Wow.. 9,000 viewers is pretty bad.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2008/07/nats_last_in_the_league_last_i.htmlAccording to an in-depth baseball ratings story and chart by John Ourand, posted on Sports Business Journal today (subscription required), the Nats are drawing a 0.39 on MASN/MASN 2, down 43.5 percent from last year.
The average number of D.C.-market households tuning in is 9,000, which is...checking, checking....last in the majors. By a lot. That 0.39 rating is...checking, checking....also last in the majors. Also by a lot.
The biggest average households numbers, according to the story (which is based on Nielsen Media Research numbers) watch the Yankees (325,000), Red Sox (233,000) and Mets (204,000). The highest average ratings, according to the story, are found in Boston (9.75), St. Louis (8.04) and Minnesota (6.92).
More to the point, the lowest average household numbers, aside from the Nats, watch the Royals (28,000), Orioles (33,000) and Pirates (34,000). To repeat, the Nationals' number was 9,000, less than a third of the viewership in next-to-last Kansas City. The lowest average ratings, aside from the Nats, are found watching the Angels (1.24), Rangers (1.49) and Dodgers (1.57). To repeat, the Nationals' number was 0.39.
SamC: Quite true, but by the same token, the Nats have been really hamstrung by MLB and Peter Angelos with the MASN deal. It's not as big of an issue on D*, but on the cable systems around here, when MASN airs a Nats game, it's on any number of given channel numbers, so people don't know where to find the games. This in no way excuses the poor performance of the team (I just got back from watching another loss), but it helps to explain why there's poor TV viewership. It's nothing like my childhood when I always knew that the Yankees were on Channel 11 and the Mets were on Channel 9, all the time.SamC said:Esentually, in TV terms, the Nationals are an expansion team moving into an established market, and thus in competition with the established Orioles. That is only replicated in the long distant past, by the Mets (who can be considered a reestablishment of the Dodgers and Giants in many ways), Angels (who were owned by the TV station) and A's moving in on the established Yankees, Dodgers and Giants. This is uncharted waters.
The Nationals, seem to want to be "Washington's team". In a market where 90% (and 99% of the kind of people you want) of the population lives in the suburbs. You esentually have a downtown DC team and the region's team, the Orioles. Especially in the Maryland suburbs.
Washington's working population is still made up of people that moved there there to work for the government, and who thus maintain loyalties to "their" childhood teams. This is especially true of the Virginia suburbs, which is Washington's natural market.
The team has done NOTHING to market itself to any of the, quite large, subsidary markets such as Richmond, Norfolk, Roanoke, etc.
Well, yeah, different cable systems don't always have channels on the same numbers. It always gets me when I read someone say, "I don't know where that channel is."Rob-NovA said:SamC: Quite true, but by the same token, the Nats have been really hamstrung by MLB and Peter Angelos with the MASN deal. It's not as big of an issue on D*, but on the cable systems around here, when MASN airs a Nats game, it's on any number of given channel numbers, so people don't know where to find the games. This in no way excuses the poor performance of the team (I just got back from watching another loss), but it helps to explain why there's poor TV viewership. It's nothing like my childhood when I always knew that the Yankees were on Channel 11 and the Mets were on Channel 9, all the time.
I'm talking about different channel numbers on the SAME cable system, unfortunately. And it's not just a local OTA station versus a cable only station. MASN will appear on different channel numbers on different days. It's frustrating to find the game, even if one were to look up the guide.Randal Graves said:Well, yeah, different cable systems don't always have channels on the same numbers. It always gets me when I read someone say, "I don't know where that channel is."
People who watch their tv should know what channels they have on cable. And there are tv listings in newspapers and the internet that tell what are on the channels each day. Anyone who wants to watch a Nationals game can look at those tv listings and know when the game starts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071503046_pf.htmlCommissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday that Major League Baseball is checking into the accuracy of published Nielsen ratings in which television viewership for Washington Nationals games ranked a distant 30th out of 30 MLB teams.
"The ratings were so . . . abysmal, we're having our people look into it, and it's ongoing," Selig said during his annual lunch meeting with members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.
However, Selig said the overall health of the Nationals' franchise is fine. "They're doing well at the gate and I think [their rebuilding plan is] on schedule. I know they'd like to win more games, but they have a plan."
Last week, the SportsBusiness Journal reported the Nationals were drawing an average area rating of 0.39, roughly one-third that of the next-worst team, with an average of only 9,000 households in the Washington area.
Well, no surprise for me. I caught the Nats during the free weekend and they were pretty boring. And the announcers didn't do much to peak anyone's interest either, in my opinion. A lousy product on the field coupled with a lousy product in the booth usually makes for lousy ratings!TANK said:
Well, someone has to be in last place... why launch an investigation about it?TANK said:
At least it's not our congress critters sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. But that's probably not too far away now.tcusta00 said:Well, someone has to be in last place... why launch an investigation about it?![]()
Oh lord, please don't give them anymore bright ideas. :lol:Rob-NovA said:At least it's not our congress critters sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. But that's probably not too far away now.