Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 28, 2013

World Series tops Sunday Night Football in total viewers, lags in 18-49 Demographic

Game 4 of the World Series drew an average of 15.4 million viewers, while the Sunday Night Football game on NBC drew an average of 14.9 million. The NFL still lead in the key 18-49 year old demographic, with a 5.6/13 rating/share to MLB’s 4.4/11. The previous weeks Sunday Night Football game had a 9.5 rating in that demographic. The World Series was up 10% among the demo from last year’s game 4.

These are the preliminary ratings, so the end numbers might shift, but I think based on this it’s pretty likely that game 5 tonight will handily top Monday Night Football’s Seattle/St. Louis match.

The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 01:31 PM | 104 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals, fox, nbc, nfl, ratings, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4587098)
So should I count on a spate of OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOOTBALL articles?
   2. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4587121)
All this stuff is stupid, but that a World Series game got 3% more viewers than a midseason football game involving a 1-win team isn't exactly proof of MLB's dominance.
   3. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4587126)
Well, BTFers as a whole aren't too enamored with this year's matchup, so maybe some of them were watching the football game.
   4. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4587131)
All this stuff is stupid, but that a World Series game got 3% more viewers than a midseason football game involving a 1-win team isn't exactly proof of MLB's dominance.


I'm not even remotely claiming dominance, just providing more evidence that baseball is still pretty solidly popular despite the constant concern trolling about how even the World Series can't hope to match mid-season football.

And while the Vikings are not good this year, the Packers are one of the top 4-5 franchises in popularity.
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4587151)
I'm not even remotely claiming dominance, just providing more evidence that baseball is still pretty solidly popular


Weren't most people just tuning in to see that cute blonde though?
   6. morineko Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4587181)
Sunday Night Football was yet another Vikings crapfest. I live in Minnesota and nearly all the football fans I know were watching the World Series, except for the Packers fans. A lot of them were actually at the game.

I would venture that a lot of Packers fans weren't watching the World Series, unless they were getting their hate-watch for the Cardinals on.
   7. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4587190)
Well, BTFers as a whole aren't too enamored with this year's matchup, so maybe some of them were watching the football game.


I watched the football game, but I host a bunch of friends to watch football at my house, and I live in MN (and some of the guys are Packer fans).
   8. villageidiom Posted: October 28, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4587199)
The 4.4 rating in the 18-49 demographic should translate to something like a 9.5 rating overall, which would put the first 4 games at an average around 8.5. That alone would make it the highest rated through 4 games since 2009.

And ratings tend to rise the longer the series continues. My pre-Series estimates had a 6-game Series on FOX with these teams coming in at a 9.8 average rating, and a 7-game Series at 10.8. These are high but achievable.
   9. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4587206)
. . . the key 18-49 year old demographic

Is that group really so "key". Older folks are wealthier.
   10. Red Menace Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4587230)
. . . the key 18-49 year old demographic

Is that group really so "key". Older folks are wealthier.


But those wealthier folks have essentially stopped making consumer decisions. When a 50 year old buys a sports car he goes for the brand he longed for at age 20.
   11. fra paolo Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4587238)
When a 50 year old buys a sports car he goes for the brand he longed for at age 20.

Yes, I'm off to the Triumph dealer as soon as I can sell a few of my investments.
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4587240)
It would be fun to contrast the minutes of coverage/analysis Game 4 got on SportsCenter and Mike&Mike; as opposed to the coverage/analysis of some silly argument that Dez Bryant got into with Jason Whitten on the sidelines.
   13. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4587250)
It would be fun to contrast the minutes of coverage/analysis Game 4 got on SportsCenter and Mike&Mike; as opposed to the coverage/analysis guests shouting about some silly argument that Dez Bryant got into with Jason Whitten on the sidelines.
   14. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4587257)
I was surprised by how bad the ratings were last year. 3 of the games were close, and the teams involved have pretty large fanbases. It was a sweep, which hurts, but it's not like it was a Padres/Rays world series.
   15. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4587264)
Funny, Yahoo has a story up about how 'Walking Dead' (AMC show) easily trumped the NFL and MLB for that same 18-49 demographic last night, with a 8.6.

I doubt the headline 'Zombie Show Outdraws NFL' will appear anywhere.
   16. tshipman Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4587267)
I was surprised by how bad the ratings were last year. 3 of the games were close, and the teams involved have pretty large fanbases. It was a sweep, which hurts, but it's not like it was a Padres/Rays world series.


