NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by CFB Apologist »

LOL.. will love to hear the apologists on this that insisted declining TV ratings were meaningless

http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by cwtcr hokie »

CFB Apologist wrote:LOL.. will love to hear the apologists on this that insisted declining TV ratings were meaningless

http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
its going great!!!!! what a plan

who da thunk that pissing off your customers is not a sound business plan
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

CFB Apologist wrote:LOL.. will love to hear the apologists on this that insisted declining TV ratings were meaningless

http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.
People who know, know.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by cwtcr hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:LOL.. will love to hear the apologists on this that insisted declining TV ratings were meaningless

http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.
Its not failing, getting itself into trouble by pissing off its customers, you betcha!
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.
TheH2 wrote:They are a monopoly. They will be able to get more money out of the suppliers of content (per eyeball) because they draw the most viewers. Will their next package be worth more money overall, I'm not sure.
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857

If ratings were down 10% and ad revenue was down 1%, the advertisers paid more per person (eyeball). If the idiot is right, what does that make you?
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.
TheH2 wrote:They are a monopoly. They will be able to get more money out of the suppliers of content (per eyeball) because they draw the most viewers. Will their next package be worth more money overall, I'm not sure.
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857

If ratings were down 10% and ad revenue was down 1%, the advertisers paid more per person (eyeball). If the idiot is right, what does that make you?
These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
fatman
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:18 am

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by fatman »

http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/media-mi ... muh5iwsqfh

I think most of you should study the difference between causation and correlation. NFL ratings are dropping, that is fact. Attributing that drop to kneeling for the anthem, no matter how objectionable that behavior is to people like me, has zero proof. It is a correlation. TV ratings for premiere league soccer, the worlds most popular sport, are down. NASCAR is down, and it t doesn't get more redneck friendly than nascar. Broadcast TV is down due to cord cutting and audience fragmentation.

Despite the shift in TV viewership to streaming, then NFL remains the most desirable content for advertisers. Rupert Murdoch is going to bid a gazillion bucks to renew the rights.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:LOL.. will love to hear the apologists on this that insisted declining TV ratings were meaningless

http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.
Image
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by USN_Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.
TheH2 wrote:They are a monopoly. They will be able to get more money out of the suppliers of content (per eyeball) because they draw the most viewers. Will their next package be worth more money overall, I'm not sure.
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857

If ratings were down 10% and ad revenue was down 1%, the advertisers paid more per person (eyeball). If the idiot is right, what does that make you?
These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.
Yep.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
In summary, what you said was false because advertisers did pay more for less -
idiot Haha
awesome guy wrote:These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.
If you really meant networks you should have started a new thread, or at the very least not used reply with quotes.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
In summary, what you said was false because advertisers did pay more for less -
idiot Haha
awesome guy wrote:These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.
If you really meant networks you should have started a new thread, or at the very least not used reply with quotes.
Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
Nope, you're way off and have no idea how media or advertising works. Advertising contracts are complicated with many conditions and rules. The NFL fell threw the none cash retribution clauses like extra ad time from their allotment, extra minutes, etc and landed on cash reimbursement. That's the last comp possible, they're sinking. I'll take your bet, the NFL isn't going to get more money for the same ad time and eyeballs with year over year 10% declines. They're in the process of deleverging. You can't see it, if you could then you'd be in a field that requires business sense unlike the voodoo field you're in.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
Nope, you're way off and have no idea how media or advertising works. Advertising contracts are complicated with many conditions and rules. The NFL fell threw the none cash retribution clauses like extra ad time from their allotment, extra minutes, etc and landed on cash reimbursement. That's the last comp possible, they're sinking. I'll take your bet, the NFL isn't going to get more money for the same ad time and eyeballs with year over year 10% declines. They're in the process of deleverging. You can't see it, if you could then you'd be in a field that requires business sense unlike the voodoo field you're in.
I didn't say they would get more money (which they may). I said they would get more money per eyeball out of the suppliers of content. So if ratings are down 35% since X network paid for Y rights, the next TV deal for Y rights will not be 35% lower.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
Nope, you're way off and have no idea how media or advertising works. Advertising contracts are complicated with many conditions and rules. The NFL fell threw the none cash retribution clauses like extra ad time from their allotment, extra minutes, etc and landed on cash reimbursement. That's the last comp possible, they're sinking. I'll take your bet, the NFL isn't going to get more money for the same ad time and eyeballs with year over year 10% declines. They're in the process of deleverging. You can't see it, if you could then you'd be in a field that requires business sense unlike the voodoo field you're in.
I didn't say they would get more money (which they may). I said they would get more money per eyeball out of the suppliers of content. So if ratings are down 35% since X network paid for Y rights, the next TV deal for Y rights will not be 35% lower.
It's per eye per ad time. That's all going down. You don't know about this and should just stop making yourself look even more ridiculous.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by RiverguyVT »

It isn't solely "per eye".
Much more important is the targeting. I'd pay more for fewer eyes if my research showed that, although total numbers are down, the ratio of likely buyers is up.

Say every single conservative boycotted the game. What a great time to run a LWNJ advert! I'd pay more for that, sure.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

RiverguyVT wrote:It isn't solely "per eye".
Much more important is the targeting. I'd pay more for fewer eyes if my research showed that, although total numbers are down, the ratio of likely buyers is up.

