Does it occur to you that a decade of mismanaging their NHL coverage is most likely the cause of the "pathetic television ratings?" I mean, ESPN can sell poker and bowling, yet they repel fans from hockey. What gives?
ESPN doesn't "sell" bowling or poker. They put it on TV, and people watch it. The NHL has been on ESPN for years, and it's gotten the same ratings. The World Series of Poker suddenly goes on and is a ratings boon. That has nothing to do with ESPN selling either sport, and everything to do with poker being more popular than hockey.
can someone explain to me center ice and its pricing? you HAVE to have a direct tv dish i assume. is it something like $XX for direct tv + $XX for center ice? or can you just order center ice?
You don't need Direct TV to get Center Ice. It's offered on many digital cable systems as well. I have Time Warner Cable and order it every season. The package is $149 for the season, or $129 if you can get in on the "early bird special".
I know it's not fashionable to blame a network for killing a show's ratings, but ESPN has deliberately sabotaged NHL Tonight. For a news show of this kind to be worth watching, it has to be on *regularly*, and preferably *every night*. ESPN's now-and-then, maybe-every-other-day-or-so-if-there-isn't-anything-better-on scheduling choice with what should be a nightly news service makes the program simply a chore to find and watch.
You don't need Direct TV to get Center Ice. It's offered on many digital cable systems as well. I have Time Warner Cable and order it every season. The package is $149 for the season, or $129 if you can get in on the "early bird special".
So if understood correctly, you could have Center Ice if you just had standard cable so long as you did in fact have cable?
So if understood correctly, you could have Center Ice if you just had standard cable so long as you did in fact have cable?
You should check with your cable provider to see if it is available. I have it on Direct TV and have had it since 99-00 season. If you order it now, you get the rest of this season and first and second round playoff games...plus it gives you the lowest price available for next season. It is worth every penny I pay...Direct breaks it down into 4 payments which makes it easier, and just adds it in on my satellite bill. I don't mind paying the extra payments for the 4 months because I definitely get my money's worth. Imagine surfing between 6 to 7 games or more on any given night...absolute Heaven for the hockey fanatics among us!
Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't realize you had to play a sport to watch it on television. I guess that's why figure skating does so poorly.
As for it not being ESPN's fault...have you seen the way the NHL gets shuffled around the lineup? Or the fact that, outside of eight teams, the network hasn't built interest in the league? Or the fact that, like most of Bettman's NHL marketing, ESPN's refusal to embrace fighting and physical play in its promotion of the sport in favor of starf--king had turned fans off rather than attract them?
Let's see... "Everything that Bettman has done is in the attempt to improve the ratings." And everything he's done has failed, to the point where they are rolling back Bettman-era rules (like the space behind the net). But no one should blame the guy who got the job because he's a marketing "genius" for poorly marketing the sport.
I'm glad you don't run my business...
We agree that the myth of the casual fans has made the league make some decisions it simply should not have made.
But as for ESPN: The same marketing for 10 years; the same announcers for 10 years; the same eight teams for 10 years; hell, the same bloody theme song for 10 years. It hasn't worked, and it's not hockey's fault.
ESPN can get ratings for Poker but not for hockey. I guess that means that the put all the smart marketing people on the Poker account, and all the morons on the NHL. Of my favorite 10 commercials over the last 10 years, almost every one of them is a ESPN commercial for Hockey. They really did some great promotions IMO.
Not to be condescending, but ratings are based on fan interest. It's easier to be a fan of a sport that you played, or still play. You mention figure skating - how many heterosexual males do you know that watch figure skating?
Do you think that it's a coincidence that there has been a downward trend of NHL games on ESPN over the contract? Did you ever consider that they did the best they did to promote the game, and the ratings tanked. At that point they just decided to cut their losses and not keep throwing good money after bad.
How in the hell can you say it's not hockey's fault? ESPN catches flack here for always showing the same 6 or 8 teams. They do that because it's there only chance to get any sort of local ratings. Do you think that ratings would be better if they showed FLA-ATL games, or CAL-MON games? You almost never see small or Canadian markets on ESPN, but that is because they don't get the ratings.