Ratings are always worse with west coast teams.
   17. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4587271)
I doubt the headline 'Zombie Show Outdraws NFL' will appear anywhere.


Even worse, a comic book based cable tv zombie show. The NFL is DOOOOOOMED.
   18. staring out the window and waiting for fenderbelly Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4587311)
unless they were getting their hate-watch for the Cardinals on


I enjoyed the hate-watch, on both channels.
   19. winnipegwhip Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:32 PM (#4587327)
Ah yes. NFL broadcasts are marketed towards this desired demographic.

Passionate NFL Loyalist
   20. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4587336)
But those wealthier folks have essentially stopped making consumer decisions. When a 50 year old buys a sports car he goes for the brand he longed for at age 20.


Do advertisers believe this? Anecdotally, it doesn't seem true to me (and, as someone pointed out, couldn't really be all that true, since brands often go out of existence and new ones come into existence).
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4587341)
I think the 18-49 demo is considered more attractive because young people are stupider at spending their money than older people.
   22. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4587345)
I doubt the headline 'Zombie Show Outdraws NFL' will appear anywhere.

Because it's not a story-- prime time always beats afternoon ratings, and "60 Minutes" airs in prime time.
   23. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4587346)
Didn't Keith Olbermann say that Rupert Murdoch would kiss him on the mouth for 15 million viewers?
   24. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4587355)
I doubt the headline 'Zombie Show Outdraws NFL' will appear anywhere.


As long as they still have Argent and Blunstone, they're still worth seeing.
   25. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4587358)
Because it's not a story-- prime time always beats afternoon ratings, and "60 Minutes" airs in prime time.


Except that we're talking about a prime time game, the one that starts at 8:30pm and is on for the entire prime time period. I don't think it's really a story, but then I think the argument that baseball is doomed to become the NHL as compared to the unbeatable football juggernaut is dumb too. And I think it's pretty clear that baseball took a big bite out of NFL ratings last night, while not having nearly as much effect on The Walking Dead.
   26. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4587371)
I think he was making a "60 Minutes" has old people joke. Which is outdated now, because Lara Logan rawr!
   27. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4587378)
Is there a ratings bubble -- or maybe at least, an ad price bubble - for TV advertising generally?

I mean, I watch a LOT of TV... and I actually do not use my Tivo nearly that much (even when I do, I'm too lazy to actually FF commercials anyway)... but I seriously cannot remember the last time I saw an ad for a good or service or even a movie or whatnot where I legitimately thought "I want to purchase/see that".

I still part of that coveted demographic - and I can tell you the last ads that moved me to investigate and/or buy something --

1) Impulse's (Steam-like game service) adserve advertised a really good sprite pack deal for HOI3 -- so I bought them

2) I use Mint.com's online banking and personal finance tracker/app -- and I did use its car insurance suggestions to investigate a cheaper rate when my policy was up for renewal last week

3) I used the newspaper circular to write up my grocery list for yesterday's trip the Jewel

My bet is that all of those things cost mere peanuts (in comparison) to advertise on....
   28. villageidiom Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4587382)
I was surprised by how bad the ratings were last year. 3 of the games were close, and the teams involved have pretty large fanbases. It was a sweep, which hurts, but it's not like it was a Padres/Rays world series.
I was not surprised. I actually thought ratings would be worse in 2012 than they actually were.

You're right that a sweep hurts ratings. But also, the Tigers historically have been a drag on World Series ratings relative to other teams with large fanbases.

FWIW, the only ratings draws my model would expect to have been better than the one we have this year would be, in descending order:

Pirates vs. Red Sox
Pirates vs. A's
Indians vs. Cardinals
Indians vs. Dodgers
Indians vs. Braves
Pirates vs. Tigers

...all because one of the teams involved would have been overcoming a long championship drought.

It might seem odd that Pirates vs. Indians wouldn't have been as big as a bump. Think 2005, which at the time was the worst-rated WS by a healthy margin, despite the fact that it was guaranteed one of the two teams would end a multi-generational drought.
   29. Sean Forman Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4587383)
I think he was making a "60 Minutes" has old people joke. Which is outdated now, because Lara Logan rawr!


Hence the Cialis and Viagra ads.
   30. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4587384)
Is there a ratings bubble -- or maybe at least, an ad price bubble - for TV advertising generally?


