World Series game 4 averages 15.5 million viewers, series averages 12.7 million

[TMC]

15.5 MILLION VIEWERS TUNE IN TO WITNESS GIANTS WIN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
ON FOX
Fall Classic Remains Top Ten Show; No. 2 in Men 18-49
New York, NY - The San Francisco Giants captured their second World
Series title in three years last night and 15.5 million viewers tuned
in to see the extra innings drama unfold on FOX Sports.
Sunday night's decisive Game 4, which completed the Giants' sweep of
the Detroit Tigers, posted 8.9/14 fast-national rating/share,
according to Nielsen Media Research. The average audience of 15.5
million viewers is up +2% from last year's Game 4 average (15.2
million viewers, 9.2/14 rating/share).
The Giants aren't the only ones to sweep during this series. FOX is
projected to win both Saturday (Game 3) and Sunday nights in the
coveted Adults 18-49 demographic, giving the network a win each World
Series night this year. Saturday and Sunday's broadcasts also won the
night in household ratings, bringing the network to a total of three
primetime wins during the Fall Classic. Game 3 on Saturday night
posted a 6.1/11 fast-national rating/share.
When compared against other primetime programming, the World Series
remains a top-ten force. The 2012 World Series averaged a 7.6/12
rating/share and 12.7 million viewers, ranking No. 9 in viewership
among all primetime programming this season. This year's four-game
series still placed No. 2 among Men 18-49 (4.7); No. 3 in Men 25-54
(5.6); No. 4 with Men 18-34 (4.0); tied for No. 6 in Adults 18 - 49
(3.7); tied for No. 8 in Adults 18 - 34 (3.2) and No. 9 among Adults
25-54 (4.3).
"The World Series has been a top ten primetime hit for over 40 years
and even with a four-game sweep this series was no exception," said
Michael Mulvihill, Senior Vice President of Programming and Research,
FOX Sports Media Group. "This World Series gave us exactly what we
expected: a top ten show among all viewers and a top five show among
hard-to-reach younger men. It's important for us to remain focused on
the Series relative to today's competitive environment rather than
bygone years. The World Series remains a powerful force in primetime
and we're fortunate to have the Fall Classic for at least nine more
years to look forward to."
World Series Game 4 is the highest-rated, most-watched primetime
program in households on FOX since the AMERICAN IDOLFinale this past
May and provided the network its best Sunday night primetime
performance since the NFC Championship Game on January 22, 2012. Last
night's game peaked with an 11.3 at 11:45 PM as the decisive 10th
inningunfolded.
San Francisco led all marketswith a 38.7/64 for Game 4, scoring the
best rating of any MLB game in that market since Game 7 of the 2002
World Series between the Angels and the Giants. Detroit scored a
37.9/53 for Game 4, notching Motown's highest rating for an MLB game
since Game 2 of the 2006 World Series between the Tigers and the
Cardinals.

