The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
I think one of the problems with the NHL is it's hard to market players
I think one of the problems with the NHL is it's hard to market players
In basketball, star players score every game, guaranteed. Even in their worst games they make a few shots. And the star players play the majority of the game.
In football, star quarterbacks throw touchdowns almost every game, and are involved in every play
In baseball, the only teams that matter are loaded with all stars.
In the NHL, star players play a little more then a third of the game on average, and don't score in the majority of their games (scoring 40 goals a season makes you a superstar, which probably means scoring in 25 - 30 games in a season). I feel this fact makes it a lot harder to market players. A lot of fans like to watch particular players play, and hockey simply doesn't work that way, since any given player is going to spend most of his time on the bench, and even when the player's on the ice, they're not making an impact every game.
One problem in marketing on a local scale is "the foreign millionaire factor". It's kind of hard to get people to support a game between "our foreign millionaires", and "their foreign millionaires". Most NHL players are either Canadians or Europeans, i.e. "foreign millionaires" as far as Americans are concerned.
A similar problem exists in Canada with other sports. The Blue Jays led MLB in attendance during their World Series years. They had exactly one Canadian who made a few appearances as a pinch runner during the 1992 and 1993 World Series. They could get away with that during World Series years, but when the team isn't great, it hurts. Their average attendance has dropped 60% from the 55,000+ of their glory years to 22,445 in 2011. The NBA Vancouver Grizzlies are now the Memphis Grizzlies ('nough said). And I wonder how well the Toronto Raptors would be doing as a standalone team. Right now, anybody who wants to buy Maple Leafs season tickets is forced to buy Raptors season tickets.
One problem in marketing on a local scale is "the foreign millionaire factor". It's kind of hard to get people to support a game between "our foreign millionaires", and "their foreign millionaires". Most NHL players are either Canadians or Europeans, i.e. "foreign millionaires" as far as Americans are concerned.
A similar problem exists in Canada with other sports. The Blue Jays led MLB in attendance during their World Series years. They had exactly one Canadian who made a few appearances as a pinch runner during the 1992 and 1993 World Series. They could get away with that during World Series years, but when the team isn't great, it hurts. Their average attendance has dropped 60% from the 55,000+ of their glory years to 22,445 in 2011. The NBA Vancouver Grizzlies are now the Memphis Grizzlies ('nough said). And I wonder how well the Toronto Raptors would be doing as a standalone team. Right now, anybody who wants to buy Maple Leafs season tickets is forced to buy Raptors season tickets.
Is that serious? If basketball is that unpopular in Toronto, the Raptors will eventually end up leaving like the Grizzlies did.
I do find it interesting that American NBA players don't want to play in Canada, leaving the Raptors to bring over a bunch of Europeans. Toronto will never be able to compete for the best players when they all want to stay in their own country.
Is that serious? If basketball is that unpopular in Toronto, the Raptors will eventually end up leaving like the Grizzlies did.
I do find it interesting that American NBA players don't want to play in Canada, leaving the Raptors to bring over a bunch of Europeans. Toronto will never be able to compete for the best players when they all want to stay in their own country.
In a free market, yes, but not if they're tied to the Leafs by their common owner.
In a free market, yes, but not if they're tied to the Leafs by their common owner.
Good point. What an unbelievable cash grab - reminds me of the old hockey card boom days of the early 90s. To get a case of Upper Deck hockey cards, some distributors forced you to buy a case of their Batman or other low demand cards so they could get rid of the stock that sits forever.
Is that serious? If basketball is that unpopular in Toronto, the Raptors will eventually end up leaving like the Grizzlies did.
I do find it interesting that American NBA players don't want to play in Canada, leaving the Raptors to bring over a bunch of Europeans. Toronto will never be able to compete for the best players when they all want to stay in their own country.
Talk about jumping to a conclusion.
MLGL (now MLSE) bought the Raptors and the Air Canada Centre project in 1999.
Since, unlike some franchises I could name, MLSE was tasked with building their own arena, they issued Personal Seat Licenses to help cover the construction cost and add another revenue stream.
As you may or may not know, PSLs are purchased for thousands of dollars (the average one in Toronto goes for about $30,000 last I checked, although certain ones can exceed $80,000) and they give the holder the right to buy season-tickets in a certain seat in the arena. The holder can choose to sell his or her PSL if he or she no longer wants to buy season-tickets or forfeit it to the team.
