DES Network (Dodgers Entertainment & Sports Network)
by Ego Crusher! on Jul 16, 2010 10:58 AM PDT
Email
PrintThere has been some speculation this week about the possibility of a Dodgers TV Network.
I was thinking, what would the Dodgers feature on their Network, so I looked at the YES Network schedule.
They have a show called Yankees Magazine, which is a weekly magazine. This show will be playing 4 times today! Nets Magazine will be playing only twice. They also feature classics and features on current and former players. I think that it works for them because they have a nationwide following, but the "filler" programming wouldn't be missed if it got canceled. The Yankees and YES Network are owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC, formerly YankeesNets. The Yankees don't own YES Network.
A network channel would improve the Dodgers revenue, but the ratings will be very low!! It would be good for all diehards and it will be great for others to learn the history of the greatest franchise on the planet! (Says Guiness Book of World Records for largest attendance over time) I also think that a network in LA would get a little bit more creative with their "filler" programming. How about a reality show to become a bat boy or a groundskeeper?
The Dodgers would have to team up with the Kings or the Clippers as well. The Lakers wouldn't be second fiddle to the Dodgers and vice versa. The Kings would be the ideal candidate because NHL and MLB don't share season time. Also, does anyone even watch Clippers' games or want anything to do with Donald Sterling?
This can be the start of teams from different leagues getting together and forming their own Networks. It sounds all fine and dandy at first, but the Yankees and Nets went their seperate ways in 2003. I'm sure the pure brilliance of Steinbrenner kept YES alive, but that might not hold up with McCourt. No one knows where the Cable, Satellite and Online worlds will be in 10 years with regard of TV programming, but we do know the traditional approach is dying.
40 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Yankees don’t own YES Network.
Yankee Global Enterprises LLC owns both the Yankees and YES Network. And guess who sits atop Yankee Global Enterprises? Yep, the Steinbrenner family.
sure do
"If your Mr. October, I'm Mr. Spring, Summer and Winter!" - Tommy Lasorda to Reggie Jackson
by Ego Crusher! on Jul 16, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't being a dick, nor talking directly to you.
"If your Mr. October, I'm Mr. Spring, Summer and Winter!" - Tommy Lasorda to Reggie Jackson
by Ego Crusher! on Jul 16, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Clipper fans watch Clipper games on TV even stupid NBA TV Summer League games. We are a small group compared to Laker fans but evidently there are still enough of us that every game is televised.
We’d be a good match for a Dodger Station but I don’t think a Dodger station is very viable. BHsportsguy took a look last year when this came up and as I recall the Dodger rating are pathetic to what the East Coast Teams get. This idea that the TV rights may be worth billions may be off track.
by meercatjohn on Jul 16, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Some numbers
NESN Red Sox 9.46/228,000
YES Yankees 4.66/346,000
CSNBA Giants 3.27/81,000
SportsNet NY Mets 2.69/200,000
CSN Chi White Sox 2.28/80,000
FS PT Dodgers 2.15/122,000
FS West Angels 1.22/69,000
The only teams with worse ratings than the Dodgers are the Angels, A’s, and Nats. To explain, using a national standard, Fox Saturday Baseball last year averaged a 1.8 rating/2.74 million viewers. The rating is the ratio of that total viewers number over Nielsen’s estimate of how many households there are with TVs. So 2.74 million viewers is 1.8% of Neilsen’s estimate of TV having households.
Neilsen loves to tout their ratings share numbers because it makes them look relevant, and most of the Top Show lists you see are based on those figures. That’s why I put all those numbers up there. You can see that the Red Sox command almost 10% of the Boston regional market, but that is actually fewer households than the Yankees reach, despite having almost half the Red Sox’s ratings share.
When you look at the next three, the shares are all similar, within half a percent of each other, but the Dodgers reach about 40k more households than the White Sox. The Angels, just up there for fun and to get a sense of the LA market, command about half the ratings share and half the households. The Giants, while having a much larger share than the Dodgers, are seen in the same amount of Households as the White Sox.
What’s relevant is what all this means to advertisers, which is where the money comes from. Total viewers is more important to a National advertiser, like Budweiser or Chevy, since it’s not really trying to get a foot in any specific region. It’d be interesting if we also had the 18-49 numbers, but suffice to say, a Dodgers broadcast won’t command the advertising dollars of a Yankees or Red Sox game, but is high for teams west of the Mississippi. The Cubs are the only team in more households (again west of the mississippi).
And those shares are actually pretty high for cable. Syfy pulls in a 2 share and champagne is flowing.