"Sunday Night Football" beats the World Series:http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/ratings-rat-race-sunday-night-footbal...
The San Francisco Giants were no match for Peyton Manning vs. Drew
Brees.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/10/2012-world-series-lowest-rate...
The 2012 World Series was easily the lowest rated and least-viewed
ever.
The four-game Giants/Tigers World Series averaged a 7.6 rating and
12.7 million viewers on FOX, down 24% in ratings and viewership from
last year’s seven-game Cardinals/Rangers series (10.0, 16.6M), and
down 10% and 11%, respectively, from the five-game Giants/Rangers
series in 2010 (8.4, 14.3M).
Compared to previous four-game averages for the World Series, Giants/
Tigers declined by 7% in ratings and 6% in viewership from Cardinals/
Rangers last year (8.3, 13.5M), and by 7% and 10%, respectively, from
Giants/Rangers in 2010 (8.3, 14.1M).
The Giants’ sweep ranks as the lowest rated and least-viewed World
Series of all time (see table). The previous lows were an 8.4 rating
(2010 and 2008) and 13.6 million viewers (2008).
The World Series has now set or tied a record-low rating eight times
since the 1994-95 players’ strike (1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008,
2010 and 2012). In addition, this is the seventh time in the past
eight election years (midterm or presidential) that the World Series
has set a record-low.
The 2012 World Series was the third in five years to average a
previously unheard-of single-digit rating. Over the past five seasons,
20 of 27 World Series telecasts have drawn a single-digit rating —
compared to four such games previously.
Giants/Tigers averaged a 3.7 rating among adults 18-49, down 25% from
last year’s seven-game average (4.9) and down 8% from the five-game
average in 2010 (4.0). Among adults 18-34, the average was a 3.2 —
down 24% from last year (4.2), but down only a tick from 2010 (3.3).
Compared to other sports, the World Series trailed the five-game Bowl
Championship Series on ESPN (8.4, 14.1M), the three-game NCAA
Tournament Final Four (10.1, 17.1M*) and the five-game Heat/Thunder
NBA Finals on ABC (10.1, 16.9M).
This marks the fourth time in five years that the NBA Finals has
averaged a higher rating and more viewers than the World Series, and
the fifth time in seven years the NBA has averaged better numbers
among adults 18-49. Prior to 2008, the NBA Finals had only topped the
World Series three times, all in years when Michael Jordan‘s Bulls won
the championship (1993, 1996 and 1998).
As is now typical, the World Series faced head-to-head competition
with football games on other networks — the NFL in Games 2 and 4 and
college football in Game 3. The football competition — which has
increased steadily in recent years — has likely contributed to the
recent downturn in World Series ratings.
http://fangsbites.com/2012/10/2012-world-series-on-fox-averages-7-6-r...

http://www.shermanreport.com/why-world-series-matters-much/

All-time low rating: Why World Series continues to decline; trails NBA
Finals, NCAA tourney, BCS

by Ed Sherman

OCTOBER 30, 2012

It doesn’t add up.

Bud Selig will tell anyone who listens that Major League Baseball is
more popular than ever. The game continues to set attendance records.

However, if that’s the case, why are TV ratings sinking at the same
pace as Detroit’s bats during the World Series?

The latest Giants World Series victory averaged an all-time low of
12.7 million viewers per game. The numbers are striking.

From Sports Media Watch:

The World Series has now set or tied a record-low rating eight times
since the 1994-95 players’ strike (1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008,
2010 and 2012). In addition, this is the seventh time in the past
eight election years (midterm or presidential) that the World Series
has set a record-low.

The 2012 World Series was the third in five years to average a
previously unheard-of single-digit rating. Over the past five seasons,
20 of 27 World Series telecasts have drawn a single-digit rating —
compared to four such games previously.

Forget about losing to football. From Sports Media Watch:

Compared to other sports, the World Series trailed the five-game Bowl
Championship Series on ESPN (8.4, 14.1M), the three-game NCAA
Tournament Final Four (10.1, 17.1M*) and the five-game Heat/Thunder
NBA Finals on ABC (10.1, 16.9M).

This marks the fourth time in five years that the NBA Finals has
averaged a higher rating and more viewers than the World Series, and
the fifth time in seven years the NBA has averaged better numbers
among adults 18-49. Prior to 2008, the NBA Finals had only topped the
World Series three times, all in years when Michael Jordan‘s Bulls won
the championship (1993, 1996 and 1998).

Once upon a time, the 1977 World Series averaged 44 million viewers
per game. Now that’s not a fair comparison in the modern era of TV
ratings, but even by recent measures, the World Series has declined.
There wasn’t one series in the ’90s that averaged less than 20 million
viewers per game. As late as 2004, the series pulled in 25 million
viewers per game.

So what gives Mr. Commissioner? Popularity should be measured by
attendance and ratings. If I’m MLB and its TV partners, there has to
be concern why fans aren’t watching the biggest games on their big
screens.

