Why Your TV Game Broadcast Sounds Dumb

[pbmax]

People don't understand the A and B gap according to Dick Ebersol. So Gruden and Mayock could not work for him. And he loves Colin Cowherd and thinks him well informed. Oof.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/18/Sports-Business-Awards/Ebersol-TV-talent.aspx

[pittstang5]

People don't understand the A and B gap according to Dick Ebersol. So Gruden and Mayock could not work for him. And he loves Colin Cowherd and thinks him well informed. Oof.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/18/Sports-Business-Awards/Ebersol-TV-talent.aspx

If you're watching a Thursday Night NFL game and Mayock is the announcer, you will know a lot of 40 times of the players playing by the games end.

[mraynrand]

I don't think anyone picks announcers with Packerrats in mind. If they did, they would be out of their minds.

[pbmax]

I don't think anyone picks announcers with Packerrats in mind. If they did, they would be out of their minds.

I wouldn't either. But I think Ebersol's info is outdated at this point. It might not be Packer Rats, but a lot of people know what an A gap is these days.

Gruden succeeds on ESPN which is one point against Ebersol's argument. However, he still seems too muzzled for my tastes. Not even the 2 Y Banana stuff has stopped him.

[vince]

At first I disagreed with your point about Ebersol's perspective being outdated PB, given the NFL's (and mainstream television's) insatiable interest in expanding viewership. He's probably right that the majority of the television market doesn't get (nor do they want to invest in learning about) even the basic tenets of the game. However, I think you're on to something important.

I think the initial attraction that people have toward football is the primal adrenaline rush of hoping your tribe of neanderthals can outhit, outrun, outthrow, and outkick the enemy tribe.

Until/Unless people get hooked on that (kids, most women, men who get their fix elsewhere), they won't develop an interest in the strategic complexities of the game, and a significant market of people (meatheads) get the emotional attraction but that's all they want. Those groups comprise most of the mainstream television market which is Ebersol's focus.

Your point though, that there is a mature and significant market of NFL fans who want and demand more than the sophistication of what might as well be a dick swinging contest, and understand that football brings that, is misaligned with the needs of, and fundamentally underserved by, today's game broadcast perspective, is dead on I think.

Maybe different channels/subscription options featuring some choice of broadcasters and perspectives for games could be coming. Or perhaps partnership agreements to join the respective teams' radio broadcast with the television broadcast would be a good start.

[pbmax]

I agree about the secondary broadcast options, but I think networks have difficulty (like they do with web platforms for other traditional media) monetizing that option. It would hurt their sales of ads on the primary broadcast and they have no idea what they could recoup on the secondary/web option. Same reason the streams of current shows are available the next day unless you are signed up for HBO.

But I do think they underestimate the audience. I agree that turning away from discussion over tactics and nomenclature is a nod toward expanding the viewership outside the committed demographic. But that has been the goal for the last 40 years. There was a contemporaneous newspaper clip yesterday on the web about how outlawing the head slap was meant to help the offense and attract female fans. They might have hard evidence on how fans react, but I doubt its current or a slam dunk. I think Gruden proves there is room in the broadcast for that stuff. And I have the distinct feeling that this view is received wisdom at this point and may no longer be valid at all. I get that distinct impression from Ebersol's quotes.

Look at how Fantasy Football has driven fans to the game. That has brought a significant population of women. It took broadcast TV years to figure out who was newly watching and why. And while you can point to FF as another reason detail has left the TV coverage, I think it also points to a medium that really has mixed success attracting new viewers. It took a completely outside force to get them to acknowledge what a significant segment of the fans wanted. Until the early to mid aughts, they made jokes about the fantasy geeks watching, until they were presented with evidence that viewership was increasing because of FF. Now the whole thing revolves around your FF team.

Prior to that, viewer interest had been flat and even in decline since its height in the 80s. Cable TV had a role in that. But NFL broadcast revenue was not hurt (I think it was helped actually) because football resisted the division of eyeballs better than almost any other programming. But I doubts its resistance was due to the lack of talk about the A gap.

[sharpe1027]

IMO, some in-depth strategy discussion sprinkled in is good, even the casual fan can appreciate some more details of what is going on. I think when they start throwing out jargon it can alienate people that have not heard it before. In some cases, the use of football-only terminology is justified when the explanation of the term is too complex. However, why not just say between the guard and center or between the guard and tackle? Is it really that much easier to say A gap or B gap?