I've always been of the mind that TV (and newsprint/magazine and probably radio) advertising is way too high given what internet advertising costs. It's just that with internet ads you get discrete information about things like clickthroughs, whereas with the other types of advertising the utility of each ad is murkier. I don't think that internet ads are so much less effective than TV ads on a per customer impression basis as to make the difference in prices reasonable. But I fully admit to not knowing much about the analytics used to justify the prices set, and so my opinion probably doesn't mean much.

eta: The Superbowl had 30 second spots going for 4 million, and an audience of 108.4 million. That's about 3.7 cents per unique impression. Just checking online, 1000 impressions (not unique) for a banner ad costs 24 cents, or .024 cents per impression. That means that a Super Bowl ad needs to be roughly 150 times more effective than the banner ad to be worth the price. There's obviously a lot more to it than that, especially regarding unique impressions and the like and quality of ad, and the exact price of impressions, but that's a pretty big difference.
   31. villageidiom Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4587388)
Oh, and to follow up on this:
The 4.4 rating in the 18-49 demographic should translate to something like a 9.5 rating overall, which would put the first 4 games at an average around 8.5. That alone would make it the highest rated through 4 games since 2009.

Actual numbers: 9.4 Game 4 / 8.4 overall. So close.
   32. bunyon Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4587389)
I mean, I watch a LOT of TV... and I actually do not use my Tivo nearly that much (even when I do, I'm too lazy to actually FF commercials anyway)... but I seriously cannot remember the last time I saw an ad for a good or service or even a movie or whatnot where I legitimately thought "I want to purchase/see that".

That's some serious, professional level laziness there, Zonk. I mean, you push a button on the remote. Which you leave in your chair. It's not like you have to get another beer or go to the john or something.
   33. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4587393)

That's some serious, professional level laziness there, Zonk. I mean, you push a button on the remote. Which you leave in your chair. It's not like you have to get another beer or go to the john or something.


Well, it's annoying because there is no way that I can tell to autostop at the resumption of the show... sooo.... you end up hitting the FF button like 5 times to get max FF... then you miss the cutback to your program.... then you have to backup... it's just a pain.

It annoys me... so I generally just let the commercials play and make a sammich or go to the facilities or get another beer or do the same stuff that one did before Tivo.

But yes - thank you - I do take a great deal of pride in my well-honed laziness. I've devoted - or rather, shirked - thousands of hours or preparation in order to become as lazy as I currently am.
   34. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4587398)
You could hit the fast forward button once and then hit play when the show restarts, missing at most a second of the action. Still faster then sitting through all the commercials. You don't need to get max FF...
   35. puck Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4587403)
I think the 18-49 demo is considered more attractive because young people are stupider at spending their money than older people.

I thought it was based on fewer younger people watching tv, and the thing about their buying habits not being as set. (Which maybe is part of "stupider at spending their money.")
   36. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4587409)
You could hit the fast forward button once and then hit play when the show restarts, missing at most a second of the action. Still faster then sitting through all the commercials. You don't need to get max FF...


Yes you do... they make a max FF so you should use it. Trust me, I've done all the math... Tivo/DVR capability for dealing with commercials is vastly overrated.
   37. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4587412)
You don't need to get max FF...


Oh, but you do. At least, I do. I can't help myself, even though I realize that it's going to take me longer. I'm a slave to speed!
   38. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4587417)
Oh, but you do. At least, I do. I can't help myself, even though I realize that it's going to take me longer. I'm a slave to speed!

I do too, but I also haven't deemed the occasional need to rewind after FF'ing too far so frustrating as to render the whole process useless. If I did, I think I'd settle for the middle ground, rather than needlessly subjecting myself to endless ads for "Dads" and GEICO.
   39. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4587418)

Oh, but you do. At least, I do. I can't help myself, even though I realize that it's going to take me longer. I'm a slave to speed!


What's more - and here's where more laziness comes into play -- true laziness requires that you not use multiple buttons for your FF/Play.... hence -- my laziness requires me to FF and and restart Play using only a single button. This means that inevitably, I need to cycle through all levels of FF anyway because that's the only way to get it back to normal speed.

For the truly lazy, the Play button should not exist nor should it ever be used...
   40. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4587425)
I'm getting exhausted just thinking of you poor saps... what with forcing your fingers to dance the charleston all over your remotes.
   41. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4587427)
I don't appreciate having my laziness called into question.
   42. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4587429)
I don't appreciate having my laziness called into question.


