etc.
Daily Fantasy - I've become pretty successful at, and play a ton of Daily Fantasy. While that in theory should create engagement, it actually has the opposite effect on me. I start to just see everything as numbers, probabilities, statistics and salaries.
Media Coverage - Everyone is an "expert". You rarely see any meaningful discussion and analysis, instead they cover the most minute aspects with a grandiose self-importance...at a certain point I felt like I was spending an inordinate amount of time watching programming catered to morons and it made me question my viewing habits. It was sort of like the NFL's spell had been lifted from me...

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Media Coverage - Everyone is an "expert". You rarely see any meaningful discussion and analysis, instead they cover the most minute aspects with a grandiose self-importance...at a certain point I felt like I was spending an inordinate amount of time watching programming catered to morons and it made me question my viewing habits. It was sort of like the NFL's spell had been lifted from me...

Yes,I agree with this. There are a ton of great sites all over the internet covering lots and lots of minute detail, and that is fun and has its place. But jesus god, stop feeling like, if you have something to say about a football player, or team, you need to use some series of obscure technical terms which basically means "he's the second best Wide Receiver and he doesn't go deep all that often."

 

[Drocca]

Its not just stealing eyeballs, it took the most frequent dozen or so posters away from the board. If you took the 12 most frequent posters from RMPS, it would be a fucking wasteland.

And the best posters, it should be noted. If you take away the 12 best posters from any forum, particularly one as homerific as this one, it's going to end up a dead zone.

 

[tims4wins]

This is just... a head spinning comment by the NFL

“We’re missing some stars out there,” NFL media chief Brian Rolapp said, via the Wall Street Journal. Indeed they are, in part because they suspended one of the greatest players in league history on a trumped-up charge.

 

[kenneycb]

Just to get a comprehensive list, which other stars are they missing that haven't been suspended? Of the suspendeds all I can think of is Bell and Brady, maybe Gordon if you want to split hairs. Anyone else I'm missing on either side? I suppose Gronk and AD. Keenan Allen certainly isn't drawing viewers.

 

[ZMart100]

Well they are "missing" Manning from last season. Cam Newton probably counts. Bridgewater is probably borderline good enough to draw some eyeballs.

 

[Marciano490]

I don't think anyone's missing Manning on Sunday. He's more ubiquitous than ever.

 

[JMDurron]

I don't think anyone's missing Manning on Sunday. He's more ubiquitous than ever.

I think quite a few folks in SEC country tolerated watching their less favorite version of football because of Peyton Manning. Not diehards or fantasy players, but casual water cooler chatters and fans of the old style Southern good old boys may not be watching as much now.

Also, I'd be interested in seeing whether the Rams move had any impact on ratings in the LA area, whereas I am assuming that there has been a drop off in the STL area.

 

[dcmissle]

There was a time, not too long ago, where every NFL Sunday felt like Christmas morning, but I find myself watching less and becoming indifferent toward the product.

Things that I can point to.
Thursday Night Football - I don't even turn it on now. The games are abominations and an embarrassment to the league.
I'm a lifelong Dolphins fan - I'm not kidding in the slightest when I say that being a Dolphins fan is causing me to hate the sport...it stops being fun when the team you love has been an embarrassment for nearly two decades.
Quality of the product - I feel as if it has been a bit better this year, but for years it seems the overall quality of play has trended down. Lots of reasons come into this - Officiating, rules and interpretations, the insane amount of injuries and the lack of depth on rosters, etc. etc.
Daily Fantasy - I've become pretty successful at, and play a ton of Daily Fantasy. While that in theory should create engagement, it actually has the opposite effect on me. I start to just see everything as numbers, probabilities, statistics and salaries.
Media Coverage - Everyone is an "expert". You rarely see any meaningful discussion and analysis, instead they cover the most minute aspects with a grandiose self-importance...at a certain point I felt like I was spending an inordinate amount of time watching programming catered to morons and it made me question my viewing habits. It was sort of like the NFL's spell had been lifted from me...

I will withhold judgment at least through mid-season to see if the trend endures. But I really like this post because, if what we are seeing is real and enduring, your thoughts probably capture what is happening -- not death by a thousand cuts certainly, but debilitation by a dozen.

Maybe the biggest factor to me is the League's enormous footprint and the arrogance it conveys. Yes, Thursday night football is an abomination. An insult, really, which I refuse to watch for the most part. Instead of grasping for every millisecond on the sports calendar, maybe they should leave us wanting more. I'm far from the biggest golf fan, but the people at Augusta National are very fucking shrewd.