As it relates to the World Series, here are some of my theories:

Sweep madness: Baseball has run into an extraordinary string of bad
luck. The Giants sweep was the fourth in a World Series since 2004.
Only two series in the last nine have gone beyond five games and only
one to the full seven.

Nothing kills ratings more than a sweep. People start to check out
after 2-0. Even worse, there’s no carryover effect from one year to
the next. With the exception of St. Louis-Texas in 2011, the World
Series hasn’t delivered much in the way of lasting memories–except for
fans of the winning team.

Football: Back in 1977, football was limited to the colleges on
Saturday afternoon and the pros on Sunday afternoon and Monday night.
And baseball usually scheduled on an off-day to avoid a conflict with
Monday Night Football.

Now the World Series bumps up against football on virtually every
night. Saturday’s Game 3 faced a stiff test in Notre Dame-Oklahoma,
and Game 4 went up against Peyton Manning and Drew Brees on Sunday
Night Football. Baseball definitely took a hit.

I remember when the NFL didn’t schedule a Sunday night game to avoid a
conflict with the World Series. Not anymore. Football rules.

Local: I wonder if baseball has become more provincial. If the home
team isn’t involved, perhaps we don’t care anymore. I definitely
didn’t hear much talk about the World Series on my two local sports
talk radio stations in Chicago. Can you say, Da Bears!

Star power: Or lack thereof. Stars draw viewers, and this year’s World
Series didn’t have them. Sure, Buster Posey and Miguel Cabrera are
terrific players, but they don’t move the meter like a Derek Jeter or
ARod, or dare I say it, Barry Bonds. Now the Giants winning two of
three series with Bonds in the lineuep? I guarantee that would have
generated some ratings.

Kids out: As I wrote Saturday, lamenting how kids get shut out because
of the late start of games, I wonder if we’ve lost a generation of
baseball fans–at least as far as the World Series is concerned. All I
can say is that when I came home Saturday night, my sports-obsessed
teenage boys were flipping between ND-Oklahoma and Michigan-Nebraska
games. When I asked them what was going on in Game 3, they had no
idea.

They didn’t grow up with the World Series. They never got to see the
end of games when they were younger. As a result, the World Series
isn’t important to them.

MLB should reach out to my boys. They could provide some good feedback
on the all-important youth demo.

And finally: At least the short series prevented a Game 7 on Nov. 1.
There’s something not right about baseball in November.

Anything else?: I’m open to suggestions.

[J.C. Watts]

Post by TMC
Local: I wonder if baseball has become more provincial. If the home
team isn’t involved, perhaps we don’t care anymore. I definitely
didn’t hear much talk about the World Series on my two local sports
talk radio stations in Chicago. Can you say, Da Bears!

I was reflecting on this based on the discussion over the past
weekend, and I think this is actually it.

I go to Brewer games and have the games on pretty much every summer
evening...but I rarely watch other baseball games. But I watch a lot
of football and basketball outside of my local teams.

And since gate attendance and local television is very important to
baseball, maybe that is OK. But perhaps the unintended consequence is
that many fans just don't follow the sport beyond their local team.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

Post by TMC
Local: I wonder if baseball has become more provincial. If the home
team isn’t involved, perhaps we don’t care anymore. I definitely
didn’t hear much talk about the World Series on my two local sports
talk radio stations in Chicago. Can you say, Da Bears!

I was reflecting on this based on the discussion over the past
weekend, and I think this is actually it.

I go to Brewer games and have the games on pretty much every summer
evening...but I rarely watch other baseball games. But I watch a lot
of football and basketball outside of my local teams.

And since gate attendance and local television is very important to
baseball, maybe that is OK. But perhaps the unintended consequence is
that many fans just don't follow the sport beyond their local team.

-----

I tend to agree. I think baseball has a business model problem. I'm
not sure it dooms them so long as fans keep showing up. I'll watch
non-Yankee games where one of the teams is contending with the
Yankees, but in general I won't. Very unlike football or college
basketball.