That's fine... the only real question that matters is whether or not you're going to do anything about it.
   43. JJ1986 Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4587447)
There's usually a 30-second skip button. Just hit that 6 or 7 times and the show's back.
   44. The District Attorney Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4587451)
Do you have a skip forward 30 seconds button? I prefer that to fast-forwarding, because I used to sometimes "miss the cue" and fast-forward well into the program, but by using the skip forward 30 seconds button, I'm never going to go more than 29 seconds into the actual program. I would also argue that it's an even lazier method than fast-forwarding, so it might be the solution you need.

EDIT: Dammit
   45. zonk Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4587453)
I will have to check my remote... my laziness has precluded me from examining buttons with not clearly identifiable functions.
   46. zenbitz Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4587454)
I didn't watch either. I was out at a live performance of a "Zombie Grease: A musical revue". At a tiki bar.

#outlier.

   47. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4587457)
Tivo fastforward is set up so that when you're going at maximum speed and push play, it backs up a little to reach the point at which you thought "Oh! I should push play!" rather than the actual spot where you pushed it. Sometimes you see a bit of the after-commercial content before it jumps back, but it works pretty well.
   48. BDC Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4587458)
scott (#30): a couple of dynamics I do know a little about, from people in the business. Magazine ads in particular are very durable. They sit around on waiting-room tables and are seen by people who visit your house when you've got a magazine upside down on the table and what not. That's hard to calculate, but it's definitely less ephemeral than the Male Gamers Only banners that I've been getting on BBTF lately :)

As for the Super Bowl, it's not so much that they're selling a product to the public as that they're jockeying for position within the trade and the larger business world. If some mega corp doesn't buy their usual SB spot, it might reduce their stock price, at least indirectly, through the current mania for brand placement and image. If some corp bursts into the SB arena with a first-time buy, they've come of age, etc.
   49. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4587470)
Thanks, BDC. That makes a lot of sense, on both counts.
   50. McCoy Posted: October 28, 2013 at 07:39 PM (#4587490)
I hate DVRs even though I have one. I've used it maybe 10 times and each time I've wished I didn't have to use it and in some cases I've even said to hell with it and downloaded the show anyway. Once you start downloading content you discover every other way of watching TV really really sucks in comparison.
   51. bobm Posted: October 28, 2013 at 07:50 PM (#4587500)
As for the Super Bowl, it's not so much that they're selling a product to the public as that they're jockeying for position within the trade and the larger business world. 

Clever or notorious Super Bowl ads get replayed free on news shows and featured on the internet. Also, the Super Bowl is one of the few shows where one can expect to reach C-level executives with ads for consulting, accounting and other business services.
   52. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4587506)

Even worse, a comic book based cable tv zombie show. The NFL is DOOOOOOMED.


If I thought that were true, I would forgive the odious Robert Kirkman for living.

Well, OK. I'd at least think about it.
   53. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4587512)

eta: The Superbowl had 30 second spots going for 4 million, and an audience of 108.4 million. That's about 3.7 cents per unique impression. Just checking online, 1000 impressions (not unique) for a banner ad costs 24 cents, or .024 cents per impression. That means that a Super Bowl ad needs to be roughly 150 times more effective than the banner ad to be worth the price. There's obviously a lot more to it than that, especially regarding unique impressions and the like and quality of ad, and the exact price of impressions, but that's a pretty big difference.

I assume that the good Super Bowl ads get replayed many times on both TV "best of" shows as well as on Youtube after the fact.

Whereas I had to scroll back to the top of this page to see what ad was up there - I didn't even notice it when I loaded the page.
   54. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 08:27 PM (#4587575)
I hate DVRs even though I have one. I've used it maybe 10 times and each time I've wished I didn't have to use it and in some cases I've even said to hell with it and downloaded the show anyway. Once you start downloading content you discover every other way of watching TV really really sucks in comparison.


I don't even understand this. What's the issue with using the DVR? I mean, OK, downloading means not having to FF through commercials (if that's your thing), but I can't actually picture why a DVR would annoy you more than, say, live TV.
   55. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: October 28, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4587655)
Where's the Tiger donk and his proclamations of lowest rated World Series now?
   56. McCoy Posted: October 28, 2013 at 09:29 PM (#4587754)
With live TV you have the ability to change the channel and or sit passiely. DVRs have clunky fast forward options and sluggish transitioning.