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Some numbers
NESN Red Sox 9.46/228,000
YES Yankees 4.66/346,000
CSNBA Giants 3.27/81,000
SportsNet NY Mets 2.69/200,000
CSN Chi White Sox 2.28/80,000
FS PT Dodgers 2.15/122,000
FS West Angels 1.22/69,000
The only teams with worse ratings than the Dodgers are the Angels, A’s, and Nats. To explain, using a national standard, Fox Saturday Baseball last year averaged a 1.8 rating/2.74 million viewers. The rating is the ratio of that total viewers number over Nielsen’s estimate of how many households there are with TVs. So 2.74 million viewers is 1.8% of Neilsen’s estimate of TV having households.
Neilsen loves to tout their ratings share numbers because it makes them look relevant, and most of the Top Show lists you see are based on those figures. That’s why I put all those numbers up there. You can see that the Red Sox command almost 10% of the Boston regional market, but that is actually fewer households than the Yankees reach, despite having almost half the Red Sox’s ratings share.
When you look at the next three, the shares are all similar, within half a percent of each other, but the Dodgers reach about 40k more households than the White Sox. The Angels, just up there for fun and to get a sense of the LA market, command about half the ratings share and half the households. The Giants, while having a much larger share than the Dodgers, are seen in the same amount of Households as the White Sox.
What’s relevant is what all this means to advertisers, which is where the money comes from. Total viewers is more important to a National advertiser, like Budweiser or Chevy, since it’s not really trying to get a foot in any specific region. It’d be interesting if we also had the 18-49 numbers, but suffice to say, a Dodgers broadcast won’t command the advertising dollars of a Yankees or Red Sox game, but is high for teams west of the Mississippi. The Cubs are the only team in more households (again west of the mississippi).
And those shares are actually pretty high for cable. Syfy pulls in a 2 share and champagne is flowing.
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
hell at this point I've written more than Ego crusher
time to export, repost
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Some thoughts, all scattered
I’m more familiar with the Giants situation than the Yankees or Red Sox, so I’ll start there.They purchased a controlling share of Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area a few years back trying to get in on some cable money. The network itself didn’t change much, same Fox Sports lite content, but the purchase did cause the A’s, who were sharing CSNBA with the Giants (A’s games would go on CSNBA+ when they were both playing at the same time) to migrate to CSNC, the Sacramento network, out of fear that the Giants wouldn’t allow they fair representation.
So I bring that up because if the Dodgers wanted to share the network with a team, you’d have to find one that wasn’t afraid of being presented as second fiddle, in other words a team whose majority of the schedule wouldn’t conflict. Right now the Dodgers share Prime TIcket with the Clips and the Ducks, while Fox Sports West has the Angels, Lakers, and Kings. If the Dodgers left, the Angels would surely going to PT, cause they’d be top billing there.
I think it makes sense for all the Staples Center teams to stay with the same network, which is why I think the Ducks are actually the most likely partner for the Dodgers. They definitely have the lowest billing on FSN and it’d increase DES’ footprint, making it more of a regional network.
Which would mean it could take on some other regional programming. High school football, college basketball from some of the smaller schools.
It would also mean they could create a Sports Desk type program, which with the right personality might actually be worth tuning into. I’m sure they’d buy the right to the True Blue Stories already on FSN.
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
The Ducks might be a better option.
Maybe control LA and OC that way.
"If your Mr. October, I'm Mr. Spring, Summer and Winter!" - Tommy Lasorda to Reggie Jackson
by Ego Crusher! on Jul 16, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Could it be that the Dodgers/Angels have a lower viewership because of the cable packages? I’d be interested to see where NESN and YES fit into paid cable packages.
Secondly, I wonder how much of their success has to do with them generally being on the same channel. Aside from nationally televised games on ESPN, those fans know every night at 7:05pm their team is on that station. I have to believe we have more than a few idiot casual fans who, if they don’t see the team on PT, assume it isn’t on TV.
Don’t know, just trying to think of why they would have such many more viewers even though their attention is divided by many more teams per area.
Maybe it’s because our basketball teams don’t suck so we’re off watching playoff basketball for the month of June.
Also, they watch TV because the weather sucks too bad for them to go outside. We go to the beach. Bitches.
Everytime you think how badly you want Frank McCourt gone, ask yourself how you would feel to have Donald Sterling instead.
Using DirectTV as a standard
FSN, YES, and NESN are all considered regional sports available in the basic backage. Cable networks can of course differ, but I think Standard Definition regional sports are considered basic cable across the country.
I’ll give you #2. I think taking games off KCAL would raise the Dodger’s share pretty high, but you also have to realize those numbers don’t include KCAL. So people not tuning into those game doesn’t affect PTs rating.
Actually it’s about the same. NY-8 teams, LA-6, Bos-4
Celtics?
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Tuesday's actually TVs most watched night
KCAL really picked a good day there
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Plus
if you really wanted to watch the game, wouldn’t you just check the guide?