As the Raptors were not even a half-decade old, it made sense to package both Leafs and Raptors tickets for those wanting to purchase PSLs. So that's what MLSE did. It should also be noted that Leafs season-ticket holders prior to 1999 were given the option to purchase Leaf-only PSLs, meaning they do not have to purchase Raptors tickets.
It really does not give any kind of indication on the popularity of basketball in the city and the support of the Raptors, which all things considered, is pretty solid.
Another issue is that excluding when other teams playing your fav, you may only have a chance 3-4x season to see the other team play (national TV) in US. (I'm guessing the majority of fans do not have Center Ice.)
That's not a whole lot of time to catch the other team's stars.
The NHL seemingly is expanding their stable of stars they have introduce on NHL Network, as at least one player from every team went to Toronto the week before camps opened to do the media "week" thing.
It's not hard to market... geez. They just don't know how to do it.
I mean, remove Crosby and Ovechkin, which other player is always present in ads? Barely none. Even in the local market, if you don't follow hockey hardcore style, you could barely recognize that 3rd liner player.
They need to go back at the root of the "myNHL" campaign and remake it into something broader. Stop selling the game with only two players. There's two or three superstar for every team and they should have the same exposure, or just a bit less, than Crosvechkin.
A little trouble that I know many Americans probably have latching on to players is that many of the stars don't speak English as a first language. During interviews they may have thick accents that some people have trouble understanding, or they might stumble over things with a lot of "ah" "um" "uh" type pauses that result in things being less listenable than if they were being interviewed in their native language. It's amazing the difference when a (non French-) Canadian or American player is being interviewed versus those who speak English only as a second (or third, or fourth) language.
Personally, the moment that has most impressed me, and endeared me to a certain Wild prospect was Zack Phillips' post-draft interview. He was very well spoken, clear, and certain in what he was saying. It was easy to listen to, and enjoyable to pay attention to. Meanwhile, the prospect from the draft I should have been more excited about, Brodin's interview was hard to watch and listen to as he was clearly having some difficulty expressing himself across the language barrier.
It's not hard to market... geez. They just don't know how to do it.
I mean, remove Crosby and Ovechkin, which other player is always present in ads? Barely none. Even in the local market, if you don't follow hockey hardcore style, you could barely recognize that 3rd liner player.
They need to go back at the root of the "myNHL" campaign and remake it into something broader. Stop selling the game with only two players. There's two or three superstar for every team and they should have the same exposure, or just a bit less, than Crosvechkin.
That probably varies from team to team. Clutterbuck is probably the most recognizable Wild player. I'm sure that's true for some players from a number of other teams as well. But the problem with casual fans recognizing third liners is that their game isn't the flashy, exciting thing that many people like to look for. How do you market that PKing shot blocker? Show video of him nearly breaking his leg blocking a puck? (note: that's exactly what the Wild did with Zanon last season)
I agree with the OP that its hard to market players in the NHL... which why the NHL should stop trying.
Instead of struggling western conference teams trying to get buts in the seats to see a star player once a season.... they should be marketing in division rivalries. Its the team aspect of hockey that sets it apart from other sports. Its one of the reasons I loved the post lockout schedule. I don't care to see a star player once a season, when most of the time the game is boring as hell.
What I like to see, and what I feel like others like to see is the hatred between teams that can only exist in hockey. Thats what should be marketed. The Bruins top rated game this season was not the banner raising, not the SCF rematch, it was a revenge game against the Sabres.
The NHL needs to stop being so self loathing about the violence in its game and embrace the fact that its part of the game that makes it so unique. I would love to see smaller market southern teams sporting billboards that promoted the vigilantly justice that exists in hockey, that is not allowed in other sports.
NHL needs to embrace the hate, rivalries, at contempt between teams.
This is heresy to some people here, but the marketability issue is probably the biggest argument in favor of higher scoring games.
It's one thing to say that guys like Giroux, Tavares and Kovalchuk are marketable stars, but there's less than a 50% chance you are going to see them score a goal in any given game. And unlike other sports, where a player might have 100 receiving yards without a touchdown or 3 hits without a home run, if a star forward isn't scoring he probably isn't generating buzz. To most fans in the sports world, that means NHL players aren't particularly interesting. That might leave a bad taste in some people's mouth, but it's the reality of the marketplace. People go out of their way to pay attention to high scorers.
thegreaterikku's criticism of Crosvechkin is spot-on, especially now that they have both come down to earth.