Commercial breaks suck but trying to fast forward is just as bad as the breaks themselves.
   57. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4587788)

Funny, Yahoo has a story up about how 'Walking Dead' (AMC show) easily trumped the NFL and MLB for that same 18-49 demographic last night, with a 8.6.

I doubt the headline 'Zombie Show Outdraws NFL' will appear anywhere.


Well the NFL is doing their best to make their participants brain-dead zombies perhaps in an attempto appeal to this demographic.
   58. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 28, 2013 at 11:53 PM (#4588192)
Amateurs. Use the 30 second jump button. 3 minutes is usually pretty safe, if there's still a commercial when the 3 minute jump ends, you give it another 30 seconds, repeat until your show's back.
   59. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 12:01 AM (#4588196)
With live TV you have the ability to change the channel and or sit passiely.


This just seems bizarre. If you're watching a recording, aren't you watching what you want to watch? Changing the channel, I would think, only applies when you've just got live TV on and you're not sure what you want to watch.

DVRs have clunky fast forward options


Whereas live TV has none. So just don't use them.

and sluggish transitioning


Not sure what this means.

Commercial breaks suck but trying to fast forward is just as bad as the breaks themselves.


So again, don't FF.

I'm not trying to be snarky; I really want to understand your point of view but I just don't.
   60. caprules Posted: October 29, 2013 at 01:00 AM (#4588210)
Yes, I'm off to the Triumph dealer as soon as I can sell a few of my investments.


This is actually proving the point that you are arguing against. The brand recognition stuck with you. Yes, brands will go, but businesses shouldn't refrain from marketing because they might not be in business in a few decades.

(And yes, I'm a guy in his early 40's who bought a car last year that I pined for as a teenager. The modern version, anyway).
   61. zonk Posted: October 29, 2013 at 08:32 AM (#4588247)
(And yes, I'm a guy in his early 40's who bought a car last year that I pined for as a teenager. The modern version, anyway).


I didn't realize Chevy updated the Nova...
   62. depletion Posted: October 29, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4588250)
"But yes - thank you - I do take a great deal of pride in my well-honed laziness. I've devoted - or rather, shirked - thousands of hours or preparation in order to become as lazy as I currently am."

You're not lazy, zonk. You're efficient.
   63. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4588368)
So again, don't FF.

I'm not trying to be snarky; I really want to understand your point of view but I just don't


So what is the point of the DVR then?

Again, my point was that everything that isn't downloaded sucks compared to downloaded content. With downloaded content I can watch it any time I want on virtually any device I want and I've probably got about 100 more display and audio options than I do with just a TV or with a DVR.
   64. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4588400)
(And yes, I'm a guy in his early 40's who bought a car last year that I pined for as a teenager.


Huh, the only vehicle I ever pined for when I was young* was one of these babies. Guess I'm going to have to move out of the city when I hit my midlife crisis and buy one.

* That is, 5 years old.
   65. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4588402)
With downloaded content I can watch it any time I want


Well, except for when it's actually on. And depending on how much hard drive space you have, downloading 1080p high def stuff can take up a lot of room on tablets/smartphones.
   66. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4588417)
Well, except for when it's actually on. And depending on how much hard drive space you have, downloading 1080p high def stuff can take up a lot of room on tablets/smartphones.

Which I'm never home for anyway and as for space that is what the cloud/streaming is for
   67. zonk Posted: October 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4588419)
Huh, the only vehicle I ever pined for when I was young* was one of these babies. Guess I'm going to have to move out of the city when I hit my midlife crisis and buy one.


Is that a Hummer?
   68. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4588450)
So what is the point of the DVR then?


I set it to record all the shows I watch. I don't know/care when they're on. When I feel like watching TV, I pull up the list and choose something.

Again, my point was that everything that isn't downloaded sucks compared to downloaded content. With downloaded content I can watch it any time I want on virtually any device I want


Agreed, but this is hardly a pervasive option. If you're talking about legal options, not everything is available, and certainly not all from the same source or in a timely manner. And nearly all of it is streaming, not downloading.

If you're talking about torrenting, that's a different story. Putting aside the legal/ethical debate, you absolutely can encounter space issues, format issues, and the occasional bad encode -- and that's assuming you have no bandwidth cap on your Internet, of course.

and I've probably got about 100 more display and audio options than I do with just a TV or with a DVR.


