NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
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/
http://sportsradiopd.com/2018/01/nfl-ad ... is-season/
- 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
Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
its going great!!!!! what a planCFB 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/
who da thunk that pissing off your customers is not a sound business plan
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.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/
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Its not failing, getting itself into trouble by pissing off its customers, you betcha!TheH2 wrote:Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.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/
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857TheH2 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.
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.
- 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
These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.TheH2 wrote:Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857TheH2 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.
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?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
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.
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.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
TheH2 wrote:Still don't see failing. $5 million for a 30 second ad spot in a little over a week is also failing.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/
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Yep.awesome guy wrote:These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.TheH2 wrote:Presumably you're talking about me. First, I was talking about suppliers of content. Second, the point was correct because you know, basic economics.awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... fl#p211857TheH2 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.
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?
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
In summary, what you said was false because advertisers did pay more for less -awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?
idiot Haha
If you really meant networks you should have started a new thread, or at the very least not used reply with quotes.awesome guy wrote:These are just underdelivered ratings being refunded. The hit shows up next contract because of basic economics you idiot.
People who know, know.
- 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
Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about.TheH2 wrote:In summary, what you said was false because advertisers did pay more for less -awesome guy wrote:Haha. Who was the idiot saying advertisers will pay more for less viewership?idiot HahaIf you really meant networks you should have started a new thread, or at the very least not used reply with quotes.awesome guy wrote: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.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
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?
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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
- 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
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.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?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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
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.awesome guy wrote: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.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?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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
- 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
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.TheH2 wrote: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.awesome guy wrote: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.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?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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30315
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
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.
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.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
- 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
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.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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
The only one that has said anything that is inaccurate is you (which I've highlighted several times).awesome guy wrote: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.TheH2 wrote: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.awesome guy wrote: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.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?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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
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.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
But then there are less RWNJ adverts.......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.
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.
- 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
The only one who has said anything inaccurate is you.TheH2 wrote:The only one that has said anything that is inaccurate is you (which I've highlighted several times).awesome guy wrote: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.TheH2 wrote: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.awesome guy wrote: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.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?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?Ratings down 10%, advertising paying 1.2% less
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.
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.
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.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.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.
People who know, know.
- 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
You're going to be surprised when it shrinks.TheH2 wrote:Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: NFL ad revenues continue to grow by declining
I never said it would grow, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.awesome guy wrote:You're going to be surprised when it shrinks.TheH2 wrote:Sounds like someone realizes the next TV deal for the NFL is going to come in a little higher than you were expecting.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.
People who know, know.