 

[Quintanariffic]

NFL hubris knows no limits, and surely has to be a factor here.

Today's example is the new super secret social media policy they implemented which was immediately leaked to the media.

http://mashable.com/2016/10/06/nfl-social-media-rules-gifs/#OmR4_pAqeiqZ

Some of the highlights:

• Teams no longer permitted to post non-League approved video content during games and for 60 minutes afterwards (the period when their accounts get by far the most traffic and engagement)
• Only League content, or re-tweets/shares of League content is approved
• Video defined as "anything that moves"
  • Game footage
  • Archival footage
  • GIFs
  • Anything

The author speculates that it's an attempt to drive greater traffic to League channels and content, perhaps in a response to declining TV audiences. Whatever the case, yet another case of hubris and over-reach by Goodell's NFL.

 

[johnmd20]

I will withhold judgment at least through mid-season to see if the trend endures. But I really like this post because, if what we are seeing is real and enduring, your thoughts probably capture what is happening -- not death by a thousand cuts certainly, but debilitation by a dozen.

Maybe the biggest factor to me is the League's enormous footprint and the arrogance it conveys. Yes, Thursday night football is an abomination. An insult, really, which I refuse to watch for the most part. Instead of grasping for every millisecond on the sports calendar, maybe they should leave us wanting more. I'm far from the biggest golf fan, but the people at Augusta National are very fucking shrewd.

Augusta isn't shrewd. They are ridiculously wealthy, so they do what they want. They are beholden to no one. They don't need advertisers, they don't need money, and they limit coverage just to be different.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

NFL hubris knows no limits, and surely has to be a factor here.

Today's example is the new super secret social media policy they implemented which was immediately leaked to the media.

http://mashable.com/2016/10/06/nfl-social-media-rules-gifs/#OmR4_pAqeiqZ

Some of the highlights:

• Teams no longer permitted to post non-League approved video content during games and for 60 minutes afterwards (the period when their accounts get by far the most traffic and engagement)
• Only League content, or re-tweets/shares of League content is approved
• Video defined as "anything that moves"
  • Game footage
  • Archival footage
  • GIFs
  • Anything

The author speculates that it's an attempt to drive greater traffic to League channels and content, perhaps in a response to declining TV audiences. Whatever the case, yet another case of hubris and over-reach by Goodell's NFL.

You don't think this is in response to the networks complaining to the league that they want those eyeballs?

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I said upthread that I believe the national anthem protests are the single biggest driver of this season's decline in viewership, but @Dotrat has bingo -- this is a conservative, agenda-driven polling outfit up to its usual shit-stirring act.

As someone who now lives (not that far) south of the Mason-Dixon line, I don't have a hard time believing it at all. It's a big deal down here.

Growing up in MA, I didn't realize how much of an issue race is down south.

In a nation where 45M+ people are going to vote for Donald Trump, I am not surprised. Many of these people prefer CFB to the NFL anyway, so this is just a push off of the ledge. Does anyone have the stats for how the SEC game on CBS on Saturday is doing relative to last year?

 

[Ale Xander]

In a nation where 45M+ people are going to vote for Donald Trump, I am not surprised. Many of these people prefer CFB to the NFL anyway, so this is just a push off of the ledge. Does anyone have the stats for how the SEC game on CBS on Saturday is doing relative to last year?

Didn't someone post something last year that the Bulldogs are bigger than the Falcons in Atlanta?
FSU is also bigger than the Jaguars
And Gators bigger than the Bucs
Plus you have Alabama and Miss

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Just to get a comprehensive list, which other stars are they missing that haven't been suspended? Of the suspendeds all I can think of is Bell and Brady, maybe Gordon if you want to split hairs. Anyone else I'm missing on either side? I suppose Gronk and AD. Keenan Allen certainly isn't drawing viewers.