Some announcers do a pretty good mix, even though they know the accepted football-terminology. Personally, I'd rather they used too much jargon. I have Internet access to look it up if necessary, but I probably do not represent the majority.

[vince]

I agree about the secondary broadcast options, but I think networks have difficulty (like they do with web platforms for other traditional media) monetizing that option. It would hurt their sales of ads on the primary broadcast and they have no idea what they could recoup on the secondary/web option. Same reason the streams of current shows are available the next day unless you are signed up for HBO.

But I do think they underestimate the audience. I agree that turning away from discussion over tactics and nomenclature is a nod toward expanding the viewership outside the committed demographic. But that has been the goal for the last 40 years. There was a contemporaneous newspaper clip yesterday on the web about how outlawing the head slap was meant to help the offense and attract female fans. They might have hard evidence on how fans react, but I doubt its current or a slam dunk. I think Gruden proves there is room in the broadcast for that stuff. And I have the distinct feeling that this view is received wisdom at this point and may no longer be valid at all. I get that distinct impression from Ebersol's quotes.

Look at how Fantasy Football has driven fans to the game. That has brought a significant population of women. It took broadcast TV years to figure out who was newly watching and why. And while you can point to FF as another reason detail has left the TV coverage, I think it also points to a medium that really has mixed success attracting new viewers. It took a completely outside force to get them to acknowledge what a significant segment of the fans wanted. Until the early to mid aughts, they made jokes about the fantasy geeks watching, until they were presented with evidence that viewership was increasing because of FF. Now the whole thing revolves around your FF team.

Prior to that, viewer interest had been flat and even in decline since its height in the 80s. Cable TV had a role in that. But NFL broadcast revenue was not hurt (I think it was helped actually) because football resisted the division of eyeballs better than almost any other programming. But I doubts its resistance was due to the lack of talk about the A gap.
Good stuff. I'd be interested to see how NFL viewership has trended over time. Any idea where that might be found?

Here's one indication we likely won't be seeing more in-depth mainstream broadcast discussion soon.
Women viewers targeted by NFL and growing. (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/11/17/Media/NFL-women.aspx)


For the past several years, the NFL has tried to grow its female fan base through target marketing, initiatives such as its annual breast cancer awareness activities and its launch of an apparel line geared toward women. Over the last decade, the NFL has seen consistent growth trends in its female fan base, particularly on television. Overall, women represent about one-third of the NFL’s viewing audience throughout the regular season and playoffs, a figure network executives say they expect to hit 45 percent in the next few years. Women already account for about half of the league’s Super Bowl viewing audience.

[Fritz]

Good stuff. I'd be interested to see how NFL viewership has trended over time. Any idea where that might be found?

Here's one indication we likely won't be seeing more in-depth mainstream broadcast discussion soon.
Women viewers targeted by NFL and growing. (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/11/17/Media/NFL-women.aspx)

I'd like to see announcers analyze the game itself. I don't think women are dumb - they would be just as interested. But instead of using jargon, explain the game and explain the jargon as you go. Then you can focus on the game instead of on the narrative that is invented - Rodgers vs. Wilson, all that crap.

[vince]

I'd like to get more real analysis too, but I don't agree that women (as a market segment not a gender) are just as interested in getting that same level of analysis. Add kids, disinterested men and meatheads to the list of market segments not interested in in-depth analysis. Of course it's all driven by the money, and we're (dedicated fans) not the majority of the target television audience. Plus we're already hooked and not going away. There are tons more fish to catch yet.

Most people that NFL TV broadcasts have already attracted, and are continuing to try to attract, want to be entertained by the passion and drama of the game - the thrill of victory, agony of defeat and all that. But that visceral attraction isn't strong enough for most of the viewing audience to sustain being diminished by someone blathering on about things they neither understand nor are engaged enough to want to learn about.

Hence the need for game broadcast choice. I'm no expert in television ad sales, but there would seem to be an advantage for splitting a broadcast to more effectively target the audience. FOX could have the main broadcast. FOX1 has the same video feed but dedicated broadcast. Advertisers could buy ads for both just as they do now, but they could also have the option to buy one or the other at a lower cost but higher rate due to reaching a more homogeneous market - a lot like last year's Thursday simultaneous NFL Network/CBS co-broadcasts but with different broadcast teams. I'm pretty sure that increased Thursday's game viewer ratings and ad sales.

[sharpe1027]

I say just synch the local radio broadcast and have it as an audio option, like the Spanish audio option.