NFL Network stopped for no gain
Cory Bergman December 27th, 2006
I’m a huge NFL fan, and nothing makes me happier than reading a Wall Street Journal article that explains how the NFL Network is losing the battle with the cable companies. (For background, the NFL has banned local TV photographers from the sidelines and stopped local TV websites from posting video of anything shot in the stadium on game day. At the same time, they’re turning their team sites into media sites to compete with local media for coverage of the team. Hence my dislike for the league.) Anyway, back to the WSJ article. Remember the NFL Network decided to give itself 8 games this season. The idea was to convince cable companies to pay a pricey 70 cents a subscriber for the channel because viewers would hit the ceiling if they couldn’t find the games. Well, if you live in Seattle and the NFL Network has the game, a local broadcaster also carries it. So not many viewers called their cable systems, and the NFL Network’s ratings have been less than exciting. “This is the first time in a long time that the power of the NFL hasn’t been enough to create some compromise,” says media analyst Mike Trager. Aaah, you gotta love it. (WSJ sub. req.)
14 Comments Add your own
1. Jeff V | December 28th, 2006 at 7:36 am
What’s even worse is that my cable provider does carry the NFL Network in its digital tier, has for a couple years now, and I was eagerly anticipating seeing those games that very few supposedly could see.
Well guess what? Those games are blocked. NFLN shows canned programming instead of the games becuase my cable operator won’t pay some kind of extra fee for live programming on that channel.
The real truth, I think, is that the cable operator, who was once of the first ones to sign on, got a great deal on per subscriber charge and now the NFL wants to make it up and the cable co. won’t pay up. If that’s the case, I fully support the cable op and I don’t blame it one bit for not carrying those games.
The NFL bully just stepped into a big pothole in its quest of complete image control, and from what I’ve heard, the broadcasts have not been that great.
2. Rob L | December 28th, 2006 at 10:05 am
DO NOT let the NFL Network gain any advantage at all. Run these jerks out of business. If you don’t you will be paying per game in the future…..and it probably won’t be an extra 75 cents either.
3. Tom K. | December 28th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Have you watched any games on the NFL network? They’re terrible. I wouldn’t pay $0.75 to see those…
4. thedetroitchannel | December 28th, 2006 at 10:35 am
why are they “terrible”???
the game has not changed, has it?
is it because the camera angles, the hosts, what???
is it because the nfl has decided to take the middleman out of the equation? (better get use to that)
i get the feeling this is more sour grapes from some local guys who no longer have access.
i’m pretty certain the nfl will address all these issues over the course of the next year or so.
bash on.
5. Cory | December 28th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Click on the URL on my name to go to a newspaper article on how poorly Gumbel has been doing, misreading plays, missing obvious stuff.
It’s one thing when the host is boring, but another when he’s wrong.
And it’s not just the local folks and the cable ops who dislike the NFL, it’s also many of the networks (privately) and newspapers, too (since they can’t post video on their sites, either.)
6. Mitch | December 28th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Totally agree about the poor middlemen. Why exactly are you needed?
We’re not far from the NFL Network having a dozen channels, broadcasting all of its own games on Sundays and setting a price that football fans will pay.
I say the sooner, the better. I’ll be happiest when I’m only paying for the channels I want, which includes the NFL Network. A lot of cable subscribers may not want it, about as much as I don’t want Lifetime.
7. Dan | December 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
If you remove the “local” angle of coverage,
you remove what has made these teams LOCAL.
ESPN doesn’t do coverage of the Seahawks
like The Seattle Times or KING TV does.
Something that has worked to the large benefit of
the NFL, that is to have networks bid for coverage
rights, and been a break-even or even loss leader
situation for the networks themselves…..
this is what the NFL wants to eliminate?
Doesn’t make sense.
Dan
8. Cory | December 28th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Right Dan, exactly.
My theory is a team doesn’t need us when they’re winning and the tickets are sold out. But when they start losing…
But the problem remains, the Seahawks may want the local coverage — they’ve been great with KING TV — but the NFL is making the rules.
9. News Consumer | December 28th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Let’s see… the NFL is now generating revenue from three broadcast networks (CBS, Fox, NBC) plus deals with ESPN and DirecTV’s Sunday Ticket and SuperFan, not to mention local channels.
This isn’t about about creating new products, this is about extracting more and more revenue (money from my wallet) from the same set of games.
Enough is enough!
10. Wayreth | December 29th, 2006 at 10:37 am
The NFL network is trying to change the rules they have with local cable providers. My local cable provider has carried the network for 2 years plus. This year they tried to jack up the rate that the local cable operator paid to show games on Thursday nights.
Face it, the NFL may have one of the most popular sports in North America, though I disagree, but what they are doing amounts to turning off the casual fan. Games broadcast on the local networks is more than enough each week.
11. dave | August 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I live in akron. I’m going to the hall of fame celabration on sunday. I wanted to come home and watch the (PRE-SEASON) game. But I can’t because of the N.F.L.. network. How much more money do they need to fill their pockets. Thanks Time-warner for not offering the package because I wouldn’t but It anyhow. I shouldn’t have to. If all carriers would stick by their guns they would have to give in to this rediculous power of controling our t.v..s . I will be there with my protest signs against the N..f.L network. N(o) F(ree) L(ive) preseason coverage. Thanks N.F.L network
12. Bernie | December 6th, 2007 at 6:59 am
The Nfl should have stayed out of television the shows and games are missing a key component, hosts and announcers that are good, the ones on this network suck, Rich Eisen blows, and I mean he really sucks, the guy knows shit about football and the crew that works the games make Eisen look good, the NFL just got to greedy , let the television people handle the games and you worry about you lousy officiating and changing that stupid 70yard pass interference call, 15 yards is plenty.
13. Ken | December 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Watched my first and hopefully last game on NFL network. The hosts jabbered about nothing and the video work was terrible. Was looking for a place to make a comment on their WEB site but it is quite obvious they don’t want to hear from the fans. I would rather listen on the radio than watch one of their telecasts again.
14. Sam | January 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed