1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Hello, NESN

    posted at 9/26/2011 2:15 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Hello, NESN:
    In Response to Re: Hello, NESN : A business decision? Let us think and reason together about this business decision. Let's look at a prefessional bicycle race and check those ratings against Bruins anything in a cup winning year. Now let's consider this, what choices are really available to the consumer in the New England market for Bruins broadcasts, NESN.  That's it. So reconsider the 'business decision', is it really a matter of ratings?  Or is it a matter of laziness? Or arrogance?  Or not caring about their customers? I would gladly pay for an a la carte option for when I want to watch anything being broadcast anywhere, it's technically possible, but it's not going to happen until there is REAL free market competition.  Right now it's fundamentally a monopoly.
    Posted by BadHabitude


    Yes. A business decision. You're over-simplifying how it works. Ratings are just part of the equation: it's not like a show with high ratings earns a station a check because of the Ratings Fairy.  You have to get the sponsors in advance based on who is willing to pay to advertise, and you have to make enough revenue to make a broadcast worth it.

    Unlike a home game, to show the game last night, the Bruins would have had to pay for the rights or send their own TV crew up there and feed it back via satellite live to Boston. They would have then had to generate revenue to pay for however they decided to show the broadcast, as well as hire announcers to re-dub it in English (as far as I know, there was no English telecast).  Now, I'm sure that some revenue could be generated, but the people at NESN know for sure (because their entire business is based on cost/analysis). If they could make money on this game (and weren't contractually bound elsewhere) they'd show it.

    It cost nothing to show the Sox game last night (as they were already planning to show it anyway, just at a different time) or to run pre-taped programming.

    It works the same way on a local level. I work for a sports radio station in Maine. The HS games we air live are all about revenue that can be generated...even if there is a "better" game in the area, it's about how much money can be made. That's it and that's all.

    Big, small, in between....it doesn't matter. All programming is revenue.

    Eventually, the a la carte system you're talking about will be available to everyone, once internet streaming catches up in quality to HDTV.
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Hello, NESN

    posted at 9/26/2011 2:34 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Hello, NESN:
    In Response to Re: Hello, NESN : They've covered Bruins and Red Sox at the same time before. I'm sure they have 2 camera crews. Besides, they could have used the camera crew that was already covering the game in Halifax. I don't watch much baseball, but my guess is that they use a different play by play and color commentary than baseball.  Just guessing.
    Posted by BadHabitude


    They could have done either of those things. Option 1 is very expensive. Option 2 would be less so (assuming that there was nothing--exclusivity contracts, technology, etc) standing in the way. But both come at a cost, and even Option 2 would have had to pay the add-ons of Jack/Brick. (Good luck selling a game broadcast in french to potential advertisers. )

    NESN has little to no financial incentive to broadcast this game. Stating at they SHOULD air it on a "serving the fanbase" level may be true, but it's also not relevant. You're right: it's a monopoly: NESN has exclusive rights to the Boston Bruins, and that's the bottom line. As cable-oriented TV stations are businesses first and foremost, what matters to THEIR bottom line is what drives their programming decisions.

    I'm not saying that I wouldn't like more hockey available to watch on NESN. I'd have liked that game to have been available to me last night on HDTV. But I also know that isn't going to happen....and the explanations above are why. I know you understand how it works...you just don't like it. Me neither.

     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ergoetal. Show Ergoetal's posts

    Re: Hello, NESN

    posted at 9/26/2011 3:17 PM EDT

    Know what gets me?

    It's not really that they don't carry the pre-season games -- although I thought this year, with the Cup and everything -- they might give it a try.

    But it's all the hype that we get during the year thanks to the marketing wonders at NESN and others.


     Like,  it isn't an interview that Kathryn will be doing, but she'll be GOING ONE ON ONE with so and so.  Or it isn't just a feature on training camp, but it's ALL-ACCESS kind of thing.

    So in a sense they're trying to promise us something that's really great and out of the ordinary.  Well, maybe they should consider actually doing something that's a little better than ordinary, and show us some fr**kin pre-season games.






     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mike6724. Show mike6724's posts

    Re: Hello, NESN

    posted at 9/26/2011 5:00 PM EDT

    I think you guys are missing somehting. NESN is owned by the Red Sox. After Payroll, the red sox dont make that much money off of the sox themselves (gate, beer, natl tv contract), however they make a boatload of money from NESN. its not in the red sox best interest to give fans an alternative game to watch. By doing so they lower their raitings numbers. those ratings numbers determine what they charge for commercials. The sox dont want numbers tailing off at the end of the season to affect what they can charge at the beginning of next season.