Non-suspensions who are retired or hurt: Calvin Johnson, JJ Watt, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer (not a star per se, but any QB1 injury is a dulling of the product), for the Bills you have Shaq Lawson, Reggie Ragland and Sammy Watkins all out (not all stars, but exciting rookies for sure), Cam Newton (now) and Jonathan Stewart, Dez Bryant, Jay Cutler, RG3 (again, not superstar but first string QB), La'el Collins, Demarcus Ware, Brian Cushing, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Kalil, Adrian Peterson, Garoppolo and Vollmer, Navarro Bowman, Doug Martin, DeAngelo Hall

Admittedly, the definition of "star" is very debatable, but I think that most all of the guys above are players that sell jerseys. The league has had a good number of injuries to QBs and RB1s this season it seems. I don't know if that is driving the short term decline, but we'll see.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Didn't someone post something last year that the Bulldogs are bigger than the Falcons in Atlanta?
FSU is also bigger than the Jaguars
And Gators bigger than the Bucs
Plus you have Alabama and Miss

The question with college football is how many eyeballs they draw outside of their home market. Ole Miss is a great example; they have a diehard following in Mississippi, the whole state shuts down when they play. But unless they are ranked in the top 25 and playing a team that is "known" then you won't see their game in NYC at a sports bar. Obviously the Notre Dames, the USCs, the tOSUs et al of the world get all of their games played out of market, but so many more don't, whereas the Jags game will get televised because it is the NFL.

 

[Stitch01]

I will withhold judgment at least through mid-season to see if the trend endures. But I really like this post because, if what we are seeing is real and enduring, your thoughts probably capture what is happening -- not death by a thousand cuts certainly, but debilitation by a dozen.

Maybe the biggest factor to me is the League's enormous footprint and the arrogance it conveys. Yes, Thursday night football is an abomination. An insult, really, which I refuse to watch for the most part. Instead of grasping for every millisecond on the sports calendar, maybe they should leave us wanting more. I'm far from the biggest golf fan, but the people at Augusta National are very fucking shrewd.

Hard no from me on golf being some sort of positive example on TV coverage. Not having full day Masters coverage available and showing tape delayed results in 2016 is....not good.

Daily Fantasy - I've become pretty successful at, and play a ton of Daily Fantasy. While that in theory should create engagement, it actually has the opposite effect on me. I start to just see everything as numbers, probabilities, statistics and salaries.

I don't think the segment of hardcore DFS players is big enough to effect numbers, its still swamped by seasonal fantasy which has been around for many years, but this is 100% true for me too. Outside of the Pats Im much less interested in watching games, mine as well be sitting at my Bloomberg terminal for the 4 PM games, almost never have anything on but Red Zone.

 

[Average Reds]

Augusta isn't shrewd. They are ridiculously wealthy, so they do what they want. They are beholden to no one. They don't need advertisers, they don't need money, and they limit coverage just to be different.

Well, they are shrewd in the way that a monopolist is shrewd.

Their complete, unfettered ownership and control of The Masters is the key to everything. Most people don't realize it, but none of the governing bodies of golf - not the USGA, the PGA of America, the PGA Tour - have any control over The Masters. It's a private invitational owned by the club and their control is absolute, right down to the fact that they don't sell the TV rights. Rather, they pay CBS a fee to broadcast and then sell their own advertising, which gives them total control over the broadcast.

Over the years, they have made so much money from their private invitational that the club is set forever. So they are immune to pressure from advertisers, players, governing bodies, etc.

If The Masters ever loses prestige, they are SOL, because their long history of almost unspeakable racism, arrogance and viciousness is such that people would love to stick it to Augusta National. But the only prominent player to ever tell Augusta Nation to go screw is Lee Trevino, and he still regrets doing so.

 

[soxhop411]

Speculation about plummeting ratings for NFL games led the league to circulate an internal memo Thursday, saying the decline was a result of a variety of factors.

Through the fourth week of the season, ratings across all networks are down 11 percent.

"Prime-time windows have clearly been affected the most, while declines during the Sunday afternoon window are more modest," the NFL's top media executives, Brian Rolapp and Howard Katz, wrote to the league's media committee in a memo obtained by ESPN. "While our partners, like us, would have liked to see higher ratings, they remain confident in the NFL and unconcerned about a long-term issue."

Over the last 15 years, NFL viewership overall, the memo said, has increased 27 percent amidst a prime-time viewership fall of 36 percent.

One of the factors, the executives said, was the presidential election, something that they noted was not unprecedented.

"In 2000, during the campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore, all four NFL broadcast partners suffered year-over-year declines -- Fox was down 4 percent, CBS was down 10 percent, ABC was down 7 percent and ESPN was down 11 percent," the memo said.

The executives also said that they saw "no evidence that concern over player protests during the national anthem is having any material impact on our ratings. In fact, our own data shows that perception of the NFL and its players is actually up in 2016."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17738537/nfl-memo-cites-multiple-reasons-tv-ratings-drop-2016

The NFL has a leak problem

 

[rymflaherty]

I forgot to mention this in my initial post, and I apologize if this had been brought up, as I didn't read through all 5 pages...
but I wonder what kind of an effect the NFL Red Zone has had on the product, specifically when it comes to the Primetime ratings.