I realize I'm an exception, but I don't give a crap about the NBA
either. There are six sports to me: Yankees, football x2, Knicks,
college basketball, and whoever Duke is playing in whatever. I
otherwise don't give a crap.

Exceptions like the Olympics, grand slams, hockey playoffs, etc.
I'll root for the Hurricanes, but I ain't watching a regular season
game.

--tedward

[JRStern]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:14:39 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"

Post by The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
I tend to agree. I think baseball has a business model problem. I'm
not sure it dooms them so long as fans keep showing up. I'll watch
non-Yankee games where one of the teams is contending with the
Yankees, but in general I won't. Very unlike football or college
basketball.

For the last generation they've said that baseball has a pacing
problem, it's old school, too slow, too mannered.

And now there is so much sports on tv, that it tends to get lost
between the high school volleyball and soom mook parachuting from
outer space.

It was a rout, it was two teams from smaller markets, what star power
it had was all on the Tigers - and for that reason it should have
attracted a bit more attention. The games were not bad, and the
underdog sweeping was an attention getter.

But with a particularly nasty election, the Benghazi business, and our
steady diet of "reality" shows these days, it just doesn't stand out
like it did, back in the olden days.

J.

[nomisnala]

Post by JRStern
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:14:39 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"

I tend to agree.  I think baseball has a business model problem.  I'm
not sure it dooms them so long as fans keep showing up.  I'll watch
non-Yankee games where one of the teams is contending with the
Yankees, but in general I won't.  Very unlike football or college
basketball.

For the last generation they've said that baseball has a pacing
problem, it's old school, too slow, too mannered.
And now there is so much sports on tv, that it tends to get lost
between the high school volleyball and soom mook parachuting from
outer space.
It was a rout, it was two teams from smaller markets, what star power
it had was all on the Tigers - and for that reason it should have
attracted a bit more attention.  The games were not bad, and the
underdog sweeping was an attention getter.
But with a particularly nasty election, the Benghazi business, and our
steady diet of "reality" shows these days, it just doesn't stand out
like it did, back in the olden days.
J.

How many people watched the game on line? Listened on the
radio? etc. I don't really give a crap what the ratings were,
probably
the lower the ratings, the cheaper the Ads. Despite being a sweep
it was a great and dramatic series with a ton of side stories. Perhaps
Fox could choose some announcers that do not turn people off.

[SkippyPB]

Post by JRStern
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:14:39 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"

Post by The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
I tend to agree. I think baseball has a business model problem. I'm
not sure it dooms them so long as fans keep showing up. I'll watch
non-Yankee games where one of the teams is contending with the
Yankees, but in general I won't. Very unlike football or college
basketball.

For the last generation they've said that baseball has a pacing
problem, it's old school, too slow, too mannered.
And now there is so much sports on tv, that it tends to get lost
between the high school volleyball and soom mook parachuting from
outer space.
It was a rout, it was two teams from smaller markets, what star power
it had was all on the Tigers - and for that reason it should have
attracted a bit more attention. The games were not bad, and the
underdog sweeping was an attention getter.
But with a particularly nasty election, the Benghazi business, and our
steady diet of "reality" shows these days, it just doesn't stand out
like it did, back in the olden days.
J.

Back in the "olden days" there was only baseball. The NFL and NBA
didn't really prosper until the 70's and have steadily grown. MLB has
almost always had local team loyalty. When you can only hear a game
on radio, it is your local team you'll hear. You didn't have the
ability to listen to other teams. Even when baseball started being
shown on TV, generally you only got to see your local team. There was
no "game of the week" until years later.

MLB has gone away from afternoon games. They have limited the markets
to the extent that you cannot follow out of market teams unless you
pony up a bunch of money. Many of the decisions Selig has made since
he became commissioner are just plain stupid. All Star game deciding
home field in the World Series being one of the stupidest. MLB has
even blocked radio stations of streaming games over the Internet.
There is an anti-trust suit pending against MLB that might change this
but I wouldn't hold my breath.

