Some bad news. Peacock announced their ratings (viewership) of the Chiefs
playoff victory. It came in ar 27.6 million viewers, dwarfing traditional Nielsen playoff ratings, let alone high profile College football matchups. Setting a record, it appears that pay per view is coming, whether or not we, the consumer, wants it. These media rights deals will not be free moving forward, and we all know who is going to pay for it. I don't think the advertisers alone will suck it up, as we are now going to have to pay more to watch our favorite teams.
Link:
Reported viewership
58 Replies
L
lawhokie
2y
Several regular season games had many more viewers. Philly at KC drew nearly 30 million viewers. KC always pulls good ratings. KC at the Rodgers-less Jets even drew 25 million. Sports Mediawatch has the data.
I just saw that the Texans win over the Browns televised on NBC had six million more viewers. Chiefs - Dolphins is a much bigger matchup, so people obviously took a pass on the paywall game.
** Edited by lawhokie at 1/16/2024, 8:08:36 PM
** Edited by lawhokie at 1/16/2024, 8:09:14 PM
** Edited by lawhokie at 1/16/2024, 8:17:03 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
D
daveinop
2y
27 million views. 30 million people already had Peacock and the games were broadcast in their local markets for free. They didn't say how much this bumped them or whether they got their $110 million back for the game. Average playoff game generates $42 million in revenue, but Peacock distribution is limited; so definitely not more than that. They needed to make $68 million over and above. At $6 per, they needed a little over 11 million actual new ppv's. I doubt if they would ever tell us if they got it.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
I decided to read the actual article as the cliff notes version was closer to fantasy. The article itself was a stiff dose of marketing spin as you would expect as well. If NBC wanted to tout the real impact they would separate the existing versus new subscriptions. They don't because when you're already losing billions what is a few more million.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
D
dallasvt
2y
Are you interpreting the following as "dwarfing traditional Nielsen playoff ratings"?
+++++++++++++++++++
It also surpassed the audiences for the Saturday night wild-card playoff games that were shown on NBC in two of the last three years.
Last year’s first-round playoff game between the Los Angeles Chargers and Jacksonville Jaguars averaged 20.61 million viewers.
+++++++++++++++++++
Also, I think the teams playing have an effect.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
L
lawhokie
2y
Chiefs-Dolphins in prime time should have drawn many, many more viewers than Texans-Browns. Broadcasting solely on Peacock surely took a huge bite out of viewership.
(In response to this post by dallasvt)
2y
And that night game was NY-Philly. The early game was JAX-KC.
Still, the Peacock viewership was less than traditional from the past year.
** Edited by reestuart at 1/17/2024, 10:01:35 AM
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2y
Those aren't the same thing.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
I’ve never paid pay per view for anything. Not starting now
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
A lot of people get it “free” with xfinity internet
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
Just like fast food restaurants. People show some toughness and stand up for themselves prices come down. We as people only need necessities. But we give into the monopoly.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
S
Stech
2y
The people under 40, don’t understand why we pay for many channels we never watch. It’s more of a mindset thing, but ask them, many times they pay less for TV than the over 40 demographics.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
2y
And buy their sports shows Ala Carter.
Funny how now that is reversed.
The folks who won't pay are now coming out of the woodwork.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
We live in a very contrarian society right now.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
H
HOO86
2y
They have been falling all over each other to pick up Europe's Pro Soccer Leagues. NBC went first with English Premier League. Then since ESPN has gobbled up Germany's Bundesliga, Spain's La Liga, etc. to show on ESPN+. CBS has gobbled up Italy's Serie A, Brazil's Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A, and Argentina's Primera Division to show on Paramount+. I'm not sure when these contracts have to renew, but they seem to be working for the networks.
College Sports will be a step up, and outside of the Power Conferences that have a Cable Channel like the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, and PAC12, many will follow suit to their respective networks most likely. We're already seeing many conferences on ESPN+ now. I think we'll see Paramount+ and Peacock add more. George Kliavkoff was trying to put the PAC12 on AppleTV.
For US Professional Sports Amazon Prime has been doing some NFL. The NHL is now on ESPN+. MLS streams on AppleTV what's not on Fox Sports Networks. Seeing Peacock get into this is not much of a surprise. Fox doesn't have a streaming platform like this other than Tubi, but I think that's coming.
Live Sports streaming is growing. We will reach the point where we have to subscribe to most of these to watch them effectively.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
HOO86
2y
I've listened to many a game on the radio. We can always go back to that. It actually wouldn't bother me, as I followed it that way for about 20 years or so.
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
I would listen to the game on local FM radio station....
Watch about 1 minute worth of highlights on the 6 o'clock news. Read about it in the Sunday morning newspaper and then watch the 30 minute Tech football show at 11 am or the re-run at 11:30 that night. This was pretty normal until the early 1990's ;)
(In response to this post by HOO86)
i don't really care
I watch literally three things on tv
College football
Pro football
CNBC in the morning while i have breakfast
If i had to drop Hulu i don't think i would care..