As an out-of-market fan, I find myself watching the RZ on Sunday's. I've sort of had a love/hate relationship with it, as it's hard to resist the excitement the non-stop coverage provides, but there are also times when it almost feels like over-stimulation and I never really feel like I'm watching a football game.

Now as it relates to Primetime ratings, if you're watching the Red Zone Network the NFL is essentially conditioning you to not accept and watch a single football game.
It's like trying too entice someone to play Poker in a casino after they've experienced multi-tabling online.

 

[Quintanariffic]

You don't think this is in response to the networks complaining to the league that they want those eyeballs?

If the networks or the League think they will materially impact linear TV viewership by removing video content and GIFs from team social channels, then they are smoking some fine, fine rock crack cocaine.

 

[soxhop411]

Seriously. The nfl looks like a bunch of fools blaming this on the election season. At least think of a better excuse than that

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

If the networks or the League think they will materially impact linear TV viewership by removing video content and GIFs from team social channels, then they are smoking some fine, fine rock crack cocaine.

I don't agree. As many here have stated, folks will often watch their team's favorite game. The goal of the league and their advertisers is to keep as many eyeballs on the tv screen and as few as possible to start heading to the internet to post about the game, check their fantasy team, etc. They want you to get sucked in to round 2, sitting on that couch.

 

[tims4wins]

But can we trust the %s listed? After all the PSI was wrong in a similar looking letter.

Sorry, I just can't help myself sometimes.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

But can we trust the %s listed? After all the PSI was wrong in a similar looking letter.

Sorry, I just can't help myself sometimes.

I was going to note that - despite the perception of 99.6% of the posters here - the author notes that the perception of the league is strong.

CLEARLY THE REST OF AMERICA ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!

 

[Marciano490]

Trust us. Our own data, which we're not going to disseminate, says people love us more than ever.

 

[mauf]

The NFL has a leak problem

I disagree. A leak was so foreseeable that I have to assume the memo's authors intended for it to become public.

 

[Ed Hillel]

What's funny is that everyone in the media is towing the company line about the election, from Peter King to Dilfer to Irvin. Goes to show how up the ass of sports media the NFL is. All three sounded like they were reading verbatim from a script.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Trust us. Our own data, which we're not going to disseminate, says people love us more than ever.

WE"RE LIKEABLE GUYS!!!!!!

 

[axx]

Especially considering the NFL mentioned it in that "leak", I am starting to believe that it is the anthem protests.

Are there any ratings numbers for specific areas?

 

[Quintanariffic]

I don't agree. As many here have stated, folks will often watch their team's favorite game. The goal of the league and their advertisers is to keep as many eyeballs on the tv screen and as few as possible to start heading to the internet to post about the game, check their fantasy team, etc. They want you to get sucked in to round 2, sitting on that couch.

I'm sure that's their goal broadly, but there is zero evidence to suggest that limiting short-form video content from team social channels will drive additional eyeballs to linear TV. Those two things are not substitutes in any way, shape or form. I mean, is anyone seriously going to say to themselves "Hey the content on the Pats Twitter handle is pretty boring and text-heavy today, guess I should start watching the game instead."? It's simply not plausible.

If you want to make the argument that the objective of this policy is to drive more eyeballs to League social content/channels, and therefore help make the total League audience look better than it otherwise might be, I could buy that. But if the goal is drive eyeballs to the game on TV, that will be about as effective as an authoritarian government banning black market currency transactions to maintain its exchange rate - the solution has nothing to do with, and no impact on, the underlying malady.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I'm sure that's their goal broadly, but there is zero evidence to suggest that limiting short-form video content from team social channels will drive additional eyeballs to linear TV. Those two things are not substitutes in any way, shape or form. I mean, is anyone seriously going to say to themselves "Hey the content on the Pats Twitter handle is pretty boring and text-heavy today, guess I should start watching the game instead."? It's simply not plausible.

If you want to make the argument that the objective of this policy is to drive more eyeballs to League social content/channels, and therefore help make the total League audience look better than it otherwise might be, I could buy that. But if the goal is drive eyeballs to the game on TV, that will be about as effective as an authoritarian government banning black market currency transactions to maintain its exchange rate - the solution has nothing to do with, and no impact on, the underlying malady.