I wonder if the Dodgers had a higher share when they were on channel 5 for all those years with it being on basic cable.
Everytime you think how badly you want Frank McCourt gone, ask yourself how you would feel to have Donald Sterling instead.
I think its as simple as there are more baseball fans in the Northeast than in Southern California
by Michael White on Jul 16, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
As good as the Celtics are
Boston is not a basketball town first. I’d say that it probably goes something like this:
1. Baseball
2. Football
3. Basketball
4. Hockey
The only town that jumps out at me with hockey first, in my mind, would be Detroit. Red Wings are serious bizness.
Los Angeles is a basketball city, especially given the recent success of the Lakers. The Kings did really well last year, so I think if they can keep it up, hockey might make a run for it, but I doubt anyone will knock off basketball for a long time coming (unless we get some championships from other sports….that aren’t soccer).
They say to never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious.
Scully question...
Might advertisers be spooked by the prospect of Dodger broadcasts without Vin Scully? That factor might come into play down the road (hopefully, not for many, many years!)
I was just thinking about this earlier.
If he were guaranteed to be on the job for at least the first few years I’d say that would give the Dodgers a strong selling point. Unforunately, he probably won’t be around anymore by the time that happens.
I doubt it. I can’t imagine there are people who turn in specifically to listen to Vin.
by Michael White on Jul 16, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
There are...
No, not on a daily basis, but just for the sense of continuity in connecting with someone who always been a part of their life. I mean, he’s always “been there” for me. I first listened to him in 1960 when I was 5 years old, and have been listening ever since. Both my parents are gone, and he’s the closest thing to a father figure I have now!
by wonderphenom on Jul 16, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I get the love for Vin, but you are missing my point. I don’t think there are people who say to themselves, “I don’t feel like watching the Dodger game but I will because Vin is calling the game.”
Either you want to watch the game, or you don’t.
by Michael White on Jul 16, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
respectully disagree!
some people just love his voice and mannerisms.
by wonderphenom on Jul 16, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
my wife only watches when she can hear Vinny doing his thing. Otherwise I mute it and she does her thing.
I'd have to have
East Coast numbers vs. West Coast numbers to answer that question, and I think even then they’d be much lower on road trips cause of the early start time.
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
Josie’s numbers are great. I admit that I don’t really understand all the implications, but if those numbers can be taken at face value, I wonder if the Dodgers really have a billion-dollar payday coming. Maybe they just need a better deal with FSN/FSPT.
What’s more, if handled wrong, it could be a disaster. Let’s suggest that McCourt does start the Dodgers channel. Let’s further say that he decides that he needs a particularly high carriage rate and your cable/satellite company refuses to pay it. The 2013 season begins with your cable company not carrying the Dodgers. Do you switch? What if the alternative cable/satellite choice is overly expensive or otherwise not appealing to you? The whole thing could be another McCourt disaster…
,,,and all this isn’t even getting into whether the Dodgers can pull ratings high enough to justify their own channel.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Jul 16, 2010 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Which is why I think the Dodgers
would be better off following the Giants example and buying a controlling share of Prime Ticket. Infrastructure already exists, and with a larger audience than the Giants, has to be worth more than their deal
Look at that, he hit the f*cking bull! Guy gets a free steak!
by Josie Becker on Jul 16, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
This might be the best approach.
Great research Josie, you brought your A game today!
"If your Mr. October, I'm Mr. Spring, Summer and Winter!" - Tommy Lasorda to Reggie Jackson
by Ego Crusher! on Jul 16, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Let’s suggest that McCourt does start the Dodgers channel. Let’s further say that he decides that he needs a particularly high carriage rate and your cable/satellite company refuses to pay it. The 2013 season begins with your cable company not carrying the Dodgers.
Yes, that would be an absolute disaster. People never switch. People may consider it when its otherwise time to pick a carrier (like moving) but people just don’t switch. Failing to lock up a contract with all providers would be very very bad.
by Michael White on Jul 16, 2010 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Excellent point, and I like Josie’s reply as well. Seems like a good solution.
by Eric Stephen on Jul 16, 2010 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep
I think that’s the only way to do it.
Otherwise, it’s gotta go like Josie suggests.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Jul 16, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Very interesting post with lots of intriguing comments.
If the Dodgers could work something out that were actually profitable, what a great potential resource that would be for plowiing back into the team.
P.S. I really like the idea of a reality show about batboys and groundskeepers!
Just want to add that I also thought this was a great thread.
There’s been a lot of discussion about the issue since Molly Knight’s piece came out. This thread solidly separated speculation — which I’m all for, it’s great, it just needs to be clear that it is just speculation — from hard numbers.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