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
a college basketball nut (hate the NBA). There are a lot of underground baseball fans as well, but without a network, the B12 doesn't get on the tube very often.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
Are the third tier rights already under long-term contracts?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
to have both FOX and ESPN give us media money for content.
I'm a proponent of a network for the ACC/B12/PAC (before implosion) all rolled into one. I'm also a proponent for a G5 network. Maybe even all of the rest rolled into one, including the basketball conferences. It would be a lot of content, and OOC conference games could create some really good matchups.
ESPN appears to be putting their eggs into the SECN, and the BIGN is a cash cow. I honestly believe that if the ACC and B12 temed up for a network, we could keep two different strong conferences - keep the bids to the playoffs, but merge a network that could compete with the P2 networks with content.
(In response to this post by Hokie_CLT)
2y
from congress - not that I understand it - but congress may put on pressure
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Not sure why this is a negative for Comcast.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
Was that game commercial-free?
Who wants to pay extra money for streaming that also has commercials? You can get commericial-free movies and TV shows option on a streaming device like Hulu. I don't have Peacock but do they offer that option? PPV would be a better idea for sporting events since it doesn't have commercials. I'll probably just stop watching Virginia Tech sports when I have to pay even more to watch them as individual streaming events instead of as a packaged deal like YouTube TV or Hulu. Maybe the streaming companies will get more money but they'll probably have less viewership which won't matter to them a slong as they're making more cash. I'll just go back to the 1980's when I was fortunate enough to catch 3 or 4 Tech football games on TV per season and about 8 or 10 men's basketball games. At least we have replays, short version replays and key highlights of games within an hour or two of the completion on some YouTube channels.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
hokieZ71
2y
All I watch is sports anyway.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
As do the other streamers.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
If Peacock is available the same way in other areas, not everyone signed up.
Yeah I know I'm paying for Peacock.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
me too, learned i had it the other day
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
V
Vippie1
2y
Is it the match-up and time slot?
Because generally more people will choose to take the same thing for free vs. paying for it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
Other than those with an antenna, who gets it free? I pay Youtube TV $75
per month just so I can watch sports.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
2y
but we have done it with the understanding that it has historically been ALL inclusive of NFL playoffs (and until recently the regular season). So now there is a marginal extra cost for getting that same amount of content. The whole world is about sucking people into recurring payments that they allow to ride even when they arent getting appropriate usage/value. . Just moved into a second place in FL- and the whole world wants to monthly or quarterly autobill me for just about everything except the air I breath.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
2y
own the broadcast rights, they will use the good matchus to drive their subscriptions. There is a lot of content to show on cable, but where do the networks make the most money for their dollar. They are not providing us fans a service, they pay the P5 $30M++ to $80M++ per team for a reason, and that is to drive revenue and profits.
If Peacock shattered records for one playoff game, then games like Ohio State vs. Michigan will follow the same route, and if they are successful, then we all will be paying double if we want to see all of our teams games.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
an Ohio State-Michigan game. They draw 17M + viewers per year. Charge something like $10-20 to watch it. Even if they only get 9M viewers (which is crazy low side), we're talking in the $100s of millions. That's not far-fetched at all to think it will happen.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
This was the ol Peacock trick. Too bad we can't break it down into football fans and Taylor fans to get the true picture.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
2y
Although I hear it will broadcast some NFL games. So maybe not.
(In response to this post by Rockfish40)
2y
And chances are they will get some more months out of them for the ones that forget to cancel
(In response to this post by Rockfish40)
D
daveinop
2y
they had about 30 million subs going in. they paid $110 million for the game; did they break even? profit?
They projected to lose $2.8 billion in 2023. lost $3 billion in 2022. their numbers should get better over time and maybe that was the plan here, but it would be interesting to know how they did on this specific game. how many new people actually paid for the view?
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Rockfish40)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
number of teams that get their advertising. Maybe there will be a "base" of free with advertising games from the P2 and pay for view for everybody else.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
O
ombandit
2y
Could it happen, sure, is it a given, FAR from it, especially since the originating network (NBC) NORMALLY broadcasts locally and free.
Next, give me the stats of the percentage of folks (like me & many others) who have already cancelled
** Edited by ombandit at 1/15/2024, 7:52:20 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
the streamers mostly came from out of market.
(In response to this post by ombandit)
2y
it, and it is the NFL, so those are world wide numbers, not "regional" broadcasting numbers. Add the ratings of the regional broadcast, and it inflates the value to the network even more.
While I like the idea of cafeteria style viewership - pay for what I want to watch - college football is different. I, as a fan, like to flip to other games, trying to catch the most competitive ones, and do not want to be regulated to only "my" team. Exposure to ACC games out here in flyover is important, as probably not many on this board would pay to watch KU football (for example).
The recent #2KU #9Oklahoma basketball game was on ESPN+ Saturday, and around here, we pay for it. If they break up games between many platforms, we will miss games we want to watch. It's already pretty expensive to have cable, plus a few streaming services. At some point, exposure to other conferences and games will price me out - as I'm not willing to pay for streaming to watch Big 10 or SEC games.
(In response to this post by HokieHill)