Say every single conservative boycotted the game. What a great time to run a LWNJ advert! I'd pay more for that, sure.
That's true. Demographics delivered are a price driver. It's a complicated business, much more so than one would think. Still, advertisers aren't going to pay more for less. The same type of ignorance that couldn't see how Trump's tax policy boosts economic activity. It can't comprehend how advertisers aren't going to accept less for more. Especially in a shrinking product, they'll accelerate the collapse if they try that path. Dollars are going down or ad time is going up.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
Nope, you're way off and have no idea how media or advertising works. Advertising contracts are complicated with many conditions and rules. The NFL fell threw the none cash retribution clauses like extra ad time from their allotment, extra minutes, etc and landed on cash reimbursement. That's the last comp possible, they're sinking. I'll take your bet, the NFL isn't going to get more money for the same ad time and eyeballs with year over year 10% declines. They're in the process of deleverging. You can't see it, if you could then you'd be in a field that requires business sense unlike the voodoo field you're in.
I didn't say they would get more money (which they may). I said they would get more money per eyeball out of the suppliers of content. So if ratings are down 35% since X network paid for Y rights, the next TV deal for Y rights will not be 35% lower.
It's per eye per ad time. That's all going down. You don't know about this and should just stop making yourself look even more ridiculous.
The only one that has said anything that is inaccurate is you (which I've highlighted several times).

Of course, it needs to be comparable. I'm trying to create a formula we can agree on. The game has been a 3 hour time slot for years (with the 4:00 game being a 4:15 start when there is a double header). Ad time per game isn't changing (or possibly going down as leagues are trying to reduce the time of a game). Now if the TV package isn't comparable, for example a Super Bowl is thrown in when one wasn't before, or double-headers, or a Friday night game, then it isn't comparable. Again, I'm just trying to get a base for the formula so we can can determine who wins the bet.
People who know, know.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

RiverguyVT wrote:It isn't solely "per eye".
Much more important is the targeting. I'd pay more for fewer eyes if my research showed that, although total numbers are down, the ratio of likely buyers is up.

Say every single conservative boycotted the game. What a great time to run a LWNJ advert! I'd pay more for that, sure.
But then there are less RWNJ adverts.......

I don't care who is watching. The NFL is the best game in town. The NFL has a monopoly. The suppliers of content (broadcasters) are numerous. There will be many bidders for the best game in town. Unless the networks can collude, the NFL will extract as much of the surplus as possible, which will result in a big TV deal and result in the networks paying more per eyeball in a declining market, to say it differently, it will cost them more to get a piece of the pie.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.
awesome guy wrote:Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
The only one who made an inaccurate statement is you. Yet, somehow I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm the idiot?

Time for a bet? If the next TV deal results in the network paying more per eyeball (measured against the ratings when the previous deal was signed) you donate to a charity of my choice. I'll make it one that you don't mind, like an orphanage, or adoption (less abortion) or Toys for Tots (everyone loves kids getting toys for Christmas). If they pay less per eyeball then I'll donate to a charity of your choice.
Nope, you're way off and have no idea how media or advertising works. Advertising contracts are complicated with many conditions and rules. The NFL fell threw the none cash retribution clauses like extra ad time from their allotment, extra minutes, etc and landed on cash reimbursement. That's the last comp possible, they're sinking. I'll take your bet, the NFL isn't going to get more money for the same ad time and eyeballs with year over year 10% declines. They're in the process of deleverging. You can't see it, if you could then you'd be in a field that requires business sense unlike the voodoo field you're in.
I didn't say they would get more money (which they may). I said they would get more money per eyeball out of the suppliers of content. So if ratings are down 35% since X network paid for Y rights, the next TV deal for Y rights will not be 35% lower.
It's per eye per ad time. That's all going down. You don't know about this and should just stop making yourself look even more ridiculous.
The only one that has said anything that is inaccurate is you (which I've highlighted several times).

Of course, it needs to be comparable. I'm trying to create a formula we can agree on. The game has been a 3 hour time slot for years (with the 4:00 game being a 4:15 start when there is a double header). Ad time per game isn't changing (or possibly going down as leagues are trying to reduce the time of a game). Now if the TV package isn't comparable, for example a Super Bowl is thrown in when one wasn't before, or double-headers, or a Friday night game, then it isn't comparable. Again, I'm just trying to get a base for the formula so we can can determine who wins the bet.
The only one who has said anything inaccurate is you.

Again, you're just making things up as you roll along. They can insert more ads or take slots some from the networks allotment. All depends on the contract, point is they have more levers than your Google based argument will inform you of.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:The only one who has said anything inaccurate is you.
How are advertisers not paying more for less (you said they weren't).
awesome guy wrote:Again, you're just making things up as you roll along. They can insert more ads or take slots some from the networks allotment. All depends on the contract, point is they have more levers than your Google based argument will inform you of.
Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:The only one who has said anything inaccurate is you.
How are advertisers not paying more for less (you said they weren't).
awesome guy wrote:Again, you're just making things up as you roll along. They can insert more ads or take slots some from the networks allotment. All depends on the contract, point is they have more levers than your Google based argument will inform you of.
Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.
You're going to be surprised when it shrinks.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:The only one who has said anything inaccurate is you.
How are advertisers not paying more for less (you said they weren't).
awesome guy wrote:Again, you're just making things up as you roll along. They can insert more ads or take slots some from the networks allotment. All depends on the contract, point is they have more levers than your Google based argument will inform you of.
Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.
You're going to be surprised when it shrinks.
I never said it would grow, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.
People who know, know.
Post Reply