Again not to be condescending, but you blame the lack of ratings on ESPN because they have the same announcers and theme music? That's like saying the shuttle blew up because it was painted white. It's the NHL's job to promote the game to it's fans. I agree that Bettman hasn't delivered on what he set out to do. I just think that his business model was based on making the NHL a major sport in the U.S., WHICH NO ONE (not the Commissioner, and certainly NOT ESPN) is going to be able to do. It's just NOT going to happen. I don't care how catchy the music is, or how many NHL games that ESPN shows, the NHL will not get TV ratings. Especially if there is a labor stoppage here in 6 months.
I think we'd agree that the league and it's television partners have never found a way to translate the in-arena experience on television.
But I do think if ESPN had marketed its product differently, using the physical nature of the sport to attract younger fans, the ratings would have been higher. But that would have taken a dedication to the sport the network simply never wanted to have.
So your advice would be promote the aspect of the game which is under incredible media scrutiny right now? Let me guess - you a big WWE fan? Put the Rock on skates, and let him "layeth the smacketh down"?
Did you ever consider that you can't translate the in-arena experience to TV?
ESPN can get ratings for Poker but not for hockey. I guess that means that the put all the smart marketing people on the Poker account, and all the morons on the NHL. Of my favorite 10 commercials over the last 10 years, almost every one of them is a ESPN commercial for Hockey. They really did some great promotions IMO.
Not to be condescending, but ratings are based on fan interest. It's easier to be a fan of a sport that you played, or still play. You mention figure skating - how many heterosexual males do you know that watch figure skating?
Do you think that it's a coincidence that there has been a downward trend of NHL games on ESPN over the contract? Did you ever consider that they did the best they did to promote the game, and the ratings tanked. At that point they just decided to cut their losses and not keep throwing good money after bad.
How in the hell can you say it's not hockey's fault? ESPN catches flack here for always showing the same 6 or 8 teams. They do that because it's there only chance to get any sort of local ratings. Do you think that ratings would be better if they showed FLA-ATL games, or CAL-MON games? You almost never see small or Canadian markets on ESPN, but that is because they don't get the ratings.
Again not to be condescending, but you blame the lack of ratings on ESPN because they have the same announcers and theme music? That's like saying the shuttle blew up because it was painted white. It's the NHL's job to promote the game to it's fans. I agree that Bettman hasn't delivered on what he set out to do. I just think that his business model was based on making the NHL a major sport in the U.S., WHICH NO ONE (not the Commissioner, and certainly NOT ESPN) is going to be able to do. It's just NOT going to happen. I don't care how catchy the music is, or how many NHL games that ESPN shows, the NHL will not get TV ratings. Especially if there is a labor stoppage here in 6 months.
Good post. I agree that ESPN showing the same teams through most of their time broadcasting hockey is not a reason for poor ratings. Detroit, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Colorado, St. Louis, Dallas, New York Rangers, and Boston are probably the teams shown most by ESPN in the past decade. Every one of those teams except the Rangers and Bruins (to a lesser extent) has been the best teams in the NHL in that time.
Every league tries to showcase their best teams. Monday Night Football on ABC has been trying for a few years to have flexibility in their predetermined schedule because they have had many terrible matchups in recent seasons. The Cleveland Cavaliers went from not being on TV at all last year to having the maximum amount of games a team can have with the arrival of LeBron James.
The NHL should have had a little more foresight to show Tampa Bay more, otherwise they've done what they can. Adding Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton makes sense since they're all pretty damn good this year, though it's the same thing as HNIC, American teams take precedence.
I think the NHL and its broadcast partners should change tactics and strengthen the televised game to the hard core consumer, as going after non-hockey fans obviously hasn't worked. Try adding fans slowly with quality telecasts and games and stop going after the mainstream with glowing pucks and other gimmicks.
So if understood correctly, you could have Center Ice if you just had standard cable so long as you did in fact have cable?
As far as I know, you have to upgrade to digital cable to be eligible to order Center Ice. I personally pay around $10/month extra for the digital service.