No idea what you mean here. I can't even imagine where that number comes from.
   69. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4588485)
Fox says last night's game did a 10.0. MNF got a 7.6.

IS FOOTBALL TOO SLOW PACED TO APPEAL TO THE YOUNGER DEMOGRAPHIC??? IS FOOTBALL IN THE DECLINE?
   70. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4588623)
Huh, the only vehicle I ever pined for when I was young* was one of these babies. Guess I'm going to have to move out of the city when I hit my midlife crisis and buy one.


When I worked at the collectibles shop, we had a couple of complete sets of cards depicting Caterpillar-type vehicles of various sorts. If I'd known, I have kept them back for you.
   71. bunyon Posted: October 29, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4588634)
McCoy is absolutely right about downloading being better than DVRing. He's wrong that DVRing is worse than TVing.

And, yes, football is too slow paced for today's youth. That doesn't exactly help baseball.
   72. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4588672)
I've never made the argument that DVR is worse than simply watching regular TV.
   73. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4588681)
If you're talking about torrenting, that's a different story. Putting aside the legal/ethical debate, you absolutely can encounter space issues, format issues, and the occasional bad encode -- and that's assuming you have no bandwidth cap on your Internet, of course.

I've never once enountered an issue with the quality of the video nor have I ever encountered a bandwidth issue despite the fact that I download virtually all of my media entertainment and have a 200gig cap. Space has never been an issue and with an HDMI cable formatting isn't an issue either.

No idea what you mean here. I can't even imagine where that number comes from.


DVRs have clunky FF and Rewind options while media players have a ton of different options. You can also play around with all the other options much much easier with a media player than you can for a DVR or a TV.
   74. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4588767)
I've never made the argument that DVR is worse than simply watching regular TV.


Fair enough. I think I took your remark about watching passively or changing the channel and made all sorts of assumptions. My bad.

I can't argue that watching a torrented file is an overall better experience. Media players in general are just more polished than DVRs in any number of ways. (Which is kooky. A decade ago when I was into TiVo hacking, a guy I knew once said, "All DVRs are half-assed; TiVos are just less half-assed than most." It was very true at the time, and a decade later it still seems to be true.)

For me, however, the DVR is good enough: set it to record the vast majority of what we watch, and forget it. It's all there, it's viewable from any TV, and it has a high WAF. I know I could deploy some kind of media player in each room, but this already works well enough.

I'm curious; what do you use for media playback? Media PC? Some kind of Roku-like box? I'm considering options for the bedrooms.
   75. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4588776)
Fox says last night's game did a 10.0. MNF got a 7.6.

IS FOOTBALL TOO SLOW PACED TO APPEAL TO THE YOUNGER DEMOGRAPHIC??? IS FOOTBALL IN THE DECLINE?


What's really ridiculous is that despite the WS being watched more than the primetime football games (and most likely siphoning a good chunk of their audience) ESPN is still all NFL all the time except for when it's college football. I mean, I get that they have games to promote, but geez.
   76. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 29, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4588838)
Fox says last night's game did a 10.0. MNF got a 7.6.

For a comparison, the top-ranked series last season was NCIS, with a 12.3.

Network primetime series rankings, 2012- 2013 season, in the focal category of "Adults 18-49":
1-- Sunday Night Football 7.9
2-- The Big Bang Theory 6.2
3-- The Voice 5.1
4-- Modern Family 4.9
5-- The Voice (second night) 4.6
6-- American Idol 4.6
7-- American Idol (second night) 4.3
7-- The Following 4.3
9-- Two and a Half Men 4.1
9-- Grey's Anatomy 4.1
11-- NCIS 4.0
11-- Football Night in America 4.0
13-- Revolution 3.9
14-- 2 Broke Girls; How I Met Your Mother 3.7

According to preliminary ratings, last night's Game Five got a 3.8 in the adults 18-49 demo.

Overall, the broadcast had 13.2 million viewers, tops for the night. If it were an ongoing primetime series, that number would rank about 12th.
   77. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 29, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4588862)
Fox says last night's game did a 10.0. MNF got a 7.6.


A) I don't concede these numbers yet
B) it's completely misleading; apples and oranges. You can't compare broadcast and cable head-to-head like that.
   78. villageidiom Posted: October 29, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4588872)
Fox says last night's game did a 10.0.