All of these things have lead to the decline of baseball at the
professional level. Those who love baseball will continue to watch it
and go to the games. Younger folks are not being enticed to see it or
take part of it and that is what is hurting the MLB.

Regards,
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
He didn't tell his mother that he ate some glue.
His lips were sealed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Dano]

Post by JRStern
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:14:39 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"

Post by The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
I tend to agree. I think baseball has a business model problem. I'm
not sure it dooms them so long as fans keep showing up. I'll watch
non-Yankee games where one of the teams is contending with the
Yankees, but in general I won't. Very unlike football or college
basketball.

For the last generation they've said that baseball has a pacing
problem, it's old school, too slow, too mannered.
And now there is so much sports on tv, that it tends to get lost
between the high school volleyball and soom mook parachuting from
outer space.
It was a rout, it was two teams from smaller markets, what star power
it had was all on the Tigers - and for that reason it should have
attracted a bit more attention. The games were not bad, and the
underdog sweeping was an attention getter.
But with a particularly nasty election, the Benghazi business, and our
steady diet of "reality" shows these days, it just doesn't stand out
like it did, back in the olden days.
J.

Back in the "olden days" there was only baseball. The NFL and NBA
didn't really prosper until the 70's and have steadily grown. MLB has
almost always had local team loyalty. When you can only hear a game
on radio, it is your local team you'll hear. You didn't have the
ability to listen to other teams. Even when baseball started being
shown on TV, generally you only got to see your local team. There was
no "game of the week" until years later.

MLB has gone away from afternoon games. They have limited the markets
to the extent that you cannot follow out of market teams unless you
pony up a bunch of money. Many of the decisions Selig has made since
he became commissioner are just plain stupid. All Star game deciding
home field in the World Series being one of the stupidest. MLB has
even blocked radio stations of streaming games over the Internet.
There is an anti-trust suit pending against MLB that might change this
but I wouldn't hold my breath.

All of these things have lead to the decline of baseball at the
professional level. Those who love baseball will continue to watch it
and go to the games. Younger folks are not being enticed to see it or
take part of it and that is what is hurting the MLB.

==============================================

I don't know about that. Kids simply have far more choices...pick up
basketball...even soccer...are easier to organize for those interested
enough to participate. Baseball requires more organization. Plus, many
more kids are more involved with playing their various video/computer games.
I think those factors far outweigh the amount of baseball we see on TV or
hear on radio or the internet. MLB provides coverage on their own
network...over the internet including streaming. One of my daughters moved
to the west coast. She still gets to follow our Red Sox on MLB.com...ALL
the games. Costs a bit...though not to her as her boss (a Yankee fan no
less) simply gave her the password. No biggie.

Look. There's a lot of money involved. These teams (and of course players)
are making more than ever. I see no danger of anyone involved going broke.
Networks pay a lot for rights fees. Of course they want to recoup and
profit as best they can. The ratings...and therefor the ad revenues...are
much higher in prime time. Simple economics. I'm not too worried about
MLB.

[x***@gmail.com]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:11:20 -0400, SkippyPB

Post by SkippyPB
All of these things have lead to the decline of baseball at the
professional level. Those who love baseball will continue to watch it
and go to the games. Younger folks are not being enticed to see it or
take part of it and that is what is hurting the MLB.

2 million at the larger capacity Tiger stadium was consider a very
successful season. Yet Detroit managed to draw 3+ million fans this
year. OTOH in the last few years the Tigers have been making tickets
available at reduced prices to various organizations the chambers of
commerce et al.

[Remysun]

Post by x***@gmail.com
2 million at the larger capacity Tiger stadium was consider a very
successful season. Yet Detroit managed to draw 3+ million fans this
year. OTOH in the last few years the Tigers have been making tickets
available at reduced prices to various organizations the chambers of
commerce et al.

There was a time when they let vets into the bleachers for free, but
not at the new park.