So your hypothesis is that football fans don't crave instant analysis of the game immediately following said game?

Text me when you realize that you have pretty much missed the last 40 years of how football is fed to the mass audiences and also missed how folks consume and discuss analysis of sports online.

 

[soxfan121]

So your hypothesis is that football fans don't crave instant analysis of the game immediately following said game?

Text me when you realize that you have pretty much missed the last 40 years of how football is fed to the mass audiences and also missed how folks consume and discuss analysis of sports online.

Quibble, I must: "Football fans" is too general. Fans of specific teams crave instant analysis of wins, immediately following said win. Maybe - maybe - fans of the losing team are also interested in an explanation for why they lost, especially if it was close or "lucky", etc. But half the fanbases turn off the TV and go for a walk/drink a beer/do yard work angrily after a loss - they don't consume instant analysis (or any analysis, really).

This is the long-term consequence of parity, and the NFL's strict adherence to it as a guiding principle. Certain fanbases - New England, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Denver, and Philadelphia more prominently than others - crave instant analysis. Not coincidentally, those are also the most successful, and consistently good, franchises in the league. Conversely, fanbases in Cleveland. Jacksonville, Buffalo, and Tennessee do not seek out and consume content in the same way.

Despite the NFL's best efforts, there is not "parity" as they would ideally define it; there are many "haves" and there are a few "have nots", but mostly there are a bunch of flabby, plobby teams in the middle, floundering around. Winning one week, losing the next two. Maybe making the playoffs every couple seasons but then backsliding and not actually competing for a championship.

There are only a few markets where team-specific content and analysis is consumed in the same voracious way after a loss as after a win – and they are almost all on that first list: the one with the consistently good teams. Nearly half the NFL is irrelevant on the Monday morning after a loss: fans are not consuming content nor seeking out instant analysis of what went wrong (again) this week. Only in a few, privileged markets, is there interest win-or-lose. (NOTE: Fantasy is a whole other beast - and is absolutely somewhat responsible for the decline in interest and ratings - but it's a different topic, and business entirely).

The fundamental problem for the NFL is that they cannot feature their "haves" every week. Well, they CAN with Sunday Night Football, which is why their ratings for that product remain strong and probably always will. Flexing the Eagles @ Giants game to Sunday night features two "have" franchises and fanbases, which provides the secondary market of content consumption from Monday-Friday of the next week. But the NFL seems to have miscalculated massively with the Thursday Night "package" - both in that it features every team (and some horrendously shitty, uninteresting matchups like Titans @ Jaguars) and the product is just crappier (because of many, many reasons). And unlike the good old days, this same problem seeps into Monday Night Football as well - inflexible matchups featuring shit teams, playing shit football, with teams most of America knows aren't good and has no rooting interest in (except for Fantasy, of course).

Football has had a good, winning strategy for feeding fans for "40 years" but the by-products of that system have resulted in some obvious problems. The proliferation of other entertainment options was inevitably going to cut into the NFL's near-monopoly on Sunday afternoons, and the weaker numbers this season show that nothing can grow forever. To their credit, the NFL saw this coming (sort of) and tried TNF and international expansion. But TNF has backfired on almost every level and it remains to be seen if the game can be sold to international audiences.

That all said, the biggest single problem remains that just a few fanbases are interested in what the NFL is selling: fans in New England, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Denver, and Philadelphia consume content like crazy, especially when they win. The rest of the NFL fanbases are not nearly that interested, or crazy. And since parity is "how we got here" I dunno that the NFL has a viable way forward. Eventually, when Belichick leaves, New England will stop being good. Is this a "good market" for the NFL or is this a market the NFL has benefited from that is sports crazy (and fickle as fuck)? If the Pats win 3 games some season soon, are the fans here going to remain as crazed for content? Or will they migrate to the Celtics or Red Sox? And more importantly - when New England falls off, is Jacksonville gonna pick up the slack?

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Cleveland, Green Bay, Minnesota, Kansas City, New York, Baltimore and a number of other clubs you didn't mention have absolutely rabid fan bases.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Cleveland, Green Bay, Minnesota, Kansas City, New York, Baltimore and a number of other clubs you didn't mention have absolutely rabid fan bases.

Yes, including New Orleans, Chicago, even Buffalo. I'm not sure what this whole rant is based on. Do you have local broadcast ratings, fall sports talk ratings, anything to back up this theory, @soxfan121? Because I travel a lot, and I don't see it looking anything like the way you present it.