...which if true pushes the average rating to 8.7 for the first 5 games.
   79. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4588912)
When I had an older laptop I would use a memory stick but now I use a HDMI cable. I rarely stream but there are a few free applications that will let you stream provided that your TV is new enough to handle it.
   80. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4588927)
A) I don't concede these numbers yet


Here's TV by the Numbers. World Series won the night over DWTS. Here's cable ratings with MNF.

B) it's completely misleading; apples and oranges. You can't compare broadcast and cable head-to-head like that.


Well, you can compare them, and articles frequently do to illustrate how the World Series is slipping behind football. But yes, they are slightly different beasts.
   81. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4588944)
You can't compare broadcast and cable head-to-head like that.


Yes you can, because it's an artificial distinction at this point. The number of people still watching television through an antenna is extremely small. If you have the broadcast channels, you almost certainly have ESPN.
   82. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4588946)
I think "slightly different" is underselling it. Those articles that compare them the other way are foolhardy too. The baselines are thoroughly different. It's like comparing batting average and slugging percentage.
   83. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4588948)
The number of people still watching television through an antenna is extremely small. If you have the broadcast channels, you almost certainly have ESPN.


No. Yes.

This is one of those situations where the people who are likely to be posting to an online baseball message board are not likely to be representative of the country at large. There are a surprising (to me) number of broadcast-only households in this country.
   84. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4588951)
There are a surprising (to me) number of broadcast-only households in this country.


I tried to find numbers before posting, but I couldn't. All my searches just returned articles about "cord-cutters" who watch all their television on their computers.
   85. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4588955)
Those numbers are very slippery. But you can bet on an 80-20 or 90-10 split (conservative to wacky - it's probably somewhere in the middle). But even if it's only 10% of the population that doesn't have access to cable, that's 33 million people or so! It's extremely difficult to accurately measure the remainder, and I think a very poor job is being done to try.
   86. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4588957)
My hypothesis is that the people without access to cable aren't big television watchers, so they're an even smaller percentage of the viewership of any show. Note that this is practically impossible to prove or disprove, which makes it ideal for my purposes.

(Those purposes are "making arbitrary pronouncements on the Internet")
   87. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4588967)
A lot (no one knows how many) of the "cord-cutters" have the ability to watch Over-The-Air broadcasts. Do they have TVs that are set up this way? No one can tell you.

I've whined about this before on this topic, so please forgive me for doing it again, in case anyone hasn't seen it: with a "spectacle" like the World Series or the Super Bowl, often people go to a friend's house to view it in a group, or at a sports bar or something. There might be thirty or forty adults watching the game. How are they measured?
   88. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4588973)
I was a total "cord cutter" for about 4 to 5 years, in that I didn't have cable or internet. During that time the cable company failed to switch off the cable to our apartment so I still had access to cable TV for about a year. Though the only shows I ever watched during that time was the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and the Cubs in the playoffs so that didn't last long. After that I didn't own a TV and simply downloaded/streamed everything I wanted to watch over my neighbor's internet connection.
   89. fra paolo Posted: October 29, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4588982)
This is actually proving the point that you are arguing against. The brand recognition stuck with you. Yes, brands will go, but businesses shouldn't refrain from marketing because they might not be in business in a few decades.

No, I'm arguing against the idea that a 50-year-old is going to buy a car based on a consumer decision he made thirty years earlier. If I'm buying a car right now, I will look at what is available right now. I may be over 49, but I still make consumer decisions based on the here and now, not on what I thought in 1983.
   90. BDC Posted: October 29, 2013 at 07:29 PM (#4589025)
I'm no cord-cutter, or I wouldn't be posting this; but I have broadcast TV, no cable. True, I don't watch a lot of TV except for sports or Downton Abbey.
   91. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4589055)
No, I'm arguing against the idea that a 50-year-old is going to buy a car based on a consumer decision he made thirty years earlier. If I'm buying a car right now, I will look at what is available right now. I may be over 49, but I still make consumer decisions based on the here and now, not on what I thought in 1983.

Well then, you're arguing against the marketing approach of numerous companies.

We just went through a whole retro fad with cars in which the big American automakers were selling a ton of 70's era cars with big motors and I don't think it is a coincidence that a bunch of 50+ year olds were buying those cars.
   92. puck Posted: October 29, 2013 at 08:59 PM (#4589068)
I'm no cord-cutter, or I wouldn't be posting this; but I have broadcast TV, no cable. True, I don't watch a lot of TV except for sports or Downton Abbey.