It's one thing to say that guys like Giroux, Tavares and Kovalchuk are marketable stars, but there's less than a 50% chance you are going to see them score a goal in any given game. And unlike other sports, where a player might have 100 receiving yards without a touchdown or 3 hits without a home run, if a star forward isn't scoring he probably isn't generating buzz. To most fans in the sports world, that means NHL players aren't particularly interesting. That might leave a bad taste in some people's mouth, but it's the reality of the marketplace. People go out of their way to pay attention to high scorers.
I don't follow soccer at all and the best teams don't even play on my continent, yet I know some of them players. What gives?
if a star forward isn't scoring he probably isn't generating buzz. To most fans in the sports world, that means NHL players aren't particularly interesting.
I'm assuming you mean the North American sports world, not the sports world. very few soccer (known as football in the rest of the world) stars get close to averaging a goal per game, and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
This is heresy to some people here, but the marketability issue is probably the biggest argument in favor of higher scoring games.
To most fans in the sports world, that means NHL players aren't particularly interesting. That might leave a bad taste in some people's mouth, but it's the reality of the marketplace. People go out of their way to pay attention to high scorers.
What you said made sense until this. The "high scoring" problem is always on the table when there's talk about the NHL. It's a myth. Baseball isn't about high scoring. Football isn't about high scoring. Boxing isn't about high scoring. Basketball, beside the scoring, isn't about high scoring. It's all about making the play when it counts and basing your marketing around it.
We've all seen that Manning throw in '07 to Tyree, even if you aren't a football fan, it was spectacular because it was a game changer. A similar play was done in the latest Superbowl. Everyone remembers or has seen the Bobby Orr goal highlight numerous time. This is what the NHL should focus on. Players and plays that defined a moment, a victory or a loss.
Exemple: someone mentioned the Sabres and Bruins game. They were spot on for that one because everyone was expecting something. Bruins and Sabres marketing focused on that single hit and it was brilliant.
This is heresy to some people here, but the marketability issue is probably the biggest argument in favor of higher scoring games.
It's one thing to say that guys like Giroux, Tavares and Kovalchuk are marketable stars, but there's less than a 50% chance you are going to see them score a goal in any given game. And unlike other sports, where a player might have 100 receiving yards without a touchdown or 3 hits without a home run, if a star forward isn't scoring he probably isn't generating buzz. To most fans in the sports world, that means NHL players aren't particularly interesting. That might leave a bad taste in some people's mouth, but it's the reality of the marketplace. People go out of their way to pay attention to high scorers.
thegreaterikku's criticism of Crosvechkin is spot-on, especially now that they have both come down to earth.
I think thats why the marketing needs to focus more on story-lines than scoring. IMO, hockey have some of the most in-game non scoring, story-lines of any pro sports. Look at the Lucic vs. Komisarek back and forth that went on for a few seasons, it was hardly about scoring, but it was one of the most entertaining player vs. player rivalries I can remember in a while. The TD Garden went nuts when they finally fought, because everyone KNEW the story line leading up to it, and wanted it to happen.
Best way to market the league is to market the game, not the players.
If the game's not exciting, it doesn't matter who the players are.
Besides, there was a study a few years ago, that concluded that stars on the visiting team didn't usually play a large role in interest or attendance at the games.
Yes, I meant the North American sports world, the media machine, whatever you want to call it. Soccer is clearly a different subject, but then again soccer doesn't rely nearly as much on media to fuel its popularity because it's home-grown in almost every habitable place on earth. It comes from a completely different angle than any other sport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreaterikku
What you said made sense until this. The "high scoring" problem is always on the table when there's talk about the NHL. It's a myth. Baseball isn't about high scoring. Football isn't about high scoring. Boxing isn't about high scoring. Basketball, beside the scoring, isn't about high scoring. It's all about making the play when it counts and basing your marketing around it.
I can't agree with this. Baseball got a huge amount of traction from home run races in the 1990s. Football has become steadily more popular as high-octane passing offenses have replaced grinding run games. I'm not really sure what you were trying to say about basketball. Boxing has fallen off the face of the earth, not sure why anyone would want to be like that.