I think people with internet connections but no cable/satellite are considered cord-cutters.

Do you go to bar/friend's place to watch the sports on cable channels?
   93. BDC Posted: October 29, 2013 at 09:18 PM (#4589076)
Do you go to bar/friend's place to watch the sports on cable channels?

Infrequently, yes. One baseball game and one football game this year, for instance. All but cut the cord, I guess.

   94. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 09:18 PM (#4589077)
Another cord-cutter here. I watch whatever TV I'm going to (which isn't much) through the internet, although I can watch broadcast channels and have for this World Series.
   95. fra paolo Posted: October 29, 2013 at 09:41 PM (#4589087)
Well then, you're arguing against the marketing approach of numerous companies.

We just went through a whole retro fad with cars in which the big American automakers were selling a ton of 70's era cars with big motors and I don't think it is a coincidence that a bunch of 50+ year olds were buying those cars.


I take great pleasure in arguing against marketing approaches, because I'm of the view that most marketing approaches represent false narratives written by 'experts' who are inventing such things to justify their existence.

Given an appropriate budget, I would wager I can conjure up a market among the 50+ for sporty cars with big motors without any appeal to memories of an unmisspent youth.
   96. McCoy Posted: October 29, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4589099)
50+ year old people with lots of disposable cash and the desire to buy something rather useless but fun like a sports car have existed for decades. In the 80's and 90's these guys would have bought a Porsche, Corvette, or maybe a Viper. In the 00's they got these guys to buy Chargers, Challengers, Mustangs, and Camaroes and now Porsche is making crossovers and I don't even think they make a Viper anymore.

Nostalgia is real and when you combine that with lots of disposable cash you're going to get retro fads.
   97. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: October 29, 2013 at 10:12 PM (#4589103)
I take great pleasure in arguing against marketing approaches, because I'm of the view that most marketing approaches represent false narratives written by 'experts' who are inventing such things to justify their existence.

Truer words were never spake. There was a book many years ago outlining how the "demographics" claims made by "experts" (and, amazingly, accepted by the advertisers on TV, who have to pay through the nose) were completely made up out of whole cloth. But, as the book explains, there's a gentleman's agreement between MadMen and TV advertisers not to mention this or our whole economy would go down the drain..

wait--what??
   98. fra paolo Posted: October 29, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4589133)
Nostalgia is real and when you combine that with lots of disposable cash you're going to get retro fads.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the assertion that the reason that the desired demographic for television is 18-49 is because people over 49 have 'essentially stopped making consumer decisions', their minds made up by the marketing campaigns of thirty years ago. I think the marketers' know they have a harder job selling to older people, because they are wiser. So, I agree with Royals Retro in [21]. Young people spend stupidly, and therefore are easy marks for mark[g]et[t]ers.

Marketers construct the narrative of 'essentially stopped making consumer decisions' in order to explain away their ineptitude at appealing to older folk.
   99. zonk Posted: October 30, 2013 at 07:38 AM (#4589200)
I'm fascinated by the cord cutting phenomenon...

I watch far, far too much TV - some good, but plenty bad/just for the background noise. The reality, though, is that my life would probably improve substantially if I cut the cord... I'd save more than $100 a month - closer to $130. I'd read more. I'd do a lot more productive things.

But then, I wouldn't get the pleasure of watching a syndicated Bob's Burgers I've seen 5 times before already...
   100. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: October 30, 2013 at 08:52 AM (#4589235)
But those wealthier folks have essentially stopped making consumer decisions. When a 50 year old buys a sports car he goes for the brand he longed for at age 20.


When future me finally restores that Toyota Supra, I'm going to quote Lester Burnham: "It's the car I've always wanted. And now I have one. I rule!"
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(14 - 1:15am, Jul 30)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3567 - 1:14am, Jul 30)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1015 - 1:10am, Jul 30)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-29-2014
(54 - 1:09am, Jul 30)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(18 - 1:08am, Jul 30)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(59 - 12:58am, Jul 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(31 - 12:54am, Jul 30)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(47 - 12:38am, Jul 30)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(21 - 12:34am, Jul 30)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(11 - 12:29am, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(13 - 12:02am, Jul 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(31 - 11:32pm, Jul 29)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(508 - 11:02pm, Jul 29)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogValencia traded to Toronto
(12 - 9:52pm, Jul 29)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(28 - 8:56pm, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6112 seconds
53 querie(s) executed