Quote:
We've all seen that Manning throw in '07 to Tyree, even if you aren't a football fan, it was spectacular because it was a game changer. A similar play was done in the latest Superbowl. Everyone remembers or has seen the Bobby Orr goal highlight numerous time. This is what the NHL should focus on. Players and plays that defined a moment, a victory or a loss.
I don't disagree with that at all, but you can only do that to a limited extent during the regular season. In a random, meaningless game in February between the Islanders and the Ducks, what is going to generate more media buzz? A 1-1 tie after regulation with lots of nice saves and an overtime winner on a random deflection, or a 6-5 game where Tavares and Ryan both score hat tricks?
I'm not saying the higher-scoring game is "better", but it's more marketable. You can go to a random person on the street and convince them that they want to see superstars challenging the records of the all-time greats with beautiful goals. Kinda hard to sell the idea of superstars backchecking for 60 minutes and then scoring off somebody's butt.
I can't agree with this. Baseball got a huge amount of traction from home run races in the 1990s. Football has become steadily more popular as high-octane passing offenses have replaced grinding run games. I'm not really sure what you were trying to say about basketball. Boxing has fallen off the face of the earth, not sure why anyone would want to be like that.
I think we are saying the same thing with different words.
That homerun race didn't raise the bar in terms of scoring, but made a hell of a story run and they focused on this. Football is like chess, you are sure to have several highlights for each game because of the intelligence needed to play. For basketball, I was merely pointing that individual highlight is what defines the sport when nearly every game goes to 100 points and an error or a spectacular defense play could give you a win or a loss. For boxing, I was merely saying that the combat itself is bleh, but everything before is like a movie. WWE isn't popular for nothing, they know stories are what define their show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
I don't disagree with that at all, but you can only do that to a limited extent during the regular season. In a random, meaningless game in February between the Islanders and the Ducks, what is going to generate more media buzz? A 1-1 tie after regulation with lots of nice saves and an overtime winner on a random deflection, or a 6-5 game where Tavares and Ryan both score hat tricks?
If the NHL had good story writers, even a boring match between the Devils and let's say the Ducks could be hyped. There's also another phenomena in hockey where owner are asking for an high defense system (the Devils being the biggest culprit) which killed high offensive system and it's hard for a offensive system to counter it (this is where football shines).
It's sad really, because the Devils is one of the biggest reason why hockey isn't that popular in the state. They are changing but in the '00 is was brutal and how do you promote a sport when one of your best team plays a boring trap play every night?
The problem isn't with the nature of the game, as mentioned before hockey players play a lot more than your average MLB pitcher plays, and their success rate at scoring is far more frequent than MLB where if you hit 30% of the time you're an All-Star. To a man, most people will admit that hockey is one of the more exciting games to watch.
Problem may be with the players themselves. Now I'm not talking from a Nationality standpoint as I don't think a team full of Canadians bothers Americans as much as a team full of Americans in baseball seems to bother Canadians. For most Americans, the Canadians are "close enough." Europeans may be another story.
I think the real problem is the personality level of your average hockey player is little to none. The Jeremy Roenick's and Sean Avery's (as much as I loathe him) are few and far between. Most of the players come across as milque-toast cliche dispensers any time they're on camera and are generally hard to market. Even the best player in the league, Crosby, as much as they try, still comes across a bit bland at least in comparisons to the Tom Brady's, LeBron's, and Derek Jeter's in the other 3 big sports.
That's why the 24/7's and 36 Hours shows are such a great idea because they let the guys open up more and be humanized as opposed to the typical sterile interview formats that CBC, NBC, etc. shove down out throats constantly.
I think the real problem is the personality level of your average hockey player is little to none. The Jeremy Roenick's and Sean Avery's (as much as I loathe him) are few and far between. Most of the players come across as milque-toast cliche dispensers any time they're on camera and are generally hard to market. Even the best player in the league, Crosby, as much as they try, still comes across a bit bland at least in comparisons to the Tom Brady's, LeBron's, and Derek Jeter's in the other 3 big sports.
That's why the 24/7's and 36 Hours shows are such a great idea because they let the guys open up more and be humanized as opposed to the typical sterile interview formats that CBC, NBC, etc. shove down out throats constantly.
So hockey's problem is that most of the players of note don't have big egos. It may be true, but...
